---

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

            Monday, January 25, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 16


                            Headlines


AAC HOLDINGS: Court Consolidated "Kasper" and "Tenzyk" Cases
AMAZON: Faces Class Action Over Amazon Prime Program
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Ackerman" TCPA Suit
APPLE HOSPITALITY: To Defend Against "Moses" Class Action
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Va. Court Dismisses "Wenzel" Class Action

APPLE HOSPITALITY: Briefing in Appeal to Be Completed in Feb.
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Wi-Fi Assist Issue
ATLANTIC POWER: Class Action Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
ATLANTIC POWER: Quebec Class Action Stayed Until Sept. 16
AUSTRALIA: Class Action Over Asylum Seeker Treatment Mulled

BLUE EARTH: C.D. Calif. Dismissed Caims in Securities Action
BOULDER BRANDS: To Defend Against Class Suits in Colorado
BOWMAN HEINTZ: May 12 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL: February Hearing Set for Class Action
CANADA: Flood Victims' Class Action Against Manitoba Ongoing

CANADIAN UNION: Faces $2MM in Damages Over Ice Storm Strike
CENTURYLINK INC: Petitions for Certiorari Filed in "Fulghum"
CENTURYLINK INC: Settlement in New Mexico Case Still Pending
CHARLES SCHWAB: Court Trims Claims in Total Bond Market Fund Case
CHESAPEAKE: Courts Must Decide on Arbitration Clause Issue

CHIPOTLE: Shuts Down Stores Following Several Outbreaks
CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES: Court Approves Incentive Awards to DPPs
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Not Appropriate for "Amey" Suit
COMMERCE BANCSHARES: To Defend Against Missouri Case
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Class Certification Motion Due in January 2016

DANAHER CORPORATION: MOU Reached in Pall Stockholder Case
DELCATH SYSTEMS: Shareholder Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Paid $29.5-Mil. to Settle Athlete Image Cases
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Asks High Court to Review Athlete Image Ruling
ENERGY RECOVERY: Defendign 2 Stockholder Class Actions

EOS: Class Action Over Lip Balm Gains Momentum
ETSY INC: Says Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Named in Securities Suit
ETSY INC: Class Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
FACEBOOK INC: Campaign Launched Against Anti-Jewish Incitement
FANNIE MAE: Appeal Over Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending

FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Motion to Set Aside Settlement Order Opposed
FIREEYE INC: To Defend Against Calif. Securities Lawsuit
FIREEYE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Stockholder Case
FIRST HORIZON: "Hawkins" Action v. FTBNA Still Pending
FLINT, MI: Civil Rights Leader Speaks About Water Crisis

GARRISON PROPERTY: Dismissal of "Robbins" and "Enivert" Affirmed
GENERAL MILLS: Judge Stays Suit to Wait for FDA's Determination
GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiff Testifies in Ignition Switch Case
GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Facing Suits Over Chambers Street Merger
GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Faces "Elstein" Class Action in N.J.

HAYDEN, ID: New Mayor to Look Into Sewer Fees Class Action
HELLOFLO: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Renewal Program
HHGREGG INC: Potential Liability in "Underwood" Pegged at $2.4MM
HOLLISTER: Faces Class Action Over On-Call Scheduling
IMPERVA INC: Calif. Court Dismissed Shareholder Suit

INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement in Securities Class Action Pending
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Kleen Products Suit in Discovery Stage
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: To Defend Against Homebuilders' Action
IRADIMED CORPORATION: Appeal in Lam Shareholder Action Dismissed
JACKSONVILLE BANCORP: Two Actions Filed Related to Ameris Merger

JOHN HANCOCK: Supreme Ct. Hears Arguments in Farmers' Class Action
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Supreme Court Tosses Motrin Ruling Appeal
KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Class Action by Rosen Firm Now Dismissed
KKR & CO.: Dismissal of KFN Shareholders' Suit Upheld
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Defending Fla. Action by Property Owners

KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Court Granted Limited Discovery in V.I. Case
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Nevada Class Action in Preliminary Stage
LHC GROUP: Insurer Funded Entire $7.9MM Settlement Amount
LIBERTY BROADBAND: MOU Reached in Time-Charter Merger Dispute
LIBERTY BROADBAND: Says Charter Shareholder Suit Has No Merit

LIBERTY BROADBAND: "Cohen" Plaintiff Withdraws Injunction Request
LIBERTY INTERACTIVE: MOU Reached in Wash. & Del. Class Suits
LIBERTY MEDIA: Sirius XM Defending TCPA Class Suits
LIBERTY MEDIA: Sirius XM to Seek Stay of Sheridan Cases
MARRONE BIO: Amended Consolidated Complaint to be Filed in Calif.

MERCK & CO: Defendant in 20 Active Vioxx Product Liability Cases
MERCK & CO: Defendant in 30 Vioxx Suits Alleging Economic Injury
MERCK & CO: March 1 Trial in Vioxx Securities Case
MERCK & CO: 4,880 Fosamax Product Liability Cases at Sept. 30
MERCK & CO: Femur Fracture Trial in California Set for March 14

MERCK & CO: 1,035 Januvia/Janumet Claims Pending at Sept. 30
MERCK & CO: 13 Cases Pending Outside of NuvaRing Settlement
MERCK & CO: 1,385 Propecia/Proscar Suits as of Sept. 30
MICROSOFT CORP: Court Addresses Plaintiffs Tactic in Xbox Case
MISSISSIPPI: Foster Care System Faces Challenges

MOLSON COORS: C$1.4-Bil. Class Action in Canada Still Pending
MSG NETWORKS: Class Action Over Hockey Games Settled, Dismissed
NETWORK TELEPHONE: 9th Cir. Affirms Sexting Class Action Dismissal
NEW RESIDENTIAL: Home Loan Defending NY Class Action
NORWICH, CT: Education Board Delays Teachers' Union Class Action

NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Case Dismissal
NV ENERGY: Solar Customers File Class Action Over Net-Metering
ON DECK: Court Hasn't Ruled on Motion to Consolidate Lawsuits
OREGON: Roger Nyquist Optimistic on Linn County Class Action
OREGON: Conservation Groups Balk at Linn County Class Action

OVASCIENCE INC: Massachusetts Class Suit Dismissed
OVASCIENCE INC: Class Suit Filed in Suffolk County Court
PARAMOUNT GOLD: Still Defending Class Action on Merger with Coeur
PNC FINANCIAL: Motion to Vacate Settlement Approval Pending
PNC FINANCIAL: 3rd Cir. Denies Motion for Rehearing

PNC FINANCIAL: Settlement in "Montoya" Has Initial Approval
PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Mediation Held in Securities Suit
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Settlement in "Bararsani" Has Initial OK
REALPAGE INC: "Jenkins" Class Action in Early Stage
REALPAGE INC: "Stokes" Class Action in Early Stage

REGIONS FINANCIAL: Settlement in Muni Bond Buyers' Case Approved
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Settlement of Stockholder Suit Approved
RENAULT SA: French Fraud Investigators Probe Emissions Testing
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Defending Shareholder Suit by Warren Police
RJ REYNOLDS: Judge Warns Smoker Attorneys Over Improper Tactics

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Securities Class Action in Early Stage
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Established $5.1MM Reserve for "Hart" Case
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: To Defend Against Lanier Trust Action
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: 3 Class Suits in Oklahoma Consolidated
SEARS ROEBUCK: Attorney Fee Award Reversed in "Aliano" Case

SECURITAS CRITICAL: Judge Narrows Claim in "Avilez" Suit
SOCAL GAS: Lawmakers Want Company to Cover Leak Costs
SNYDER'S-LANCE: Agreed to Pay $2.9-Mil. to Resolve IBO Case
ST. JUDE: $13-Mil. Settlement in Riata(R) Case Fully Funded
ST. JUDE: Canadian Riata Plaintiffs Have Not Taken Further Action

ST. JUDE: Pursuing Insurance Recovery for Class Action Settlement
ST. JUDE: February 2017 Trial in D. Minn. Securities Litigation
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of TelexFree Case
TESLA MOTORS: Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS: Inked Settlement Pact with Suing Shareholders

TRIMBLE NAVIGATION: Settlement Reached in "Thompson" Action
TRUSTMARK CORP: Motions to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Unit Faces Fine Over Failure to Submit Records
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: 9th Cir. Appeal in Securities Case Ongoing
UNITED SERVICES: Class Action Hearing Date Moved to Feb. 18

VENAXIS INC: Shareholder Dismissed Class Action Without Prejudice
VEREIT INC: NY Court Directed Plaintiffs to File 2nd Amended Suit
VEREIT INC: Not Yet Required to Respond to "Wunsch" Complaint
VEREIT INC: Named as Defendant in "Esposito" Class Action
VEREIT INC: No Deal Yet Among Parties in ARCT III Merger Suit

VEREIT INC: "Tarver" Class Action Remains Pending
VEREIT INC: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Poling" Case
VEREIT INC: Appeal in Cole Merger Class Suit Still Pending
VEREIT INC: No Deal Yet Among Parties in Realistic Partners Case
VIACOM: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Redstone Payments

VOLKSWAGEN AG: 66 Institutional Investors to File Emissions Suit
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Landfill Class Action Settlement Pending
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation
WESTPAC BANKING: February 2016 Hearing in Class Action Appeal
WESTPAC BANKING: To Defend Against Customer Class Action

WPX ENERGY: Royalty-Interest Owners Agree to Stay New Lawsuit
WPX ENERGY: Opposed Motion for Reconsideration in New Mexico Case
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Updates of Class Suits in Delaware & Tennessee
ZILLOW GROUP: Class Action Parties Negotiated Stipulation
ZILLOW GROUP: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Wash. Case

* Class Action Mulled Over Doping Scandals
* ERISA Settlements Down to 6,925 in 2015, Seyfarth Report Shows
* Lawsuits Over Earthquakes Mount in Oklahoma
* Securities Class Action Filings Up in 2015, Slate Meagher Says
* West Va. Lawmakers Review Legislation on Internet Speed Service


                            *********


AAC HOLDINGS: Court Consolidated "Kasper" and "Tenzyk" Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
AAC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court has
consolidated the cases, Kasper v. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al. and
Tenzyk c. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al.

On August 24, 2015, a shareholder filed a purported class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers.  The plaintiff generally alleges that the Company
and certain of its current and former officers violated Sections
10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or
misleading statements and failing to disclose certain information.
On September 14, 2015, a second class action against the same
defendants asserting essentially the same allegations was filed in
the same court.  On October 26, 2015, the court entered an order
consolidating these two described actions into one action.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.  At this
time the Company cannot predict the results of litigation with
certainty, and cannot estimate the amount or range of loss, if
any.  The Company believes the disposition of this action will not
have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of
operations or consolidated financial position.


AMAZON: Faces Class Action Over Amazon Prime Program
----------------------------------------------------
EcommerceBytes.com's Ina Steiner, citing Courthouse News Service,
reports that an Amazon customer sued the marketplace over
allegations that it charged him for its Amazon Prime program
without his consent.

"Gregory Harris filed the suit on Jan. 13 against Amazon.com,
alleging unfair competition and violations of consumer law and the
federal Electronic Transfer Act," according to the Courthouse News
Services story.  "Harris says he canceled the membership, but that
if he had not noticed the charge, Amazon "would have taken
additional unauthorized, multiple, and recurring payments.""

TopClassActions.com also wrote about the lawsuit, noting that
another recently filed Amazon class action lawsuit had been
dismissed in October by a California federal court.

"Plaintiffs Andrea Fagerstrom and Allen Wiseley, claimed that
Amazon misrepresented competitive pricing by only selecting the
highest price it could find for a particular item," Top Class
Actions wrote.  "According to the court, the plaintiffs accepted
the terms of Amazon's arbitration agreement at the time they made
their online purchase therefore the case was dismissed."

Gregory Harris, et al. v. Amazon.com LLC, is Case No. BC606984
filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los
Angeles.


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Ackerman" TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the District of New Jersey
denied the parties' motions in the case MICHAEL ACKERMAN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN GREETINGS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants,
Civil Action No. 15-1656, (D.N.J.)

Plaintiff brought a class action suit against American Greeting
Corp. and AG Interactive, Inc. for alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 277 et seq.
The case arises from defendants' alleged transmission of
unsolicited spam text messages to plaintiff's and the potential
putative class members' cell phones from 2011 to 2015. For himself
and the class, plaintiff seeks an award of $500.00 in statutory
damages for each negligent violation of the Act, $1,500.00 in
statutory damages for each knowing or willful violation, an
injunction preventing defendants from violating the act again, and
attorney's fees and costs.

In response, defendants served plaintiff with a Rule 68 offer of
judgment that would compensate him, only. The offer consisted of a
lump sum of $1,500, attorney's fees and costs incurred through the
date of the offer, and an agreement that defendants will not send
any unsolicited advertisements to plaintiff that are in violation
of the act.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule
12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff
neither accepted nor rejected the offer, cross-moves under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(f) for a motion to strike the offer.

Judge Arleo denied the motions to dismiss and the motion to
strike.

A copy of Judge Arleo's opinion dated December 30, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/kfIKSmfrom Leagle.com.

MICHAEL ACKERMAN, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by STEPHEN P. DENITTIS
-- sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- at DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC

Defendants, represented by THEODORE JOSEPH KOBUS, III --
tkobus@bakerlaw.com -- at Baker & Hostetler LLP


APPLE HOSPITALITY: To Defend Against "Moses" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. intends to defend against the class
action lawsuit filed by Susan Moses and believes the Plaintiff's
claims are without merit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

As disclosed in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2014, on April 22, 2014, Plaintiff Susan
Moses, purportedly a shareholder of Apple Seven and Apple Eight,
now part of the Company, filed a class action against the Company
and several individual directors on behalf of all then-existing
shareholders and former shareholders of Apple Seven and Apple
Eight, now part of the Company, who purchased additional shares
under the Apple REITs' Dividend Reinvestment Plans between July
17, 2007 and February 12, 2014 (Susan Moses, et al. v. Apple
Hospitality REIT, Inc., et al., 14-CV-3131 (DLI)(SMG)).

On March 9, 2015, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order
dismissing all claims.  On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second
Amended Class Action Complaint asserting a breach of contract
claim.  Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on April 29, 2015 and briefing on the motion was completed on May
27, 2015.

The Company believes that Plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intends to defend this case vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Va. Court Dismisses "Wenzel" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
A Virginia court has dismissed with prejudice the class action
lawsuit filed by Dorothy Wenzel against Apple Hospitality REIT,
Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

As disclosed in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2014, on June 16, 2014, Plaintiff Dorothy
Wenzel, purportedly a shareholder of Apple Seven and Apple Eight,
now part of the Company, filed a class action against Apple Seven
Advisors, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors, Inc., Apple Fund Management,
LLC and several officers and directors of the Company on behalf of
all then-existing shareholders and former shareholders of Apple
Seven and Apple Eight, now part of the Company, who purchased
additional shares under the Apple REITs' Dividend Reinvestment
Plans between July 17, 2007 and June 30, 2013 (Wenzel v. Knight,
et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00432, E.D. Va.).

On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against
the Company, Apple Eight Advisors, Inc., Apple Fund Management,
LLC, and several officers and directors of the Company alleging
breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, fraud,
negligence and violation of the Virginia Securities Act.  The
Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice all
claims on June 1, 2015.  The time for Plaintiff to appeal this
matter has passed.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Briefing in Appeal to Be Completed in Feb.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
approval of the settlement in the case, DCG&T et al. v. Knight, et
al., is under appeal and briefing in the court of appeals is
scheduled to be completed in February 2016.

As disclosed in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2014, on January 31, 2014, two
shareholders of the Company commenced a purported class action
against the Company and its directors (the "Defendants") in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(DCG&T, et al. v. Knight, et al., No. 3:14cv67, E.D. Va.).

On December 18, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia issued an order granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part.
Specifically, the court dismissed each of Plaintiffs' class action
claims, but held that Plaintiffs could bring derivative claims for
breach of fiduciary duties of care and loyalty (Count II) and for
conflicts of interest (Count IV).  On April 1, 2015, the Court
entered an agreed stipulation of dismissal, dismissing with
prejudice Count IV.

The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
remaining claims.  The Court held a Fairness Hearing on September
14, 2015 and approved the settlement by order dated September 15,
2015 (the "Order").  The settlement is among the remaining
Defendants (the former Apple REIT Nine, Inc. board of directors)
and certain former Apple REIT Nine, Inc. shareholders and does not
directly involve the Company.  The settlement as approved does not
impact the Company's financial position.

A former shareholder who objected to the settlement has appealed
the Order approving the settlement to the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals, and plaintiffs have cross-appealed the former
shareholder's standing to object to the settlement.  Briefing in
the Fourth Circuit is scheduled to be completed in February 2016.

The Company believes that the appeal is without merit, but the
Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings
or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Wi-Fi Assist Issue
-----------------------------------------------------
Jaime Rivera, writing for Apple Insider, reports that a smartphone
should be smart and not just capable, and that's the case when
devices are smart enough to not turn off the display if you're
still staring at it, just as much as you'd want a phone to be
smart about keeping you connected when in need of navigation.
Samsung devices have been able to do some of these things for a
bit, but it's not until iOS 9 that Apple decided to be smart about
how to assist your Wi-Fi connectivity.  The problem is when these
changes challenge the usual consumer learning curve that some
people face, and such is the case here.

A couple has just filed a class action lawsuit accusing Apple of
doing very little to warn iOS 9 users of Wi-Fi assist.  Surely the
feature is cool, but the couple complains that Apple should do a
better job at letting you know just how much of your data is
getting chopped-up in helping your Wi-Fi connection respond to
your needs.  The lawsuit apparently exceeds $5 million, as the
couple feels that this does grasp the number of potentially
affected customers by this problem.

It's hard to predict if this legal battle will hold ground against
Apple, and specially at a time when many other competitors could
be also affected by the result of this lawsuit.


ATLANTIC POWER: Class Action Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in
a Massachusetts class action lawsuit have jointly stipulated to
the voluntary dismissal of the appeal with prejudice.

On March 8, 14, 15 and 25, 2013 and April 23, 2013, five purported
securities fraud class action complaints were filed by alleged
investors in Atlantic Power common shares in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "District
Court") against Atlantic Power and Barry E. Welch, its former
President and Chief Executive Officer and a former Director of
Atlantic Power, in each of the actions, and, in addition to Mr.
Welch, some or all of Patrick J. Welch, its former Chief Financial
Officer, Lisa Donahue, its former interim Chief Financial Officer,
and Terrence Ronan, its current Chief Financial Officer, in
certain of the actions (the "Proposed Individual Defendants," and
together with Atlantic Power, the "Proposed Defendants") (the
"U.S. Actions").

The District Court complaints differed in terms of the identities
of the Proposed Individual Defendants they named, as noted above,
the named plaintiffs, and the purported class period they alleged
(July 23, 2010 to March 4, 2013 in three of the District Court
actions and August 8, 2012 to February 28, 2013 in the other two
District Court actions), but in general each alleged, among other
things, that in Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and
year-end filings and conference calls with analysts and investors,
Atlantic Power and the Proposed Individual Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
the sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that
artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares.
The District Court complaints assert claims under Section 10(b)
and, against the Proposed Individual Defendants, under Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The parties to each District Court action filed joint motions
requesting that the District Court set a schedule in the District
Court actions, including: (i) setting a deadline for the lead
plaintiff to file a consolidated amended class action complaint
(the "Amended Complaint"), after the appointment of lead plaintiff
and counsel; (ii) setting a deadline for Proposed Defendants to
answer, file a motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to the
Amended Complaint (and for subsequent briefing regarding any such
motion to dismiss); and (iii) confirming that the Proposed
Defendants need not answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond
to any of the five District Court complaints prior to the filing
of the Amended Complaint.

On May 7, 2013, each of six groups of investors (the "U.S. Lead
Plaintiff Applicants") filed a motion (collectively, the "U.S.
Lead Plaintiff Motions") with the District Court seeking: (i) to
consolidate the five U.S. Actions (the "Consolidated U.S.
Action"); (ii) to be appointed lead plaintiff in the Consolidated
U.S. Action; and (iii) to have its choice of lead counsel
confirmed. On May 22, 2013, three of the U.S. Lead Plaintiff
Applicants filed oppositions to the other U.S. Lead Plaintiff
Motions, and on June 6, 2013, those three Lead Plaintiff
Applicants filed replies in support of their respective motions.

On August 19, 2013, the District Court held a status conference to
address certain issues raised by the U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions,
entered an order consolidating the five U.S. Actions, and directed
two of the six U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants to file supplemental
submissions by September 9, 2013. Both of those U.S. Lead
Plaintiff Applicants filed the requested supplemental submissions,
and then sought leave to file additional briefing. The Court
granted those requests for leave and additional submissions were
filed on September 13 and September 18, 2013.

On March 31, 2014, the Court entered an order consolidating the
five individual U.S. Actions, appointing the Feldman, Shapero,
Carter and Smith investor group (one of the six U.S. Lead
Plaintiffs Applicants) as Lead Plaintiff and approving Lead
Plaintiff's selection of counsel. The Court also granted the
parties' joint motion regarding initial case scheduling and
directed the parties to resubmit a proposed schedule that contains
specific dates. In response to that directive, on April 7, 2014,
Lead Plaintiff filed an application and proposed order, which
sought an extension of the schedule contained in the joint motion.
The application and proposed order requested that: (i) Lead
Plaintiff be permitted to file an amended complaint on or before
May 30, 2014, (ii) the Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to
dismiss or otherwise respond to the amended complaint on or before
July 29, 2014, (iii) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an
opposition, if any, on or before September 24, 2014, and (iv) the
Proposed Defendants be permitted to file a reply to Lead
Plaintiff's opposition on or before November 13, 2014. Proposed
Defendants did not object to the schedule proposed by Lead
Plaintiff.

On May 29, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a renewed application and
proposed order, which sought another extension of the schedule,
and on June 3, 2014, Lead Plaintiff and the Proposed Defendants
jointly filed a stipulation and proposed order requesting the
following revised schedule: (i) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to
file an amended complaint on or before June 6, 2014, (ii) the
Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to dismiss or otherwise
respond to the amended complaint on or before August 5, 2014,
(iii) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an opposition, if any,
on or before October 6, 2014, and (iv) the Proposed Defendants be
permitted to file a reply to Lead Plaintiff's opposition on or
before November 20, 2014. On June 3, 2014, the Court entered an
order setting this requested schedule.

On June 6, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed the amended complaint (the
"Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint names as defendants
Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan (the "Individual Defendants")
and Atlantic Power (together with the Individual Defendants, the
"Defendants") and alleges a class period of June 20, 2011 to March
4, 2013 (the "Class Period"). The Amended Complaint makes
allegations that are substantially similar to those asserted in
the five initial complaints. Specifically, the Amended Complaint
alleges, among other things, that in Atlantic Power's press
releases, quarterly and year-end filings and conference calls with
analysts and investors, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding the sustainability
of Atlantic Power's common share dividend, which artificially
inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares during the
class period. The Amended Complaint continues to assert claims
under Section 10(b) and, against the Individual Defendants, under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
It also asserts a claim for unjust enrichment against the
Individual Defendants. In accordance with the schedule referenced
above, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the consolidated
(the "Motion to Dismiss") U.S. Action on August 5, 2014.

On September 30, 2014, citing Atlantic Power's September 16, 2014
announcement of changes to its dividend and its President and CEO
transition, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion (the "Extension Motion")
requesting a thirty-day extension of its October 6, 2014 deadline
for filing its brief in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, in
which to determine whether to file a second amended complaint. On
October 2, 2014, the Court entered an order (i) extending Lead
Plaintiff's deadline to file its opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss to October 10, 2014 and (ii) requiring Defendants to file
their opposition to the Extension Motion by October 2, 2014. In
accordance with this order, on October 2, 2014, Defendants filed
their opposition to the Extension Motion. On October 10, 2014,
Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (the
"Opposition") and also filed a motion for leave to amend the
Amended Complaint, attaching a proposed second amended complaint.
On October 21, 2014, Lead Plaintiff and Defendants filed a joint
scheduling motion requesting (i) November 7, 2014 as the deadline
for Defendants to file their opposition to Lead Plaintiff's motion
for leave to amend the Amended Complaint; (ii) November 24, 2014
as the deadline for Defendants to file their reply in further
support of the Motion to Dismiss; and (iii) November 24, 2014 as
the deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file its reply in further
support of its motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint. On
October 22, 2014, the Court entered an order setting this
requested schedule. Pursuant to that order, the Motion to Dismiss
and Extension Motion were fully briefed on November 24, 2014. On
January 22, 2015, the Court held oral argument on the Motion to
Dismiss and Extension Motion.

On January 30, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
file a supplemental submission in opposition to Defendants' motion
to dismiss (the "Motion for Leave"). The Court denied the Motion
for Leave in an order entered on February 5, 2015, but permitted
Lead Plaintiff to submit a brief letter identifying supplemental
authorities. Lead Plaintiff filed that letter on February 9, 2015,
and Defendants filed a response on February 10, 2015.

On March 13, 2015, the District Court entered an order granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss and denying Lead Plaintiff's motion
to amend the Amended Complaint, and on March 18, 2015, the
District Court entered an order dismissing the Amended Complaint
with prejudice.

On April 16, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (the "First
Circuit"). On August 19, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed with the First
Circuit its brief appealing the dismissal of its securities fraud
claims.

On September 4, 2015, while appellate proceedings were still on-
going, Lead Plaintiff filed with the District Court a Rule
60(b)(2) motion to vacate the judgment based on evidence cited in
the Ontario Superior Court's decision dismissing the Canadian
action. On September 17, 2015, Atlantic Power opposed Lead
Plaintiff's motion.

On September 18, 2015, Lead Plaintiff requested a stay of the
appellate proceedings in the First Circuit pending resolution of
the District Court's decision on its Rule 60(b)(2) motion. On
September 21, 2015, Atlantic Power opposed Lead Plaintiff's
request for a stay and tendered to the First Circuit its
opposition brief to Lead Plaintiff's appeal. On October 5, 2015,
the First Circuit granted Lead Plaintiff's request for a stay in
the appellate proceeding pending the District Court's decision on
the Rule 60(b)(2) motion.

On October 21, 2015, the District Court entered an order denying
Lead Plaintiff's Rule 60(b)(2) motion to vacate the judgment.
Thereafter, Lead Plaintiff informed Atlantic Power that it no
longer wished to prosecute the appeal.

On October 29, 2015, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 42(b), the parties jointly stipulated to the voluntary
dismissal of the appeal with prejudice.


ATLANTIC POWER: Quebec Class Action Stayed Until Sept. 16
---------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a proposed
class action in Quebec is stayed until September 16, 2016.

On March 19, 2013, April 2, 2013 and May 10, 2013, three notices
of action relating to Canadian securities class action claims
against the Proposed Defendants were also issued by alleged
investors in Atlantic Power common shares, and in one of the
actions, holders of Atlantic Power convertible debentures, with
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario.
On April 8, 2013, a similar claim issued by alleged investors in
Atlantic Power common shares seeking to initiate a class action
against the Proposed Defendants was filed with the Superior Court
of Quebec in the Province of Quebec (the "Canadian Actions").

On April 17, May 22, and June 7, 2013, statements of claim
relating to the notices of action were filed with the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario.

On August 30, 2013, the three Ontario actions were succeeded by
one action with an amended claim being issued on behalf of
Jacqeline Coffin and Sandra Lowry. As in the U.S. Action, this
claim names the Company, Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan as
Defendants. The Plaintiffs seek leave to commence an action for
statutory misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act and
assert common law claims for misrepresentation. The Plaintiffs'
allegations focus on among other things, claims the Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in
Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end filings
and conference calls with analysts and investors, regarding the
sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that
artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares.
The Plaintiffs sought to certify the statutory and common law
claims under the Class Proceedings Act for security holders who
purchased and held securities through a proposed class period of
November 5, 2012 to February 28, 2013.

On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiffs delivered materials supporting
their request for leave to commence an action for statutory
misrepresentations and for certification of the statutory and
common claims as class proceedings. These materials estimate the
damages claimed for statutory misrepresentation at $197.4 million.

On March 26, 2015, the Plaintiffs amended their claim to add Scott
Fife as a proposed representative plaintiff. On April 24, 2015,
the Plaintiffs amended their claim to remove Ms. Lowry, who
claimed to hold Atlantic Power convertible debentures, as a
proposed representative plaintiff.

The Plaintiffs' motions for leave and certification were heard on
May 20-21, 2015.

On July 24, 2015, the Ontario Superiour Court of Justice issued a
decision denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave and
certification. The Superior Court granted leave to reconstitute a
claim for debenture holders but required that there be a debenture
holder as plaintiff, that the claim be amended and that the
Plaintiffs pay the Defendants partial indemnity costs of
responding to the Plaintiffs' motion.

Plaintiffs have appealed the July 24 decision on leave and
certification to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Company will
oppose that appeal. A date for the appeal has not yet been set.

The proposed class action in Quebec is stayed until September 16,
2016.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
all discovery is stayed in the U.S. Actions. Plaintiffs have not
yet specified an amount of alleged damages in the U.S. Actions. As
noted above, the plaintiffs in the Canadian Action have estimated
their alleged statutory damages at $197.4 million. Because both
the U.S. and Canadian Actions are in their early stages, Atlantic
Power is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range
of losses, if any, arising from this litigation. Atlantic Power
intends to defend vigorously against each of the actions.


AUSTRALIA: Class Action Over Asylum Seeker Treatment Mulled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Woodhill, writing for Australian Lawyer, reports that law
firm Maurice Blackburn is calling for people who have witnessed
the treatment of Christmas Island asylum seekers to come forward
as the firm prepares a legal challenge against the government.

Filed back in 2014 on behalf of a girl who claims to have
developed a dental infection, stammer, separation anxiety and bed
wetting while on Christmas Island, the action alleges that the
Commonwealth and the Minister failed to provide reasonable health
care for asylum seekers.

"Maurice Blackburn is committed to taking all necessary legal
steps to enable those witnesses to do so," said principal lawyer
Jacob Varghese.

"It is important that the court, and the Australian community,
hear from people with first-hand experience of how Australia has
treated asylum seekers, including children and pregnant women,
detained on Christmas Island."

Mr. Varghese told The Sydney Morning Herald that this would be a
"significant opportunity" for witnesses to provide information
about the conditions of detention on Christmas Island without the
fear of criminal sanction.

The firm is "particularly keen" to speak to former detention
centre workers including health professionals and interpreters,
and anyone who might have had contact with detainees on Christmas
Island between August 2011 and August 2014, the Herald reported.

The names and addresses of potential witnesses would be provided
to the Victorian Supreme Court in February, when the case returns
to court.  The trial is set to begin in September.

"The court will inspect that list and, if satisfied, grant orders
that will enable the social justice lawyers handling the class
action to conduct more extensive interviews with the witnesses --
without the witnesses facing criminal or other charges under the
Australian Border Force Act 2015," a statement issued by Maurice
Blackburn read.

"These controversial provisions of the Act, introduced into
Parliament last February, make it a criminal offence punishable by
two years' imprisonment for current and former 'entrusted persons'
to disclose, without authorization, 'protected information'
acquired while working for the Department of Immigration and
Border Protection at detention centers."


BLUE EARTH: C.D. Calif. Dismissed Caims in Securities Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Earth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court has
dismissed all of the claims in a securities class action lawsuit.

On October 24, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, two executive officers, and one non-executive
officer in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Case No:2:14-cv-08263). On January 21, 2015, the court
appointed a Lead Plaintiff and Lead Plaintiff's Counsel.  The
Court also re-captioned the case In re Blue Earth, Inc. Securities
Litigation, File No. CV 14-8263 DSF (JEMx). On March 13, 2015,
plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC").  The FAC
alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
and a purported class of purchasers of the Company's stock during
the period from October 7, 2013 through October 21, 2014.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss FAC on May 4, 2015.  On
November 4, 2015, the Court dismissed all of the claims in the
complaint.  The Court has given plaintiff leave to amend the
complaint by November 30, 2015.  The Company believes the claims
contained in the complaint are without merit and is vigorously
defending this matter.


BOULDER BRANDS: To Defend Against Class Suits in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Brands, Inc. intends to vigorously defend itself against
class action lawsuits in Colorado, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

On April 1, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado against
the Company and three of its officers alleging violations of
federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that beginning in
December 2013, the Company made false or misleading statements in
its quarterly Securities and Exchange Commission filings and
analyst conference calls about its financial performance and
prospects, which supposedly were proven to have been untrue when
the Company pre-announced its anticipated financial results for
the third quarter of 2014.

A substantially similar lawsuit against the Company, and the same
three officers, was filed in the same federal district court on
May 18, 2015.

"We expect these two lawsuits to be consolidated and that the
plaintiffs will thereafter file an amended complaint," the Company
said. The Company believes that the allegations in the complaints
are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself.


BOWMAN HEINTZ: May 12 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon E. Deguilio of the Northern District of
Indiana, Hammond Division preliminarily certifies a plaintiff
class and approved the settlement in the case LOU ELLEN CHAPMAN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BOWMAN, HEINTZ, BOSCIA & VICIAN, P.C., Defendant,
Cause No. 2:15-CV-120 JD (N.D. Ind.)

The court will conduct a fairness hearing in the First Floor
Courtroom of the Robert A. Grant Federal Building and United
States Courthouse, 204 S. Main Street, South Bend, Indiana, at
10:00 AM (Eastern Time) on May 12, 2016, to review and rule upon
some issues.

Lou Ellen Chapman brought an action against Bowman, Heintz, Boscia
& Vician, P.C., under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., for failure to
properly provide her with disclosures required by 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692g(a)(4).

Defendant denies any liability or that its practices violate the
FDCPA. However, the parties have reached an agreement to resolve
the case whereby defendant will create a common fund in the amount
of $3,030.00, which would equal $15.00 for each member of the
settlement class. Defendant will also pay full statutory damages
of $1,000 to Chapman, class counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses
within a proscribed range and as approved by the court, and the
costs of administering the settlement and providing direct mail
notice to each class member. Finally, defendant has agreed to
ensure, going forward, that its initial debt collection letters
contain proper disclosures mandated by the FDCPA.

Chapman filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement.

Judge Deguilio orders that the representations, agreements, terms,
and conditions of the parties' class settlement agreement and
Exhibit A attached, are preliminarily approved pending a final
hearing on the proposed settlement.

For the purposes of the proposed settlement only, the Court hereby
preliminarily certifies a plaintiff class, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(b)(3) (hereinafter referred to as the "Class Members")
with respect to the claims asserted in the Lawsuit, as follows:
(a) All persons with an Indiana address, (b) to whom Bowman,
Heintz, Boscia & Vician, P.C. mailed an initial debt collection
communication that stated: "If you notify this firm within 30 days
after your receipt of this letter, that the debt or any portion
thereof, is disputed, we will obtain verification of the debt or a
copy of the judgment, if any, and mail a copy of such verification
or judgment to you," (c) between March 30, 2014 and March 30,
2015, (d) in connection with the collection of a consumer debt.

The court appoints plaintiff Lou Ellen Chapman as the class
representative. The court also appoints Michael L. Greenwald of
Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC as class counsel and First Class,
Inc. as the class administrator.

The court finds that the proposed notice is clearly designed to
advise the class cembers of their rights. In accordance with the
settlement agreement, the class administrator will mail the notice
to the class members as expeditiously as possible, but in no event
later than 20 days after the court's entry of the order.
Additionally, if the proposed notice is returned as undeliverable,
the class administrator must make an attempt to locate those class
members, and if necessary, update the addresses for the class
members through standard methodology that the class administrator
currently uses to update addresses.
Any class member who desires to be excluded from the class must
send a written request for exclusion to class counsel with a
postmark date no later than 60 days after the court's entry of the
order. Any class member who intends to object to the fairness of
the settlement must file a written objection with the court within
60 days after the court's entry of the. Further, any such class
member must, within the same time period, provide a copy of the
written objection to class counsel, attention:

     Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
     GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
     5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
     Boca Raton, FL 33431

and Counsel for Defendant:

     Jennifer Kalas, Esq.
     HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
     322 Indianapolis Blvd., Suite 201
     Schererville, IN 46375

Any class member who has timely filed an objection may appear at
the settlement approval hearing, in person or by counsel, to be
heard to the extent allowed by the court, applying applicable law,
in opposition to the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement, and on the application for an award of attorneys' fees
and costs. The class administrator will mail a settlement check to
each class member who does not exclude himself or herself from the
class. Each class member will receive a pro-rata portion of the
$3,030.00 common fund, in the amount of no less than $15 per class
member. Defendant will pay to the class representative the sum of
$1,000 as statutory damages pursuant to the FDCPA.

Submissions by the parties, including memoranda in support of the
proposed settlement, responses to any objections, petitions for
attorney's fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses by class
counsel, must be filed with the court no later than 21 days prior
to the final approval hearing. The court retains continuing and
exclusive jurisdiction over the action to consider all further
matters arising out of or connected with the settlement, including
the administration and enforcement of the settlement agreement.

A copy of Judge Deguilio's opinion and order dated December 29,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/TV9Sn2from Lealge.com.

Lou Ellen Chapman, Plaintiff, represented by Michael L Greenwald -
- mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com -- at Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC

Bowman Heintz Boscia & Vician PC, Defendant, represented by David
M Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Jennifer J Kalas --
jkalas@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP; Christopher
M Manhart -- at Bowman Heintz Boscia & Vician PC


BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL: February Hearing Set for Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Karl Grossman, writing for Shelter Island Reporter, reports that
next month, a 20-year-old class action lawsuit charging Brookhaven
National Laboratory (BNL) with contaminating neighborhoods
adjacent to its sprawling campus will be heard again in New York
State Supreme Court in Riverhead.

Since it was first brought in 1996, the matter has gone back and
forth between the State Supreme Court and the Appellate Division
several times, as BNL has tenaciously fought the suit.

Last July the Appellate Division -- the judicial panel over the
Supreme Court in New York -- ruled the case can move to trial.

BNL was set up by the federal government in 1947 to conduct
research into atomic science and develop civilian uses of nuclear
technology.  In 1989 it was designated a high-pollution,
"Superfund" site by the federal government, which triggers
remediation efforts.  In 1997, after large amounts of radioactive
tritium -- H30, or radioactive water -- were found to have been
leaking from BNL's High Flux Beam Reactor, that reactor was closed
by the U.S. Department of Energy.

A smaller reactor, found to be leaking tritium, too, was later
closed.  There are now no operating nuclear reactors at BNL.
Originally brought by 21 families, the long-standing class action
lawsuit now has 180 families as plaintiffs.  The attorneys
representing them are led by A. Craig Purcell of Stony Brook,
former president of the Suffolk County Bar Association, and
Richard J. Lippes of Buffalo, who represented Lois Gibbs and the
Love Canal Homeowners Association in landmark litigation.

That successful lawsuit in 1980 took on the massive contamination
in the Love Canal neighborhood of Niagara Falls caused by the
Hooker Chemical Company.  Because the chemical company's actions
were found to have resulted in widespread, serious health problems
to residents of the area, the federal Superfund program was
created.

The case against BNL getting a new hearing next month is titled
Osarczuk v. Associated Universities, Inc.  Associated Universities
is the entity that managed BNL, first for the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission, which set up the laboratory on a former U.S. Army base
in Suffolk, and then the DOE, which replaced the AEC after the
agency was disbanded by Congress in 1974. (It was eliminated for
having a conflict of interest with its mission of both regulating
and at the same time promoting nuclear technology in the U.S.)

Associated Universities Inc. -- which included Harvard, Yale,
Princeton, Columbia, Cornell and Johns Hopkins, among other
universities -- managed BNL from the laboratory's start in 1947
until 1998 when it was fired by the DOE because of widespread
contamination.  The DOE replaced Associated Universities with a
partnership of Stony Brook University and Battelle Memorial
Institute of Ohio.

The lawsuit is named for Barbara Osarczuk, who lived just outside
the BNL boundary in North Shirley and developed breast and thyroid
cancer that she attributes to BNL pollution.  Mrs. Osarczuk has
now moved off Long Island but remains a party to the legal action
against the laboratory.

The lawsuit charges that "actions of the defendant were grossly,
recklessly and wantonly negligent and done with an utter disregard
for the health, safety, well-being and rights of the plaintiffs."
It further accuses BNL of "failure to observe accepted industry
standards in the use, storage and disposal of hazardous and toxic
substances" and BNL of being "improperly located on top of an
underground aquifer, which supplies drinking water to [a] large
number of persons."

Mr. Purcell said that after the many years of back-and-forth court
rulings, the plaintiffs have the judicial go-ahead to sue for
"loss of enjoyment of life, diminution of property values and the
cost of hooking up to public water."

Mr. Lippes said "the lab was supposed to monitor anything escaping
from it -- and didn't do it."

The attitude of BNL, he added, was that "every dollar spent for
safety or on environmental issues was taking away from research."
The lawsuit "should have been resolved years ago, but there has
been intransigence of lab administrators not wanting to be held
responsible."


CANADA: Flood Victims' Class Action Against Manitoba Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie McLaren, writing for CBC News, reports that it's been five
years since Clifford Anderson and his family were forced out of
their home on Pinaymootang (Fairford) First Nation, but for
Anderson, it's still as fresh in his mind as if it were yesterday.

"It's cost lots," he said of the 2011 flood. "Somebody has to pay
for what happened to us."

The bullrushes that surround the house remind him that the land
has now become a swamp. The house is uninhabitable and
inaccessible. The community sits 240 kilometres north of Winnipeg.

In December, a Manitoba justice ruled that flood victims like
Anderson should have another chance at their day in court over
what happened in 2011.

Their effort to bring a class action lawsuit against the province
was denied in 2014 but Madam Justice Freda Steel of the Manitoba
Court of Appeal disagreed with that call last month.

Anderson was one of the lead plaintiffs representing flood victims
from Pinaymootang, Little Saskatchewan, Dauphin River, and Lake
St. Martin. They allege the province flooded them deliberately and
they are claiming some $950-million dollars in damages.

"Litigation is always difficult, but especially so when the
plaintiffs are economically disadvantaged or vulnerable in other
ways. Class actions help level the legal playing field when many
plaintiffs with relatively small claims come up against
governments or corporations with infinite resources," Steel wrote
in her decision on Dec. 31, 2015. "The decision as to whether the
flooding on the reserve lands was a natural disaster or caused by
the actions of Manitoba is a decision that must be accompanied by
significant expert evidence."

Steel's decision means the issue will likely be heard by the full
Court of Appeal within the next few months.

It's giving flood victims of the four First Nations renewed hope
that their class action lawsuit, which their legal firm says could
-- if it is certified -- represent some 2,000 people, will
eventually go forward.

Anderson, who was Pinaymootang's flood coordinator during the 2011
flood, said he's still paying off the costs his family incurred
when they had to move out of their home in 2011 and into an old RV
temporarily, then had to buy another RV, before getting a second
home from the band that was half the size of their former home.
Anderson said on top of other costs, he spent $15,000 to furnish
it.

He's never applied for compensation because friends that did got
"pennies on the dollar" for what they lost, he said.

Nevertheless, he said he has to remain optimistic he and other
flood victims will win their fight with the province.
"Well, there's nothing else. Nobody else is going to compensate me
for what I lost, for what my family lost, for what my friends
lost, for what my neighbours in the other reserves lost," he said.

His sons, who at 21 and 27 years old were still at home when the
flood hit, still go back to check on the family's home, he said.
Anderson's mother has since died, never realizing her dream of
returning home where she lived for some five decades.

It still pains him today.  He said a lot of people who lost their
homes and possessions in the flood have died in the five years
since.

"They'll never see anything. They'll never see justice."

Anderson said the stress from the flood and its ongoing impact has
given him hypertension, and it's affected others' health, too.

His frustration is evident when he recalls the controversy over
the province's planned breach of the dike at the Hoop and Holler
bend back in 2011.

Manitobans question controlled flood spill
"I think it was within 24 hours, the premier of Manitoba [was]
promising all kinds of compensation and restitution for any
damages caused by the breach.  And this was a little handful of
farmers there.  And I never heard him once come and say anything
out here.  Never mind that he never came out here," he said.

Anderson said the province told the First Nations to build dikes,
but came back three times and revised the recommended heights
upwards.

"In my view, they knew how much water they were releasing and were
going to release by revising the flood forecast. They knew they
were flooding us."

Province's legal fight ends -- for now

Since the flood victims will have to refile their lawsuit, the
province's legal response to the lawsuit is "moot" said Steve
Ashton, Manitoba's minister responsible for flood issues.

The province fought back and denied responsibility for the 2011
flood, but also said that if it was responsible, so were the
victims.

"Manitoba says if the plaintiffs have suffered losses or damages
as alleged, which is not admitted, such losses or damages were
caused or contributed as a result of the collective or individual
negligence of the Government of Canada, the First Nations or the
plaintiffs," the province's statement of defense at the time said.

The province further argued that if it had to pay for losses the
plaintiffs incurred because of the 2011 flood, that amount should
be deducted from the amount from other payments.

Ashton said it's too soon to say what the province's response
would be if the plaintiffs relaunch their lawsuit.


"If they file a legal action, we'll look at it based on its merits
and respond accordingly," he said. "Lawsuit or not, look,
Manitobans were hard impacted in 2011. These were the hardest hit
Manitobans. Our goal is to make a significant difference for them
in the future and we've made significant progress. That's really
as much as I can say."

Last year, the province and federal government pledged nearly $500
million on flood mitigation in the area.

Governments promise $495M to ease flooding around Lake Manitoba
Back in Pinaymootang, Anderson said the province's legal action
against flood victims still leaves him mystified.

"I can't understand why they would sue us. I mean, we didn't flood
ourselves. It was the province that flooded us deliberately,
through the operation of that Portage Diversion and the Shellmouth
Dam. They sent all this water here."


CANADIAN UNION: Faces $2MM in Damages Over Ice Storm Strike
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Delean, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that the union
representing the city of Montreal's blue-collar workers has once
again been ordered to pay $2 million in punitive damages for an
illegal strike during an ice storm in 2004.

In a judgment, Quebec Superior Court Judge Danielle Grenier
confirmed the damage amount owed by Local 301 of the Canadian
Union of Public Employees.

Her original ruling in the class-action suit was rendered in 2010.
In addition to the punitive damages, she had ordered the union and
the municipality to share the cost of individual claims.  The
amount of punitive damages was to be re-evaluated after most of
those claims were paid, which is now the case.

The lawsuit had been initiated on behalf of about 50 Montrealers
who suffered damages and injuries because of union members'
refusal to sand or salt treacherously slippery downtown streets
and sidewalks.  Their settled claims have cost the union $590,069,
with a single claim outstanding.

The union said those disbursements were sufficiently dissuasive,
but the plaintiffs argued they didn't seem to be, since the union
had ignored a Commission des relations du travail directive to
report for duty as recently as Dec. 8, 2015.

In upholding the original amount for punitive damages, Judge
Grenier called the union's conduct during the events of 2004
"serious, deliberate and anti-social," and noted it had not
expressed regrets or apologies for its actions.

"If punitive damages are intended to prevent the recurrence of
unwanted behavior, we must conclude the amount of $2 million
accorded prematurely in 2010 appears not to have had the effect of
discouraging repetition of similar conduct -- illegal strike --
even if the repercussions weren't the same," she said.

"The court is of the view that a deliberate effort should be made
to successfully counter the repetition of events deplorable and
harmful on a social level, and from that angle, the sum of $2
million determined by the court in 2010 seems completely
appropriate."

The strike in question began on Dec. 4, 2004, and lasted about a
week.  City workers were unhappy with a new dispatch system.

"By its reckless behavior and its staggering indifference, (the
union) took the people of Montreal hostage for a week.  . . . It
did not think of (the weather's) victims or of their
vulnerability," Judge Grenier said in her 2010 ruling.


CENTURYLINK INC: Petitions for Certiorari Filed in "Fulghum"
------------------------------------------------------------
Centurylink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in the
class action filed by William Douglas Fulghum have filed petitions
for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a class action
lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain modifications in
retiree benefits programs relating to life insurance, medical
insurance and prescription drug benefits, generally effective
January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008 (which, at the time of the
modifications, was expected to reduce estimated future expenses
for the subject benefits by more than $300 million).

Defendants include Embarq, certain of its benefit plans, its
Employee Benefits Committee and the individual plan administrator
of certain of its benefits plans. Additional defendants include
Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans.

The Court certified a class on certain of plaintiffs' claims, but
rejected class certification as to other claims.

On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related
lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. In Abbott,
approximately 1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the changes in retiree benefits that also are at
issue in the Fulghum case. The Abbott plaintiffs are all members
of the class that was certified in Fulghum on claims for allegedly
vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott claims are
similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count II),
on which the Fulghum court denied class certification.

The Court has stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely, except
for limited discovery and motion practice as to approximately 80
of the plaintiffs.

On February 14, 2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the majority of
the plaintiffs' claims in the case.

On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit ruled on February 24, 2015, that the plan
documents reviewed do not support any claim for vested benefits,
and affirmed the district court's dismissal of claims based on
those documents. The Tenth Circuit decision allowed a subset of
claims for vested benefits to return to the district court for
further proceedings. The Tenth Circuit also affirmed the district
court's dismissal of all age discrimination claims. The Tenth
Circuit reversed the district court's determination that the
statute of repose under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), is a time bar to the breach of
fiduciary duty claims of fifteen named plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs petitioned for further Tenth Circuit review on their
claims for vested benefits.  The Company petitioned for further
Tenth Circuit review regarding the ERISA statute of repose.

On April 27, 2015, a revised Tenth Circuit panel opinion was
issued with no material change in the outcome.

On June 10, 2015, the district court in Fulghum granted summary
judgment to defendants on an additional group of claims for vested
benefits. On July 27, 2015, pursuant to the terms of a stipulation
by the parties, the district court in Fulghum granted judgment in
favor of defendants on all remaining and unadjudicated vested
benefits claims. This judgment is without prejudice to any rights
the parties may have to pursue any additional appellate relief.

On August 25, 2015, the parties filed petitions for certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court. Plaintiffs' petition seeks
further review as to their claims for vested benefits; defendants'
petition seeks further review as to ERISA's statute of repose. As
to any further proceedings that may occur in the district court,
defendants will continue to vigorously contest any remaining
claims in Fulghum and Abbott.

"We have not accrued a liability for these matters because we
believe it is premature (i) to determine whether an accrual is
warranted and (ii) if so, to determine a reasonable estimate of
probable liability," the Company said.


CENTURYLINK INC: Settlement in New Mexico Case Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Centurylink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in a
right-of-way class action in New Mexico have not yet received
final approval of a settlement.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against
Qwest on behalf of landowners on various dates and in courts
located in 34 states in which Qwest has such cable (Alabama,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.)

"For the most part, the complaints challenge our right to install
our fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way," the Company
said.  "The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-
way as an easement that did not include the right to permit us to
install our cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs'
consent."

In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of trespass
and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages. After previous
attempts to enter into a single nationwide settlement in a single
court proved unsuccessful, the parties proceeded to seek court
approval of settlements on a state-by-state basis. To date, the
parties have received final approval of such settlements in 32
states. The settlement administration process, including claim
submission and evaluation, is continuing in relation to a number
of these settlements. The parties have not yet received final
approval in one state (New Mexico). There is one state where an
action was at one time, but is not currently, pending (Arizona).

"We have accrued an amount that we believe is probable for
resolving these matters; however, the amount is not material to
our consolidated financial statements," the Company said.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Court Trims Claims in Total Bond Market Fund Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court
has dismissed with prejudice plaintiff's contractual claims, but
declined to dismiss certain of the claims for fiduciary breach, in
the Total Bond Market Fund Litigation.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM). The
lawsuit, which alleged violations of state law and federal
securities law in connection with the fund's investment policy,
named CSIM, Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the
fund's shares) and certain current and former fund trustees as
defendants. Allegations include that the fund improperly deviated
from its stated investment objectives by investing in
collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than
25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without
obtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified equitable and
injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff's federal
securities law claim and certain of plaintiff's state law claims
were dismissed.

On August 8, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiff's remaining
claims with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit,
which issued a ruling on March 9, 2015 reversing the district
court's dismissal of the case and remanding the case for further
proceedings.

A petition by defendants for U.S. Supreme Court review was denied
on October 6, 2015. In the interim, defendants filed a fourth
amended complaint on June 25, 2015. Defendants moved to dismiss
and on October 6, 2015, the court dismissed with prejudice
plaintiff's contractual claims, but declined to dismiss certain of
the claims for fiduciary breach, which remain pending.


CHESAPEAKE: Courts Must Decide on Arbitration Clause Issue
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicolle R. Snyder Bagnell, Esq. -- nbagnell@reedsmith.com --
Justin H. Werner, Esq. -- jwerner@reedsmith.com -- Lucas Liben,
Esq. -- lliben@reedsmith.com -- Jennifer M. Cully, Esq. --
jcully@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith report that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a precedential
opinion, recently held that courts, not arbitrators, must decide
whether a class action dispute should be governed by arbitration
unless the arbitration clause "clearly and unmistakably" delegates
the decision to the arbitrator.  The Third Circuit rejected the
argument that the incorporation of American Arbitration
Association ("AAA") rules into an arbitration provision required
that an arbitrator determine the question of arbitrability.

In 2008, Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. ("Chesapeake") entered into
oil and gas leases (the "Leases") with defendant Scout Petroleum
L.L.C.'s ("Scout") predecessor. The Leases included the following
arbitration provision:

ARBITRATION. In the event of a disagreement between Lessor and
Lessee concerning this Lease, performance thereunder, or damages
caused by Lessee's operations, the resolution of all such disputes
shall be determined by arbitration in accordance with the rules of
the American Arbitration Association.  All fees and costs
associated with the arbitration shall be borne equally by Lessor
and Lessee.

In 2014, Scout filed an arbitration demand against Chesapeake on
behalf of itself and similarly situated lessors, alleging that
Chesapeake paid insufficient royalties.  Chesapeake objected to
class arbitration, and filed an action in federal court seeking a
declaratory judgment that (1) the District Court -- and not the
arbitrators -- must decide whether class arbitration is available,
and (2) the Leases do not permit class arbitration.

The District Court entered an order granting summary judgment to
Chesapeake, finding that "[t]he contract here is silent or
ambiguous as to class arbitration, far from the 'clear and
unmistakable' allowance needed for an arbitrator, and not a court,
to turn to the clause construction question." Chesapeake
Appalachia, L.L.C. v. Scout Petroleum, L.L.C., 73 F. Supp. 3d 488,
501 (M.D. Pa. 2014). In support of its decision, the district
court relied on a recent decision issued by the Third Circuit,
Opalinski v. Robert Half International Inc., 761 F.3d 326 (3d Cir.
2014), which held that the availability of class arbitration
constitutes a "question of arbitrability" to be decided by the
courts unless the parties' arbitration agreement "clearly and
unmistakably" provides otherwise.

In this case, the Third Circuit first noted that the availability
of class arbitration implicates two inquiries: "(1) the 'who
decides' inquiry; and (2) the 'clause construction' inquiry."  In
the first inquiry, the court must determine whether the
availability of class arbitration is a "question of
arbitrability."  If it is, then the issue is presumed to be for
judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakably
provide otherwise.  If not, then the availability of class
arbitration is presumptively a question for the arbitrator to
decide.  In the second inquiry, the court or arbitrator will
decide whether the arbitration agreement at issue permits class
arbitration.  In Opalinski, the court held that "[t]he burden of
overcoming the presumption [of judicial resolution] is onerous, as
it requires express contractual language unambiguously delegating
the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator." 761 F.3d at 329.

Scout argued that the Leases clearly provide that arbitration will
be conducted in accordance with the AAA rules, that Pennsylvania
law provides that the arbitration clause incorporates all of the
AAA rules into the Leases, and that the AAA rules "clearly and
unmistakably" vest the arbitrators with the jurisdiction to decide
the question of class arbitrability.  Specifically, Scout pointed
to AAA Supplementary Rules 3 and 4, which provide that an
arbitrator must determine whether the arbitration agreement
permits class arbitration.

The court first looked to the plain language of the Leases, and
noted that the Leases are silent as to the availability of class
arbitration, and silent as to whether the question should be
submitted to an arbitrator.  The court found it significant that
the Leases used singular terms to describe the parties to any
arbitration and the dispute to be arbitrated, which indicated that
bilateral arbitration was contemplated.

In addressing Scout's incorporation argument, the court examined
the various AAA rules and concluded that the Leases fail to
satisfy the "onerous burden of undoing the presumption in favor of
judicial resolution of the question of class arbitrability."  The
court held that the incorporation of the AAA rules was a "daisy
chain" that required the court to jump from the Leases, to the AAA
rules, to the Commercial Rules -- which deal with basic procedural
issues arising out of bilateral arbitration proceeding -- and
finally to the Supplementary Rules, which are not even referred to
in the Commercial Rules. Based on this reasoning, the court
concluded that the Leases do not include the required "express
contractual language unambiguously delegating the question of
[class] arbitrability to the arbitrator[s]."

The court acknowledged that virtually every Circuit Court to
consider the issue has determined that incorporation of AAA rules
constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties
agreed to arbitrate arbitrability.  However, the court also noted
that each of those cases dealt with bilateral arbitration, thus
the cases were entitled to relatively little weight in the class
arbitrability context.  The Third Circuit affirmed the District
Court's order granting Chesapeake's motion for summary judgment,
but declined to express an opinion on Chesapeake's second issue on
appeal regarding the "clause construction" inquiry.

The case is Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. v. Scout Petroleum,
L.L.C., -- F.3d --, 2016 WL 53806 (3d Cir. Jan. 5, 2016). justo.


CHIPOTLE: Shuts Down Stores Following Several Outbreaks
-------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Smith and Ahiza Garcia, writing for CNNMOney, report that
Chipotle is shutting down all of its stores nationwide for a few
hours in February to hold a national staff meeting about food
safety.

The meeting will occur on February 8 and the company's more than
1,900 restaurants will take part.

Chipotle said the meeting would provide an opportunity to thank
employees, discuss changes and answer questions.

Chipotle (CMG) has suffered from several outbreaks of E. coli,
Salmonella and norovirus that infected customers and led to an
unrelenting stream of criticism and mockery on social media.
Customers have posted photos of Chipotle meals and joked about
getting infected with E. coli or norovirus.

Before the outbreaks, Chipotle had cultivated a loyal following
with its adoption of non-GMO standards and other health conscious
initiatives.

And investors loved the stock. At the height of its popularity,
Chipotle's stock was at a high of about $750.  It has since
plummeted to as low as $428 a share -- a 42% drop.

The trouble began in August when 64 customers in Minnesota were
infected with Salmonella and about 100 people were struck by
norovirus in southern California.

These infections were followed by an E. coli outbreak in October
and November that affected 53 people in nine states.

In December, Chipotle suffered from two more outbreaks.  Roughly
140 students at Boston college were infected with norovirus and a
second new incidence of E. coli broke out affecting five people in
three states.

The trouble didn't end with the outbreaks however.  Customers have
sued Chipotle and the company was recently served with a subpoena
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Office of Criminal
Investigations.

The company has also projected a drop in sales.  Chipotle said it
thinks the recent outbreaks will end up costing between $14
million and $16 million.

CEO Steve Ells said that he was "hopeful" the Centers for Disease
Control would soon declare that the outbreaks were over.

"We know that Chipotle is as safe as it's ever been before,"
Mr. Ells said on Jan. 13 at a conference in Orlando.

He said Chipotle is planning to lure back customers with a new
marketing campaign in February.

Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold said there hasn't been an E. coli
case in two months.  Since then, the company says it's been
serving a million customers a day "without incident."


CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES: Court Approves Incentive Awards to DPPs
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted motion for
approval of incentive awards  in the case captioned, IN RE:
CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Order Relates To:
ALL DIRECT PURCHASER, MDL No. 1917, Case No. C-07-5944 JST (N.D.
Cal.).

A civil suit was originally filed in 2007, ECF No. 1, consolidated
by the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation shortly thereafter.
The case is predicated upon an alleged conspiracy to price-fix
cathode ray tubes (CRTs), a core component of tube-style screens
for common devices including televisions and computer monitors.
The conspiracy ran from March 1, 1995 to November 25, 2007,
involved many of the major companies that produced CRTs, and
allegedly resulted in overcharges of millions, if not billions, of
U.S. dollars to domestic companies that purchased and sold CRTs or
finished products containing CRTs for purposes of resale.

In the motion, the Class Representatives for the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiff (DPP) moved for approval of incentive awards to each of
ten DPPs. They seek awards of $25,000 to each named Plaintiff, for
a total of $250,000. DPPs maintain their class suit against
Mitsubishi and also have a settlement that was recently approved
with Thomson and TDA.

In his Order dated January 13, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/8iwXcIfrom Leagle.com, Judge Tigar found that an
incentive award of $25,000 per Class Representative is
appropriate. The Court notes that the incentive rewards constitute
a very small percentage of the class' total recover.

The incentive awards shall be paid from the Settlement Fund and
the interest earned thereon.

Plaintiffs are represented by Clinton Paul Walker, Esq. -
dwalker@damrell.com, Fred A. Silva, Esq. - fsilva@damrell.com,
Roger Martin Schrimp, Esq. - rschrimp@damrell.com & Kathy Lee
Monday, Esq. -- kmonday@damrell.com -- DAMRELL NELSON SCHRIMP
PALLIOS, PACHER & SILVA

     - and -

     Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Esq.
     Gianna Christa Gruenwald, Esq.
     Guido Saveri, Esq.
     SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
     555 Montgomery St., Suite 1210
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 500-6800

Defendants are represented by Joel Steven Sanders, Esq. -
jsanders@gibsondunn.com, Austin Van Schwing, Esq. -
aschwing@gibsondunn.com & Rachel S. Brass, Esq. -
rbrass@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Adam C.
Hemlock, Esq. -- adam.hemlock@weil.com -- WEIL GOTSHAL AND MANGES
LLP, David C. Brownstein, Esq. - dbrownstein@fbj-law.com, Jacob P.
Alpren, Esq. -- jalpren@fbj-law.com & William S. Farmer, Esq. --
wfarmer@fbj-law.com -- FARMER BROWNSTEIN JAEGER LLP


CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Not Appropriate for "Amey" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a California
court has determined that class certification is not appropriate
and that a PAGA representative action is not appropriate in the
case, Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No.
3:13cv05669, In the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division.

The case presents putative class action claims for damages and
attorney's fees arising from employee wage and hour claims under
California law for alleged meal period, rest break, reporting time
pay, unpaid wages, pay upon termination, and wage statements
violations. The claims are also asserted as a representative
action under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

The Company denies the claims, denies that class certification is
appropriate and denies that a PAGA representative action is
appropriate, and is vigorously defending against the claims. The
Company denies any violation of law and plans to vigorously defend
against all claims.

The Court recently determined that class certification is not
appropriate and determined that a PAGA representative action is
not appropriate.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation or
the range of potential loss, if any; however, the Company believes
that its potential liability with respect to such proceeding is
not material, in the aggregate, to its financial position, results
of operations and cash flows. Accordingly, the Company has not
established a reserve for loss in connection with this proceeding.


COMMERCE BANCSHARES: To Defend Against Missouri Case
----------------------------------------------------
Commerce Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a purported
class action complaint filed by customer in Missouri lacks merit.
The Company said it will defend against the case vigorously.

On August 15, 2014, a customer filed a purported class action
complaint against the Bank in the Circuit Court, Jackson County,
Missouri.  The case is Cassandra Warren, et al v. Commerce Bank
(Case No. 1416-CV19197).  In the case, the customer alleges
violation of the Missouri usury statute in connection with the
Bank charging overdraft fees in connection with point-of-
sale/debit and automated-teller machine cards. The case seeks
class-action status for Missouri customers of the Bank who may
have been similarly affected.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Class Certification Motion Due in January 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2015, that a motion for
class certification is currently due from plaintiffs in January
2016 in the Strauch et al. Fair Labor Standards Act class action.

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 who worked for CSC at any
time from June 1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that CSC
improperly classified its system administrators 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 includes unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, damages in
the amount of twice the unpaid overtime wages due, and civil
penalties.

CSC's position is that its system administrators 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
system administrators. The Strauch putative class includes more
than 4,000 system administrators. 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 in this litigation continues to be that the
employees identified as belonging to the conditional class were
paid in accordance with the FLSA.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add additional plaintiffs
and allege violations under Missouri and North Carolina wage and
hour laws. We do not believe these additional claims differ
materially from those in the original complaint. The next stage in
the litigation will be a motion for class certification, which is
currently due from plaintiffs in January 2016.


DANAHER CORPORATION: MOU Reached in Pall Stockholder Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Danaher Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2015, that the parties in the case, In re Pall Corp. Stockholder
Litig., have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU")
with respect to a proposed settlement of the consolidated action.

Four putative class actions were filed by shareholders of Pall
Corporation's common stock on behalf of themselves and on behalf
of an alleged class of the Company's shareholders, in New York
state court (Nassau County) in connection with Danaher's proposed
acquisition of Pall. These suits were consolidated under the
caption: In re Pall Corp. Stockholder Litig. The consolidated
amended complaint, filed June 23, 2015, names as defendants: the
Company, members of the Company's board of directors, Danaher, and
Merger Sub. The amended complaint generally alleges that members
of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to shareholders of the Company by agreeing to the proposed
transaction. The amended complaint also alleges that Danaher and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of
their fiduciary duties.

On July 20, 2015, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") with respect to a proposed settlement of the
consolidated action, pursuant to which the Company made certain
supplemental disclosures related to the Merger in a Form 8-K.  If
the settlement contemplated by the MOU is executed by the parties
and approved by the New York state court, the Company anticipates
that all claims and all actions will be resolved and released.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the New York state court
will approve the settlement.


DELCATH SYSTEMS: Shareholder Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Delcath Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court has
entered an order granting final approval of the settlement in the
case, In re Delcath Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case
No. 13-cv-3116).

On May 8, 2013, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Bryan
Green, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated,
v. Delcath Systems, Inc., et al. ("Green"), Case No. 1:13-cv-
03116-LGS. On June 14, 2013, a substantially similar complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Joseph Connico, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Delcath Systems,
Inc., et al. ("Connico"), Case No. 1:13-cv-04131-LGS.

At a hearing on August 2, 2013, the Court consolidated the Green
and Connico actions under the caption In re Delcath Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-3116, appointed Lead Plaintiff,
Delcath Investor Group, and approved Pomerantz Grossman Hufford
Dahlstrom & Gross LLP as Lead Plaintiff's choice of counsel.

On September 18, 2013, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, naming the Company and Eamonn P. Hobbs as defendants
(the "Defendants"). The consolidated amended complaint asserts
that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's New
Drug Application for its Melblez Kit (Melblez (melphalan) for
Injection for use with the Delcath Hepatic Delivery System), for
the treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic ocular
melanoma in the liver. The putative class period alleged in the
amended complaint is April 21, 2010 through and including May 2,
2013. Lead Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief,
and reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.

On June 24, 2015, the Court granted Lead Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and set a Final
Approval Hearing for October 19, 2015. Pursuant to the Court's
Preliminary Approval Order, notice and claim forms were mailed to
class members and class members had an opportunity to submit
claims, to opt-out of the settlement, and/or to object to the
settlement.

At the Final Approval Hearing held on October 19, 2015, the Court
considered the notice process and results and other relevant
information, noting that there were no objections to the
Settlement.

On October 22, 2015, the Court entered an order granting final
approval of the Settlement and dismissing the action with
prejudice.  The Settlement fully and finally resolves the claims
brought by Lead Plaintiff on behalf of the class it seeks to
represent, and establishes a settlement fund of $8,500,000 in
return for a release of all claims in this litigation.  The Court
also approved the attorneys' fees request of 25% of the settlement
fund, or $2,125,000.  The Lead Plaintiffs were also awarded sums
paid from the settlement fund.  The amount of Settlement will be
covered by its insurance and is not expected to result in any
additional expense in the Company's financial statements.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Paid $29.5-Mil. to Settle Athlete Image Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
During the six months ended September 30, 2015, Electronic Arts
Inc. paid $29.5 million pursuant to the terms of the settlement of
all actions brought by college athletes, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

"We are a defendant in several actions that allege we
misappropriated the likenesses of various college athletes in
certain of our college-themed sports games," the Company said. "In
September 2013, we reached an agreement to settle all actions
brought by college athletes against us. On August 19, 2015, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted final approval of the settlement."


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Asks High Court to Review Athlete Image Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company has
filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court.

On July 29, 2010, Michael Davis, a former NFL running back, filed
a putative class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company, alleging
that certain past versions of Madden NFL included the images of
certain retired NFL players without their permission. In March
2012, the trial court denied the Company's request to dismiss the
complaint on First Amendment grounds. In January 2015, that trial
court decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
and the case was remanded back to the district court. On October
5, 2015, the Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to
the United States Supreme Court.


ENERGY RECOVERY: Defendign 2 Stockholder Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Energy Recovery, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that in January 2015,
two stockholder class action complaints were filed against the
Company in the Northern District of California, on behalf of
Energy Recovery stockholders under the captions, Joseph Sabatino
v. Energy Recovery, Inc. et al. and Thomas C. Mowdy v. Energy
Recovery, Inc. et al. The complaints have now been consolidated
under the caption In Re Energy Recovery Inc. Securities
Litigation. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b),
Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and seeks the recovery of unspecified monetary damages. We
are not able to estimate the possible loss, if any, due to the
early state of this matter.


EOS: Class Action Over Lip Balm Gains Momentum
----------------------------------------------
Amy Feinstein, writing for Inquisitr, reports that the class
action suit filed against EOS Lip Balm makers is not dying down.

In fact, it is building momentum, as more users come forward.
Attorney Mark Geragos has started this suit and is taking
additional plaintiffs.  Many people have gotten rashes, hives, and
blisters, and explanations for what has caused this are now
available from dermatologists.

According to The Inquisitr, many celebrities like Kim Kardashian,
Britney Spears, and Katie Perry are promoting EOS Lip Balm and
have been doing product placement for them.  It's inexpensive,
cute, and colorful, but what is it that is causing all of the
problems? It seems that allergic reactions are a big issue, as
well as the lack of full disclosure of ingredients on the
packaging.  Mark Geragos is seeking damages and corrected labeling
to settle the suit for each of the plaintiffs.

Huffington Post is listing the health reasons that are causing all
the issues with the EOS Lip Balm.  The filing gave a list of the
grievances.

"A new class action lawsuit filed on Jan. 12 in California claims
a 'substantial number of consumers' have experienced adverse
reactions to the product, including 'rashes, dryness, bleeding,
blistering, cracking, and loss of pigmentation, lasting from a few
days, to a few months, [leaving] some consumers with long lasting
and perhaps permanent symptoms.'"

Dr. Marie Jhin, a dermatologist in San Francisco, told The
Huffington Post that Cronan's photos look like allergic contact
dermatitis and may be in response to Vitamin E, which is listed as
tocopherol in EOS's lip balm ingredients and can cause irritation
in people who are allergic.

"The main things to avoid," she said of lip balm purchases, "are
things with perfumes and fragrance, vitamin E, as well as
beeswax."

Beeswax is a major allergen, and those with sensitivity need to
know when it is in a product.  Companies like Burt's Bees for
example, are obviously very upfront about it, and for that reason,
have been able to avoid a major suit.

Dr. Lauren Ploch, a New Orleans dermatologist, explains that
people with allergies shouldn't be confused into thinking that
because a product is "natural" it can't cause allergies.  Milk is
natural, and dairy and lactose are a major allergen. Common sense
also needs to be used.

"Just like we can be allergic to natural fruits and plants," she
said, "we can be allergic to their oils when they are applied
topically."

And EOS has been proactive in addressing the suit for fans of
their products.

"The health and well-being of our customers is our top priority
and millions of satisfied customers use our products every day,
many of whom take the time to share their experiences with us,"
EOS spokesperson Nancy Chan told The Huffington Post.

US News and World Report says that EOS has come out to say the
suit is totally without merit.

"We firmly believe this lawsuit is without merit.  Our products
are made with the highest quality ingredients and meet or exceed
all safety and quality standards set out by our industry and
validated by rigorous testing conducted by an independent lab.
The health and well-being of our customers is our top priority and
millions of satisfied customers use our products every day, many
of whom take the time to share their experiences with us."

But what should people with chapped lips and allergies use?
Petroleum jelly or Aquaphor, which is petroleum jelly and water.
This, and some hydrocortisone like Cortaid can help to calm a rash
pronto.


ETSY INC: Says Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Named in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Etsy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that a New York court has
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in a
securities class action.

On May 13, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint
(Altayyar v. Etsy, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-02785) was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York against the Company and certain officers. The
complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
of the Company's common stock from April 16, 2015 through and
including May 10, 2015. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions
with respect to, among other things, merchandise for sale on the
Company's website that may be counterfeit or constitute trademark
or copyright infringement and actions taken by third-party brands
against Etsy sellers for trademark or copyright infringement. The
complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

On October 22, 2015, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel. The Company and the named officers intend to
defend themselves vigorously against this action.

In light of, among other things, the early stage of the
litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount
or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable
outcome.


ETSY INC: Class Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------
Etsy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that a California court has
granted plaintiff's motion to remand a class action lawsuitto the
Superior Court of California, San Mateo County.

On July 21, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint
(Cervantes v. Dickerson, et al., Case No. CIV 534768) was filed in
the Superior Court of State of California, County of San Mateo
against the Company, certain officers, directors and underwriters.
The complaint asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  As in the Altayyar litigation, the
complaint alleges misrepresentations in the Company's Prospectus
with respect to, among other things, merchandise for sale on the
Company's website that may be counterfeit or constitute trademark
or copyright infringement.  The complaint seeks certification as a
class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest
and attorneys' fees.

On August 20, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
(Case No. 4:15-cv-03825-PJH). On October 21, 2015, the court
granted plaintiff's motion to remand the case to the Superior
Court of California, San Mateo County.

The Company and the named officers and directors intend to defend
themselves vigorously against this action. In light of, among
other things, the early stage of the litigation, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome of this matter and is unable to make
a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that
could result from an unfavorable outcome.


FACEBOOK INC: Campaign Launched Against Anti-Jewish Incitement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Algemeiner reports that an Israel-based lawfare organization
is launching its latest campaign against anti-Jewish incitement on
Facebook, The Algemeiner learned on Jan. 17, as the group posted
an explanatory fundraising video clip on YouTube.

Called "[Mark] Zuckerberg don't kill us," this is the most recent
effort on the part of Shurat HaDin-The Israel Law Center to combat
the ongoing calls on various sites to attack Jews and Israelis.
It involves conveying to the Facebook founder that "if he ignores
all the complaints, we will put them in front of his face."

The money being raised will go to producing billboards to be
placed in the area of his house in Palo Alto.  Already in touch
with American advertising agencies, Shurat HaDin says it will need
an initial $30,000 to get started.

As The Algemeiner has previously reported, Shurat HaDin has been
in both a literal battle against Facebook -- in a US court -- and
figurative one, conducted in the global arena of ideas against
social media outlets that are enabling the very incitement that
has purportedly contributed to, if not completely fueled, the
current wave of Palestinian terrorism in Israel over the past four
months.

This, said Shurat HaDin in a statement, takes the form, among
other things, of "pages that illustrate the most effective way to
kill Jews, including detailed instructions and encouragement of
the murderers."

According to the statement, one can find tips on Facebook about
covering a knife in bug spray before stabbing a Jew, for example,
or "directions on the best place on the body to stab for the
greatest effect."

Shurat Hadin says that in spite of the class-action lawsuit it
filed against Facebook on behalf of some 20,000 Israeli
signatories, and tens of thousands of requests from users to
remove the antisemitic content from its pages, the social media
giant often continues to offer its standard reply: that, after
looking into the complaints, it has found that such pages do not
violate "community standards."

On its Headstart fundraising page, Shurat HaDin wrote (in Hebrew):

The only time that Mark Zuckerberg actually did intervene where
hate-filled content was concerned was in a post he wrote in
support of Muslims.  And in so doing, it was the first time he
expressed a political opinion.

And we say: If Mark Zuckerberg opens his eyes -- we won't let him
stop there.  We are calling on you to help us erect a giant
billboard across from Mark Zuckerberg's house, for him to see the
incitement on Facebook.  We must not continue to allow Mark
Zuckerberg to ignore us.  Together we will stop incitement on
Facebook.

Shurat HaDin founder and chairwoman Nitsana Darshan-Leitner added:
"It is amazing to discover that, after the murder of nearly 30
Israelis since October, motivated by wild incitement on social
media, Facebook continues to ignore the incitement to violence
against Israelis, while simultaneously showing that it is capable
of removing incitement when it decides to do so.  We demand that
Facebook begin to be proactive in preventing Palestinian
incitement to terrorism on its pages, and use its advanced
technology to locate and take down calls for the murder of
Israelis, and monitor the photos and video clips that encourage
acts of terrorism against Jews.  We will do everything to protect
the citizens of Israel."


FANNIE MAE: Appeal Over Class Suit Dismissal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of the case, In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior
Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations, and
the non-class action suit, Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie
Mae, is under appeal, which remains pending, Federal National
Mortgage Association said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

A number of putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against the Company,
the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA") as its conservator,
the U.S. Department of the Treasury ("Treasury") and Freddie Mac
from July through September 2013 by shareholders of Fannie Mae
and/or Freddie Mac challenging the August 2012 amendment to each
company's senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury.
These lawsuits were consolidated and, on December 3, 2013,
plaintiffs (preferred and common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or
Freddie Mac) filed a consolidated class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the
Company, FHFA as its conservator, Treasury and Freddie Mac ("In re
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement
Class Action Litigations").

The preferred shareholder plaintiffs allege that the net worth
sweep dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock that were
implemented pursuant to the August 2012 amendments to the senior
preferred stock purchase agreements nullified certain of the
shareholders' rights, particularly the right to receive dividends.
The common shareholder plaintiffs allege that the August 2012
amendments constituted a taking of their property by requiring
that all future profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be paid to
Treasury. Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
against the Company, FHFA and Freddie Mac, a takings claim against
FHFA and Treasury, and a breach of fiduciary duty claim
derivatively on the Company and Freddie Mac's behalf against FHFA
and Treasury.

Plaintiffs seek to represent several classes of preferred and/or
common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac who held
stock as of the public announcement of the August 2012 amendments.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive
relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

A non-class action suit, Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie Mae,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
on September 20, 2013 by preferred shareholders against us, FHFA
as our conservator, the Director of FHFA (in his official
capacity), Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury (in his
official capacity) and Freddie Mac. Plaintiffs bring claims for
breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing against the Company, FHFA and Freddie Mac,
and claims for violation of the Administrative Procedure Act
against the FHFA and Treasury defendants, alleging that the net
worth sweep provisions nullified certain rights of the preferred
shareholders, particularly the right to receive dividends.
Plaintiffs seek damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

On September 30, 2014, the court dismissed both lawsuits and
plaintiffs in both suits filed timely notices of appeal. On
October 27, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
consolidated these appeals with appeals in two other cases
involving the same subject matter, but to which the Company is not
a party.

"Given the stage of these lawsuits, the substantial and novel
legal questions that remain, and our substantial defenses, we are
currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range
of loss arising from this litigation," the Company said.


FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Motion to Set Aside Settlement Order Opposed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a New York court
has not set a hearing on the motion filed by merchants to set
aside the order approving a class action settlement.  Defendants
have opposed the motion.

During April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a
consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed
against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial
institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. The plaintiffs, merchants operating
commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations,
claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks
were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and unspecified
damages.

In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is also
subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa and has
also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa,
MasterCard and certain other named defendants.

In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a
settlement agreement. On January 14, 2014, the court entered a
final order approving the class settlement.

A number of merchants have filed appeals from that approval. The
appellate court held a hearing on those appeals on September 28,
2015, and the matter is under consideration.

In addition, on July 28, 2015, the merchants who oppose the class
settlement filed a motion in the District Court to set aside the
order approving the settlement because of alleged misconduct by
one of the merchant class counsel in another case and a former
attorney for MasterCard. Defendants opposed the motion on August
17, 2015. The court has not set a hearing on the motion.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Bancorp
paid $46 million into a class settlement escrow account.
Previously, the Bancorp paid an additional $4 million in another
settlement escrow in connection with the settlement of claims from
plaintiffs not included in the class action.

Approximately 8,000 merchants have requested exclusion from the
class settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement, 25% of the funds paid into the class settlement escrow
account have been returned to the control of the defendants
through Class Exclusion Takedown Payments.

More than 460 of the merchants who requested exclusion from the
class have filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa,
MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust
violations. These "opt-out" federal lawsuits have been transferred
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York. The Bancorp was not named as a defendant in any of the
opt-out federal lawsuits, but may have obligations pursuant to
indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing
agreements.

In addition, one merchant filed a separate state court lawsuit
against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants, including
the Bancorp, alleging similar antitrust violations. The state
court lawsuit has been settled.

On July 18, 2015, the court in which all but one of the opt-out
federal lawsuits have been consolidated denied defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaints.


FIREEYE INC: To Defend Against Calif. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
FireEye, Inc. will be defending against a securities class action
lawsuit in California after a court rejected the defendants'
demurrers, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On June 20, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara,
against the Company, current and former members of our Board of
Directors, current and former officers, and the underwriters of
our March 2014 follow-on public offering.  On July 17, 2014, a
substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against
the same defendants. The actions were consolidated and, on March
4, 2015, an amended complaint was filed, alleging violations of
the federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class
consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for the
follow-on public offering, and seeking unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

On April 20, 2015, defendants filed demurrers seeking that the
amended complaint be dismissed. On August 11, 2015, the court
overruled defendants' demurrers.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.  Based on
information currently available, the Company has determined that
the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss is not
reasonably estimable.


FIREEYE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Stockholder Case
------------------------------------------------
FireEye, Inc. is seeking dismissal of a stockholder class action
in California, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On November 24, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers. On June 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities between January 2,
2014, and November 4, 2014. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of
the putative class.

On August 21, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
was scheduled for hearing on November 12, 2015.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously. Based on
information currently available, the Company has determined that
the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss is not
reasonably estimable.


FIRST HORIZON: "Hawkins" Action v. FTBNA Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
First Tennessee Bank National Association ("FTBNA") is a defendant
in a putative class action lawsuit concerning overdraft fees
charged in connection with debit card transactions. A key claim is
that the method used to order or sequence the transactions posted
each day was improper. The case is styled as Hawkins v. First
Tennessee Bank National Association, before the Circuit Court for
Shelby County, Tennessee, Case No. CT-004085-11. The plaintiff
seeks actual damages of at least $5 million, unspecified
restitution of fees charged, and unspecified punitive damages,
among other things.

FHN's estimate of RPL for this matter is subject to significant
uncertainties regarding: whether a class will be certified and, if
so, the definition of the class; claims as to which no dollar
amount is specified; the potential remedies that might be
available or awarded; the ultimate outcome of potentially
significant motions such as motions to dismiss, or for summary
judgment; and the incomplete status of the discovery process.


FLINT, MI: Civil Rights Leader Speaks About Water Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------
Brendan O'Brien, writing for Reuters, reports that speaking at a
church rally in Flint a day after President Obama declared a
federal emergency, Jesse Jackson, the prominent civil rights
leader, compared the city to Selma and Montgomery, Alabama, places
where the civil rights movement in the 1960s unfolded.

"The people of Flint have been betrayed," he said.  "This is the
time for us to make a bigger statement than we have made in a long
time.  You can never tell when the spirit will strike and then
it's time for everyone to move."

Flint, about 60 miles (100 km) northwest of Detroit, returned to
using that city's water supply in October after tests found
elevated levels of lead in the water and in the blood of some
children.  Lead contamination can cause brain damage and other
health problems when ingested.

Obama declared an emergency in Michigan on Jan. 16 and ordered
federal aid for state and local response efforts in Genesee
County, where Flint, a city of just under 100,000 residents, is
located.

The financially strapped city, where a majority of residents are
African-American, was under control of a state-appointed emergency
manager when it switched its source of tap water from Detroit's
system to the nearby Flint River in April 2014 in an effort to
save money.

"We have been treated like we don't matter because we are from
Flint," said Melissa Mays, a member of the Coalition for Clean
Water during the rally.  "It's our job to stand up and say no,
we're done.  We're not going to put up with this anymore."
Republican Governor Rick Snyder has apologized for the state's
handling of the crisis as calls for him to resign have grown
louder.

The more corrosive water from the Flint River leached lead from
the city pipes more than Detroit water did, leading to the current
problems.

The Michigan attorney general said his office would investigate
whether any laws were violated in Flint related to the crisis.
His probe follows one launched earlier by the U.S. Attorney in
Detroit.

Some Flint residents sued Mr. Snyder, other officials, Michigan
and the city on Jan. 7 in Genesee County court and are seeking
class action status covering all residents.

Other Flint residents late last year filed a federal lawsuit.
Genesee County also has seen a spike of Legionnaires' disease
resulting in 10 deaths that may or may not be related to the water
crisis, state officials previously said.


GARRISON PROPERTY: Dismissal of "Robbins" and "Enivert" Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Ed Carnes of the United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit, affirmed the district court judges' order
dismissing the class action lawsuits filed by Glenaan Robbins and
Progressive Select Insurance Company.

The appellate cases are GLENAAN ROBBINS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign
corporation, Defendant-Appellee. SENDY ENIVERT, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation,
Defendant-Appellee, Nos. 14-13724, 14-13725 (11th Cir.)

Glenaan Robbins is insured under an auto insurance policy issued
by Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Garrison).
Sendy Enivert is insured under a similar policy issued by
Progressive Select Insurance Company (Progressive).

Both policies are governed by Florida law. After they were injured
in separate car accidents in 2013, Robbins and Enivert sought
reimbursement for medical expenses from their insurers. Neither of
them submitted a medical provider's determination about whether
she had suffered an emergency medical condition.

Relying on their interpretation of Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault
Law Fla. Stat. Section 627.736, as amended, Garrison and
Progressive limited Robbins' and Enivert's benefits to $2,500.

Robbins and Enivert each filed in the same district court a
purported class action challenging her insurer's interpretation of
Section 627.736. Each lawsuit sought a declaratory judgment that
the insured was entitled to $10,000 in medical benefits because no
determination was made that she did not have an emergency medical
condition. Each also sought injunctive relief against future
violations of the statute, payment of unpaid medical benefits, and
attorney's fees.

The lawsuits were assigned to two different judges who entered
separate orders dismissing them. Both orders reached the same
conclusion, which is that absent an emergency medical
determination by one of the providers listed in Section
627.736(1)(a)(3), the higher limit of $10,000 in benefits does not
apply.

The judge in the Robbins case concluded that, absent any
determination about whether the condition was an emergency, the
insured was entitled to up to $2,500 in benefits. The judge in the
Enivert case also concluded that the insured was not entitled to
more than $2,500 in benefits. Both plaintiffs appealed.

Chief Judge Carnes affirmed the district court judges' orders.

A copy of Chief Judge Carnes's order dated December 30, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/qvyNAXfrom Leagle.com.

The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit panel
consists of Chief Judge Ed Carnes, Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin
and District Judge Amul R. Thapar.


GENERAL MILLS: Judge Stays Suit to Wait for FDA's Determination
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Otis D. Wright, II, of the Central District of
California granted defendants' motion to dismiss, but with leave
to amend, and to stay in the case JENNIFER RED, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL
MILLS, INC.; GENERAL MILLS SALES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-
cv-02232-ODW(JPR) (C.D. Cal.)

Defendants General Mills, Inc. and General Mills Sales, Inc.
manufactured and distributed a variety of instant mashed potato
products. Some of its products contain partially hydrogenated oils
(PHOs), that contain trans fat.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a declaratory order
ruling that PHOs were no longer generally recognized as safe.
However, the FDA permitted food products containing PHOs to be
sold until June 18, 2018, and encouraged food manufacturers to
submit food additive petitions by that date so that the FDA could
determine whether it is nevertheless possible to establish, by
regulation, safe conditions of use of PHOs.

Plaintiff Jennifer Red brings this putative class action lawsuit
against defendants for using PHOs in their food products.
Plaintiff alleges that PHOs cause immediate inflammation of
internal organs upon consumption, and that such trans-fats
increase the risk of coronary heart disease, type-2 diabetes,
other cardiovascular diseases, and cancer.

On April 20, 2015, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint,
which asserted claims for violation of the unfair prong and
unlawful prong of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Section 17200 (UCL), public nuisance and breach of
implied warranty of merchantability.

Defendants move to dismiss the first amended complaint for failure
to state a claim or, in the alternative, to stay the action under
the primary jurisdiction doctrine.

The court stays the action pending the FDA's determination of the
food additive status of PHOs. Defendants' counsel shall notify the
court once the FDA has made its determination, after which
plaintiff may amend her complaint consistent with the order and
proceed with the remainder of the litigation. Alternatively, if
plaintiff does not wish to amend her complaint, the parties may
submit a proposed judgment to the court.

A copy of Judge Wright's order dated December 29, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/VhMUnAfrom Leagle.com.

Jennifer Red, Plaintiff, represented by:

     David Elliot, Esq.
     Gregory S Weston, Esq.
     THE WESTON FIRM
     1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
     San Diego, CA 92110
     Telephone: 619-798-2006
     Facsimile: 480-247-4553

          - and -

Paul K Joseph -- Paul@pauljosephlaw.com -- at The Law Office of
Paul K. Joseph, PC

Defendants, represented by David T Biderman --
DBiderman@perkinscoie.com -- Jacqueline E Young --
JYoung@perkinscoie.com -- at Perkins Coie LLP


GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiff Testifies in Ignition Switch Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
plaintiff Robert Scheuer insisted on Jan. 14 he had no
recollection of key events on the day he suffered injuries he
claims would not have happened but for a defectively designed
ignition switch on his General Motors car.

Testifying in his attempt to prove General Motors liable for back
and neck pain that changed his life, Mr. Scheuer said he did not
recall making phone calls during the hours he claimed to be
unconscious after his 2003 Saturn Ion struck some trees in
Bristow, Oklahoma, at about 2 p.m. on May 28, 2014.

Attorneys for General Motors are attempting to discredit
Mr. Scheuer's statement that he was unconscious for some three
hours after the accident, and that he languished in his car
undiscovered by passersby or police.

General Motors defense lawyer Mike Brock, a partner with Kirkland
& Ellis, showed Mr. Scheuer AT&T phone records of two phone calls
Mr. Scheuer made to his voicemail while in the badly damaged car,
allegedly reeling from injuries he said were caused by a shutdown
of the ignition switch that rendered his air bags unable to
deploy.

After Mr. Scheuer reviewed the records, Mr. Brock asked "Did you
satisfy yourself you had made calls to your voicemail at 2:19 and
3:15?"

"I understood what happened, yes," Mr. Scheuer said, but he denied
any memory of doing so.

Mr. Scheuer's testimony came during the third day of his trial,
the first of six bellwether cases this year before Southern
District Judge Jesse Furman that are designed to determine whether
General Motors is liable for deaths and injuries in more than 300
cases in the multi-district litigation.  The company has paid
hundreds of millions of dollars to settle claims filed after its
announcement they were recalling millions of cars with defective
switches in February 2014, just a few months before the Scheuer
accident.

On direct examination from his attorney, Robert Hilliard of
Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus Christi, Texas, Mr. Scheuer
tried to distinguish long-running injuries to his neck and back
that predated the accident from those injuries he suffered
afterward.

Mr. Scheuer, 49, said the pain of pre-accident injuries were like
someone hitting him with a whiffle bat in the head. But post
accident, he said, it was more "like someone hitting you with an
aluminum bat in the head."

Mr. Scheuer told the jury "I'm trying really hard to get back to
where I was before the accident -- a father, a husband, very
active."  Judge Furman at one point asked Mr. Scheuer if he had an
independent recollection of the events on the day of the accident.
"I'm sorry judge, that day was like a dream right after the
accident," he said.

On cross-examination, Mr. Brock peppered Mr. Scheuer with
questions about his long pre-accident history of back and neck
problems, the surgery he had to endure, the steroid injections he
had to take and, at length, his use of prescription painkillers.

Brock tried to discredit Mr. Scheuer's claim for damages based on
his family losing out on purchasing a "dream house" because of
Mr. Scheuer's injuries and his lack of eligibility for financing.
Mr. Scheuer repeatedly said he had no recollection of the months
following the accident or how his home purchase fell apart.

Mr. Brock also tried to get into evidence that Mr. Scheuer may
have been overusing painkillers and had given inconsistent
accounts about the day of the accident, telling one person he had
taken no pills that day but telling another he had taken one.

Judge Furman denied the evidence, and he also adhered to a
pretrial ruling in which he refused to allow GM to claim or imply
that painkillers may have been the reason Mr. Scheuer's car went
off the road.

Judge Furman said he was sticking by his ruling "particularly in
the case where the plaintiff is not alleging his veering off the
road had anything to do with the accident."

When pressed by the defense on the drug issue, Judge Furman said
"I've already ruled that we're not going there."

But Mr. Brock was allowed to ask Mr. Scheuer about his history of
using painkillers, which Mr. Scheuer consumed at a rate that Brock
said, more than once and very slowly "a hundred, and twenty,
pills, a month."

"In fact, there wasn't a change to the pain medication you were
taking after the accident until a year after the accident?"
Mr. Brock asked.

Mr. Scheuer said that was true, but he also told Hilliard that he
had injuries after the accident that were far worse than the
injuries he had before it.

Mr. Brock asked Mr. Scheuer whether his use of painkillers "made
you a risk to others when you were operating your vehicle?"

Mr. Scheuer, who contends that the reason his Ion went off the
road was because he was trying to avoid an accident, said, "I
don't know.  I didn't hit anybody."

Testimony in the trial is expected to resume on Jan. 22.


GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Facing Suits Over Chambers Street Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gramercy Property Trust Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company, its board of directors, Chambers Street Properties and/or
Columbus Merger Sub LLC are named as defendants in two pending
putative class action lawsuits brought by purported Company
stockholders challenging the parties' merger agreement.

Two suits that were separately filed in New York Supreme Court,
New York County, captioned (i) Berliner v. Gramercy Property
Trust, et al., Index No. 652424/2015 (filed July 9, 2015) and (ii)
Gensler v. Baum, et al., Index No. 157432/2015 (filed July 22,
2015), have been consolidated into a single action under the
caption In re Gramercy Property Trust Stockholder Litigation,
Index No. 652424/2015.

In addition, four suits that were separately filed in Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned (i) Jobin v. DuGan,
et al., Case No. 24-C-15-003942 (filed July 27, 2015); (ii) Vojik
v. Gramercy Property Trust, et al., Case No. 24-C-15-004412 (filed
August 25, 2015); (iii) Hoffbauer et al. v. Chambers Street
Properties, et al., 24-C-15-004904 (filed September 24, 2015)
(originally filed as two separate suits in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore County, Maryland, captioned Plemons v. Chambers Street
Properties, et al., Case No. 03-C-15-007943 (filed July 24, 2015)
and Hoffbauer et al. v. Chambers Street Properties, et al., Case
No. 03-C-15-008639 (filed August 12, 2015), and refiled as a
single action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on
September 24, 2015); and (iv) Morris v. Gramercy Property Trust,
et al., Case No. 24-C-15-004972 (filed September 28, 2015) have
been consolidated into a single action under the caption Glenn W.
Morris v. Gramercy Property Trust Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-15-
004972.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the directors of
the Company breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders by agreeing to sell the Company for inadequate
consideration and agreeing to improper deal protection terms in
the merger agreement, and that the preliminary joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on Form S-4 on September
11, 2015 was materially incomplete and misleading. The complaints
also allege that Chambers Street, Merger Sub and/or the Company
aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duty.

The amended complaint in the Morris consolidated action also
asserts derivative claims on behalf of the Company for breach of
fiduciary duty against the directors of the Company. Plaintiffs
seek, among other things, an injunction barring the Merger,
rescission of the Merger to the extent it is already implemented,
declaratory relief, an award of damages and/or costs/attorney
fees.


GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Faces "Elstein" Class Action in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------
Gramercy Property Trust Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a putative
class action lawsuit was filed on October 1, 2015, in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County by a purported
shareholder of Chambers Street. The action, captioned Elstein v.
Chambers Street Properties et al., Docket No. L-002254-15, names
as defendants Chambers Street, its board of trustees and the
Company.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the trustees of
Chambers Street breached their fiduciary duties to Chambers
Street's shareholders by agreeing to the Merger after a flawed
sales process and by approving improper deal protection terms in
the merger agreement, and that the Company aided and abetted these
purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint also alleges
that the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus was
materially misleading and incomplete. Plaintiffs seek, among other
things, an injunction barring the Merger, rescission of the Merger
to the extent it is already implemented, declaratory relief and an
award of damages.

The defendants believe the lawsuits are without merit.


HAYDEN, ID: New Mayor to Look Into Sewer Fees Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Devin Heilman, writing for CDAPress.com, reports that the new
mayor of Hayden foresees growth, collaboration, fiscal
responsibility and excellent service to the citizens of his city
in the year ahead.

"We expect a continuation of the strong leadership that Mayor
McIntire and the City Council have provided," Hayden Mayor Steve
Griffitts said on Jan. 16.  "Many of our departments meet that
high standard and we expect all to do so as we move forward in
2016."

Mr. Griffitts said no doubt more people will be moving into the
area as well as expanding the town's business presence in the
coming months.

"There should be more commercial growth," he said.  "We have seen
rapid residential growth and we hope that these people will find
great opportunity in Hayden with respect to education,
transportation and infrastructure and with respect to fiscal
responsibility.

"Hayden should be the easiest and most efficient city to do
business with. Our goal is to achieve that distinction.  We need
department leaders and staff to be efficient, knowledgeable and
grateful for the opportunity to serve our constituents."

Regarding the class action lawsuit that the North Idaho Building
Contractors Association filed against the City of Hayden over
sewer capitalization fees, Mr. Griffitts said he was looking into
it before he was sworn in as mayor as he feels a positive
relationship between the association and the city is important.

"I have also asked our staff to realign as a partnership with
NIBCA as we go forward because NIBCA represents so many great
builders and companies that want to provide value to their clients
and we want to be lockstep with them."

Mr. Griffitts said the city has received the lawsuit decision from
the Idaho Supreme Court, which includes a formula for the city to
follow to ensure proper methodology in obtaining numbers for the
sewer cap rates.  He said he has invited NIBCA to a workshop to
discuss the options provided by the Supreme Court.  The public is
also welcome to attend the workshop, which was set be held in the
Hayden City Hall City Council Chambers at 5:00 p.m. on Jan. 19.

"We are working closely with NIBCA to reinforce that important
partnership," Mr. Griffitts said.

Whether it's sewer cap fees or impact fees threatening to pose
legal issues for the city of Hayden, which has the lowest tax base
of all the area municipalities, Mr. Griffitts ensured the interest
of the people will be kept top priority.

"We will look at the financial effects of these lawsuits, but we
will continue to recognize that our responsibility is to fiscally
serve our citizens, that is the most important focus that we
have," he said.  "But we must remain fiscally sound as a
municipality in order to serve our citizens."

Serving others is a core value for Mr. Griffitts, who served as
president of Jobs Plus for 12 years and is presently the vice
president/commercial lender of Mountain West Bank.  He said he
feels his background with these companies, which have cultures
steeped in customer service excellence, have helped prepare him
for the task of mayor.  No matter what 2016 brings, he's ready to
meet the challenge head on.

"As mayor, my focus again will follow the blueprint of exceptional
service," he said.  "It's important that I give all that I can to
the city of Hayden."


HELLOFLO: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Renewal Program
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that
they are easily the bane of every consumer: the automatic or auto-
renewal program.  Originally intended in the most optimistic terms
as a convenience for the consumer, reality has suggested otherwise
with scores of consumers hit with charges for goods or services
they didn't want, had understood to be a one-time-only purchase,
or were not properly informed of opt-out terms in a clear and
concise manner.  The problem has left many a consumer filing an
Auto-Renewal Lawsuit.

One such lawsuit has been filed by a consumer in California
against a vendor of feminine hygiene products.  The plaintiff has
brought her Automatic Renewal Program Lawsuit as Jane Doe in US
District Court for the Central District of California on November
13 (Case number 8:15-cv-01882-DOC-KES).  She has also proposed her
lawsuit as a class action.

Her story carries a familiar refrain.  The plaintiff purchased a
subscription plan for feminine hygiene products from the
defendant, doing business as HelloFlo.  According to the Auto-
Renewal Subscription Program lawsuit, HelloFlo extended several
offers for Auto-Renewal and made several overtures to the
plaintiff and class members for continuous service without
presenting all the relative terms and conditions in a clear and
conspicuous manner.  The plaintiff also asserts in her proposed
California class action that several debits and withdrawals were
made from credit and debit cards or third-party accounts without
obtaining the necessary consent from the plaintiff.

That's a big deal, given that California and other states have in
recent years brought forward legislation spelling it all out for
retailers and vendors according to regulations outlined in
Provision 17600 of the California Business & Professions Code.

Generally, businesses that employ automatic subscriptions are
required, in no uncertain terms, to disclose both the terms of the
subscription service as well as any cancellation policy in a clear
and conspicuous manner before the consumer purchases the items or
services.

"Clear and conspicuous" is the operative term, and in sum suggests
that businesses, vendors and service providers must ensure such
terms are obvious to the consumer and not glossed over.  For
example, any vendor that fails to disclose the terms at purchase
but nonetheless points the consumer to a link that contains terms
of service and cancellation policies is not viewed as having
disclosed the terms in a clear and conspicuous manner.

Even consumers who have been apprised of terms of service and
cancellation policies prior to checkout but who were not invited
by the vendor to verify that they clearly understood what they
were agreeing to, would have recourse to act against the vendor
with an Auto-Renewal Lawsuit according to state laws observed in
California.

Automatic renewals, as most know, grew from the advent of free
trials.  Once the free trial period ended, the service would stop
unless the consumer, by a certain date, opted in to the service
formally in order to keep it going.  Either out of convenience to
the consumer or hoping to catch them asleep at the switch, vendors
and service providers increasingly have moved to the "opt-out"
model, where service extends automatically beyond the free trial
window and charges kick in automatically unless the consumers opts
out.  Thus, the onus is on the consumer.

With so many consumers multitasking as an everyday habit, these
kinds of deadlines often get missed, with many a consumer clueing
in only after noting a charge to their credit card.  By then, it's
too late: the vendor already has payment for a month or a year's
worth of unwanted service by the time the consumer opts out.  Even
missing the opt-out window by just a couple of days can incur
charges.

Some consumers dealing with automatic renewals have found that
sending a request to opt out to the person or department having
extended the offer of a free trial in the first place -- and so
doing well within the deadline -- can still incur charges.  That's
because promotion and marketing departments conveniently have no
authority to facilitate the opt-out.  The request to opt out is
only processed in a timely manner if it goes to the proper
department.  Also -- conveniently -- such requests more often than
not don't get passed along.

Too many consumers, busy as they are, will not notice at all,
notice too late, or make a mental note to stop the service at
their earliest opportunity but pay the bill in the meantime.  Some
consumers stuck with a charge of even a few dollars will be
hounded for months by the service provider for payment, long after
an opt-out request has been honored.

It is practices such as these that drove protections for consumers
under the California Business & Professions Code, enacted in 2010.
In the Automatic Renewal Program Lawsuit against HelloFlo, it is
alleged the defendant failed to provide information as to offers,
terms of service and cancellation policy in a clear and
conspicuous manner as required by law.  It is also alleged that
HelloFlo failed to provide the required acknowledgment that
included the specific offer terms, cancellation policy, and
information that set out how the agreement and automatic renewal
could be canceled.

In so doing, the defendant failed to obtain the consumers informed
consent.  Automatic renewals are everywhere -- from fitness club
memberships, to magazine subscriptions, entertainment packages,
and even antivirus subscriptions for computers.  Most begin with
an attractive offer of a free trial.

It's important for consumers to know that the onus is on the
retailer or service provider to ensure, beyond all reasonable
doubt, that as a consumer you fully understand that to which you
are agreeing.  If not, laws are specific and are on your side.


HHGREGG INC: Potential Liability in "Underwood" Pegged at $2.4MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
hhgregg, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the potential
liability in the class action filed by Dwain Underwood is
approximately $2.4 million based on those individuals included in
the class, excluding interest and other fees.

The Company is the defendant in a class action lawsuit captioned,
Dwain Underwood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Gregg Appliances, Inc. and hhgregg, Inc., filed in the
Superior Court in Marion County, Indiana, where a former employee
alleged that the Company breached a contract by failing to
correctly calculate his (and other class members) incentive bonus.
On July 9, 2014, the judge granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification, and on July 17, 2015, the judge granted the
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, although no finding on
damages has yet been made.

The Company has filed an interlocutory appeal. If the Company does
not ultimately prevail in this case, the potential liability is
approximately $2.4 million based on those individuals included in
the class, excluding interest and other fees which cannot be
determined at this time. The Company believes the loss is not
probable, and thus, as of September 30, 2015, a liability has not
been recorded for this matter.


HOLLISTER: Faces Class Action Over On-Call Scheduling
-----------------------------------------------------
Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports
that Hollister is latest retailer to be called out for its on-call
scheduling practices.  Employees brought a putative class action
against the clothing company on Jan. 7, alleging it failed to
properly compensate them for scheduled on-call shifts.

Hollister would schedule employees for on-call shifts in their
regular work schedules and then require them to call in before
reporting to work.  The Hollister employees allege they would also
be sent home without pay if a manager decided the store wasn't
busy enough.

Hollister isn't alone in its potential liability for on-call
scheduling, which is commonplace in the retail and food service
industries.  Williams-Sonoma, BCBG Max Azria Group and Forever21
have all been hit with similar suits.

A related practice, called "just-in-time" scheduling, first came
under scrutiny with a August 2013 New York Times report.  It
focused on workers whose lives were dictated by scheduling
software algorithms designed to increase company profits and
consumer demand.  Employees were forced to leave early when
business was slow, call ahead before coming to work and always be
available for last-minute shifts.  Often, they wouldn't be given
their week's schedule until just 48 hours in advance.

Victoria Ippolito and Timothy Watkins of Goulston & Storrs say
legislators and employees alike are starting to push back.  Last
year, lawmakers in California, Illinois, New York and six other
states introduced bills to stop these scheduling practices.


IMPERVA INC: Calif. Court Dismissed Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Imperva, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a California court
has granted a motion to dismiss a shareholder class action lawsuit
with leave to file an amended complaint.

On April 11, 2014, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers. On August 7, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing
lead plaintiff and counsel for the purported class.

The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2014.
The lawsuit again names the Company and certain of its officers
and purports to bring suit on behalf of those investors who
purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between May 2,
2013 and April 9, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that defendants made
false and misleading statements about the Company's operations and
business and financial results and purports to assert claims for
violations of the federal securities laws. The amended complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory damages, interest thereon, costs
incurred in the action and equitable/injunctive or other relief.

On January 6, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On September 17, 2015, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss and granted plaintiff leave to file
an amended complaint.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement in Securities Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the settlement
of a consolidated federal securities litigation remains subject to
final court approval.  A final hearing was scheduled in December.

Between May 15 and May 19, 2014, two complaints (captioned Larson
v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01043-GMS) and (Li vs.
Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case No 14-cv-01077-DGC) were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, or Arizona
District Court, against the Company and certain of its current
officers.

"The complaints were brought as purported class actions, on behalf
of purchasers of our common stock," the Company said. "In general,
the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making intentionally false and misleading
statements regarding our business and operations, therefore
artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief."

On July 14, 2014, several purported shareholders filed motions to
consolidate the two cases, appoint a lead plaintiff, and appoint
lead counsel. On August 29, 2014, the Arizona District Court
issued an order consolidating the action, appointing Hongwei Li as
lead plaintiff, and appointing the lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs
complaint was filed on October 27, 2014.

On December 11, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint. On March 19, 2015, the parties
participated in a mediation and the parties subsequently agreed in
principle, on April 14, 2015, to settle the action.

On April 20, 2015, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement with
the Court. On April 29, 2015, the Court ordered that the lawsuit
be dismissed within 60 days, vacated all pending hearings, and
denied all pending motions as moot.

On May 28, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement,
which provided the terms of a settlement agreement. On June 2,
2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement and the potential class members have been (or will be)
notified of the proposed settlement and the procedure by which
they can object to the settlement or request to be excluded from
the class. The settlement remains subject to final approval by the
Court and the Court has scheduled a settlement hearing for
December 5, 2015.

"Because we have met our retainage amount under the applicable
policy, we believe that any potential obligations that may arise
as result of the proposed settlement in this matter will be fully
covered under our Directors and Officers insurance policy," the
Company said.  "Accordingly, we have not accrued for any
contingencies in this matter into our operating results."


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Kleen Products Suit in Discovery Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that:

     -- the Kleen Products LLC class action over containerboard
        prices is in the discovery stage; and

     -- the Florida and Tennessee class actions over
        containerboard prices are in a preliminary stage.

In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including
International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in
a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen
Products LLC v. International Paper Company (N.D. Ill.). The
complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in February 2004
through November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and thereby
increase prices of containerboard products. The class is all
persons who purchased containerboard products directly from any
defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the
period February 2004 to November 2010. The complaint seeks to
recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and
attorney's fees on behalf of the purported class.

Four similar complaints were filed and have been consolidated in
the Northern District of Illinois.

In March 2015, the district court certified a class of direct
purchasers of containerboard products; in June 2015, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted the
defendants' petition to appeal and the class certification issue
is now pending in that court.

In June 2015, International Paper and Temple-Inland were named as
defendants in a lawsuit captioned Del Monte Fresh Product N.A.,
Inc. v. Packaging Corporation of America (S.K. Fl.), in which the
plaintiff asserts substantially similar allegations to those
raised in the Kleen Products LLC action.

Moreover, in January 2011, International Paper was named as a
defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County,
Tennessee alleging that International Paper violated Tennessee law
by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of
containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs in the
state court action seek certification of a class of Tennessee
indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages and costs,
including attorneys' fees. No class certification materials have
been filed to date in the Tennessee action.

The Company disputes the allegations made and is vigorously
defending each action.

"However, because the Kleen Products LLC action is in the
discovery stage and the Florida action and the Tennessee action
are in a preliminary stage, we are unable to predict an outcome or
estimate a range of reasonably possible loss," the Company said.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: To Defend Against Homebuilders' Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company intends to dispute the allegations
made and to vigorously defend against an antitrust action filed by
several homebuilders, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

In March 2015, several homebuilders filed an antitrust action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging that they purchased gypsum board and making
similar allegations to those contained in the above settled
proceeding. The Company intends to dispute the allegations made
and to vigorously defend that lawsuit and any lawsuit brought by
any purported class member that elected to opt out of the
settlement.

Beginning in late December 2012, certain purchasers of gypsum
board filed a number of purported class action complaints alleging
civil violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act against Temple-
Inland and a number of other gypsum manufacturers. The complaints
were similar and alleged that the gypsum manufacturers conspired
or otherwise reached agreements to: (1) raise prices of gypsum
board either from 2008 or 2011 through the present; (2) avoid
price erosion by ceasing the practice of issuing job quotes; and
(3) restrict supply through downtime and limiting order
fulfillment.

On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered transfer of all pending cases to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and
consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the direct purchaser
plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their
respective amended consolidated complaints in June 2013. The
amended consolidated complaints alleged a conspiracy or agreement
beginning on or before September 2011. The alleged classes were
all persons who purchased gypsum board directly or indirectly from
any defendant. The complainants sought to recover unspecified
treble actual damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
purported classes.

In February 2015, the Company executed a definitive agreement to
settle these cases for an immaterial amount, and this settlement
received final court approval and was paid in the third quarter of
2015.


IRADIMED CORPORATION: Appeal in Lam Shareholder Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iradimed Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court of appeals
has dismissed an appeal related to the Lam Civil Action.

On September 10, 2014, a Civil Action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida ("Lam Civil
Action"). The Lam Civil Action was a putative class action lawsuit
brought against the Company and certain individuals who are
officers or directors of the Company. The plaintiff was an alleged
shareholder of the Company, and in the operative complaint sought
relief on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's
common stock during the period from July 15, 2014 through
September 17, 2014. The complaint alleged that the defendants
failed to disclose material information concerning the Company's
compliance with FDA regulations in violation of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and
that the putative class members suffered damages as a result. The
complaint additionally alleged "control person" liability against
the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Company disputed the plaintiff's
allegations and theories of liability.

On May 26, 2015, the court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On June 22, 2015, the
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit. The appeal was dismissed with prejudice
by the Court of Appeals on October 28, 2015 on joint motion of the
parties.


JACKSONVILLE BANCORP: Two Actions Filed Related to Ameris Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that since the
announcement of the proposed merger with Ameris Bancorp on October
1, 2015, two putative shareholder class action lawsuits have been
filed against Bancorp, the directors of Bancorp, and Ameris, in
the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida: (i) Paul Parshall v.
Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc. et al., Case No. 16-2015-CA-006607,
filed on October 16, 2015; and (ii) Patrick Donovan v. Kendall
Spencer et al., Case No. 16-2015-CA-006738, filed October 22, 2015
(together, the "Florida Actions").  In the Florida Actions,
plaintiffs allege that the individual director defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to Bancorp's shareholders in negotiating
and approving the Merger Agreement through an unfair process, that
the merger consideration negotiated in the Merger Agreement does
not adequately value the company, that Bancorp's shareholders will
not receive fair value for their common stock in the merger, and
that the terms of the Merger Agreement impose improper deal-
protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers. The
complaints in the Florida Actions further allege that Bancorp and
Ameris aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by
Bancorp's directors. In the Florida Actions, plaintiffs seek
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including enjoining
or rescinding the merger, an award of unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees, and other relief.

The outcome of the Florida Actions cannot be predicted with
certainty. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the
completion of the merger transaction, and an adverse judgment
granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin
completion of the merger.  Additional lawsuits arising out of or
relating to the Merger Agreement or the merger transaction may be
filed in the future. The Company and its directors intend to
vigorously defend against these lawsuits.


JOHN HANCOCK: Supreme Ct. Hears Arguments in Farmers' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Jenkins, writing for Capital Press, reports that the
Washington Supreme Court heard arguments on Jan. 14 in a case that
will define which farmers will need a state license to hire
workers.

Every Washington farmer who leases land will need a state license
to hire workers if the state Supreme Court affirms a federal
judge's position, an attorney warned the state Supreme Court on
Jan. 14.

The result would be a senseless but sharp distinction between
farmers who own their land and those who lease it, with the
renters facing an additional regulation, said David Salmons,
representing the corporate landowners and former managers of three
Yakima County apple orchards.

"You could have two farmers with orchards right next to each other
engaged in the exact same activity," he said.  "One would have to
be a farm labor contractor and the other wouldn't, even though
both only hire workers for their own operation."

The court heard oral arguments in Saucedo v. John Hancock Life
Insurance, a 2012 class-action lawsuit that was rooted in
allegations against a gun-toting foreman, but grew into arguments
over the scope of the state's Farm Labor Contractors Act.

The act requires companies that recruit and hire out farmworkers
to have a license from the Department of Labor and Industries and
post a bond to ensure workers will be paid in the event the
recruiter goes out of business and has no assets to file a claim
against.

U.S. District Judge Thomas O. Rice ruled that the manager of the
three orchards, Northwest Management Realty Services, should have
had a license.

The landowners, Hancock and pension fund investor Texas Municipal
Plans Consortium, were guilty of not making sure Northwest had a
license, as was California-based Farmland Management Services, an
intermediary between the landowners and farm managers.

Rice made all of the defendants liable for paying 722 workers a
total of $1 million and their attorneys $377,214.

The defendants appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
which asked the state Supreme Court to interpret the state's law.

Salmons said L&I had never been applied the licensing law to
managers paid a single fee to run all aspects of farming,
including hiring for their farm only.

"You can't be a farm labor contractor for yourself, you can only
be a farm labor contractor for another," he said.

Columbia Legal Services attorney Lori Jordan argued the law
applied to Northwest because it was paid to hire workers and
lacked the assets to ensure workers would be paid.

"They were a shell entity, with no resources of their own," she
said.

Justice Debra Stephens asked whether the same could be said of
individual farmers who lease land.

"Why do you presuppose they have the assets? They don't own the
land. They probably don't own the equipment," Justice Stephens
said.

Ms. Jordan said the law doesn't apply to farmers who use their own
foreman to hire.  "So this idea that all of a sudden every
agricultural entity in the state of Washington is going to be
covered (by the act) is simply not true," she said.

Salmons attacked claims by L&I that it always required farmer
managers like Northwest to obtain a labor contractors license.

Northwest had been in business for about 30 years and L&I never
brought up the subject, Salmons said.

"This was not a fly-by-night operation," he said. "It was well
known to the Department of Labor and Industries and never did
anyone suggest it needed a farm labor contractor's license."

He noted that L&I updated its website describing who needs a labor
contractor's license after Judge Rice issued his ruling.

By then, Northwest was out of business, Salmons said.

"No one had any idea there was this requirement.  Once it was
brought up in this litigation, Northwest attempted to get (a
license), was shut down by the department because of the pending
litigation and was forced out of business," he said.

Farmland Management has posted a $1 million bond, pending the
case's outcome.

The court heard the arguments at the University of Washington's
Bothell campus.  Justices occasionally hold sessions outside
Olympia to give the court wider public exposure.  There is no
timeline for the court to rule.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Supreme Court Tosses Motrin Ruling Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court has rejected
an appeal from the manufacturer of Children's Motrin over a $63
million judgment awarded to a family whose daughter developed a
life-threatening disease after taking the medicine.

The justices on Jan. 19 let stand a lower court ruling that said
Johnson & Johnson should pay the judgment awarded to the family of
Samantha Reckis.

Reckis was 7 in 2003 when she was given the ibuprofen product for
a fever.  She developed a rare skin disease and was blinded.

A jury ruled in 2013 that the company failed to provide sufficient
warnings about potential side effects.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts rejected the company's
arguments that the family failed to prove the medicine caused the
disease and damages were excessive.


KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Class Action by Rosen Firm Now Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, that
on November 15, 2011, the Rosen Law Firm filed a class action
suit, alleging the Company had violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements and omitting
material facts with regard to disclosure of related party
transactions and effectiveness of internal controls in past public
filings. After litigating the case for several years, the parties
entered a Stipulation of Settlement, the terms of which the Court
entered an order granting final approval of on October 9, 2015.
The case is now dismissed.


KKR & CO.: Dismissal of KFN Shareholders' Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------
KKR & Co. L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Supreme Court
of the State of Delaware has affirmed the dismissal of a class
action lawsuit filed by shareholders of KKR Financial Holdings LLC
("KFN").

From December 19, 2013 to January 31, 2014, multiple putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco, the United States District
Court of the District of Northern California, and the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware by KFN shareholders against KFN,
the then individual members of KFN's board of directors, KKR, and
certain of KKR's affiliates in connection with KFN's entry into a
merger agreement pursuant to which it would become a subsidiary of
KKR. The merger transaction was completed on April 30, 2014.

The actions filed in California state court were consolidated, and
prior to the filing or designation of an operative complaint for
the consolidated action, the consolidated action was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice on December 1, 2014. The complaint
filed in the California federal court action, which was never
served on the defendants, was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice on May 6, 2014.

Two of the Delaware actions were voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice, and the remaining Delaware actions were consolidated.

On February 21, 2014, a consolidated complaint was filed in the
consolidated Delaware action which all defendants moved to dismiss
on March 7, 2014.  On October 14, 2014, the Delaware Court of
Chancery granted defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice.

On November 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, the oral argument for
which was held on September 16, 2015.

On October 2, 2015, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware
affirmed the dismissal of the case by the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

The consolidated complaint in the Delaware action alleged that the
members of the KFN board of directors breached fiduciary duties
owed to KFN shareholders by approving the proposed transaction for
inadequate consideration; approving the proposed transaction in
order to obtain benefits not equally shared by other KFN
shareholders; entering into the merger agreement containing
preclusive deal protection devices; and failing to take steps to
maximize the value to be paid to the KFN shareholders. The
Delaware action also alleged that KKR, and certain of KKR's
affiliates, aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties and that KKR was a controlling shareholder of KFN by means
of a management agreement between KFN and KKR Financial Advisors
LLC, a subsidiary of KKR, and KKR breached a fiduciary duty it
allegedly owed to KFN shareholders by causing KFN to enter into
the merger agreement. The relief sought in the Delaware action
included, among other things, declaratory relief concerning the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Defending Fla. Action by Property Owners
----------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Inc. is vigorously defending a class action lawsuit in
Florida filed by record owners of residential real properties,
Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Alachua
County, Florida by residential real property owners located in a
neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former
utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville. The complaint named
Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other
parties as defendants.

In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs defined the putative
class as consisting of all persons who are present record owners
of residential real properties located in an area within a two-
mile radius of the former Gainesville wood treating plant.
Plaintiffs further allege that chemicals and contaminants from the
Gainesville plant have contaminated real properties within the two
mile geographical area, have caused property damage (diminution in
value) and have placed residents and owners of the putative class
properties at an elevated risk of exposure to and injury from the
chemicals at issue. The second amended complaint seeks damages for
diminution in property values, the establishment of a medical
monitoring fund and punitive damages.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida in December 2010. The district court
dismissed Koppers Holdings Inc. in September 2013 on the ground
that there was no personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' appeal of the
dismissal of Koppers Holdings Inc. was dismissed in December 2013.

Under the current scheduling order, class factual discovery closed
on May 20, 2015, with expert witness discovery to follow.
Discovery on the merits is stayed until further order of the
court.

Expert witness discovery was completed on August 30, 2015, and
both sides filed motions to strike or limit the testimony of the
other side's experts.  Those motions are pending before the court.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on September 30,
2015.  The response of Koppers Inc. was filed on October 30, 2015.

In the motion, plaintiffs seek a class comprised of all current
property owners of single family residential properties within a
polygon-shaped area extending approximately two miles from the
former plant area (which area encompasses approximately 7,000
owners).

The Company has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at
this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a
loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated. The timing of resolution of this case cannot be
reasonably determined. Although Koppers Inc. is vigorously
defending this case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Court Granted Limited Discovery in V.I. Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court in the
Virgin Islands has granted class action plaintiffs a limited
period for discovery on specific jurisdictional issues after which
it will reconsider a motion to dismiss the case.

Koppers Performance Chemicals Inc. ("KPC") is a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court of the Virgin Islands. The plaintiffs claim, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, that KPC's wood
preservative products and formulas are defective, and the
complaint alleges the following causes of action: breach of
contract, negligence, strict liability, fraud and violation of
Virgin Islands Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
statute. The putative class is defined as all users (residential
or commercial) of wood products treated with KPC wood preserving
products in the United States who purchased such wood products
from January 1, 2004 to the present.

Alternatively, plaintiffs allege that the putative class should be
all persons and entities that have owned or acquired buildings or
other structures physically located in the U.S. Virgin Islands
that contain wood products treated with KPC wood preserving
products from January 1, 2004 to the present. The complaint
alleges plaintiffs are entitled to unspecified "economic and
compensatory damages", punitive damages, costs and disgorgement of
profits. The complaint further requests a declaratory judgment and
injunction to establish an inspection and disposal program for
class members' structures.

The lawsuit was filed on July 16, 2014, and KPC filed a motion to
dismiss. On September 28, 2015, the district court denied without
prejudice KPC's motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs thus
far have failed to demonstrate its case for personal jurisdiction
over KPC in the Virgin Islands.  The court has granted plaintiffs
a limited period through November 6, 2015 for discovery on
specific jurisdictional issues after which it will reconsider
KPC's motion to dismiss.

The Company has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at
this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a
loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated. The timing of resolution of this case cannot be
reasonably determined. Although KPC is vigorously defending this
case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition,
cash flows and results of operations.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Nevada Class Action in Preliminary Stage
---------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a consolidated
class action lawsuit is in a preliminary stage and the Company
intends to defend this matter vigorously.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada (the "U.S. District Court"), against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The
complaint sought, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The
complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre complaint
sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases
are reported as one consolidated matter.

On November 1, 2010, a purported class action amended complaint
was filed in the consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G.
Adelson and William P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that
LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false and misleading information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The
amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part,
and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On
November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the
allegations remaining in the amended complaint.

On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing
defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the court's
order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the
plaintiff's complaint and reducing the class period to a period of
February 4 to November 6, 2008.

On August 7, 2012, the plaintiff filed a purported class action
second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") seeking
to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having
previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court)
essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously
stricken by the U.S. District Court. On October 16, 2012, the
defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.

The plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss on November 1,
2012, and defendants filed their reply on November 12, 2012. On
November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay of
discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore, the
discovery process has been suspended.

On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On July
30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to dismiss and
took the matter under advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss.
On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the
Second Amended Complaint.

Discovery in the matter has re-started. On January 8, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the certified class period,
which was granted by the U.S. District Court on June 15, 2015.
Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015, and expert discovery was
scheduled to close on December 18, 2015.

The consolidated action is in a preliminary stage and management
has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently
unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter
or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company
intends to defend this matter vigorously.


LHC GROUP: Insurer Funded Entire $7.9MM Settlement Amount
---------------------------------------------------------
LHC Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company's
insurance carrier has funded the entire $7.9 million settlement
amount in a shareholder class action.

On June 13, 2012, a putative shareholder securities class action
was filed against the Company and its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, styled City of Omaha Police & Fire
Retirement System v. LHC Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:12-cv-
1609-JTT-CMH. The action was filed on behalf of LHC shareholders
who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between July
30, 2008 and October 26, 2011, alleging violations of Sections
10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.

On June 16, 2014, following mediation, the parties entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement. On August 5, 2014, the District Court
entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing
for Notice.

On March 3, 2015, the District Court entered its Judgments
adopting the Report and Recommendation previously issued and
dismissing the action with prejudice. The time for appeal has
passed and no appeals were filed. This matter is now concluded.
The Company's insurance carrier has funded the entire $7.9 million
settlement amount.


LIBERTY BROADBAND: MOU Reached in Time-Charter Merger Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Broadband Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
parties in a New York litigation related to the merger
transactions between Time Warner Cable and Charter Communications,
Inc. ("Charter") have entered into a memorandum of understanding
("MOU") to settle the action.

As described in Charter's Proxy Statement filed August 20, 2015,
in connection with the formerly proposed Comcast-Time Warner Cable
merger, eight putative class action complaints were filed on
behalf of purported Time Warner Cable stockholders in the New York
Supreme Court (the "NY Actions") and the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware. These complaints named as defendants Time
Warner Cable, the members of the Time Warner Cable board of
directors, Comcast and Comcast's merger subsidiary. The complaints
generally alleged, among other things, that the members of the
Time Warner Cable board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Time Warner Cable stockholders during merger
negotiations and by entering into the merger agreement and
approving the merger, and that Comcast aided and abetted such
breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints further alleged that
the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed by Comcast with the SEC
on March 20, 2014 was misleading or omitted certain material
information. The complaints sought, among other relief,
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, injunctive relief
and costs and fees. The parties entered into a settlement
agreement, conditioned on the consummation of the Comcast-Time
Warner Cable merger. Now that the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger
agreement has been terminated, this settlement agreement is no
longer operative.

Following the announcement of the mergers on May 26, 2015, on June
29, 2015, the parties in the NY Actions filed a stipulation
agreeing that plaintiffs could file a Second Consolidated Class
Action Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), and dismissing
the action with prejudice as to Comcast and Tango Acquisition Sub,
Inc. After the court so ordered the stipulation, the plaintiffs in
the NY Actions filed the Second Amended Complaint on July 1, 2015.
The Second Amended Complaint named as defendants Time Warner
Cable, the members of the Time Warner Cable board of directors,
Charter and the merger subsidiaries. The Second Amended Complaint
generally alleged, among other things, that the members of the
Time Warner Cable board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Time Warner Cable stockholders during the Charter merger
negotiations and by entering into the merger agreement and
approving the mergers, and that Charter and its subsidiaries aided
and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint
sought, among other relief, an injunction against the stockholder
vote on the mergers, compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount, and costs and attorneys' fees.

On September 9, 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") to settle the action. Pursuant to the MOU,
defendants issued certain supplemental disclosures relating to the
mergers on a Form 8-K, and plaintiffs agreed to release with
prejudice all claims that could have been asserted against
defendants in connection with the mergers. The settlement is
conditioned on, among other things, consummation of the
transactions between Time Warner Cable and Charter, and must be
approved by the New York Supreme Court. In the event that the New
York Supreme Court does not approve the settlement, the defendants
intend to defend against any further litigation.


LIBERTY BROADBAND: Says Charter Shareholder Suit Has No Merit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Broadband Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
defendants in a Delaware class action related to the transactions
involving Liberty Broadband and Charter Charter Communications,
Inc. ("Charter") believe that the complaint is without merit.

On August 21, 2015, a purported stockholder of Charter
Communications, Inc. ("Charter") filed a lawsuit in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, on behalf of a putative class of Charter
stockholders, challenging the transactions between Charter, Time
Warner Cable, A/N and Liberty Broadband announced by Charter on
May 26, 2015 (collectively, the "Transactions"). The lawsuit is
captioned Sciabacucchi v. Liberty Broadband Corp., C.A. No. 11418-
VCG (the "Delaware Action"), and names as defendants Liberty
Broadband, Charter, the board of directors of Charter, and New
Charter. Plaintiff alleged that the Transactions improperly
benefit Liberty Broadband at the expense of other Charter
shareholders, and that Charter issued a false and misleading proxy
statement in connection with the Transactions. Plaintiff
requested, among other things, that the Delaware Court of Chancery
enjoin the September 21, 2015 special meeting of Charter
stockholders at which Charter stockholders were asked to vote on
the Transactions until the defendants disclosed certain
information relating to Charter and the Transactions. The
disclosures demanded by the plaintiff included (i) certain
unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter and (ii) a Form
of Proxy and Right of First Refusal Agreement ("Proxy") by and
among Liberty Broadband, A/N, Charter and New Charter, which was
referenced in the description of the Second Amended and Restated
Stockholders Agreement, dated May 23, 2015, among Charter, New
Charter, Liberty Broadband and A/N.

On September 9, 2015, Charter issued supplemental disclosures
containing unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter and
the Proxy. In return, the plaintiff agreed his disclosure claims
were moot and withdrew his application to enjoin the Transactions.
The defendants in the Delaware Action believe that the complaint
is without merit. Charter has not yet responded to this suit but
intends to deny any liability and believes that it has substantial
defenses.


LIBERTY BROADBAND: "Cohen" Plaintiff Withdraws Injunction Request
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Broadband Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that plaintiff
in the case, Cohen v. Malone, et al., has withdrew her motion for
preliminary injunction.

The putative class action, captioned Cohen v. Malone, et al., Case
No. 11416, was filed on August 21, 2015, against the Company and
each of its directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the disclosures
regarding the share issuance proposal described in the Company's
proxy statement for the September 23, 2015 special meeting of
stockholders.  The share issuance proposal sought stockholder
approval of the issuance of Series C Shares to third party
investors, the proceeds of which will fund all or a portion of the
Company's purchase of $4.3 billion of stock of New Charter upon
completion of the Time Warner Cable Merger.  The complaint sought,
among other relief, (i) certification as a class action, (ii) an
injunction against the stockholder vote on the share issuance
proposal, (iii) compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and
(iv) costs and attorneys' fees.  The plaintiff had also filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the vote on
the share issuance proposal until defendants made supplemental
disclosures, which the Company provided on September 11, 2015.
Consequently, the plaintiff withdrew her motion for preliminary
injunction.  The Company believes that this lawsuit is without
merit.


LIBERTY INTERACTIVE: MOU Reached in Wash. & Del. Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Interactive Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a
memorandum of understanding has been reached to settle class
actions pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington at Seattle; and in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Two putative class action complaints were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware on August 27, 2015 and September
21, 2015, respectively. The first complaint was filed against
Liberty, Mocha Merger Sub, Inc. ("Purchaser"), Ziggy Merger Sub,
LLC ("Merger Sub 2"), zulily, inc. ("zulily") and members of the
zulily board of directors, and the second complaint was filed
against Liberty, Purchaser, Merger Sub 2, zulily, members of the
zulily board of directors, and Goldman Sachs. Both lawsuits allege
that: (i) the members of the zulily board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to zulily stockholders in connection with
the transactions (collectively, the "Transaction") contemplated by
the Agreement and Plan of Reorganization, dated August 16, 2015,
by and among Liberty, Purchaser, Merger Sub 2 and zulily (the
"Reorganization Agreement") and (ii) Liberty, Purchaser and Merger
Sub 2 and, in the case of the second complaint, Goldman Sachs,
aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The suits
seek, among other things: (i) certification as a class action;
(ii) an order enjoining the Transaction; (iii) rescission of the
Reorganization Agreement, or any terms thereof, to the extent
already implemented or granting of rescissory damages; and (iv) an
award of the costs and disbursements of the action, including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

Additionally, Patrick Pisano, Karan Jugal and Scott Mao, purported
stockholders of zulily, filed putative class action complaints in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on September 3, 2015, September 9, 2015 and September
15, 2015, respectively, against zulily, members of the zulily
board of directors, Liberty, Purchaser and Merger Sub 2 for
violations of the Exchange Act relating to the filing by zulily of
an allegedly materially incomplete and misleading
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the
SEC on September 1, 2015. The suit seeks, among other things: (i)
certification as a class action; (ii) an order enjoining
defendants from consummating the Offer (as defined in the
Reorganization Agreement); (iii) rescission of the proposed
transaction, or any terms thereof, to the extent already
implemented, or granting of rescissory damages; and (iv) an award
of the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees. The defendants believe the
allegations are without merit.

On September 23, 2015, zulily, members of the zulily board of
directors, Liberty, Purchaser and Ziggy Merger Sub, LLC entered
into a memorandum of understanding in connection with the actions
captioned Patrick Pisano, et al. v. Zulily, Inc., et al., Case No.
15-cv-01424, Karan Jugal, et al. v. Zulily, Inc., et al., Case No.
15-cv-01447 and Scott Mao, et al. v. Zulily, Inc., et al., Case
No. 15-cv-01479 (collectively, the "Federal Actions"), pending in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington at Seattle (the "District Court"), and the actions
captioned Harry Jackson, et al. v. Zulily, Inc., et al., Case No.
11440 and Krishna Mada, et al. v. Zulily, Inc., et al., Case No.
11529, pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(the "Delaware Actions," and together with the Federal Actions,
the "Actions"), which sets forth an agreement in principle
providing for a settlement of the Federal Actions and the claims
in the Delaware Actions based on allegations that the Schedule
14D-9 filed by zulily in connection with the zulily acquisition is
materially misleading and/or omits certain information (the
"Delaware Disclosure Claims").

If the District Court approves the settlement as contemplated by
the memorandum of understanding, the Federal Actions and the
Delaware Disclosure Claims will be dismissed with prejudice on a
class-wide basis.  However, the memorandum of understanding has
not yet been filed with the District Court or the Court of
Chancery. Claims in the Delaware Actions based on the alleged
insufficiency of the transaction consideration and the zulily
board of directors' sale process are not being settled.  As part
of the settlement, zulily agreed to make certain additional
disclosures related to the Offer and the mergers, which are set
forth in Amendment No. 5 to the Schedule 14D-9. Defendants in the
Actions deny all of the allegations made by the plaintiffs.
Nevertheless, Liberty and defendants in the Actions have agreed to
settle in order to avoid the burden and expense of further
litigation.


LIBERTY MEDIA: Sirius XM Defending TCPA Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that SIRIUS XM is a
defendant in several purported class action suits, which were
commenced in February 2012, January 2013, April 2015 and July
2015, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia, Newport News Division, the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
respectively, that allege that SIRIUS XM, or call center vendors
acting on its behalf, made numerous calls which violate provisions
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA").

The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that
SIRIUS XM called mobile phones using an automatic telephone
dialing system without the consumer's prior consent or,
alternatively, after the consumer revoked his or her prior
consent.

In one of the actions, the plaintiff alleges that SIRIUS XM
violated the TCPA's call time restrictions, and in one of the
other actions, the plaintiff also alleges that SRIUS XM violated
the TCPA's do not call restrictions. The plaintiffs in these suits
are seeking various forms of relief, including statutory damages
of $500.00 for each violation of the TCPA or, in the alternative,
treble damages of up to $1,500.00 for each knowing and willful
violation of the TCPA, as well as payment of interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and certain injunctive relief prohibiting
violations of the TCPA in the future.

SIRIUS XM believes it has substantial defenses to the claims
asserted in these actions and intends to defend them vigorously.


LIBERTY MEDIA: Sirius XM to Seek Stay of Sheridan Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that SIRIUS XM
intends to seek a stay of the Sheridan cases pending the
resolutions of appeals in the United States Courts of Appeals for
the Second Circuit and the Ninth Circuit.

In August and September 2013, SIRIUS XM was named as a defendant
in three putative class action suits which challenge the use and
public performance via satellite radio and the Internet of sound
recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972 under California, New
York and/or Florida law. In September and October 2015, SIRIUS XM
was named as a defendant, along with Pandora Media, Inc., in four
putative class action suits challenging SIRIUS XM's use and public
performance of pre-1972 recordings and, in two of the cases,
alleging violations of the putative plaintiffs' rights of
publicity under California and New York law. The plaintiffs in
each of these suits purport to seek in excess of $100 million in
compensatory damages along with unspecified punitive damages and
injunctive relief.

These cases are titled Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.,
No. 2:13-cv-5693-PSG-RZ (C.D. Cal.), Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius
XM Radio Inc., No. 1:13-cv-23182-DPG (S.D. Fla.), and Flo & Eddie,
Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 1:13-cv-5784-CM (S.D.N.Y.)
(collectively, the "Flo & Eddie Cases"), Arthur and Barbara
Sheridan v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. and Pandora Media, Inc., No.
4:15-cv-04081-VC (N.D. Cal.), Arthur and Barbara Sheridan v.
Sirius XM Radio Inc. and Pandora Media, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-07056-
GHW (S.D.N.Y.), Arthur and Barbara Sheridan v. Sirius XM Radio,
Inc. and Pandora Media, Inc., No.2:33-av-00001 (D.N.J.) and Arthur
and Barbara Sheridan v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. and Pandora Media,
Inc., No. 1:15-cv-09236 (E.D. Ill.) (collectively, the "Sheridan
cases").

Each of the three Flo & Eddie Cases are in different procedural
postures: a class has been certified in the case pending in the
Central District of California and summary judgment on liability
was granted to the plaintiffs. SIRIUS XM has filed a motion
seeking interlocutory appeal of those decisions. SIRIUS XM was
granted summary judgment in the case pending in the Southern
District of Florida and the plaintiffs have filed a notice to
appeal that decision, and in the case pending in the Southern
District of New York, SIRIUS XM has been granted the right to
appeal the trial court's denial of its motion for summary
judgment.

SIRIUS XM intends to seek a stay of the Sheridan cases pending the
resolutions of appeals in the United States Courts of Appeals for
the Second Circuit and the Ninth Circuit.


MARRONE BIO: Amended Consolidated Complaint to be Filed in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that an amended
consolidated complaint is to be filed in a securities class action
lawsuit.

On September 5, 2014, September 8, 2014, September 11, 2014,
September 15, 2014 and November 3, 2014, the Company, along with
certain of its current and former officers and directors and
others were named as defendants in putative securities class
action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California. On February 13, 2015, these actions were
consolidated as Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. et al v.
Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. et al, Case No 2:14-cv-02571-MCE-
KJN.

On September 2, 2015, an initial consolidated complaint was filed
on behalf of (i) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's publicly traded common stock directly in or
traceable to the Company's August 1, 2013 initial public offering;
(ii) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
publicly traded common stock directly in the Company's June 6,
2014 secondary offering; and (iii) all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock on
the open market between March 7, 2014 and September 2, 2014 (the
"Class Action").

In addition to the Company, the initial consolidated complaint
names certain of the Company's current and former officers and
directors and the Company's independent registered public
accounting firm as defendants. The initial consolidated complaint
alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, arising out of the
issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements about the
Company's business and prospects, including its financial
statements, product revenues and system of internal controls.
Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused the Company's stock
price to be artificially inflated. The action includes claims for
damages, fees and expenses, including an award of attorneys' and
experts' fees to the putative class.

Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, and by order of the
Court, defendants need not respond to the initial consolidated
complaint. An amended consolidated complaint is to be filed no
later than 60 days after the Company announces the restatement(s)
after which defendants will have 60 days to respond. The outcome
of this matter is not presently determinable.


MERCK & CO: Defendant in 20 Active Vioxx Product Liability Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in approximately 20 active federal and state lawsuits
(Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits) alleging personal injury as a
result of the use of Vioxx. Most of these cases are coordinated in
a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana (Vioxx MDL) before Judge Eldon E.
Fallon.


MERCK & CO: Defendant in 30 Vioxx Suits Alleging Economic Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in approximately 30 putative class action lawsuits
alleging economic injury as a result of the purchase of Vioxx. All
but one of those cases are in the Vioxx multidistrict litigation.

Merck has reached a resolution, approved by Judge Fallon, of these
class actions in the Vioxx MDL. Under the settlement, Merck will
pay up to $23 million to resolve all properly documented claims
submitted by class members, approved attorneys' fees and expenses,
and approved settlement notice costs and certain other
administrative expenses. The court entered an order approving the
settlement in January 2014 and the claims review process was
recently completed.


MERCK & CO: March 1 Trial in Vioxx Securities Case
--------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the trial in a
Vioxx securities lawsuit is scheduled to begin on March 1, 2016.

Various putative class actions and individual lawsuits have been
filed against Merck and certain former employees alleging that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making alleged
material misstatements and omissions with respect to the
cardiovascular safety of Vioxx (Vioxx Securities Lawsuits). The
Vioxx Securities Lawsuits are coordinated in a multidistrict
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey before Judge Stanley R. Chesler, and have been consolidated
for all purposes.

In August 2011, Judge Stanley R. Chesler granted in part and
denied in part Merck's motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class
Action Complaint in the consolidated securities action. Among
other things, the court dismissed certain defendants from the
case, and also dismissed claims based on statements made on or
after the voluntary withdrawal of Vioxx on September 30, 2004.

In October 2011, the remaining defendants answered the Fifth
Amended Class Action Complaint. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification for the period from May 21, 1999,
through September 29, 2004, which the court granted in January
2013.

In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their
complaint to add certain allegations to expand the class period.
In May 2013, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend their complaint to expand the class period, but granted
plaintiffs' leave to amend their complaint to add certain
allegations within the existing class period.

In June 2013, plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Class Action
Complaint. In July 2013, defendants answered the Sixth Amended
Class Action Complaint. Discovery has been completed and is now
closed.

On May 13, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions for summary judgment; the court granted
judgment in defendants' favor on five of the alleged
misstatements, including all statements prior to March 27, 2000,
but denied the motion with respect to the remaining statements.
The trial in this matter is currently scheduled to begin on March
1, 2016.


MERCK & CO: 4,880 Fosamax Product Liability Cases at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States
involving Fosamax (Fosamax Litigation). As of September 30, 2015,
approximately 4,880 cases had been filed and were pending against
Merck in either federal or state court, including one case which
seeks class action certification, as well as damages and/or
medical monitoring.

In approximately 375 of these actions, plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw
(ONJ), generally subsequent to invasive dental procedures, such as
tooth extraction or dental implants and/or delayed healing, in
association with the use of Fosamax; however, substantially all of
those actions are subject to a settlement. In addition, plaintiffs
in approximately 4,505 of these actions generally allege that they
sustained femur fractures and/or other bone injuries (Femur
Fractures) in association with the use of Fosamax.

Cases Alleging ONJ and/or Other Jaw Related Injuries

In August 2006, the JPML ordered that certain Fosamax product
liability cases pending in federal courts nationwide should be
transferred and consolidated into one multidistrict litigation
(Fosamax ONJ MDL) for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.
In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with the
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to
resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the Fosamax ONJ MDL and
in the state courts for an aggregate amount of $27.7 million.
Merck and the PSC subsequently formalized the terms of this
agreement in a Master Settlement Agreement (ONJ Master Settlement
Agreement) that was executed in April 2014. As a condition to the
settlement, 100% of the state and federal ONJ plaintiffs had to
agree to participate in the settlement plan or Merck could either
terminate the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement, or waive the 100%
participation requirement and agree to a lesser funding amount for
the settlement fund.

On July 14, 2014, Merck elected to proceed with the ONJ Master
Settlement Agreement at a reduced funding level since the
participation level was approximately 95%. Merck has fully funded
the Master Settlement Agreement and the escrow agent under the
agreement has begun making settlement payments to qualifying
plaintiffs.

In addition, the judge overseeing the Fosamax ONJ MDL granted a
motion filed by Merck and has entered an order that requires the
approximately 40 non-participants whose cases will remain in the
Fosamax ONJ MDL once the settlement is complete to submit expert
reports in order for their cases to proceed any further. The ONJ
Master Settlement Agreement has no effect on the cases alleging
Femur Fractures.


MERCK & CO: Femur Fracture Trial in California Set for March 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the next Femur
Fracture trial in California is currently scheduled to be held on
March 14, 2016.

In March 2011, Merck submitted a Motion to Transfer to the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking to have all
federal cases alleging Femur fractures consolidated into one
multidistrict litigation for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.
The Motion to Transfer was granted in May 2011, and all federal
cases involving allegations of Femur Fracture have been or will be
transferred to a multidistrict litigation in the District of New
Jersey (the Femur Fracture MDL).

Judge Joel A. Pisano presided over the Femur Fracture MDL until
March 10, 2015, at which time the Femur Fracture MDL was
reassigned from Judge Pisano to Judge Freda L. Wolfson following
Judge Pisano's retirement. In the only bellwether case tried to
date in the Femur Fracture MDL, Glynn v. Merck, the jury returned
a verdict in Merck's favor.

In addition, on June 27, 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court
granted Merck's motion for judgment as a matter of law in the
Glynn case and held that the plaintiff's failure to warn claim was
preempted by federal law.

In August 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court entered an order
requiring plaintiffs in the Femur Fracture MDL to show cause why
those cases asserting claims for a femur fracture injury that took
place prior to September 14, 2010, should not be dismissed based
on the court's preemption decision in the Glynn case. Pursuant to
the show cause order, on March 26, 2014, the Femur Fracture MDL
court dismissed with prejudice approximately 650 cases on
preemption grounds. Plaintiffs in approximately 500 of those cases
are appealing that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.

In June 2015, the Femur Fracture MDL court dismissed without
prejudice another approximately 520 cases pending plaintiffs'
appeal of the preemption ruling to the Third Circuit.

On June 17, 2014, Judge Pisano granted Merck summary judgment in
the Gaynor v. Merck case and found that Merck's updates in January
2011 to the Fosamax label regarding atypical femur fractures were
adequate as a matter of law and that Merck adequately communicated
those changes. The plaintiffs in Gaynor have appealed Judge
Pisano's decision to the Third Circuit.

In August 2014, Merck filed a motion requesting that Judge Pisano
enter a further order requiring all plaintiffs in the Femur
Fracture MDL who claim that the 2011 Fosamax label is inadequate
and the proximate cause of their alleged injuries to show cause
why their cases should not be dismissed based on the court's
preemption decision and its ruling in the Gaynor case.

In November 2014, the court granted Merck's motion and entered the
requested show cause order.

As of September 30, 2015, approximately 1,045 cases were pending
in the Femur Fracture MDL including the 500 cases dismissed with
prejudice on preemption grounds which are pending appeal and the
520 cases dismissed without prejudice.

As of September 30, 2015, approximately 3,090 cases alleging Femur
Fractures have been filed in New Jersey state court and are
pending before Judge Jessica Mayer in Middlesex County. The
parties selected an initial group of 30 cases to be reviewed
through fact discovery. Two additional groups of 50 cases each to
be reviewed through fact discovery were selected in November 2013
and March 2014, respectively. A further group of 25 cases to be
reviewed through fact discovery was selected by Merck in July
2015.

As of September 30, 2015, approximately 370 cases alleging Femur
Fractures have been filed and are pending in California state
court. A petition was filed seeking to coordinate all Femur
Fracture cases filed in California state court before a single
judge in Orange County, California. The petition was granted and
Judge Thierry Colaw is currently presiding over the coordinated
proceedings.

In March 2014, the court directed that a group of 10 discovery
pool cases be reviewed through fact discovery and subsequently
scheduled the Galper v. Merck case, which plaintiffs' selected, as
the first trial. The Galper trial began on February 17, 2015 and
the jury returned a verdict in Merck's favor on April 3, 2015. The
next Femur Fracture trial in California is currently scheduled to
be held on March 14, 2016.

Additionally, there are five Femur Fracture cases pending in other
state courts.

Discovery is ongoing in the Femur Fracture MDL and in state courts
where Femur Fracture cases are pending and the Company intends to
defend against these lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: 1,035 Januvia/Janumet Claims Pending at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States
involving Januvia and/or Janumet. As of September 30, 2015,
approximately 1,035 product user claims were served on, and are
pending against, Merck alleging generally that use of Januvia
and/or Janumet caused the development of pancreatic cancer. These
complaints were filed in several different state and federal
courts. Most of the claims are pending in a consolidated
multidistrict litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California called "In re Incretin-Based
Therapies Products Liability Litigation." That proceeding includes
federal lawsuits alleging pancreatic cancer due to use of the
following medicines: Januvia, Janumet, Byetta and Victoza, the
latter two of which are products manufactured by other
pharmaceutical companies. In addition to the cases noted above,
the Company has agreed, as of September 30, 2015, to toll the
statute of limitations for approximately 20 additional claims. The
Company intends to defend against these lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: 13 Cases Pending Outside of NuvaRing Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that there were 13
cases pending outside of the NuvaRing settlement program.

Beginning in May 2007, a number of product liability complaints
were filed in various jurisdictions asserting claims against the
Company and its subsidiaries relating to NuvaRing, a combined
hormonal contraceptive vaginal ring. The plaintiffs contend the
Company, among other things, failed to adequately design and
manufacture NuvaRing and failed to adequately warn of the alleged
increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) posed by NuvaRing,
and/or downplayed the risk of VTE. The plaintiffs seek damages for
injuries allegedly sustained from their product use, including
some alleged deaths, heart attacks and strokes. The majority of
the cases were pending in a federal multidistrict litigation
venued in Missouri.

Pursuant to a settlement agreement between Merck and negotiating
plaintiffs' counsel, which became effective as of June 4, 2014,
Merck paid a lump total settlement of $100 million to resolve more
than 95% of the cases filed and under retainer by counsel as of
February 7, 2014. Plaintiffs in approximately 3,700 cases joined
the settlement program. Each filed case is to be dismissed with
prejudice once the settlement administration process is completed.
Those dismissals began in the second quarter and will continue on
a rolling basis throughout 2015.

The Company has certain insurance coverage available to it, which
is currently being used to partially fund the Company's legal
fees. This insurance coverage was also used to fund the
settlement.

As of September 30, 2015, there were 13 cases pending outside of
the settlement program, inclusive of cases filed after the
settlement program closed. Of these cases, 12 are pending in the
multidistrict litigation and are subject to individual case
management orders requiring plaintiffs to meet various discovery
and evidentiary requirements. As of September 30, 2015, these 12
plaintiffs were meeting those requirements and continuing to
prosecute their cases.


MERCK & CO: 1,385 Propecia/Proscar Suits as of Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States
involving Propecia and/or Proscar. As of September 30, 2015,
approximately 1,385 lawsuits have been filed by plaintiffs who
allege that they have experienced persistent sexual side effects
following cessation of treatment with Propecia and/or Proscar.
Approximately 60 of the plaintiffs also allege that Propecia or
Proscar has caused or can cause prostate cancer, testicular cancer
or male breast cancer. The lawsuits have been filed in various
federal courts and in state court in New Jersey. The federal
lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal
multidistrict litigation before Judge John Gleeson of the Eastern
District of New York. The matters pending in state court in New
Jersey have been consolidated before Judge Jessica Mayer in
Middlesex County. In addition, there is one matter pending in
state court in Massachusetts. The Company intends to defend
against these lawsuits.


MICROSOFT CORP: Court Addresses Plaintiffs Tactic in Xbox Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court added another class action case to its argument
docket on Jan. 15, agreeing to determine the fate of an "end run"
tactic used by plaintiffs to appeal the denial of class
certification.

The court granted certiorari in Microsoft v. Baker, a dispute over
a class action brought by Xbox 360 purchasers who blame the
company for scratched discs. In 2012, the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington struck down the class
allegations.  That would ordinarily leave plaintiffs with the
option of pursuing individual claims until final judgment, before
the denial of class certification could be appealed.

Instead, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss their claims with
prejudice, a motion that would create a final judgment far more
quickly, allowing a speedier appeal of the denial of class
certification.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted the motion and said the appeal could proceed.

Microsoft Corp. appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the
issue is "immensely important to the proper administration of the
class action device."  Under a 1978 Supreme Court precedent,
appeals of class denials are not immediately appealable, and
circuit courts have split over the propriety of the tactic the
plaintiffs used.  Davis Wright Tremaine partner Stephen Rummage is
counsel of record on the petition.

Business groups filed briefs urging the high court to take up the
case.  Noting that "a disproportionate number of class actions are
filed in California," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the Ninth
Circuit ruling should be overturned.  Since only plaintiffs can
dismiss their claims, the chamber brief argues that the tactic
used by plaintiffs to speed review gives plaintiffs "an unfair
advantage" over defendants. Mark Mosier of Covington & Burling is
counsel of record on the chamber brief.

A separate brief by Cory Andrews of the Washington Legal
Foundation states that allowing the Ninth Circuit ruling to stand
"will seriously undermine judicial administration by effectively
providing plaintiffs an absolute right to immediate review of a
district court order denying a motion to certify a plaintiff
class."

The Supreme Court has granted review in three other class action-
related cases this term: Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, Campbell-Ewald
v. Gomez and Spokeo v. Robins.


MISSISSIPPI: Foster Care System Faces Challenges
------------------------------------------------
Emily Palmer and Campbell Robertson, writing for The New York
Times, report that in 2003, a tiny girl weighing little more than
20 pounds arrived at an emergency shelter here on the gulf coast,
after being shuttled between five foster homes and youth shelters
in three months.

"Who's the baby?" Terry Latham, the director of the shelter,
recalled asking.

"I'm no baby," the girl shouted, her ribs visible in her emaciated
body.  "I'm 4."

The girl, identified as Olivia Y., who suffered from profound
malnourishment and possibly sexual abuse, would become one of 13
children whose experiences formed a class-action lawsuit in 2004
against the state's Division of Family and Children's Services for
"failing in its duty" to protect its own children.

More than a decade later, after a 2008 settlement and an admission
by the state in July that it had never complied with the
requirements, Mississippi is now trying to avoid becoming the
first state to have its child welfare system put in receivership
and an outside group hired to run it.

And at a time when 19 states are facing systemwide lawsuits that
claim high rates of abuse and neglect of children and serious
foster home shortages, Mississippi has become a case study in just
how long and egregiously a state system meant to protect children
can continue with substandard care that is out of compliance with
a court order.

Mississippi's foster care system, like those in other states, is
designed to protect children who have been removed from their
homes by a court order after a social worker's investigation into
the conditions there.  Ideally, children are placed with licensed
foster families, who receive between $684.90 and $1,546.50 per
month per child, depending on the age and needs of the child.
But, according to data provided by the state agency, Mississippi
had just 1,486 licensed foster homes for 5,142 children in its
custody as of December.

This means that many children are placed with relatives, few of
them licensed and many of them with problems similar to those in
the homes the children were removed from.

The suit in 2004 claimed that the system was underfunded and
chaotic with abuses not being properly investigated and children
often placed in dangerous homes.  The suit also pointed to
dangerously high caseloads for social workers who are supposed to
investigate abuse allegations and monitor foster homes.  Using
state data from 2001, it found that more than 6,200 reports of
abuse, neglect and the use of unsafe foster homes were not
investigated.

Terrible failings were documented in the case file.  A child was
placed with a convicted rapist. Another ended up with a foster
mother who threw the toddler to a pair of snarling dogs.  In other
instances, the division failed to put homeless or neglected
children in custody.  In one case this failure led to the rape and
impregnation of a 14-year-old girl.

The state, in subsequent settlement agreements, has promised to
overhaul its system, including hiring more staff and significantly
improving its ability to track children.  But in July, after the
plaintiffs filed a contempt motion, Mississippi publicly
acknowledged for the first time that it had failed to comply with
the agreement in the seven years since the original settlement.  A
monitor's most recent report, submitted to the court in December,
shows 12 of the 13 regions in the state backsliding.  "The agency
does not have the capacity to protect children," said
Marcia Lowry, a child welfare advocate and the director of A
Better Childhood, the group overseeing the suit against
Mississippi.

State officials acknowledge the challenges.  In addition to the
5,142 children in foster care, 4,367 are being monitored by the
state but have not been placed in custody.

"It's kind of like eating an elephant," said David Chandler, a
former State Supreme Court justice who was brought in December to
head the child welfare system.  "We have to start one bite at a
time.  I think the first step is putting together a plan to
attract more certified, educated, credentialed social workers."

The lawsuit against Mississippi is not likely to be fully resolved
for years, even if the state manages to significantly increase
spending.  Court supervision of troubled child welfare systems can
last for decades, as it has in Maryland, which has been under
court monitoring since 1984.

A rash of deaths of children in custody has plagued Texas' system
in recent years.  After a trial on the lawsuit there, a District
Court issued a ruling in December saying children who spent more
than 18 months in custody "almost uniformly leave state custody
more damaged than when they entered."

Along Mississippi's coast, where a growing number of children in
need of care has overwhelmed available resources, social workers
sometimes recommend leaving children in abusive situations to keep
them from flooding the system, officials said.  Officials also
reported that in 2011, three years after the settlement was in
effect, overwhelmed social workers destroyed evidence of abuse by
shredding photographed documentation so they would not have to
deal with more cases.

In Marion County, in southern Mississippi, three children
monitored by the state but not put in custody have died since June
2014.  In each instance, someone had reported problems in the
household, but social workers did not look into them.  In the
first case, a social worker decided not to investigate the
bruising of a 2-year-old girl who was "crying hysterically" in a
hospital and "kicking, punching and screaming" to keep from being
examined.  Less than three weeks later, the toddler died from
"severe head trauma."

After the state's acknowledgment of accountability for the
system's failures, the head of the Division of Family and
Children's Services resigned last summer.  Gov. Phil Bryant, a
Republican, made the directorship a cabinet-level position in
December and brought in Justice Chandler to head it.  Mississippi
also hired an agency to analyze its system and make
recommendations, which included increasing social workers'
salaries and restructuring the agency.  Justice Chandler said he
would seek an increase of $34.5 million in the agency's budget.
The Legislature, which would need to approve such an increase,
went into session Jan. 5.  "I would not waste my time asking them
if I thought they were going to arbitrarily deny us," he said.

In the last legislative session, the Bryant administration
requested an increase of about $12 million in funding, explicitly
citing the need for settlement compliance.  The Legislature came
up with about $3 million.  According to a court-ordered report,
Mississippi in 2012 spent less on child welfare per foster child
than every state but Nevada.  Salaries are so low -- some family
workers can earn as little as $23,643 a year -- that they qualify
for public assistance.  Brehm Bell, a former youth court judge in
Hancock County on the gulf coast, said he had stepped down after
serving for more than three years because of the system's
inability to address failures.

"I was afraid a child would die on my watch," he said.

State Representative Herb Frierson, the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, said that the Legislature wanted to
satisfy the court, but that budgets were already tight and a steep
revenue shortfall was expected this year.

"It's going to be tough," Mr. Frierson said.  Still, he
acknowledged an outside takeover and accompanying funding mandates
could be harder.  "A takeover? I don't know if that's in the best
interest of anything or anybody."

In Arkansas, the child welfare system is so beleaguered, a report
last year revealed that children in custody spent nights sleeping
on couches and chairs in the welfare office.  But while experts
praised Arkansas for tackling these problems, they said
Mississippi's response was largely reactive.

"It is frustrating and heartbreaking to know that we have not
given our best to the children who need us most," Governor Bryant
said.  "And we are going to change that."

Several experts said the dysfunction reflected not just problems
with foster care but broader problems in the state.  Mississippi
has among the highest rates of poverty, teenage pregnancy and
incarceration in the country.

Montavius Jones, now 19, shuffled through more than 20 foster and
group homes after being removed from his mother's home in 2001,
shortly before his fourth birthday. In one, he said, he was
whipped with extension cords. His social worker's report on his
care notes "a history of sexual abuse in foster care."

"I've been through stuff a child shouldn't have to go through," he
said.

Mr. Jones said he had chosen to share his story in the hope that
the system would change.

"I want to help other kids like me," he said.  "That would make
this all mean something."


MOLSON COORS: C$1.4-Bil. Class Action in Canada Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A C$1.4 billion class action lawsuit in Canada against a unit of
Molson Coors Brewing Company remains pending, the company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

On December 12, 2014, a notice of action captioned David Hughes
and 631992 Ontario Inc. v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario,
Brewers Retail Inc., Labatt Breweries of Canada LP, Molson Coors
Canada and Sleeman Breweries Ltd. No. CV-14-518059-00CP was filed
in Ontario, Canada in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. BRI
and its owners, including Molson Coors Canada, as well as the LCBO
are named as defendants in the action. The plaintiffs allege that
The Beer Store (retail outlets owned and operated by BRI) and LCBO
improperly entered into an agreement to fix prices and market
allocation within the Ontario beer market to the detriment of
licensees and consumers. The plaintiffs seek to have the claim
certified as a class action on behalf of all Ontario beer
consumers and licensees and, among other things, damages in the
amount of CAD 1.4 billion.

"Although we are at an early stage of the proceedings, we note
that The Beer Store operates according to the rules established by
the Government of Ontario for regulation, sale and distribution of
beer in the province," the Company said. "Additionally, prices at
The Beer Store are independently set by each brewer and are
approved by the LCBO on a weekly basis. As such, we currently
believe the claim has been made without merit, and we intend to
vigorously assert and defend our rights in this lawsuit."


MSG NETWORKS: Class Action Over Hockey Games Settled, Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against MSG Networks Inc. related to the
distribution of live hockey games has been dismissed following
final approval of a case settlement, MSG said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

In March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in two
purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the NHL and certain NHL member clubs, regional sports
networks and cable and satellite distributors. The second
complaint, which was substantially identical to the first, was
dismissed after its named plaintiff was named as a co-plaintiff in
the first complaint.

The operative complaint primarily asserted that certain of the
NHL's current rules and agreements entered into by defendants,
which are alleged by the plaintiffs to provide certain territorial
and other exclusivities with respect to the television and online
distribution of live hockey games, violated Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief
against the defendants' continued violation of the antitrust laws,
treble damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment
interest.

On July 27, 2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss. On December 5, 2012, the court issued an
opinion and order largely denying the motion to dismiss.

On April 8, 2014, following the conclusion of fact discovery, all
defendants filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of
the case in its entirety. On August 8, 2014, the Court denied the
motions for summary judgment.

On May 14, 2015, the court denied plaintiffs' class certification
motion with respect to damages but granted it with respect to
injunctive relief. Both plaintiffs and defendants filed petitions
with the Court of Appeals seeking pretrial review of these
rulings.

On June 10, 2015, the parties entered into a proposed settlement
(the "Settlement") of the lawsuit and the Settlement was filed
with the Court on June 11, 2015. The Settlement was subject to
Court approval.

On June 15, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement and directed that notice of the proposed Settlement be
sent to the putative class. On August 31, 2015, the Court held a
final fairness hearing on the Settlement. On September 1, 2015,
the Court found that the Settlement's terms were fair, reasonable
and adequate and issued an order approving the Settlement, which
became effective on September 16, 2015. As a result of the Court's
order, the lawsuit was dismissed and all appeals were withdrawn
with prejudice. The time to appeal the court's order has expired.

The Settlement did not result in any changes to the distribution
of NHL games on the MSG Networks or in any Company payment
obligations.


NETWORK TELEPHONE: 9th Cir. Affirms Sexting Class Action Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that a
team from Manatt, Phelps & Phillips rebuffed a would-be class
action by people who got unwanted dirty text messages from a phone
sex provider.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Jan. 12 agreed
that the lower court properly denied certification because
figuring out potential class members would be "extremely
difficult."

In 2012, Paul Gannon sued in Network Telephone Services Inc. in
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
claiming that the company violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by sending unsolicited text messages.

Mr. Gannon said he got a text that read "Hot honeys r ready to
pleasure u and make u cumm. $25 credit on your first call!" The
message also included instructions to opt out of receiving future
messages.

Mr. Gannon said he didn't consent to receive the text.  The
company got his number because he dialed the sex line by mistake,
he said, but hung up before he heard the message from Network
Telephone Services informing him that he would receive future text
messages unless he opted out.

The proposed class included people like him who called by mistake,
those who heard the message but didn't follow the opt-out
instructions, and those who called in response to ads that
specifically promised future text messages.

"Plaintiff's proposed class is unascertainable and
unidentifiable," wrote U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner in
2013.  "The court cannot determine whether an individual is part
of the class without extensive individual inquiry into the merits
of plaintiff's claim, which ultimately makes identification of the
class administratively unfeasible."

The Ninth Circuit panel -- Judges Harry Pregerson, Consuelo
Callahan and Andrew Hurwitz -- agreed, ruling the district court
did not abuse its discretion.

Network Telephone Services was represented at trial by Manatt
partner Robert Platt and on appeal by partner Benjamin Shatz.

"It's gratifying to see the court agree with Network Telephone
Services that class certification was not appropriate," Platt
said. "Class actions alleging violations of the TCPA are often
brought with the primary purpose of recovering legal fees. Our
client is very pleased with the decision by the Ninth Circuit in
this matter."

Mr. Gannon was represented on appeal by Daudt Law; Kreindler &
Kreindler and the Terrell Marshall Law Group.


NEW RESIDENTIAL: Home Loan Defending NY Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
New Residential Investment Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Home
Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York entitled: (i) Oliveira v.
Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-652
(S.D.N.Y.), filed on January 29, 2015; (ii) Berglan v. Home Loan
Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-947 (S.D.N.Y.), filed
on February 9, 2015; and (iii) W. Palm Beach Police Pension Fund
v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-1063
(S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 13, 2015.

On April 2, 2015, these three lawsuits were consolidated into a
single action, which is referred to as the "New York Action." On
April 28, 2015, lead plaintiffs, lead counsel and liaison counsel
were appointed in the New York Action.

On September 14, 2015, the court in the New York Action ordered
lead plaintiffs to file an amended class action complaint by
November 9, 2015.

The New York Action names as defendants HLSS, former HLSS Chairman
William C. Erbey, HLSS Director, President, and Chief Executive
Officer John P. Van Vlack, and HLSS Chief Financial Officer James
E. Lauter. The New York Action asserts causes of action under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on certain public disclosures made by HLSS relating to its
relationship with Ocwen and HLSS's risk management and internal
controls. More specifically, the consolidated class action
complaint alleges that a series of statements in HLSS's
disclosures were materially false and misleading, including
statements about (i) Ocwen's servicing capabilities; (ii) HLSS's
contingencies and legal proceedings; (iii) its risk management and
internal controls and (iv) certain related party transactions. The
consolidated class action complaint also appears to allege that
HLSS's financial statements for the years ended 2012 and 2013, and
the first quarter ended March 30, 2014, were false and misleading
based on HLSS's August 18, 2014 restatement. Lead plaintiffs in
the New York Action also allege that HLSS misled investors by
failing to disclose, among other things, information regarding
governmental investigations of Ocwen's business practices. New
Residential intends to vigorously defend the New York Action.


NORWICH, CT: Education Board Delays Teachers' Union Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bulletin reports that a dispute unfolding between Norwich
teachers and the school system's chief administrator aptly
underscores an unflattering tendency among educators and the
unions that represent them: an aversion to standards and
accountability.  It's a trend that recently has played out on the
state and national stages, as well.

The city's Board of Education delayed action on a class-action
grievance filed by the teachers' union stemming from a new
evaluation criterion established by Superintendent Abby Dolliver:
She increased the mandated number of students at each grade level
who must meet the "proficient" benchmark on standardized tests
from 75 percent to 85 percent.

The issue seems to be that Ms. Dolliver reached the new standard
on her own, without input from the teachers who are more
intimately familiar with their students and the unique challenges
in their classrooms.  A June teacher evaluation plan does include
language suggesting that teachers should play a role in setting
their own individual yearly goals.

But the complaint reveals a sense of entitlement that goes well
beyond normative workplace expectations.  Most workers are
required to submit to some form of evaluation -- be it formal or
informal, annual or semiannual, etc. -- and being included in the
process of setting performance goals would be considered a
privilege, not a right, by most workers, and particularly by those
in the private sector.

The common experience, rather, is to receive non-negotiable
directives from a superior.  In the world of public education,
however, such a step is evidently seen as an affront, or at least
a sign that the administrator is out of touch with the district's
students and the teachers' pedagogical practices.  This is
unfortunate, because of all the parties that set or enforce
education standards -- the state and federal governments, local
school boards and various levels of administration --
superintendents might exert the most direct and effective
influence over actual results.

As the attorney representing the Norwich district, Anthony
Shannon, put it, "If the superintendent is not here to set goals
for the district as a whole, what is she here to actually do?"
It's a telling question, and school board Chairman Al Daniels'
frank comments cut even more to the heart of the issue: "Norwich
is at the bottom of the pile, and today, that is the only thing
that we can do, is push a little harder," he said.

The Bulletin agrees.  If Norwich schools are to improve, there
must be stringent standards in place -- not ones that necessarily
result in punitive action, or that belittle or endanger the
important work teachers do every day, but ones that hold educators
accountable to a standard of success that is slightly higher than
past benchmarks.  The status quo is not good enough.

The Bulletin hopes this dispute can reach a swift resolution that
affirms Dolliver's authority to push for better performance.
Norwich teachers, surely, will continue to do their best work and
rise to the challenge.

Meanwhile, the Connecticut Education Association, the state's
largest teachers' union, is pushing Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's
administration and the Legislature to replace the controversial
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium test with "better, more
authentic and effective assessment programs."

In December, Congress and president Obama approved the Every
Student Succeeds Act, which sets the stage for such a change by
freeing up states to set their own academic standards and
determine if schools are meeting them. Under the new paradigm,
testing will count for less in overall performance judgments.
In other words, the federal government will play a lesser role --
not in itself a bad thing, but nonetheless a license for states to
adopt disparate and, in some cases, overly lax standards.

Standardized tests are notoriously flawed, and we do not object to
a continual process of refinement that removes bias and provides a
better and better picture of academic success or failure.  That
process, however, should not be unduly skewed by the influence of
unions whose principal interest is in protecting their members,
not holding them to ever more rigorous standards.


NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Case Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of a 2013 class action lawsuit is under appeal,
Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

"In September 2013, two separate but substantially-similar
putative class action lawsuits were commenced in Federal court
against us and certain of our current and former officers and
directors alleging that we, along with the individual defendants,
made certain material misstatements and/or omissions relating to
our operations and financial condition which caused the price of
our shares to fall," the Company said.

By order dated October 29, 2013, the two putative class actions
were consolidated and a consolidated complaint was filed.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss these claims in May 2014, and
such motion was granted by the Court on November 17, 2014, whereby
the forgoing class action was dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiffs were permitted by the Court to file a motion to amend
the complaint and did so on December 8, 2014. Defendants filed
their opposition to plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint on
December 22, 2014.

On March 12, 2015, the Court issued an order denying plaintiffs'
motion to amend the complaint as to certain claims, but granting
plaintiffs' motion as to other claims. Plantiffs filed an amended
complaint on March 19, 2015, and on March 23, 2015, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to
comply with the court's March 12, 2015 order. Both parties filed
subsequent pleadings.

"On June 24, 2015, the Court granted our motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended consolidated class action complaint and
dismissed the case with prejudice," the Company said. "On July 24,
2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. We believe these claims are without merit and we
will continue to vigorously defend ourselves and the individual
defendants in this action."


NV ENERGY: Solar Customers File Class Action Over Net-Metering
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Pyper, writing for GreentechMedia, reports that solar
customers in Nevada are taking legal action against NV Energy in
response to controversial changes to the state's net-metering
program.

Plaintiffs John Bamforth and Stanley Schone filed a class action
lawsuit on January 12 seeking recompense for being misled into
purchasing solar systems "that do not provide the promised
rebates, discounts and rates."

The case stems from the Nevada Public Utility Commission's recent
decision to lower the net-metering credit for rooftop solar
customers from the retail rate to the wholesale rate over the next
four years.  The decision also lowers solar customers' monthly
volumetric charge by about 1 cent over the same period, while
increasing the monthly fixed charge for the bulk of Nevada
customers from $12.75 to $38.51.

The changes came into effect on January 1 and apply to all future
rooftop solar customers in Nevada, as well as the 17,000 existing
solar customers in the state.

On Jan. 13, the PUC refused to implement a stay on the new
regulation until the effects of the change could be fully
evaluated.  Many solar customers say the decision wipes out all of
their savings from going solar, and could actually increase their
monthly electricity bills.

Messrs. Bamforth and Schone argue that the state and NV Energy
misled solar customers by approving rebate programs to encourage
the development of renewable energy, then "conspired to unlawfully
reduce incentives" in order to reduce competition from solar
companies.

The lawsuit accuses NV Energy of "anticompetitive actions,
deceptive and unfair trade practices resulting in a restraint of
trade, monopolization and maintenance of a monopoly over the
electric utility in Nevada, price discrimination between different
buyers, artificial price inflation, conspiracy to cause the
aforementioned results through illegal means and negligence."

Anne-Marie Cuneo, director of regulatory operations at the Nevada
PUC, firmly denied the commission's solar ruling was
inappropriately influenced by NV Energy.

"That is an absolutely shameful accusation," she said in an
interview with the PBS local affiliate KNPB.

"The commission hears almost 500 cases a year, and if you look at
their record, they clearly don't favor NV Energy on many of the
other cases," she said.  "To make a statement like that based on
the outcome of a single data point is irresponsible."

Separate from the lawsuit, at least five petitions for
reconsideration have been filed with the PUC seeking to have the
new tariff thrown out.  The Nevada Bureau of Consumer Protection
is among the petitioners. Regulators have until February 17 to
respond.

Solar installers argue the net-metering changes are not only
unfair for existing customers, but also make it uneconomical for
homeowners to go solar in the future -- effectively killing
Nevada's solar market.

SolarCity, Sunrun and Vivint, three of the largest solar companies
in the country, recently ceased operations in Nevada, resulting in
at least 650 lost jobs.  On Jan. 15, the family-owned business Go
Solar announced it has been forced to lay off 17 of its 50
employees.


ON DECK: Court Hasn't Ruled on Motion to Consolidate Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
On Deck Capital, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court has not
ruled on the pending motion for consolidation of two class action
lawsuits into a single case.

"Two separate putative class actions were filed in August 2015 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against us, certain of our executive officers, our directors
and certain or all of the underwriters of our initial public
offering, or IPO," the Company said.  "The suits allege that the
registration statement for our IPO contained materially false and
misleading statements regarding, or failed to disclose, specified
information in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.   The suits seek a determination that the case is a
proper class action and/or certification of the plaintiff as a
class representative, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages and/or unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
other fees and costs."

The deadline for seeking lead plaintiff status was October 5,
2015.  The court has not ruled on the pending motion for
consolidation of the two suits into a single case, the appointment
of a lead plaintiff and approval of plaintiff's counsel.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters,
although at this time we cannot predict the outcome.


OREGON: Roger Nyquist Optimistic on Linn County Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Paul, writing for Albany Democrat-Herald, reports that
Jan. 13 was a hectic and historic day for Roger Nyquist and fellow
Linn County Commissioners John Lindsey and Will Tucker.

They announced plans to sue the state of Oregon -- specifically
the Oregon Department of Forestry -- for $1.4 billion due to what
the county sees as a breach of contract regarding state forest
timber sales income directed to 15 Oregon counties, including Linn
and Benton.

Depending on one's viewpoint, the commissioners are either tilting
at windmills like the whimsical Don Quixote or have loaded the
slingshot to slay a giant -- the state of Oregon -- like the
biblical story of David vs. Goliath.

Only time will tell.

Since 1998, the Department of Forestry has reduced annual timber
harvests, leading to decreased payments to the counties.  The
commissioners are alleging the state has breached a contract that
dates back to the 1930s.

On Jan. 14, after a whirlwind day of press conferences and phone
calls, Mr. Nyquist said: "We're happy that we're finally having a
solid conversation about this issue."

After making the announcement at the State Capitol and later in
Portland, Mr. Nyquist called 20 county commissioners informing
them of what he hopes will be registered as a class-action lawsuit
in Linn County Circuit Court.

By Oregon law, county counsel John DiLorenzo --
johndilorenzo@dwt.com -- of Davis, Wright, Tremaine of Portland,
had to give the state 30 days notice of the county's intent to
file the lawsuit.

In addition to Linn and Benton counties, the Oregon Forest Trust
Land counties named in the lawsuit are Clackamas, Clatsop,
Columbia, Coos, Douglas, Josephine, Klamath, Lane, Lincoln,
Marion, Polk, Tillamook and Washington.

"I would describe them as generally supportive to ecstatic,"
Mr. Nyquist said of the reception from the counties.  "A few heard
it somewhere else first."

If counties opt out of the lawsuit, the total amount being sought
will be reduced accordingly, and if the litigants prevail, those
counties will not receive any of the settlement money.

"There are philosophical differences galore about forest
management and timber sales," Mr. Nyquist said.  "But when you put
numbers in front of policy makers who have to balance budgets,
things get real pretty quickly."

Linn County has about 21,000 acres of state forest land; Benton
County has about 8,000.

Mr. Nyquist said he's confident a jury will find that the state
has breached a 75-year-old contract with the affected counties
that the forest lands would be managed to provide a steady stream
of revenue from timber.

"It's pretty straightforward.  It's either a contract or it it's
not," he said.  "We like our case a lot.  The Supreme Court has
ruled that the state has a contract with PERS employees.  We
believe this is the same thing.  The state has a contract with the
counties."

Mr. Nyquist added, "It's also about forest management.  Are the
state forest lands being properly managed for the greatest
permanent value?"

                          Acquiring land

In the 1930s, the state began acquiring, due to tax foreclosures,
what would grow to several hundred thousand acres of mostly cut-
over timber lands that would become the Forest Trust Land
Counties.

Much of that land had been owned by large timber companies linked
with railroads in the late 1800s.

During the Great Depression owners saw little value in retaining
cut-over forest properties that would not produce income for
decades, and quit paying taxes on those properties.

Counties eventually took control of the properties, but because
they produced no income either through timber harvesting or
taxation, they were a financial burden.

In 1939, under Gov. Charles Sprague and by approval of the
Legislature's State Forest Acquisition Act, the state began taking
over the forest lands with an agreement to retain a management fee
and return income generated by the properties back to the
counties.

From 1939 to 1949, the first two of six state forests were
developed, the Clatsop and Santiam state forests.

The basis of that contract was that the properties were to be
"managed for the greatest permanent value."

Linn County believes that means income generated by timber sales,
although the county also believes best management practices should
be followed on the land.

Six state forests in Oregon that encompass more than 800,000
acres.  They are:

   * Clatsop State Forest: 136,000 acres in Clatsop and Columbia
counties.

   * Elliott State Forest: 93,000 acres in Coos and Douglas
counties.

   * Gilchrist State Forest: 70,000 acres in Klamath County.

   * Santiam State Forest: 47,871 acres in Linn, Marion and
Clackamas counties.

   * Sun Pass State Forest: 21,317 acres near Klamath Falls.

  * Tillamook State Forest: 364,000 acres in Washington, Yamhill,
Tillamook and Clatsop counties.

Mr. DiLorenzo said that two prior lawsuits have laid a foundation
that a contract between the state and counties exists.

In 1986, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled (Tillamook County et al.
v. Board of Forestry) that the conveyance of tax foreclosed lands
by the Forest Trust Land counties created a "relationship" and a
"protectable interest."

In 2005, Tillamook County filed suit against the State of Oregon
in a case known as Tillamook II.

Linn County's notice to the state made reference to those cases:
"Judge Richard L. Barron affirmed the importance of the
relationship between the Forest Trust Land Counties and the State
and held that 'the State is contractually bound not only because
of what comes from the statutory scheme, which has been a
consensual arrangement for more than 70 years, but also from the
deeds entered into by the counties pursuant to the statutory
scheme and which the State sought and bargained for.'"

According to the county's brief, the Forest Trust Land Counties
have tried repeatedly to persuade the Oregon Department of
Forestry to live up to the state's agreement.

In 2015, the counties supported legislation that would have
required the state forester to manage the Forest Trust Lands to
ensure that at least 80 percent of the annual amount of
harvestable timber expected would be grown on those lands. The
legislation was opposed by the state.

Calculating damages

According to Mr. DiLorenzo, the 15 Forest Trust Land counties have
received about $35 million less per year than they should have
since the state management plan was changed in 1998.

That's a total of $528.6 million. Interest on that comes to about
$25.6 million.

Future damages in perpetuity are estimated at $881 million, based
on a 4 percent revenue stream.

Tim Josi chairs the Oregon Forest Trust Lands Advisory Committee
and has been a Tillamook County commissioner for 17 years.

"We have worked on this issue every month I have been in office,"
Mr. Josi said late on Jan. 15.

Mr. Josi said he has not been able to meet with either his fellow
commissioners or the trust committee members to discuss the
lawsuit, so his statements were his own opinions.

"The Tillamook, Clatsop, Columbia and Washington counties were
promised revenue from annual timber sales of 279 million board
feet, but when the new management plan was adopted, it was for
only 149 million board feet.  That's up to 180 to 190 board feet
now, but under the true Forest Practice Act, that should be more
than 300 million board feet."

Mr. Josi said the counties have been trying to get the Oregon
Department of Forestry to open up the management plan, but it
hasn't budged until fiscal considerations became so prominent.

"The department is projected to be broke by 2020 unless something
is done," he said.  "A new management plan needs to be approved by
November 2017, because timber companies have three years to
complete sales."

Mr. Josi said he believes many members of the environmental
community would like to see the Department of Forestry go broke
and its finances taken over through the state general fund.

"The environmental community keeps asking for more analysis on the
properties, but any six-year-old can figure out it's not going to
work," Mr. Josi said.  "I think there are some in the
environmental community who would like to see the state take over
the entire department.  If that happens, we can look at the U.S.
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management and see what happens
when a forest management plan is funded by government.  The cut
will continue to shrink."

Mr. Josi called the lawsuit a "wake-up call for the Board of
Forestry. They are going to have to do something because we won't
just stand by and let our rights be taken away from us."

Mr. Josi added he's not certain a class-action lawsuit is the
right way to go about it, "but that's yet to be determined."

Benton County Commissioner Jay Dixon said on Jan. 15 that he and
fellow commissioners Annabelle Jaramillo and Anne Schuster have
not had an opportunity to talk about the proposed litigation.

"We are certainly at this point named in it," Mr. Dixon said.  "We
could make a decision at some point if we want to stay in it or
not.  We really have nothing to add at this point."

Mr. Dixon said the issue could be talked about as soon as the
Jan. 26 meeting, but at this point, the lawsuit was not on the
agenda for that meeting.

"It's always a concern when you don't get the revenue you would
like to get or thought you were going to get," Mr. Dixon said.

Benton County loses an estimated $731,479 annually due to the new
forest management plan.

Lane County Commissioner Jay Bosevich said that while he couldn't
speak for the entire Board of Commissioners, he supports Linn
County's action.

"When we do meet, I will advocate for us staying in the class-
action," Mr. Bosevich said.  "I personally support Linn County's
actions."

Although not notified of the litigation until after it was
announced in Salem, Mr. Bosevich said it didn't come as a complete
surprise.

"I had some inkling that something was going on, but I didn't know
the details," he said.  "I had picked up some rumblings through my
contacts in the timber industry."

Lane County loses an estimated $1,451,433 annually due to the new
forest management plan.

Clatsop County Commissioner Scott Lee is a former member of the
Forest Trust Lands Advisory Committee.

Mr. Lee said the committee is composed of five members, including
two permanent seats for commissioners from Clatsop and Tillmook
counties since they represent the majority of state forest lands.

The three other seats are for representatives from the other 13
counties.

Mr. Lee said he was not informed of the proposed litigation until
after it was announced in Salem.

"I heard about it the same time you did," he said.  "I had not
heard anything about this from the committee.  I did call a call
from Commissioner Nyquist and I voiced some of my concerns about
it."

Mr. Lee added, "This is a tough one.  My concern is that any
lawsuits that could tie up my (county's) revenue stream from the
state forest are problematic.  This could bring lawsuits from
environmental groups, too."

Mr. Lee said he does not want to see management of the Clatsop
State Forest go the way of the Elliott State Forest, which has
been the subject of numerous lawsuits.

"It's important that we take a pragmatic, moderate approach, to
work together and work with the Board of Forestry to get through
the financial difficulties they have," Mr. Lee said.

Mr. Lee said the Clatsop County commissioners have not deliberated
on the issue, but plan to hold a work session in March.

Clatsop County loses an estimated $12 million annually due to the
new forest management plan.

Douglas County Commissioner Tim Freeman said that as an individual
board member, he is "excited about the fact that Linn County has
stepped up to the plate and is finally going to hold the state
accountable for its promise."

Mr. Freeman said the board will meet soon in executive session
with legal counsel to discuss options.

"Douglas County has the largest amount of O & C lands, which is
different than State lands, but we have talked about what we see
as mismanagement and lack of management of public lands,"
Mr. Freeman said.  "What the state is doing is similar."

Mr. Freeman said the fact that Linn County had to give the state
30 days notice before the lawsuit is filed also gives
commissioners in the other 14 counties time to hold meetings and
determine whether they want to remain in the class-action.

"Our trust lands are connected to the Elliott State Forest and
yes, we've talked about it not producing what it had historically,
or what it should be producing," Mr. Freeman said.

Douglas County loses an estimated $239,063 annually due to the new
forest management plan.

Said State Rep. Sherrie Sprenger, R-Scio: "I've seen firsthand the
devastating impact the state's forest management policy has had on
our rural communities.  I hope that this new effort, regardless of
outcome, results in a shift in the way the state regulates and
controls our natural resources and allows our rural communities to
have more influence on that process."

Mr. Sprenger added, "I firmly believe that greater local control
of our forests and other natural resources will have positive
benefits for communities in Linn County, as well as those around
the state."


OREGON: Conservation Groups Balk at Linn County Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Paul, writing for Albany Democrat-Herald, reports that the
term "greatest permanent value" should not be simply defined
economically, members of the North Coast State Forest Coalition
said on Jan. 15 in response to Linn County's planned lawsuit
against the Department of Forestry.

Members of the coalition are the Association of Northwest
Steelheaders, Wild Salmon Center, Oregon Council of Trout
Unlimited, Oregon Chapter of Sierra Club, Native Fish Society,
Pacific Rivers, and Northwest Guides & Anglers Association.

In a statement, Chris Smith, the coalition's coordinator, said
"greatest permanent value" refers to all Oregonians, not just the
general funds of the 15 counties named in the lawsuit.

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

Mr. Smith said the coalition said it hopes "something good" will
come out of the Board of Forestry's process and termed the Linn
County lawsuit "a distraction and a disruption of that process.
The real need is for the Department of Forestry to move forward to
find a long-term solution."

And Mr. Smith said that includes timber revenue.

"Oregonians are fortunate that our state forests can provide a
broad array of values including diverse recreation opportunities,
drinking water for hundreds of thousands of people, a rich salmon
fishery, fish & wildlife habitat, and timber harvest for jobs and
government revenue," said Guido Rahr, president of the Wild Salmon
Center.

Bob Rees, executive director of Northwest Steelheaders and long-
time fishing guide, said: "These lands provide the basis for
multiple economies -- including recreational fisheries and
commercial salmon fisheries that contribute more than a billion
dollars to the state economy every year.  That's a public value
worth protecting."


OVASCIENCE INC: Massachusetts Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Ovascience, Inc. won dismissal of a shareholder class action in
Masachusetts district court, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

On June 6, 2014, a purported shareholder class action was re-filed
by the plaintiff in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants. The lawsuit includes the same allegations
as were included in the action filed on September 16, 2013. The
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 31, 2014. As
amended, the complaint seeks certification of a class of
purchasers of the Company's stock during the period February 25,
2013 through September 10, 2013. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of
costs and expenses, including attorney's fees.

On December 16, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint.
On September 28, 2015 the dismissal was granted by the court as
matter of law and with prejudice.


OVASCIENCE INC: Class Suit Filed in Suffolk County Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Ovascience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed on October 9, 2015, in the Suffolk County
Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts against the
Company, several of its officers and directors and certain of the
underwriters from its January 2015 follow-on public offering of
common stock.

"The plaintiffs purport to represent those persons who purchased
shares of our common stock pursuant or traceable to our January
2015 follow-on public offering," the Company said. The plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material information
in the Company's January 2015 Registration Statement and
incorporated offering materials. Plaintiffs allege violations of
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
and seek, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages,
rescission, pre-and post-judgment interest and fees, costs and
disbursements.


PARAMOUNT GOLD: Still Defending Class Action on Merger with Coeur
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paramount Gold Nevada Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company continues to defend against a class action lawsuit related
to the merger of Paramount Gold and Silver Corp. ("PGSC") and
Coeur Mining, Inc.

Since the announcement of the merger of PGSC and Coeur on December
17, 2014, the Company, PGSC, members of PGSC's board, Coeur, and
Hollywood Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub") have been named as
defendants in six putative stockholder class action suits brought
by purported stockholders of PGSC, challenging the proposed Merger
(the "Complaints"). The Complaints were filed in the Court of
Chancery in the State of Delaware (Fernando Gamboa v. Paramount
Gold and Silver Corp., et al., No.: 10499; Jerry Panning v.
Paramount Gold and Silver Corp., et al., No.: 10507; Jonah Weiss
v. Christopher Crupi, et al., No.: 10517; Justin Beaston v.
Paramount Gold and Silver Corporation, et al., No.: 10538; Rob
Byers v. Christopher Crupi, et al., No.: 10551; James H. Alston v.
Paramount Gold and Silver Corp., et al., No.: 10531.

The plaintiffs generally claim that the PGSC board members
breached their fiduciary duties to PGSC stockholders by: (i)
authorizing the merger with Coeur for what the plaintiffs assert
is inadequate consideration and pursuant to an allegedly
inadequate process, and (ii) failing to disclose sufficient
information in its Form S-4 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission to allow the shareholders to make an informed vote. The
plaintiffs also claim that the Company, PGSC, Coeur, and Merger
Sub aided and abetted the other defendants' alleged breach of
duties. In the Complaints, the plaintiffs seek, among other
things, to enjoin the merger, rescind the transaction or obtain
rescissory damages if the merger is consummated, obtain other
unspecified damages and recover attorneys' fees and costs. The
merger was consummated on April 17, 2015.

"We, PGSC, members of PGSC board, Coeur, and Merger Sub deny any
wrongdoing and are vigorously defending all of the actions," the
Company said.


PNC FINANCIAL: Motion to Vacate Settlement Approval Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the appeal of the order of approval of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in the
cases consolidated in that court under the caption In re Payment
Card Interchange Fee and Merchant-Discount Antitrust Litigation
(Master File No. 1:05-md-1720-JG-JO) was argued in September 2015
and remains pending. In addition, in July 2015 several objectors
filed a motion with the district court to vacate the court's
judgment, including the approval of the settlement, based on
alleged misconduct by one of the counsel for MasterCard and one of
the counsel for plaintiffs. This motion remains pending.


PNC FINANCIAL: 3rd Cir. Denies Motion for Rehearing
---------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that in the cases consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania under the caption In re: Community Bank of Northern
Virginia Lending Practices Litigation (No. 03-0425 (W.D. Pa.), MDL
No. 1674), the Company moved for a rehearing by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit of its affirmance of the
grant of class certification by the district court. The Company's
motion was denied in October 2015.


PNC FINANCIAL: Settlement in "Montoya" Has Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that in Montoya, et al. v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al., (Case No.
1:14-cv-20474-JEM), pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, the court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement in September 2015. Notice
to the class members will be provided following this preliminary
approval.


PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Mediation Held in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
mediation has been held in an attempt to resolve a consolidated
securities class action.

"Discussions are continuing," the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report.

On May 27, 2014, Cary Farrah and James H. Harrison, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the
"Farrah Case"), and on May 29, 2014, each of Paul Jason Chaney,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the
"Chaney Case"), and Jayson Dauphinee, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated (the "Dauphinee Case") (the
plaintiffs in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee
Case collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs"), each filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee against the Company, H. Craig Dees,
Timothy C. Scott and Peter R. Culpepper (the "Defendants")
alleging violations by the Defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs in each of the Farrah Case, the
Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case allege that the Defendants are
liable for making false statements and failing to disclose adverse
facts known to them about the Company, in connection with the
Company's application to the FDA for Breakthrough Therapy
Designation ("BTD") of the Company's melanoma drug, PV-10, in the
Spring of 2014, and the FDA's subsequent denial of the Company's
application for BTD.

On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed joint
motions in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case
to consolidate the cases and transfer them to United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. By order
dated July 16, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee entered an order consolidating the
Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case (collectively
and, as consolidated, the "Securities Litigation") and transferred
the Securities Litigation to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee.

On November 26, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee (the "Court") entered an order
appointing Fawwaz Hamati as the Lead Plaintiff in the Securities
Litigation, with the Law Firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP as
counsel to Lead Plaintiff. On February 3, 2015, the Court entered
an order compelling the Lead Plaintiff to file a consolidated
amended complaint within 60 days of entry of the order.

On April 6, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") in the Class
Action Case, alleging that Provectus and the other individual
defendants made knowingly false representations about the
likelihood that PV-10 would be approved as a candidate for BTD,
and that such representations caused injury to Lead Plaintiff and
other shareholders. The Consolidated Complaint also added Eric
Wachter as a named defendant.

On June 5, 2015, Provectus filed its Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss"). On July 20,
2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed his response in opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss (the "Response"). Pursuant to order of the
Court, Provectus replied to the Response on September 18, 2015.

On October 1, 2015, the Court entered an order staying a ruling on
the Motion to Dismiss pending a mediation to resolve the
Securities Litigation in its entirety. A mediation occurred on
October 28, 2015, and discussions are continuing.

If the mediation is unsuccessful at resolving the Securities
Litigation, the Company intends to defend vigorously against all
claims in the Consolidated Complaint. However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation and the early stage of this
litigation, the outcome of the Class Action Case cannot be
predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss
cannot be reasonably estimated. No amounts have been recorded in
the consolidated financial statements as the outcome of the Class
Action Case cannot be predicted and the amount of any potential
loss is not estimable at this time.


REALOGY HOLDINGS: Settlement in "Bararsani" Has Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Holdings Corp. and Realogy Group LLC said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that a California court has granted preliminary approval of
a settlement agreement in the case, Bararsani v. Coldwell Banker
Residential Brokerage Company.

On November 15, 2012, plaintiff Ali Bararsani filed a putative
class action complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, California,
against Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company ("CBRBC")
alleging that CBRBC had misclassified current and former
affiliated sales associates as independent contractors when they
were actually employees.  The Company believes that CBRBC has
properly classified the sales associates as independent
contractors, would have significant defenses to the claims
asserted in this action and continues to operate in a manner
consistent with applicable law, and longstanding, widespread
industry practice for many decades.

"To avoid further litigation expense, we entered into a settlement
on May 5, 2015," the Company said.

The settlement requires court approval and was accrued for as of
June 30, 2015. In entering into this settlement, CBRBC made no
admission of wrongdoing or liability, and is not obligated to
change its business structures. The court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement in August 2015.


REALPAGE INC: "Jenkins" Class Action in Early Stage
---------------------------------------------------
RealPage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Jenkins class
action lawsuit is at an early stage and the Company intends to
defend it vigorously.

In November 2014, the Company was named in a purported class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, styled Jenkins v. RealPage, Inc., Case No.
3:14cv758. On January 12, 2015, the Company filed its answer.

On July 13, 2015, the court transferred the case to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

"This case is at an early stage and although we intend to defend
it vigorously, it is not possible to predict its outcome," the
Company said.


REALPAGE INC: "Stokes" Class Action in Early Stage
--------------------------------------------------
RealPage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Stokes class
action lawsuit is at an early stage and the Company intends to
defend it vigorously.

In March 2015, the Company was named in a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, styled Stokes v. RealPage, Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-01520. On June 2, 2015, the Company filed its answer.

"This case is also at an early stage and although we intend to
defend it vigorously, it is not possible to predict its outcome,"
the Company said.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Settlement in Muni Bond Buyers' Case Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a Missouri
court has approved the settlement of a class action filed on
behalf of retail purchasers of municipal bonds.

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and states of
Missouri and Texas are investigating alleged securities law
violations by Morgan Keegan in the underwriting and sale of $39
million in municipal bonds. An enforcement action brought by the
Missouri Secretary of State in April 2013, seeking monetary
penalties and other relief, was dismissed and refiled in November
2013.

Additionally a class action was brought on behalf of retail
purchasers of the bonds in September 2012, seeking unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages. The parties agreed to
settlement terms in January 2015, and the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri approved the settlement
on October 2, 2015.

An agreement in principle has been reached with all remaining
investors who opted out of the class action. These matters are all
subject to the indemnification agreement with Raymond James.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Settlement of Stockholder Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that an Alabama
court has approved the settlement of a class action lawsuit filed
by company stockholders.

In October 2010, a class-action lawsuit was filed by Regions'
stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama (the "District Court") against Regions and certain
former officers of Regions (the "2010 Claim"). In May 2015,
Regions entered into a settlement agreement to settle the 2010
Claim for $90 million, all of which had been previously reserved.
Regions was subsequently reimbursed in full by its insurance
providers. As a result, a $90 million recovery was recognized
during the second quarter of 2015. The District Court granted
final approval of the settlement in September 2015.


RENAULT SA: French Fraud Investigators Probe Emissions Testing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Serafino and Angeline Benoit, writing for Bloomberg News, a
union said French fraud investigators seized computers from
Renault SA, apparently as part of a probe into emissions testing.

Agents from the Economy Ministry's fraud office visited some
Renault sites that have to do with standards testing and engine
certification, Florent Grimaldi, an official with the CGT union in
Lardy, France, said by telephone on Jan. 14, confirming a report
earlier by Agence France-Presse.  That left the impression that
the probe is related to emissions standards in the wake of the
Volkswagen AG scandal, he said.

Renault said it planned to issue a statement soon.  The fraud
office didn't return a call seeking comment.  Investigators
visited four different sites near Paris, including Lardy and
company headquarters in Boulogne-Billancourt, on Jan. 7, according
to AFP.

Automakers have been under renewed scrutiny since September, when
U.S. regulators said VW cheated to make its diesel cars appear
cleaner burning than they are.  French authorities started a probe
in September into whether VW deceived customers about the
emissions levels of its diesel cars and promised to expand the
probe to cover all carmakers, including Renault and PSA Peugeot
Citroen.  Separately, the country's environmental regulator began
randomly testing vehicles to check differences between
emissions results found in laboratory testing and real-world
figures.

Peugeot said in October it never used software to turn on
emissions controls only while being tested, as Volkswagen admitted
to doing.


REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Defending Shareholder Suit by Warren Police
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Revance Therapeutics, Inc. continues to defend a class action
lawsuit filed by the City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement
System, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

As of May 2015, the Company became subject to a securities class
action complaint, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement System v. Revance Therapeutics Inc., et al, CIV 533635,
which was filed on behalf of City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement System in the Superior Court for San Mateo County,
California against the Company and certain of its directors and
executive officers at the time of the June 2014 follow-on public
offering, and the investment banking firms that acted as the
underwriters in the follow-on public offering. In general, the
complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented the then-
present status of the RT001 clinical program and made false and
misleading statements regarding the formulation, manufacturing and
efficacy of its drug candidate, RT001, for the treatment of
lateral canthal lines at the time of the follow-on public
offering. The complaint has been brought as a purported class
action on behalf of those who purchased common stock in the
follow-on public offering and seeks unspecified monetary damages
and other relief.


RJ REYNOLDS: Judge Warns Smoker Attorneys Over Improper Tactics
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
state appellate court had strong words for attorneys at the
Schlesinger Law Offices in Fort Lauderdale who "pushed the
envelope at every turn" and flirted with the full reversal of a
$75.4 million jury award in a tobacco case.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal didn't specify which attorney
overstepped the bounds in the case involving more than a dozen
lawyers on both sides, including Scott Schlesinger,
Jonathan Gdanski and Steven Hammer for the plaintiff.

Trial lawyers from the Schlesinger firm presented passionate
arguments for their client during the complex and hard-fought
litigation, appellate attorney John Mills of the Mills Firm in
Tallahassee told the Daily Business Review.

But the defendants cried foul, calling for a mistrial after they
accused the other side of using inflammatory language to rile up
jurors, and the appellate court largely agreed.

The Schlesinger firm secured a landmark verdict for the family of
Johnnie Calloway, a Lauderhill man who started smoking at 15 and
moved up to three packs per day.  Mr. Calloway's widow, Marvine,
sued four cigarette makers: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Philip
Morris USA, Lorillard Tobacco Co. and Liggett Group LLC.

The trial grabbed headlines in 2012 when it ended with the big
award, including $20.5 million in compensatory damages and $54.85
million in punitive damages.  The panel ordered some counts to be
reconsidered and reversed the punitive award, setting up a
retrial.

On appeal, tobacco attorneys claimed the plaintiffs lawyers
deliberately made irresponsible statements that caused an unfair
trial before Broward Circuit Judge John Murphy.  Liggett, Philip
Morris and Lorillard sought a credit against the punitive award.
But Calloway's family fired back with a cross appeal, challenging
Judge Murphy's decision to sustain some of the objections raised
against its attorneys during trial.

"The Schlesinger firm did what nobody has done before," Mr. Mills
said.  "They took all four of these defendants to trial, and they
beat all four of them.  This is the first Engle case where all
four defendants went to trial and had to pay damages.  Anytime you
have such a large judgment, you know it's going to get the closest
juridical scrutiny possible."

'Egregious' Arguments

The case produced a 2-1 split in the appellate court, which upheld
Murphy's denial of the tobacco companies' motion for a new trial.

"We do not find error in the court's rulings, but we call
counsel's attention to the numerous, unnecessary and improper
remarks," Fourth DCA Judge Melanie May wrote for the majority in a
decision issued Jan. 6.  "They injected potential error at every
turn and nearly caused us to reverse the judgment."

Judge Carole Taylor concurred with an opinion noting the trial
court's broad discretion on motions for retrial based on claims of
improper argument.

But the defendants argued the opposing attorneys' remarks should
have been enough to toss out the suit long before the jury even
deliberated. They challenged Murphy's decision and claimed he
erred in denying their motions for a new trial.

Judge Mark Klingensmith issuing a strongly worded dissent to throw
out the multimillion-dollar award over attorneys' conduct.  Citing
an earlier case, he said the appellate court had issued a warning
to "lawyers pertaining to how future cases should be handled" and
acceptable strategies for crafting closing arguments.

"Unfortunately, we have seen many recent cases where this warning
was either misunderstood or simply ignored," he wrote.  "In this
dissenting opinion, I hope to make that warning clearer.
Attorneys who engage in such tactics in the future do so at their
own peril and the peril of their clients by risking the reversal
of their cases on appeal."

The case examined whether the tobacco companies were liable in
Mr. Calloway's death.

The father of eight suffered a heart attack in 1991 and was
hospitalized for several weeks.  A bladder cancer diagnosis
followed in 1992.  Mr. Calloway underwent chemotherapy, but was
hospitalized again after he collapsed.  He died soon after of
septic shock at 59.  A doctor connected his death and bladder
cancer to long-term smoking.

At trial, Judge Murphy granted the tobacco companies' motion to
split the trial into three phases.  The first phase established
Calloway as a member of the Engle class, named for sick Florida
smokers who brought a landmark class action against the tobacco
industry in 1994.

The second phase addressed whether the tobacco companies defrauded
Calloway in a trial that focused on causation, comparative fault,
compensatory damages and entitlement to damages.  The final round
determined damages.

"Over the course of plaintiff's counsel's 33-page opening at the
start of Phase Two, the court sustained 14 separate defense
objections to counsel's argumentative comments," Klingensmith
wrote. He cited 19 examples of inappropriate, "egregious,"
"objectionable" and "gratuitous remarks."

"A trial judge should respond to such improper argument in a
timely and consistent manner and issue proportional rebukes when
repeated instances occur," Klingensmith wrote.  "This is
especially true in lengthy, high-stakes cases where a trial
court's failure to control the litigants not only deprives the
parties of a fair trial but can ultimately result in scarce
judicial resources being consumed when the case is remanded for
retrial based on those actions."

Among the comments:

  * "That's what this case is about: Money. Billions of dollars.
You're going to hear how much money these companies make every
day."

  * "What they did for over 50 years should not be tolerated. And,
really, what they did in this courtroom over these last five, six
weeks shouldn't be."

  * "So far not a single solitary human being on this side has
said: I accept some responsibility. Not an iota of it, not a
percentage point, nothing."

Partial Reversal

On appeal, the defendants argued violation of due process,
challenged Judge Murphy's instructions to the jury on fraud claims
and sought to reduce or set aside the awards.  They also argued
the judge erred in entering the final judgment jointly after the
jury found Calloway 20.5 percent responsible for his death and
apportioned the rest of the blame among the tobacco companies.

The Fourth DCA reversed the final judgment in part.  It remanded
the case for a new trial on the conspiracy and concealment counts,
entitlement to punitive damages and the amount.  It found no merit
in the other issues raised on direct and cross appeal.

Cases pending before the Florida Supreme Court could determine
whether Engel plaintiffs can recover punitive damages without
proving fraud and whether a smoker's negligence reduces a
defendant's liability for fraud.

Benjamine Reid -- breid@carltonfields.com -- and Cristina Alonso
of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt in Miami worked with Gregory Katsas
and Charles Morse -- cramorse@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day in
Washington to represent R.J. Reynolds.

Makai Fisher -- mfisher@shb.com -- of Shook, Hardy & Bacon in San
Francisco teamed with Miami counterpart Geri Howell and Geoffrey
Michael -- Geoffrey.Michael@aporter.com -- of Arnold & Porter in
Washington to represent Philip Morris.

Liggett Group's attorneys were Karen Curtis of Clarke Silverglate
in Miami and Kelly Anne Luther and Ann St. Peter-Griffith of
Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman in Miami.

They did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.
"There's no doubt Scott Schlesinger and his team are passionate
and zealous advocates for their clients," said Mr. Mills, an
appellate lawyer who handled oral arguments for the Calloways.
"These are hard-fought cases where both sides take their best
shots and often push the envelope."

Mr. Mills teamed with Mr. Gdanski, Mr. Hammer, Schlesinger,
Courtney Brewer of the Mills Firm in Tallahassee, Bard Rockenbach
-- bdr@FLAppellateLaw.com -- of Burlington & Rockenbach in West
Palm Beach and Jupiter attorney David Sales.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Securities Class Action in Early Stage
--------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action against Sandridge Energy, Inc. is in the
early stages, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the
Company and certain current and former executive officers of the
Company.

On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated stockholders, filed a substantially
similar putative class action complaint in the same court and
against the same defendants.

On March 6, 2013, the court consolidated these two actions under
the caption "In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation"
(the "Securities Litigation") and appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel. On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint, which asserts a variety of federal securities
claims against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a
putative class of (a) purchasers of SandRidge common stock during
the period from February 24, 2011 to November 8, 2012, (b)
purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust I in or
traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 12,
2011, and (c) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian
Trust II (together with the Mississippian Trust I, the
"Mississippian Trusts") in or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 23, 2012.

The claims are based on allegations that the Company, certain of
its current and former officers and directors, and the
Mississippian Trusts, among other defendants, are responsible for
making false and misleading statements, and omitting material
information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and
natural gas reserves, the Company's capital expenditures, and
certain transactions entered into by companies allegedly
affiliated with the Company's former CEO Tom Ward.

On May 11, 2015, the court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs'
claims against the Mississippian Trusts and the underwriter
defendants. On August 27, 2015, the court dismissed without
prejudice plaintiffs' claims against the Company and the
individual current and former officers and directors, and granted
plaintiffs leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint.

On October 23, 2015, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint in which plaintiffs assert federal securities
claims against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors on behalf of a putative class of purchasers
of SandRidge common stock during the period between February 24,
2011, and November 8, 2012. The claims are based on allegations
that the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors are responsible for making false and misleading
statements, and omitting material information, concerning a
variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves, the Company's
capital expenditures, and certain transactions entered into by
companies allegedly affiliated with the Company's former CEO Tom
Ward.

Because the Securities Litigation is in the early stages, an
estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with it, if any,
cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories
relating to the plaintiffs' claims and defendants' defenses are
fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any
reserves relating to the Securities Litigation. Each of the
Mississippian Trusts has requested that the Company indemnify it
for any losses it may incur in connection with the Securities
Litigation.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Established $5.1MM Reserve for "Hart" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that during the three-
month period ended September 30, 2015, the Company established a
$5.1 million reserve for the Hart class action lawsuit.

On July 15, 2013, James Hart and 15 other named plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas in an action undertaken individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated against SandRidge Energy,
Inc., SandRidge Operating Company, SandRidge Exploration and
Production, LLC ("SandRidge E&P"), SandRidge Midstream, Inc., and
Lariat Services, Inc. In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs
allege that the defendants failed to properly calculate overtime
pay for the plaintiffs and for other similarly situated current
and former employees. The plaintiffs further allege that the
defendants required the plaintiffs and other similarly situated
current and former employees to engage in work-related activities
without pay. The plaintiffs assert claims against the defendants
for (i) violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (ii)
violations of the Kansas Wage Payment Act, (iii) breach of
contract, and (iv) fraud, and seek to recover unpaid wages and
overtime pay, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, economic
damages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and both pre- and post-judgment interest.

On October 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional
Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the
Class and a Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On October
11, 2013, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to
Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma.

On April 2, 2014, the court granted the defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint
by April 16, 2014, which they did on such date. On July 1, 2014,
the court granted plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective
Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the Class, and
denied plaintiffs' Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations.

On May 27, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle this lawsuit. Pursuant to such agreement, the Company will
establish a settlement fund from which to pay participating
plaintiffs' claims as well as plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The
proposed settlement agreement is subject to final negotiations
between the parties and court approval. During the three-month
period ended September 30, 2015, the Company established a $5.1
million reserve for this lawsuit.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: To Defend Against Lanier Trust Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company and
the other defendants intend to defend against a class action
lawsuit filed by the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust.

On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors, among other defendants,
on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of
the Mississippian Trust I pursuant or traceable to its initial
public offering on or about April 7, 2011, and/or at other times
during the time period between April 7, 2011, and November 8, 2012
(the "Class Period"), and (b) purchasers of common units of the
Mississippian Trust II pursuant or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 17, 2012, and/or at other times during
the Class Period. The claims are based on allegations that the
Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors,
and the Mississippian Trusts, among other defendants, are
responsible for making false and misleading statements, and
omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects,
including oil and natural gas reserves and the Company's capital
expenditures.

The Company and the other defendants intend to defend this lawsuit
vigorously. This lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly,
an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this
action, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and
legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the
defendants' defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company
has not established any reserves relating to this action.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: 3 Class Suits in Oklahoma Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court in
Oklahoma has ordered the consolidation of the class action
lawsuits filed by Christina A. Cummings and Richard A. McWilliams
with the lawsuit filed by Barton Gernandt.

Barton Gernandt, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed on July 30, 2015, a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors, among other defendants,
on behalf of a putative class comprised of all persons, except the
named defendants and their immediate family members, who were
participants in, or beneficiaries of, the SandRidge Energy, Inc.
401(k) Plan (the "Plan") at any time between August 2, 2012, and
the present, and whose Plan accounts included investments in
SandRidge common stock. The plaintiff purports to bring the action
both derivatively on the Plan's behalf pursuant to ERISA Sections
409 and 502, and as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff's claims are based
on allegations that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
owed to the Plan and to the Plan participants by allowing the
investment of the Plan's assets in SandRidge stock when it was
otherwise allegedly imprudent to do so based on the financial
condition of the Company and the fact the Company's common stock
was artificially inflated because, among other things, the Company
materially overstated the amount of oil being produced and the
ratio of oil to natural gas in one of its core holdings.

On August 19, 2015, Christina A. Cummings, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers, among other defendants, on behalf of
a putative class comprised of all participants for whose
individual accounts the SandRidge Energy, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan") held shares of SandRidge stock from November 8, 2012, to
the present, inclusive. The plaintiff purports to bring the action
both derivatively on the Plan's behalf pursuant to ERISA Sections
409 and 502, and as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff's claims are based
on allegations that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
owed to the Plan and to the Plan participants by allowing the
investment of the Plan's assets in SandRidge stock when it was
otherwise allegedly imprudent to do so based on the financial
condition of the Company. On September 10, 2015, the Court
consolidated this action with the Gernandt action.

On September 14, 2015, Richard A. McWilliams, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors, among other defendants,
on behalf of a putative class comprised of all persons, except the
named defendants and their immediate family members, who were
participants in, or beneficiaries of, the SandRidge Energy, Inc.
401(k) Plan (the "Plan") at any time between August 2, 2012, and
the present, and whose Plan accounts included investments in
SandRidge stock. The plaintiff purports to bring the action both
derivatively on the Plan's behalf pursuant to ERISA Sections 409
and 502, and as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff's claims are based on
allegations that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
owed to the Plan and to the Plan participants by allowing the
investment of the Plan's assets in SandRidge stock when it was
otherwise allegedly imprudent to do so based on the financial
condition of the Company and the fact the Company's stock was
artificially inflated because, among other things, the Company
materially overstated the amount of oil being produced and the
ratio of oil to natural gas in one of its core holdings. On
September 24, 2015, the Court consolidated this action with
Gernandt action.

On October 15, 2015, the Court ordered the plaintiffs in the
consolidated Gernandt action to file a consolidated complaint by
November 24, 2015.

The Company intends to defend this consolidated lawsuit
vigorously. This lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly,
an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this
action, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and
legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the
defendants' defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company
has not established any reserves relating to this action.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Attorney Fee Award Reversed in "Aliano" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justice Thomas E. Hoffman of the Appellate Court of Illinois,
First District, Sixth Division, affirmed in part, reversed in part
and remanded the case MARIO ALIANO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SEARS,
ROEBUCK AND CO., Defendant-Appellant, No. 1-14-3367, (Ill. App.
Ct.)

Plaintiff Maario Aliano filed a five-count class-action complaint,
alleging that Sears, Roebuck and Co. (Sears) wrongfully collected
sales tax on the entire sale price of digital-to-analog television
converter boxes , despite the fact that a portion of the retail
price of the devices was subsidized by federally-funded coupons
(NTIA Coupons) which are exempt from Illinois sales tax. Plaintiff
amended his complaint several times, the matter proceeded on
plaintiff's class-action claims until October 27, 2011, when he
withdrew his motion for class certification, and the matter was
transferred to the municipal department of the circuit court for
further proceedings on the plaintiff's individual Consumer Fraud
Act claim.

On July 16, 2013, the circuit court issued an order containing its
findings of fact and conclusions of law and entering a judgment in
favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $3.10. On July 31, 2013,
the plaintiff filed a fee petition seeking $252,402.08 in attorney
fees and costs. The circuit court conducted a hearing on the
plaintiff's fee petition on September 4, 2014, and on October 6,
2014, entered an order awarding the plaintiff attorney fees in the
amount of $157,813.53.

Sears appeals from a $3.10 judgment entered by the circuit court
in favor of the plaintiff, on his claim brought pursuant to the
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the
circuit court's subsequent award of $157,813.53 in attorney fees
pursuant to section 10a(c) of the Consumer Fraud Act.

Justice Hoffman affirmed the $3.10 judgment entered in favor of
the plaintiff, reversed the award of $157,813.53 in attorney fees,
and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

A copy of Justice Hoffman's opinion dated December 30, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/7BgJEAfrom Leagle.com.

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division
panel consists of Presiding Justice Mary K. Rochofrd and Justices
Thomas E. Hoffman and Mathias W. Delort.


SECURITAS CRITICAL: Judge Narrows Claim in "Avilez" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David O. Carter of the Central District of
California, Southern Division, ruled on the parties' motions in
the case CATHERINE E. AVILEZ, ET AL., Plaintiff, v. PINKERTON
GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. SA CV 11-0493-DOC
(RZx) (C.D. Cal.)

Defendant Securitas Critical Infrastructure Services, Inc. (SCIS)
formerly known as Pinkerton Government Services, Inc. is in the
business of providing security officers to various clientele
businesses.

SCIS employed plaintiff Catherine E. Avilez as a security guard
from October 14, 2001 to around January 29, 2011. Avilez and other
security guards signed a written agreement entitled "agreement for
on-duty meal periods". Plaintiff alleges that defendant required
its security guard employees to remain on duty during meal periods
in violation of California law. Plaintiff asserts the remedy for
the violation is an additional premium wage and that defendant's
failure to record the additional premium wage resulted in
inaccuracies in employees' wage statements.

Plaintiff brought suit in Orange County Superior Court on February
28, 2011, on behalf of herself and the class of others similarly
situated for alleged violations of: (1) California Labor Code
Section 226.7 (meal periods); (2) California Labor Code Section
226 (recordkeeping); (3) Business and Professions Code Sections
17200, et seq. (Unfair Business Practices); and (4) the Private
Attorneys General Act, Labor Code Sections 2698, et seq.(PAGA).
Avilez deos not dispute she did not revoke the agreements nor that
she took paid on-duty meal periods during the relevant time period
of her employment with SCIS, but rather argues the agreements are
illegal and against public policy.

Defendant removed the case to federal court on March 30, 2011. On
October 9, 2012, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification. Defendant petitioned the Ninth Circuit for leave to
appeal the class certification order, and on January 23, 2013, the
Ninth Circuit granted the petition. On February 4, 2013, the court
stayed the proceedings pending the appeal.

On March 9, 2015, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum order
vacating the court's class certification order and remanding for
entry of a revised class certification order. In the memorandum
order, the Ninth Circuit held that the court abused its
discretion. Following the mandate, the court certified another
subclasses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4) on
the issue of whether there exists a prima facie case for
liability. On September 8, 2015, plaintiff filed her motion for
partial summary judgment. That same day, defendant filed its
motion for summary judgment and/or partial summary judgment.

Judge Carter denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary
judgment and granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion
for summary judgment and/or partial summary judgment. Defendant's
motion is granted only as to Avilez's PAGA claims.

A copy of Judge Carter's order dated December 29, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/pJJwxxfrom Leagle.com.

Catherine E Avilez, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Daniel H. Chang, Esq.
     Larry W Lee, Esq.
     DIVERSITY LAW GROUP APC
     550 S. Hope St., Suite 2655
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: 213-488-6555
     Facsimile: 213-488-6554

          - and -

     Edward Wonkyu Choi, Esq.
     Paul M Yi, Esq.
     CHOI AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES
     3435 Wilshire Blvd # 2410
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Telephone: 213-381-1515

Pinkerton Government Services Inc, Defendant, represented by John
Kevin Lilly -- klilly@littler.com -- Sarah Michelle Milstein -- at
Littler Mendelson PC; Sherry B Shavit -- sshavit@tharpe-howell.com
-- at Tharpe & Howell, LLP

Littler Mendelson PC, Sarah Michelle Milstein, Littler Mendelson
PC & Sherry B Shavit, Tharpe & Howell, LLP


SOCAL GAS: Lawmakers Want Company to Cover Leak Costs
-----------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a leak from an underground
natural gas storage facility that has sickened Los Angeles
residents and sent thousands from their homes has been out of
control for 12 weeks and a possible fix is expected no sooner than
March.  Here are some things to know about it:

SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM

Gov. Jerry Brown declared an emergency for the Southern California
Gas Co. leak that some environmentalists are calling the worst
disaster since the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

The leak first reported Oct. 23 has foiled efforts to contain it,
and some attempts may have made the problem worse.

In addition to bathing the Porter Ranch community in a foul smell
that is blamed for nausea, nosebleeds, headaches and other
symptoms, it has also released an immense amount of climate-
changing methane equivalent at one point to about a quarter of the
state's total output of the gas.

A SoCalGas executive has said the leak is unprecedented.
Financial filings show the company anticipates spending $50
million a month for the complex effort to cap the leak and up to
$7,500 a month for each of the 4,500 families being relocated
through as late as April.

It also faces more than two dozen lawsuits, some of which are
seeking class-action status.

POSSIBLE DANGER

The company has said the leak, which is located about a mile from
the nearest homes, does not pose an imminent threat to public
safety.  But crews are working under safety restrictions around
the flammable gas, and efforts to stop the leak may have weakened
the well and created a greater problem.

The Los Angeles Times reported on Jan. 15 that a "blowout" is a
concern after seven attempts to plug the leak by pouring a muddy
mix into it.

A blowout would send a large amount of gas directly up the well
instead of dissipating through the ground and could cause a
massive fire if sparked.  Workers cannot use cellphones and wear
watches at the site because of fire danger.

"If the wellhead fails, the thing is just going to be full blast,"
said Gene Nelson, a physical sciences professor at Cuesta College.
"It will be a horrible, horrible problem.  The leak rates would go
way up."

Attempts to stop the high-pressure leak with a briny solution have
created a crater around the wellhead and opened up a vent in the
ground about 20 feet from the well.

Sempra Energy, which owns the gas company, would not comment on
the blowout danger.

The company is drilling a relief well to intercept the well and
plug it about a mile-and-a-half underground where it taps into a
vacant oil field storing natural gas.

Regulators have also expressed fears that the attempts to burn off
escaping natural gas will lead to an explosion.

The state Public Utility Commission has asked the company in a
letter to address its concerns by Jan. 19.

The letter says the burn-off system as currently devised "is NOT
fully designed and needs further work and analysis," according to
the Los Angeles Times.

THE GAS COMPANY'S RESPONSE

SoCalGas initially acted slowly to publicly acknowledge the leak
and notify residents about what happened.

It eventually apologized for its response, and it has posted on a
website daily updates and results from twice-daily air quality
tests as part of efforts to be more open with the public about
what's going on.

In summarizing air quality reports, the company understated levels
of the cancer-causing chemical benzene found in the community.
After inquiries from The Associated Press, SoCalGas acknowledged
on Jan. 14 that higher-than-normal readings had been found in at
least 14 samples.  It previously stated that just two air samples
over the past three months showed elevated concentrations of the
compound.

A spokeswoman said the error was an oversight that would be
corrected.  The incorrect information was still on the website on
Jan. 15.

WHERE IS THE GOVERNMENT?

An alphabet soup of state and local government agencies are
overseeing work at the site of the leak and issuing a variety of
orders to fix the problem.

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health ordered the
company to relocate anyone seeking to move while the leak
continues.  The South Coast Air Quality Management District issued
a notice of violation for the leak and can assess penalties
ranging from $1,000 to $1 million a day for each day of the
nuisance.

The state Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources is
overseeing efforts to stop the leak and will investigate the cause
once it's plugged.

California lawmakers proposed bills that will carry stronger
regulations to prevent future incidents like the one at the Aliso
Canyon facility.  One proposed bill would require safety valves on
such wells.  The leaking well previously had a safety valve, but
it was removed in 1979 after it leaked.  A replacement wasn't
required.

Lawmakers want the company to cover the costs of the leak, pay for
greenhouse gas emissions and not pass them on to customers through
higher rates.


SNYDER'S-LANCE: Agreed to Pay $2.9-Mil. to Resolve IBO Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 3, 2015, that the Company has
agreed to pay $2.9 million to fully resolve the a class action
lawsuit filed by independent business owners ("IBO").

"In January 2013, plaintiffs comprised of IBOs filed a putative
class action against our distribution subsidiary, S-L Distribution
Company, Inc., in the Suffolk Superior Court of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts," the Company said. The lawsuit was transferred
to the United States District Court, Middle District of
Pennsylvania. The lawsuit seeks statewide class certification on
behalf of a class comprised of IBOs in Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs allege that they were misclassified as independent
contractors and should be considered employees. The plaintiffs are
seeking reimbursement of their out-of-pocket business expenses.

"We believe we have strong defenses to all the claims that have
been asserted against us," the Company said. "At this time, the
Parties to this litigation have reached a tentative settlement on
a class wide basis. We do not admit any fault or liability in this
matter; however, in an effort to resolve these claims, we have
agreed to pay $2.9 million to fully resolve the litigation. This
amount has been accrued as reflected in the condensed consolidated
financial statements. The settlement is subject to court approval.
The parties are currently preparing the necessary settlement
documents for court review and approval. It is anticipated that
the settlement will fund and be distributed to the class members
in the first half of 2016."


ST. JUDE: $13-Mil. Settlement in Riata(R) Case Fully Funded
-----------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 3, 2015, that the Company's
settlement payment of $13 million related to the Riata(R)
Litigation was fully funded as of October 9, 2015.

On December 17, 2014, the Company entered into an agreement that
establishes a private settlement program to resolve the actions,
disputes and claims-both filed and unfiled-of certain claimants
against St. Jude Medical, Inc. relating to its Riata(R) and
Riata(R) ST Silicone Defibrillation Leads. The agreement was
entered into with a group of counsel representing plaintiffs in
proceedings in jurisdictions around the country as well as
claimants with Riata leads who have not initiated litigation. St.
Jude Medical, Inc. accrued $15 million in the fourth quarter of
2014 to fund the settlement and related costs. The settlement was
expected to resolve approximately 950 of the outstanding, pending
cases and claims. The time period in which eligible claimants
could submit their documentation to participate in the settlement
has now closed with the final settlement comprising 886 claimants.
The Company's settlement payment of $13 million was fully funded
as of October 9, 2015. Additional payment for settlement-related
expenses are not expected to be material.

As of October 30, 2015, the Company is aware of five lawsuits, of
more than 70 such suits filed as of December 17, 2014, which were
filed by plaintiffs in the U.S. alleging injuries caused by, and
asserting product liability claims concerning, Riata(R) and
Riata(R) ST Silicone Defibrillation Leads where the claimant
elected to not participate in the settlement program or were not
part of the initial offered settlement. Of the remaining lawsuits,
one remains pending in state court in Illinois, one is pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, one is now pending in the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina following the removal from
state court and one is pending in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida. In October 2015, the Company
was served with a new lawsuit that is venued in state court in
California.


ST. JUDE: Canadian Riata Plaintiffs Have Not Taken Further Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 3, 2015, that an amended claim was
filed in November 2013 in a Canadian proposed class proceeding
alleging that Riata(R) leads were prone to insulation abrasion and
breach, failure to warn and conspiracy. The plaintiffs took no
action between their 2008 filing and the amended claim they filed
in November 2013. The Company has filed its statement of intent to
defend in response to the amended claims, and the plaintiffs have
not taken any further action.

The Company is financially responsible for legal costs incurred in
the continued defense of the Riata product liability claims,
including any potential settlements, judgments and other legal
defense costs. The Company believes that a material loss in excess
of the accrued amount is not probable and estimable and the
Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss
at this time.


ST. JUDE: Pursuing Insurance Recovery for Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 3, 2015, that the Company continues
to pursue collection of remaining insurance recovery in relation
to the settlement reached in the March 2010 securities class
action litigation.

In March 2010, a securities lawsuit seeking class action status
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and certain officers (collectively, the defendants) on
behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical common stock between
April 22, 2009 and October 6, 2009. The lawsuit related to the
Company's earnings announcements for the first, second and third
quarters of 2009, as well as a preliminary earnings release dated
October 6, 2009. The complaint, which sought unspecified damages
and other relief as well as attorneys' fees, alleged that the
defendants failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing a
slowdown in demand for its products and was not receiving
anticipated orders for cardiac rhythm management devices. Class
members alleged that the defendant's failure to disclose the above
information resulted in the class purchasing St. Jude Medical
stock at an artificially inflated price.

In December 2011, the Court issued a decision denying a motion to
dismiss, filed by the defendants in October 2010. In October 2012,
the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a
class action and the discovery phase of the case closed in
September 2013.

In October 2013, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. In November 2014, the defendants filed a motion for
leave to proceed with a motion to decertify the class, which the
Court denied in December 2014.

On February 18, 2015, the parties entered into a written
settlement agreement resolving the case, pending notification to
class members and subject to court approval. Under the settlement,
the Company agreed to make a payment of $50 million to resolve all
of the class claims and recorded a charge of that amount during
the fourth quarter of 2014.

The Company had estimated its damages exposure on the claims
alleged to be approximately $475 million. A preliminary order
approving the settlement was entered by the District Court on
March 9, 2015 with the final settlement order and judgment closing
the case entered on June 12, 2015.

During the first quarter of 2015, the Company received insurance
recoveries of $40 million and continues to pursue collection of
the remaining insurance recovery, including interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.


ST. JUDE: February 2017 Trial in D. Minn. Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 3, 2015, that a securities
litigation filed in December 2012 is expected to be ready for
trial in February 2017.

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

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

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

On March 10, 2014, the Court ruled on the motion to dismiss,
denying the motion in part and granting the motion in part. On
October 7, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. Like the original consolidated amended complaint, the
plaintiffs did not assert any specific amount of compensation in
the second amended complaint. The plaintiffs re-filed their motion
for class certification on September 4, 2015.

The defendants filed their response on October 7, 2015, and
plaintiffs were to file a reply by November 16, 2015, with the
hearing before the Court on the plaintiffs' class certification
scheduled for December 15, 2015. Fact discovery was to close
December 18, 2015, and the deadline for filing dispositive motions
is July 14, 2016. The case is expected to be ready for trial in
February 2017.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the
claims asserted in this matter.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of TelexFree Case
----------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Synovus Bank
has filed a motion to dismiss the TelexFree litigation.

On October 22, 2014, several pending lawsuits were consolidated
into a multi-district putative class action case captioned In re:
TelexFree Securities Litigation, MDL Number 4:14-md2566-TSH,
United States District Court District of Massachusetts. Synovus
Financial Corp. and Synovus Bank were named as defendants with
numerous other defendants in the purported class action lawsuit.
An Amended Complaint was filed on March 31, 2015 which
consolidated and amended the claims previously asserted. The
claims against Synovus Financial Corp. were dismissed by
Plaintiffs on April 10, 2015 so now, as to Synovus-related
entities, only claims against Synovus Bank remain pending.
TelexFree was a merchant customer of Base Commerce, LLC "Base
Commerce", an independent sales organization/member service
provider sponsored by Synovus Bank. The purported class action
lawsuit generally alleges that TelexFree engaged in an improper
multi-tier marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol
telephone services and that the various defendants, including
Synovus Bank, provided financial services to TelexFree that
allowed TelexFree to conduct its business operations. Synovus Bank
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on June 1, 2015.

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


TESLA MOTORS: Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Tesla Motors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that an appeal in a
securities class action lawsuit remains pending.

In November 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against Tesla in U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, alleging violations of, and seeking remedies pursuant
to, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint, made claims against Tesla and
its CEO, Elon Musk, sought damages and attorney's fees on the
basis of allegations that, among other things, Tesla and Mr. Musk
made false and/or misleading representations and omissions,
including with respect to the safety of Model S. This case was
brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of certain
persons who purchased Tesla's securities between August 19, 2013
and November 17, 2013.

On September 26, 2014, the trial court, upon the motion of Tesla
and Mr. Musk, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and
thereafter issued a formal written order to that effect. The
plaintiffs have appealed from the trial court's order, and that
appeal is pending.


TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS: Inked Settlement Pact with Suing Shareholders
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tobira Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in
the Regado Biosciences, Inc. Stockholder Litigation have engaged
in confirmatory discovery and will prepare a stipulation of
settlement to be submitted to the Court for approval.

On February 2, 2015, a purported stockholder of Regado filed a
putative class-action lawsuit (captioned Maiman v. Regado
Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No. 10606-CB) in the Court of Chancery for
the State of Delaware, or the Court, challenging the proposed
stock-for-stock merger of Regado with Tobira, or the Proposed
Merger. On February 25, 2015, a second, related putative class
action (captioned Gilboa v. Regado Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No.
10720-CB) was filed in the Court challenging the Proposed Merger.

On May 4, 2014, the Proposed Merger was consummated and Tobira
became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Regado and changed its name to
Tobira Development, Inc.

The complaints name as defendants: (i) each member of Regado's
Board of Directors, (ii) Regado, (iii) Private Tobira, and (iv)
Landmark Merger Sub Inc. Plaintiffs allege that Regado's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Regado's stockholders by, among
other things, (a) agreeing to merge Regado with Private Tobira for
inadequate consideration, (b) implementing a process that was
distorted by conflicts of interest, and (c) agreeing to certain
provisions of the Merger Agreement that are alleged to favor
Private Tobira and deter alternative bids. Plaintiffs also
generally allege that the entity defendants aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors.

On March 25, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions and
assigned lead counsel for plaintiffs (captioned In re Regado
Biosciences, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
10606-CB). On March 27, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint, a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion
for preliminary injunction. On April 20, 2015, the parties agreed
in principle to resolve the litigation (subject to approval by the
Court) and signed a memorandum of understanding setting forth the
terms of a proposed settlement to provide additional disclosures
related to the Merger Agreement and to cover Court-awarded fees.

On April 23, 2015, as part of the proposed settlement, Regado
provided additional disclosures to its stockholders. Since then,
the parties have engaged in confirmatory discovery and will
prepare a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the Court
for approval.

As of September 30, 2015, the Company is unable to reasonably
estimate an amount and/or a range of loss until the Company is
made aware of the fees awarded by the Court to the plaintiffs
under the proposed settlement, if any, as administered under
settlement law. The Company maintains D&O insurance and tail
coverage with deductibles of $2.0 million and $1.5 million,
respectively.


TRIMBLE NAVIGATION: Settlement Reached in "Thompson" Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trimble Navigation Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended October 2, 2015, that a settlement has
been reached in a class action lawsuit filed by Rachel Thompson.

On March 12, 2015, Rachel Thompson filed 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. A proposed
settlement, which would modify one provision of the credit
agreement and permit the named plaintiff to seek recovery of
attorney's fees, has been reached between the parties and
submitted to the court for review and approval.


TRUSTMARK CORP: Motions to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court has yet to
rule on defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint in a class action lawsuit.

Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank
(TNB), has been named as a defendant in two lawsuits related to
the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group.  The first is a
purported class action complaint that was filed on August 23, 2009
in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif
Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze,
Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano (collectively,
"Class Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, naming TNB and four other financial
institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark as defendants.

The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers
from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and other monies
received by each defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen
Stanford (collectively, the "Stanford Financial Group") and (ii)
damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or
more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit
fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds that
defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group
was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme.

Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.  Plaintiffs did not
quantify damages.

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.

In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit.  In August 2010, the court authorized and
approved the formation of an Official Stanford Investors Committee
(OSIC) to represent the interests of Stanford investors and, under
certain circumstances, to file legal actions for the benefit of
Stanford investors.

In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this
action.  In September 2012, the district court referred the case
to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain
pretrial issues.  In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's
motion to intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint
against one of the other defendant financial institutions.

In February 2013, the OSIC filed an additional Intervenor
Complaint that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining
defendant financial institutions.  The OSIC seeks to recover: (i)
alleged fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the
defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the
profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford
Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants
allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages
attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants
with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and
abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the
defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group
was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii)
punitive damages.  The OSIC did not quantify damages.

In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims.  In March 2015, the court entered an
order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class
certification and setting a deadline for the parties to complete
briefing on class certification issues.  All parties have
completed and filed briefing on the class certification issues and
await a ruling from the court.

In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and
the OSIC's claims.  The court dismissed all of the Class
Plaintiffs' fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of
the OSIC's fraudulent transfer claims.  The court denied the
defendants' motions to dismiss in all other regards.
On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new
claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for aiding,
abetting, and participating in (i) violations of the Texas
Securities Act and (ii) breaches of fiduciary duty.

On July 14, 2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the SAC.  The Court has not yet ruled on the defendants'
motions to dismiss the SAC.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Unit Faces Fine Over Failure to Submit Records
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that California's
utility regulators on Jan. 14 fined Uber Technologies Inc.
subsidiary Rasier-CA LLC $7.6 million for failing to submit
operations records on time last year.

Without comment, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) unanimously
upheld an administrative law judge's July 2015 decision to slap
Rasier -- operator of UberX -- with $7.3 million in penalties for
withholding data, including documentation about safety-related
incidents and service to disabled passengers.  The commission
tacked on another $300,000 for the company's 28-day delay in
complying with a final order demanding the records.

Uber must pay the fine within 30 days or the commission will
suspend its operating license in California.

An Uber spokeswoman said the company will pay the $7.6 million to
ensure ride-hailing operations continue.  But the fight isn't
over.

"While we are disappointed with the decision, we look forward to
making our case to the California Courts of [Appeal]," said
Eva Behrend.

No shrinking violet when it comes to challenging regulators, Uber
initially complained last year that the data sought by the PUC
weren't available or, if submitted, would risk passengers'
privacy.  After the judge issued his order, the company began
supplying records to the PUC but still insisted in its appeal to
the commission that the fine was excessive, especially in light of
a $30,000 settlement competitor Lyft Inc. reached with state
regulators over a similar document dispute.

Uber was represented by Davis Wright Tremaine in the PUC
proceedings.


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: 9th Cir. Appeal in Securities Case Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in a consolidated shareholder class action remains
pending, Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

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

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

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

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


UNITED SERVICES: Class Action Hearing Date Moved to Feb. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Business reports that the "show-cause" hearing date
involving more than a dozen attorneys in the controversial class-
action "forum shopping" case has been moved up a day to Feb. 18.

U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes agreed to make that change after
Lyn Pruitt of Little Rock, who is an attorney for the defendant,
USAA, requested the change.

She said in her letter to Judge Holmes that she is director-elect
of the International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy
and must be in California on Feb. 19 to train the academy's
faculty for their roles in teaching younger lawyers trial skills.

"If there is any way I could move this IADC obligation, I would do
so because this hearing is very important to me," Ms. Pruitt
wrote.  "I just have no flexibility to do so since this is set by
the IADC and has been in place to coincide with the group's mid-
year meeting."

Ms. Pruitt and plaintiffs' attorneys John Goodson of Texarkana,
W.H. Taylor of Fayetteville and others involved in a class-action
suit against the USAA insurance company have been ordered to
explain why Holmes shouldn't sanction them for abusing the federal
court system.

By dismissing a case from Judge Holmes' court after 17 months only
to refile it the next day for settlement in Polk County Circuit
Court, the attorneys appeared to be trying "to evade the
federally-mandated review of the class and the proposed settlement
by this Court in particular," Judge Holmes concluded.

Meanwhile . . .

Attorneys for Mr. Goodson, Mr. Taylor and more than 10 other of
the plaintiffs' attorneys filed their response to the order to
show cause on Jan. 14 as Whispers was going to press.

In the 48-page filing, with hundreds of pages of exhibits, the
attorneys for plaintiffs' counsel said that they acted in good
faith and their actions during the handling of the class-action
case were appropriate.  Their conduct also doesn't warrant "the
harsh imposition of sanctions," according to the filing by
attorneys James Moody of Little Rock and John Elrod of
Fayetteville.

In addition to defending their actions, the plaintiffs' attorneys
complained about the Arkansas Business story that brought the
refiled case to Holmes' attention.

In addition to "numerous" unspecified "inaccuracies," the
plaintiffs' attorneys attacked a source quoted in the article,
Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness in Washington.

Arkansas Business should have reported, they told Judge Holmes,
that Frank has been paid consulting fees for working for parties
who have objected to several proposed class-action settlements.

Consider it done, although being paid by clients is not unusual
among people interviewed by Arkansas Business.


VENAXIS INC: Shareholder Dismissed Class Action Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Venaxis, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Plaintiffs in
the Boldt Action filed on August 7, 2015, a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal Without Prejudice and thereupon the case was dismissed.

The putative class action complaint was filed on February 2, 2015,
against Venaxis and two of its current officers in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado.  The action is
captioned Boldt v. Venaxis, Inc., et al., District of Colorado
Case No.: 1:15-cv-00-222 ("Boldt Action").  The plaintiff in the
Boldt Action alleges violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5.  The Boldt
Action plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who
purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between March
13, 2014 and January 28, 2015.  The Boldt Action plaintiff alleges
that the Company made false and/or misleading statements regarding
APPY1.  The foregoing is a summary of the allegations in the
complaint and is subject to the text of the complaint, which is on
file with the Court.

Based on a review of the complaint, the Company believes that the
allegations are without merit.


VEREIT INC: NY Court Directed Plaintiffs to File 2nd Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that a New York court has heard motions to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action and directed the plaintiffs
to file a second amended complaint.

Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and
certain of its former officers and current and former directors
(in addition to the Company's underwriters for certain of the
Company's securities offerings, among other individuals and
entities) were named as defendants in ten putative securities
class action complaints filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY Actions"). The
Court subsequently consolidated the SDNY Actions under the caption
In re American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-
MC-00040 (AKH) (the "SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action")
and appointed a lead plaintiff. Following the Company's issuance
of its restated financials in March, 2015, on April 17, 2015 the
lead plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint, which
asserted claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, arising out of allegedly false and
misleading statements in connection with the purchase or sale of
the Company's securities.

On May 29, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss certain
claims in the SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action. The court
heard oral argument on the motions to dismiss on October 27, 2015.
Although the court indicated that it would allow many of the
claims asserted against the Company, the OP, and certain other
defendants to proceed, in response to the motions made by the
defendants, the court directed the plaintiffs to file a second
amended class action complaint by December 11, 2015 to enable the
plaintiffs to cure certain deficiencies that the court identified
in the amended class action complaint.


VEREIT INC: Not Yet Required to Respond to "Wunsch" Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the Company is not yet required to respond to the
complaint in the Wunsch class action.

On November 25, 2014, the Company and certain of its former
officers and current and former directors were named as defendants
in a putative securities class action complaint filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, captioned Wunsch v.
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 03-C-14-
012816 (the "Wunsch Action"). On December 23, 2014, the Company
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland (Northern Division), under the caption Wunsch
v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-
4007 (ELH). On April 15, 2015, the Maryland court transferred the
Wunsch Action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under the caption Wunsch v. American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-2934. The Wunsch
Action asserts claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, arising out of allegedly false and
misleading statements made in connection with the Company's
securities issued in connection with the Cole Merger. The Company
is not yet required to respond to the complaint in the Wunsch
Action.


VEREIT INC: Named as Defendant in "Esposito" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the Company and certain of its former officers and
directors (among other individuals and entities) were named on
October 28, 2015, as defendants in a putative securities class
action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York: IRA FBO John Esposito v. American
Realty Capital Properties, Inc. et al., No. 15-cv-08508 (the
"Esposito Action"). The Esposito Action seeks money damages and
asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, arising out of allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with the purchase or sale of the
Company's securities. The Company is not yet required to respond
to the complaint in the Esposito Action.


VEREIT INC: No Deal Yet Among Parties in ARCT III Merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the parties in the class action over the ARCT III
merger deal have yet to enter into a stipulation of settlement, as
contemplated in a memorandum of understanding reached in 2013.

After the announcement of the merger agreement with American
Realty Capital Trust III, Inc. ("ARCT III") in December 2012 (the
"ARCT III Merger Agreement"), a putative class action lawsuit was
filed in January 2013 against the Company, the OP, ARCT III, ARCT
III's operating partnership, members of the board of directors of
ARCT III and certain subsidiaries of the Company in Supreme Court
in the State of New York, captioned Quall v. American Realty
Capital Properties, et al., No. 650329/2013. The plaintiff
alleged, among other things, that the ARCT III board breached its
fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions contemplated
under the ARCT III Merger Agreement.

In February 2013, the parties agreed to a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of the alleged class of ARCT III stockholders. The proposed
settlement terms required certain additional disclosures related
to the merger, which were included in a Current Report on Form 8-K
filed by ARCT III with the SEC on February 21, 2013, but did not
include any monetary payment to plaintiff.

The memorandum of understanding also provided that the parties
would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which would be
subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery
and court approval following notice to ARCT III's stockholders.

If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, which has
not yet occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court
will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court
will approve any proposed settlement, or that any settlement will
be under the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding.


VEREIT INC: "Tarver" Class Action Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------
The Tarver class action lawsuit in Baltimore court remains
pending, VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said
in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

Following the announcement of the merger agreement with CapLease,
Inc. in May 2013, a number of lawsuits were filed by CapLease
stockholders.  The Tarver case remains pending.

On June 25, 2013, a putative class action and derivative lawsuit
was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the
Company, the OP, CapLease, and members of the CapLease board of
directors, among others, captioned Tarver v. CapLease, Inc., et
al., No. 24-C-13-004176 (the "Tarver Action"). The complaint
alleged, among other things, that the merger agreement was the
product of breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease directors
because the transaction purportedly did not provide for full and
fair value for the CapLease shareholders and was not the result of
a competitive bidding process, the merger agreement allegedly
contained coercive deal protection measures and the merger was
purportedly approved as a result of improper self-dealing by
certain defendants who would receive certain alleged employment
compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the
merger agreement. The complaint also alleged that CapLease, the
Company, the OP and others aided and abetted the CapLease
directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

In August 2013, counsel in the Tarver Action filed a motion for a
stay in the Baltimore Court, informing the court that the
plaintiff had agreed to join and participate in the prosecution of
other actions concerning the CapLease transaction then pending in
a New York court (which were subsequently dismissed). The stay was
granted by the Baltimore Court and there has been no subsequent
activity in the Tarver Action.


VEREIT INC: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Poling" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Dismissal of the "Poling" class action lawsuit is under appeal,
VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

In October 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the Company, the OP,
CapLease, and members of the CapLease board of directors, among
others, captioned Poling v. CapLease, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-
006178 (the "Poling Action"). The complaint alleged that the
merger agreement breached the terms of the CapLease 8.375% Series
B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ("Series B") and the terms
of the 7.25% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
("Series C") and was in violation of the Series B Articles
Supplementary and the Series C Articles Supplementary. The
complaint alleged claims for breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duty against the CapLease entities and the CapLease
board of directors, and that the Company, the OP and Safari
Acquisition, LLC aided and abetted CapLease and the CapLease
directors' alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary
duty.

In December 2013, all Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Poling Action, which was granted by the court in May 2015.
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 4, 2015.

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


VEREIT INC: Appeal in Cole Merger Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by one objector to the order approving the settlement of
the class action related to the Cole Holdings merger remains
pending, VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said
in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

Two actions filed in March and April 2013 in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, assert shareholder
class action claims under the Securities Act of 1933, along with
claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, corporate
waste, and unjust enrichment, among others, relating to the merger
between a wholly owned subsidiary of Cole and Cole Holdings
Corporation, pursuant to which Cole became a self-managed REIT;
Schindler v. Cole Holdings Corp., et al., 13-cv-00712; and Carter
v. Cole Holdings Corp., et al., 13-cv-00629. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss both complaints in January 2014. Both of those
lawsuits have been stayed by the Court pursuant to a joint request
made by all parties pending final approval of the Consolidated
Maryland Cole Merger Action.

To date, a number of lawsuits have been filed in connection with
the Cole Merger, the following of which remain pending. Between
October and November 2013, eight putative stockholder class action
or derivative lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland, which were consolidated in December
2013, under the caption Polage v. Cole Real Estate Investments,
Inc., et al., 24-c-13-006665 (the "Consolidated Maryland Cole
Merger Action").

These lawsuits named the Company, Cole and Cole's board of
directors as defendants, and certain of the actions also named
CREInvestments, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Cole, as a defendant. Each complaint
generally alleged that the individual defendants breached
fiduciary duties owed to stockholders of Cole in connection with
the Cole Merger, and that certain entity defendants aided and
abetted those breaches. The breach of fiduciary duty claims
asserted included claims that the Cole Merger did not provide for
full and fair value for the Cole shareholders and was the product
of an "inadequate sale process," that the Cole Merger Agreement
contained coercive deal protection measures and that the Cole
Merger Agreement and the Cole Merger were approved as a result of,
or in a manner which facilitated, improper self-dealing by certain
defendants. In addition, certain of the lawsuits claimed that the
individual defendants breached their duty of candor to
shareholders and/or asserted claims derivatively against the
individual defendants for their alleged breach of fiduciary duties
owed to Cole, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.
Among other remedies, the complaints sought unspecified money
damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

In January 2014, the parties to the Consolidated Maryland Cole
Merger Action entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding
settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of the alleged class
of Cole stockholders. The proposed settlement terms required Cole
to make certain additional disclosures related to the Cole Merger,
which were included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Cole
with the SEC on January 14, 2014. The memorandum of understanding
also contemplated that the parties would enter into a stipulation
of settlement, subject to customary conditions, including
confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to
Cole's stockholders. In August 2014, the parties in the
Consolidated Maryland Cole Merger Action executed a Stipulation
and Release and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement (the
"Stipulation") and the Baltimore Circuit Court entered an Order on
Preliminary Approval of Derivative and Class Action Settlement and
Class Action Certification and scheduled a final settlement
hearing.

In December 2014, the parties in the Consolidated Maryland Cole
Merger Action executed an Amended Stipulation and Release and
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement (the "Amended Stipulation")
modifying the Stipulation. In January 2015, the Baltimore Circuit
Court issued an order approving the settlement pursuant to the
terms of the Amended Stipulation. Under the terms of the approved
settlement, defendants paid a settlement amount of $14.0 million,
half of which was to be used for attorney's fees. One objector is
pursuing an appeal of the settlement order. That appeal is
pending.


VEREIT INC: No Deal Yet Among Parties in Realistic Partners Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a class action filed by Realistic Partners have yet
to enter into a stipulation of settlement, as contemplated in a
memorandum of understanding reached in 2014, VEREIT, Inc. and
VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

In December 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company and the then-members of its board of
directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York,
captioned Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners,
et al., No. 654468/2013. Cole was later added as a defendant.

The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the board of the
Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
transactions contemplated under the Cole Merger Agreement and that
Cole aided and abetted those breaches. In January 2014, the
parties entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding
settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of the alleged class
of the Company's stockholders. The proposed settlement terms
required the Company to make certain additional disclosures
related to the Cole Merger, which were included in a Current
Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with the SEC on January
17, 2014.

The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the parties
would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which would be
subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery
and court approval following notice to the Company's stockholders,
and provided that the defendants would not object to a payment of
up to $625,000 for attorneys' fees.

If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, which has
not occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court
will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual
settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by
the memorandum of understanding.


VIACOM: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Redstone Payments
-----------------------------------------------------
Randall Chase, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
shareholder of Viacom and CBS is suing the boards of the two media
companies over payments to chairman Sumner Redstone.

The lawsuit, filed on Jan. 19 in Delaware Chancery Court, says
company directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders
by allowing millions of dollars to be paid to Redstone while he
was physically and mentally incapacitated and unable to carry out
his duties as chairman.

The lawsuit comes after a former companion and caretaker of
Redstone claimed in a California lawsuit that he is no longer
mentally competent and that a signature on recent documents
appears to be forged.

Viacom said in a statement that the Delaware lawsuit is without
merit and the company intends to fight it vigorously.

A spokeswoman for CBS declined to comment.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: 66 Institutional Investors to File Emissions Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf News Markets reports that sixty-six institutional investors
are to take legal action against Volkswagen in its German home
market after the carmaker cheated emissions tests in the US.  The
first claim will be made within the next seven days.

The legal action will heap further pressure on Volkswagen, which
earlier this month said its annual sales fell last year for the
first time in more than a decade.

Klaus Nieding, a lawyer at Nieding and Barth, the German law firm,
said a capital market model claim, which is similar to a
collective lawsuit in the US, will be filed "within the next week"
in Germany on behalf of a US institutional investor that has
suffered a "big loss".  He declined to name the plaintiff.

The other 65 institutional investors are expected to join that
claim.

Investors have been nursing heavy losses after the US's
Environmental Protection Agency revealed last September that the
world's second-largest carmaker had cheated US emissions tests by
fitting vehicles with "defeat devices" designed to bypass
environmental standards.  Billions of euros have been wiped off
the value of Volkswagen as a result.

Nieding and Barth is working with MullerSeidelVos, a fellow German
firm, and Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd, a US law firm, to
represent investors that have contacted DSW, a German shareholder
protection association.

Mr. Nieding said the law firms collectively represent "many
foreign institutional investors, primarily from the US, with
claims of several hundred million euros".  He added: "We are
representing, as far as we know, the largest number of claims and
of shareholders [in Germany]."

Bentham Europe, a litigation finance group backed by Elliott
Management, the US hedge fund, and Australian-listed IMF Bentham,
is also expected to file a damages claim in Germany.

Volkswagen is facing additional legal action outside its home
market.  Class actions against the carmaker, which allow one
person to sue on behalf of a group of individuals or companies,
have already been filed in the US and Australia.

The Arkansas State Highway Employees Retirement System, a $1.4
billion pension fund, was named the lead plaintiff in a class
action against VW in the US.

"We will be prosecuting the claims on behalf of the class
vigorously," said Jeroen van Kwawegen -- jeroen@blbglaw.com -- a
lawyer at Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann.

The law firm is acting on behalf of investors who put money in
Volkswagen's American depositary receipts, a type of stock that
represents shares in a foreign corporation.

The US justice department, on behalf of the EPA, has also filed a
lawsuit against Volkswagen, while several institutional investors
are still weighing up whether to take legal action against VW.

The City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement, which
oversees a $5.7 billion pension pot, said the city's law
department is "considering potential foreign claims against
Volkswagen".

APG, the Dutch Pension fund that manages EUR400 billion, also said
it is "not ruling out legal action".

A spokesperson for Dimensional Fund Advisors, the US fund house
that is suing Petrobras, the Brazilian company caught up in a
multibillion-dollar corruption scandal, said: "We explore all of
our legal options in situations such as these."

Volkswagen did not respond to a request for comment at the time of
going to press.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Landfill Class Action Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Riordan, writing for Philly.com, reports that citing public
complaints from New Jersey and Pennsylvania about odors and other
unpleasantries associated with the operation, the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection last June ordered Tullytown
to close on May 22, 2017.

Separately, a pending $2 million settlement of a class-action
lawsuit against the dump is expected to mean reimbursement -- how
much is yet to be calculated -- for some of Florence's 11,000
residents (www.ldclassaction.com).

(Some residents of Falls Township and Levittown in Pennsylvania
also can expect to receive compensation.)

"We have been dedicated to being a good neighbor to Florence,"
says John Hambrose, the greater Mid-Atlantic area communications
manager at Waste Management, the Houston firm that operates
Tullytown.

After closure of the landfill begins on May 22, 2017, he adds,
layers of plastic and earth will be installed to "cap" the
contents, and the company will continue to monitor and collect
emissions of gas, treat wastewater, and otherwise maintain the
site for 30 years.

Waste Management also intends to plant a variety of vegetation on
the side of the landfill that faces Florence "so it will look more
natural, and less engineered," says Mr. Hambrose.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Weight Watchers International, Inc. continues to defend the case,
In re Weight Watchers International, Inc. Securities Litigation,
the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended October 3, 2015.

In March 2014, two substantially identical putative class action
complaints alleging violation of the federal securities laws were
filed by individual shareholders against the Company, certain of
the Company's current and former officers and directors, and the
Company's controlling shareholder, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints were
purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
common stock, no par value per share, between February 14, 2012
and October 30, 2013, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
complaints allege that, during the Class Period, the defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealed material adverse facts. The complaints allege claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs seek to recover
unspecified damages on behalf of the class members.

In June 2014, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. On August 12, 2014, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint that, among other things, reduced the
Class Period to between February 14, 2012 and February 13, 2013
and dropped all current officers and certain directors previously
named as defendants.

On October 14, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to
dismiss on November 24, 2014 and the defendants filed a reply in
support of their motion to dismiss on December 23, 2014.

The Company continues to believe that the suits are without merit
and intends to defend them vigorously.


WESTPAC BANKING: February 2016 Hearing in Class Action Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that a class action
appeal is scheduled to be heard in February 2016.


Since 2011, Westpac has been served with three class action
proceedings brought on behalf of customers seeking to recover
exception fees paid by those customers. Similar class actions have
been commenced against several other Australian banks. Westpac has
agreed with the plaintiffs to put the proceedings against Westpac
on hold, pending further developments in the litigation against
one of those other banks.

In April 2015, the Full Court of the Federal Court unanimously
found all of the exception fees charged by that other bank to be
lawful. The plaintiffs are currently appealing certain aspects of
that judgment to the High Court of Australia. The appeal is
scheduled to be heard in February 2016.


WESTPAC BANKING: To Defend Against Customer Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that Westpac has
been served with a class action proceeding brought on behalf of
Westpac customers who borrowed money to invest in Storm Financial-
badged investments. Westpac intends to defend these proceedings.
As the two named applicants have not quantified the damages that
they seek, and given the preliminary nature of these proceedings,
it is not possible to estimate any potential liability at this
stage.


WPX ENERGY: Royalty-Interest Owners Agree to Stay New Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit filed by royalty-interest owners have agreed
to stay a new lawsuit pending resolution of the first lawsuit in
the Colorado Court of Appeals.

"In September 2006, royalty-interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action suit in District Court, Garfield
County, Colorado, alleging we improperly calculated oil and gas
royalty payments, failed to account for proceeds received from the
sale of natural gas and extracted products, improperly charged
certain expenses and failed to refund amounts withheld in excess
of ad valorem tax obligations," the Company said.  Plaintiffs
sought to certify a class of royalty interest owners, recover
underpayment of royalties and obtain corrected payments related to
calculation errors.

"We entered into a final partial settlement agreement. The partial
settlement agreement defined the class for certification, resolved
claims relating to past calculation of royalty and overriding
royalty payments, established certain rules to govern future
royalty and overriding royalty payments, resolved claims related
to past withholding for ad valorem tax payments, established a
procedure for refunds of any such excess withholding in the
future, and reserved two claims for court resolution.

"We have prevailed at the trial court and all levels of appeal on
the first reserved claim regarding whether we are allowed to
deduct mainline pipeline transportation costs pursuant to certain
lease agreements. The remaining claim related to the issue of
whether we are required to have proportionately increased the
value of natural gas by transporting that gas on mainline
transmission lines and, if required, whether we did so and are
entitled to deduct a proportionate share of transportation costs
in calculating royalty payments.

Plaintiffs had claimed damages of approximately $20 million plus
interest for the period from July 2000 to July 2008. The court
issued pretrial orders finding that we do bear the burden of
demonstrating enhancement of the value of gas in order to deduct
transportation costs and that the enhancement test must be applied
on a monthly basis in order to determine the reasonableness of
post-production transportation costs.

"Trial occurred in December 2013 on the issue of whether we have
met that burden. Following that trial, the court issued its order
rejecting plaintiffs' proposed standard and accepting our position
as to the methodology to use in determining the standard by which
our activity should be judged.

"We have completed the accounting process under the standard and
have obtained the court's approval. However, as we continue to
believe our royalty calculations have been properly determined in
accordance with the appropriate contractual arrangements and
Colorado law, we have appealed this matter to the Colorado Court
of Appeals.

"Plaintiffs have now filed a second class action lawsuit in the
District Court, Garfield County containing similar allegations but
related to subsequent time periods. The parties have agreed to
stay this new lawsuit pending resolution of the first lawsuit in
the Colorado Court of Appeals."


WPX ENERGY: Opposed Motion for Reconsideration in New Mexico Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. has opposed a motion by Plaintiffs in a class
action in New Mexico for reconsideration of the denial of class
certification.  The motion for reconsideration is pending, WPX
Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

"In October 2011, a potential class of royalty interest owners in
New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint against us in the County
of Rio Arriba, New Mexico," the Company said.  The complaint
presently alleges failure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including
drip condensate, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, fraudulent concealment, conversion, misstatement of the
value of gas and affiliated sales, breach of duty to market
hydrocarbons in Colorado, violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas
Proceeds Payment Act, and bad faith breach of contract. Plaintiffs
sought monetary damages and a declaratory judgment enjoining
activities relating to production, payments and future reporting.
This matter was removed to the United States District Court for
New Mexico.

In March 2015, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Plaintiffs have not timely filed an appeal of this
denial. They have filed both a pending motion for reconsideration
of the denial of class certification with the trial court which
the Company opposes and a motion seeking to conduct additional
discovery in order to attempt to redefine their proposed class,
which has been denied.

In August 2012, a second potential class action was filed against
the Company in the United States District Court for the District
of New Mexico by mineral interest owners in New Mexico and
Colorado. Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied duty to
market both in Colorado and New Mexico and violation of the New
Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and seek declaratory
judgment, accounting and injunction.

"At this time, we believe that our royalty calculations have been
properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual
arrangements and applicable laws. We do not have sufficient
information to calculate an estimated range of exposure related to
these claims," the Company said.


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Updates of Class Suits in Delaware & Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2015, provided updates on the
shareholder class action lawsuits filed in Delaware and Tennessee.

On November 25, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware (Delaware Chancery
Court), by a purported shareholder of Wright under the caption
Paul Parshall v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10400-CB. An amended complaint in the action was filed on February
6, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendants Wright, the
Company, Trooper Holdings Inc. (Holdco), Trooper Merger Sub Inc.
(Merger Sub) and the members of the Wright board of directors. The
amended complaint asserts various causes of action, including,
among other things, that the members of the Wright board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Wright
shareholders in connection with entering into the merger
agreement, approving the Merger, and causing Wright to issue a
preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose material
information about the Merger. The amended complaint further
alleges that Wright, the Company, Holdco and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Wright
board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the Merger and an award
of attorneys' fees and costs.

Also on November 25, 2014, a second class action complaint was
filed in the Chancery Court of Shelby County Tennessee, for the
Thirtieth Judicial District, at Memphis (Tennessee Chancery
Court), by a purported shareholder of Wright under the caption
Anthony Marks as Trustee for Marks Clan Super v. Wright Medical
Group, Inc., et al., CH-14-1721-1. An amended complaint in the
action was filed on January 7, 2015. On February 23, 2015, the
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action, as pending in the
Tennessee Chancery Court, without prejudice. Later on February 23,
2015, the plaintiff refiled the action in the Delaware Chancery
Court under the caption Anthony Marks as Trustee for Marks Clan
Super v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10706-CB.
The complaint names as defendants Wright, the Company, Holdco,
Merger Sub and the members of the Wright board of directors. The
complaint asserts various causes of action, including, among other
things, that the members of the Wright board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties owed to the Wright shareholders in
connection with entering into the merger agreement, approving the
Merger, and causing Wright to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that
allegedly fails to disclose material information about the Merger.
The complaint further alleges that Wright, the Company, Holdco and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties by the Wright board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking,
among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the
Merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 2, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated Paul
Parshall v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10400-CB,
and Anthony Marks as Trustee for Marks Clan Super v. Wright
Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10706-CB, under the caption
In re Wright Medical Group, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No.
10400-CB (Consolidated Delaware Action).

On November 26, 2014, a third class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial
District, at Memphis (Tennessee Circuit Court), by a purported
shareholder of Wright under the caption City of Warwick Retirement
System v. Gary D. Blackford et al., CT-005015-14. An amended
complaint in the action was filed on January 5, 2015. The amended
complaint names as defendants Wright, the Company, Holdco, Merger
Sub and the members of the Wright board of directors. The amended
complaint asserts various causes of action, including, among other
things, that the members of the Wright board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties owed to the Wright shareholders in
connection with entering into the merger agreement, approving the
Merger, and causing Wright to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that
allegedly fails to disclose material information about the Merger.
The amended complaint further alleges that the Company, Holdco and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties by the Wright board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking,
among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the
Merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 2, 2014, a fourth class action complaint was filed in
the Tennessee Chancery Court by a purported shareholder of Wright
under the caption Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc.,
et al., CH-14-1736-1. An amended complaint in the action was filed
on January 27, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendants
Wright, the Company, Holdco, Merger Sub, Warburg Pincus LLC and
the members of the Wright board of directors. The amended
complaint asserts various causes of action, including, among other
things, that the members of the Wright board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties owed to the Wright shareholders in
connection with entering into the merger agreement, approving the
Merger, and causing Wright to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that
allegedly fails to disclose material information about the merger.
The amended complaint further alleges that Wright, the Company,
Warburg Pincus, Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Wright board of
directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the Merger and an award
of attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 24, 2015, a fifth class action complaint was filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court, by a purported shareholder of Wright
under the caption Michael Prince v. Robert J. Palmisano, et al.,
C.A. No. 10829-CB. The complaint asserts various causes of action,
including, among other things, that the members of the Wright
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
Wright shareholders in connection with entering into the merger
agreement, approving the Merger, and causing Wright to issue a
preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose material
information about the Merger. The complaint further alleges that
Wright, the Company, Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Wright board of
directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the Merger and an award
of attorneys' fees and costs. In an order dated May 22, 2015, the
Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the Prince action into the
Consolidated Delaware Action.

In an order dated March 31, 2015, the Tennessee Circuit Court
transferred City of Warwick Retirement System v. Gary D. Blackford
et al., CT-005015-14 to the Tennessee Chancery Court for
consolidation with Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc.,
et al., CH-14-1736-1 (Consolidated Tennessee Action). In an order
dated April 9, 2015, the Tennessee Chancery Court stayed the
Consolidated Tennessee Action; that stay expired upon completion
of the merger.

On May 28, 2015, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action
reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the cases, which has
been memorialized in a memorandum of understanding. In connection
with the contemplated settlement, Wright and the Company agreed to
make certain supplemental disclosures in the Company's publicly-
filed Securities and Exchange Commission Form S-4 registration
statement, which were sought by the plaintiffs in connection with
the Consolidated Delaware Action. The parties to the Consolidated
Delaware Action also expect that, in connection with the
contemplated settlement, counsel for plaintiffs will make an
application for an award of attorneys' fees. The contemplated
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
completion of appropriate settlement documentation, approval by
the court, notice to the class and a hearing, and consummation of
the Merger. There can be no assurance that the contemplated
settlement will be finalized or that court approval will be
granted.

None of the lawsuits has formally specified an amount of alleged
damages. As a result, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate
the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the
lawsuits. The Company believes that these lawsuits are without
merit.  In the opinion of management, as of September 27, 2015,
the amount of liability, if any, with respect to these matters,
individually or in the aggregate, will not materially affect the
Company's consolidated results of operations or financial
position.


ZILLOW GROUP: Class Action Parties Negotiated Stipulation
---------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in a
class action related to the acquisition of Trulia Inc. have
negotiated a stipulation of settlement.

In August 2014, four purported class action lawsuits were filed by
plaintiffs against Trulia and its directors, Zillow, and Zebra
Holdco, Inc. in connection with Zillow's proposed acquisition of
Trulia. One of those purported class actions, captioned Collier et
al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., was brought in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Francisco, however
on October 7, 2014, plaintiff in the Collier action filed a new
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging substantially
the same claims and seeking substantially the same relief as the
original complaint filed in California.

On October 8, 2014, plaintiff in the Collier action filed a
request for dismissal of the California case without prejudice.

The other three of the purported class action lawsuits, captioned
Shue et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., Sciabacucci et al. v. Trulia,
Inc., et al., and Steinberg et al. v. Trulia, Inc. et al., were
brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery. All four lawsuits
allege that Trulia's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Trulia stockholders, and that the other defendants aided and
abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell Trulia through an
allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price and on unfair
terms.

All lawsuits seek, among other things, equitable relief that would
enjoin the consummation of Zillow's proposed acquisition of Trulia
and attorneys' fees and costs. The Delaware actions also seek
rescission of the Merger Agreement (to the extent it has already
been implemented) or rescissory damages and orders directing the
defendants to account for alleged damages suffered by the
plaintiffs and the purported class as a result of the defendants'
alleged wrongdoing.

On September 24, 2014, plaintiff in the Sciabacucci action filed
(1) a motion for expedited proceedings, (2) a motion for a
preliminary injunction, (3) a request for production of documents
from defendants, and (4) notice of depositions. On October 13,
2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order consolidating
all of the Delaware actions into one matter captioned In re
Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation. On October 13 and 14, 2014,
the motions were refiled under the consolidated case number. On
November 14, 2014, plaintiffs again refiled their motion for a
preliminary injunction challenging the proposed acquisition. On
November 19, 2014, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, documenting the agreement-in-principle for the
settlement of the consolidated litigation, pursuant to which
Trulia agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures in a Form
8-K. The Memorandum of Understanding was filed with the Chancery
Court that same day.

The parties have negotiated a stipulation of settlement that the
Chancery Court is taking under advisement following a hearing on
September 16, 2015.

"We have recorded an accrual for an immaterial amount related to
these lawsuits as of September 30, 2015. There is a reasonable
possibility that an additional loss in excess of amounts accrued
may be incurred; however, the possible additional loss or range of
additional possible loss is not estimable. We did not record an
accrual related to these lawsuits as of December 31, 2014," the
Company said.


ZILLOW GROUP: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Wash. Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that plaintiffs in a
Washington class action has filed a consolidated complaint.

"In July 2015, two purported class action lawsuits were filed
against us and each of our directors in the Superior Court of the
State of Washington in King County, alleging, among other things,
that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the approval of the issuance of non-voting Class C capital
stock as a dividend," the Company said.

The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief and
unspecified monetary damages. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion
seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the issuance of the
Class C Stock Split was held on August 5, 2015, and the court
denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on
September 18, 2015 naming and seeking relief from only our co-
founders as defendants.

"We have not recorded an accrual related to this purported class
action lawsuit as of September 30, 2015, as we do not believe a
loss is probable," the Company said.


* Class Action Mulled Over Doping Scandals
------------------------------------------
Christopher Clarey, writing for The New York Times, reports that
there have been many doping scandals, too many, but if allegations
about the demanding and extorting of bribes to cover up test
results are true, track and field's former leader Lamine Diack and
his minions and relations took the category to a new level of low
by corrupting from the top.

It is a big, particularly rank can of worms, and the Diack damage,
along with the Russian federation's suspension from the sport,
raises the question of what might be done for athletes who have
missed out on their rightful rewards.

Reallocating medals has become standard practice -- depressing
testimony to how often that sports event you just watched turns
out to be a sham.

But what about a more radical approach: paying reparations to
those who were cheated?

"I think that's quite tricky legally, but look, I'm not ruling
anything in, and I'm not ruling anything out at the moment,"
Sebastian Coe, Mr. Diack's successor as president of the
International Association of Athletics Federations, said in a
recent interview.

The idea is certainly worth a long look, and there is the
possibility that legal action could make it even more pressing
business.  Doping is fraud, and so is covering up doping when it
allows for competition by athletes who should have been excluded.

"There's so much stuff you can't get back; it's like a class-
action lawsuit that we're looking at," said Alysia Montano, the
American 800-meter runner who finished fifth at the 2012 Olympics
behind two Russians accused of cheating and fourth at two world
championships behind one of them.

The Canadian racewalker Evan Dunfee, who is particularly outspoken
on doping issues, declared that since 2005, Russian racewalkers
had effectively "stolen" $1.7 million in prize money from clean
athletes with their performances in world championships and the
World Walking Cup.

But prize money and sponsor bonuses are only part of the loss.
Even more difficult to recover is the value of would-be
endorsements, appearance fees and contracts.

"It's just so much domino effect," Ms. Montano said.

There is also the mental anguish of defeat, more destructive when
an athlete suspects being cheated.

"I've seen a number of athletes who were so concerned and angry
about what everybody else was doing or may have been doing that it
literally ruined their careers and their lives," said Adam Nelson,
a former shot putter from the United States.

Mr. Nelson is particularly well placed to speak to this issue.  He
was awarded the gold medal in the shot put nearly nine years after
the 2004 Olympics when retesting resulted in the Ukrainian Yuriy
Bilonog's being stripped of his gold.

"I jokingly refer to the fact that I am actually the most recent
gold medalist and kind of, sort of the defending champion because
I received my medal in 2013 at the food court in the Atlanta
airport," Mr. Nelson said.

But the material effect of his winning in 2013 instead of 2004 is
no joke.

"Losing out on the gold medal in 2004, that cost me over $2
million in future earnings," Mr. Nelson said.

Ms. Montano estimated her lost bronze medals had cost her
$500,000.

"It's going to be really interesting to see if any athletes bring
any claims," said Sean Cottrell, the founder and chief executive
of the British website LawInSport.

The question is whom to target: the I.A.A.F., the Russian
federation or the penalized athletes themselves.

"It will be very expensive to go after the athletes, and I'm not
sure how much money Russian athletes have at this stage,"
Mr. Cottrell said.

Last year, the Track and Field Athletes Association, a still-
fledgling group led by Mr. Nelson, called on the I.A.A.F., the
World Anti-Doping Agency and the Russian federation to pay
reparations to athletes "denied their rightful competition
placements."

"It would be a huge symbol, a huge gesture from the I.A.A.F. to
recognize and take ownership of the fact that they really did mess
up, and it's not just the I.A.A.F.," Mr. Nelson said.

It would indeed be a symbolic gesture, as would be a revote for
the site of the 2021 world championships.  The I.A.A.F. Council
last year awarded the event to Eugene, Ore., without a bidding
process and with Diack pushing hard behind the scenes.

Mr. Coe said the I.A.A.F. would examine the possibility of fining
athletes who broke doping rules but said allocating money from
those fines to the wronged could prove legally complicated.  It
could also prove premature: How to have confidence at this dire
stage that the beneficiaries would be truly clean, either?

Still, Mr. Nelson believes the time has come for athletes to be
rewarded financially for following the rules.

With the statute of limitations on retesting doping samples now at
10 years after the initial test, Mr. Nelson proposes deferring
compensation for athletes into a "fair play" fund, which could be
bankrolled by the I.A.A.F., meet directors or sponsors.

The idea? Keep a clean record for those 10 years, and collect a
bonus.

"There's a need to actually start to align your overall values
with the compensation model," Mr. Nelson said.  "That's usually
what it takes to change a culture, unfortunately."

While the opprobrium has been rightly directed at the sport's
administrators of late, reform is not all about the now-chastened
Coe.  There is also the issue of what the athletes themselves
should do differently.

Not dope, you might answer (or perhaps shout, at this stage).

But Mr. Nelson and others also believe it is time for athletes to
play a much more proactive and collective role, policing
themselves and changing the culture from the ground up instead of
relying on the top-down model that has failed miserably. That
clearly means much more of a neighborhood-watch approach.

The I.A.A.F. already has an athletes' commission, whose members --
a mix of former and current athletes -- include the American
decathlete Ashton Eaton, one of the sport's biggest stars. But
Nelson and Dunfee, the racewalker, believe the commission is too
much under the I.A.A.F. umbrella and too constrained.

The Track and Field Athletes Association or another organization
like it could be the equivalent of an independent players' union.

"You can't change a culture just by making new policies,"
Mr. Nelson said. "We athletes need to start talking much more
openly.

"Depending on what estimates you use, 75 to 85 percent of all
athletes are doing the sport the right way.  And it's incumbent
upon that significant majority doing it the right way to start
taking ownership of this and say, 'We're not going to tolerate the
15 to 25 percent of you who are not doing it the right way, and
furthermore, we are not going to allow the coaches who perpetuate
the myth that there is only way to win to come into our culture
and mislead another group of athletes.' That can't happen just
from the top down."

Mr. Coe now insists that he wants "more whistle-blowers."
Mr. Nelson resists the use of that term, but this is semantics.
He knows that the flow of information behind the scenes -- fueled
by well-grounded suspicions -- has to increase soon and
significantly.

"It looks poor if we cast doubt on someone's results," he said.
"But we know the difference between poor sportsmanship and
jealousy and when something just doesn't smell right.  Athletes
know that better than you do. We truly do, so now we have to find
a way to address that."


* ERISA Settlements Down to 6,925 in 2015, Seyfarth Report Shows
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Thornton, writing for BenefitsPro, reports that the number of
lawsuits brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
totaled 6,925 in 2015, according to the Workplace Class Action
Litigation Report, published Seyfarth Shaw, a Chicago-based law
firm.

That was actually down a bit in 2014, when 7,163 claims were
brought, resulting a record amount of settlements totaling $1.3
billion.

The top 10 ERISA settlements totaled $926.5 million last year,
nearly 10 times what they were in 2013, when settlements were
$155.6 million.

ERISA settlements, in the aggregate, were richer than in any other
area of labor law.

Statutory, or workplace injury claims totaled about $714 million
for 10 largest settlements, wage and hour settlements totaled $464
million, and employee discrimination settlements totaled about
$296 million.

The top ten settlements in all employment related claims totaled
$2.48 billion in settlements, an all-time high, according to the
report.

That upward trend is likely to encourage more litigation.

"As success in the class action litigation context often serves to
encourage pursuit of more class actions by 'copy-cat' litigants,
2016 is apt to see the filing of more class actions than in
previous years," the report says.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses the west
coast, and the 2nd Circuit, which encompasses New York, were far
and away the most active circuits in upholding class
certifications suits.

In terms of ERISA cases, plaintiffs won five of seven
certification rulings at the appellate level.

"Exposures for corporate America have never been higher, and
employers face a new wave of 'bet-the-company' risks that have
reached a multi-billion dollar watermark for the first time," said
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., co-chair of Seyfarth Shaw's class action
defense group and author of the report.

The report also notes that the Department of Labor's Employee
Benefits Security Administration unit, which enforces ERISA,
recovered $696.3 billion in payments to plans and participants.

The agency conducted 2,441 civil investigations, and brought 89
suits in 2015.


* Lawsuits Over Earthquakes Mount in Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------
Paul Monies, writing for The Oklahoman, reports that lawsuits and
insurance questions took center stage on Jan. 15 at a town hall
meeting at the Capitol over Oklahoma's spike in earthquakes and
the links to saltwater disposal wells used in oil and natural gas
production.

Concerned residents packed the House chamber after the meeting was
moved from cramped nearby committee rooms.  The Capitol meeting
followed a similar one Thursday evening in Edmond.

Rep. Richard Morrissette, D-Oklahoma City, said the government and
the energy industry have been slow to respond to the concerns over
earthquakes.  He organized the Jan. 15 along with Rep. Cory
Williams, D-Stillwater.

"It is time for the sake of the citizens of Oklahoma to come up
with a plan that will resolve the earthquake issue,"
Mr. Morrissette said.  "We need a plan based on science, we need a
plan that works for the citizens of Oklahoma first and foremost.
I believe that those serving on the Corporation Commission today
have the backbone and expertise to formulate appropriate policy.
But will they? We need the cooperation of the oil and gas
companies, not more protectionism."

Mr. Morrissette briefly mentioned several possible solutions,
including assessing a per-barrel fee on producers to fund a pot of
money for earthquake damages not covered by insurance.  He also
pulled back on his earlier call for a full moratorium and now
favors a partial moratorium on saltwater disposal wells in a 10-
county area of central and northern Oklahoma.

Among the speakers was Edmond resident Emily Pope, who recently
moved to Oklahoma from Maryland when her husband got a new job.
After being startled by an earthquake on New Year's Day, Ms. Pope
wrote letters to elected officials and started a Facebook group to
share ideas and concerns.

"We had no idea that we were moving into a huge earthquake zone,"
Pope said as she held her infant son, Hunter.  "If we had known
that, we probably would not have taken a job out here."

An extensive question-and-answer period took up most of the
morning and early afternoon, with many criticizing
Gov. Mary Fallin's leadership on the earthquake issue.
Mr. Morrissette encouraged participants to stop by the governor's
office at the Capitol.

"Maybe some of you should go knock on her door," he said.

The Oklahoma Sierra Club handed out petition cards to send to
Fallin, asking her to "effectively regulate" hydraulic fracturing
and wastewater injection.  Meanwhile, staff for law firms were
taking contact information from people who described earthquake-
related damages to their homes.

Fallin spokesman Michael McNutt said "there is no need for the
governor to intervene at this time."  He said the Corporation
Commission, the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment and
the Coordinating Council on Seismic Activity continue their work
on the issue.

"The governor is not just talking about earthquakes.  She
continues to work on finding solutions," Mr. McNutt said in an
email on Jan. 15.

Experts Answer Questions

Messrs. Morrissette and Williams lined up several experts to
answer questions, including Insurance Commissioner John Doak;
Todd Halihan, a geophysicist from Oklahoma State University; Tulsa
geologist Bob Jackman; and Scott Poynter, an Arkansas attorney who
has signed up several Oklahoma clients for induced seismicity
lawsuits against oil and gas companies.

Mr. Halihan reviewed the science behind man-made earthquakes and
said Oklahoma's steep increase was unprecedented in known science.
The state had 584 earthquakes greater than 3.0-magnitude in 2014;
that shot up to more than 900 in 2015.  Previously, the annual
average in that category was 1.6, he said.

Mr. Halihan said much was still unknown about the formations used
to inject wastewater from oil and gas production.  He said data is
collected on injection volumes, rates and seismic events, but
there hasn't been much research into what happens to the
wastewater after it's injected.

Mr. Doak said earthquake insurance is meant only for catastrophic
events and is priced based on the frequency and severity of those
events. Most earthquake policies have deductibles ranging from 2-,
5- or 10-percent of a home's value.

"The premise for earthquake coverage is catastrophic coverage, for
the home to go to the ground," Mr. Doak said.  "It really has to
be priced separately, and consumers have to have the opportunity
to decide if they want to purchase that or not."

Mr. Doak said his department has fielded many questions on
deductibles, coverage for masonry damage and "lock-out" periods
after earthquakes when coverage isn't offered.  He said 109
companies in Oklahoma offer earthquake policies that cover damages
from induced seismicity.

Several attendees wondered why they should have to pay for
earthquake policies if the quakes can be linked to oil and gas
activities.  One resident suggested the industry pick up the tab
for earthquake coverage.

Lawsuits Mounting

Mr. Poynter said he's working on three earthquake lawsuits in
Oklahoma and has been hired by the Sierra Club to work on a
possible federal lawsuit under the federal Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act.  The law allows citizen lawsuits over hazardous
waste.

He said regulators at the Corporation Commission have dragged
their feet on the induced seismicity issue.  Mr. Poynter, who
handled an earthquake case in Arkansas, said the problems in
Oklahoma are of a much greater scale.  A class-action his firm
filed in Logan County would cover the entire state, he said.

"You're not dealing with just one pocket of earthquakes, you're
dealing two, three or four," Mr. Poynter said.  "You're not
dealing with one fault line, but several.  You're not dealing with
two oil and gas companies like I did in Arkansas, including
Chesapeake. Here, there's at least four that are putting at least
80 percent of the wastewater volumes into the Arbuckle
(formation)."

Mr. Poynter said the federal lawsuit could be filed as soon as the
end of the month.

Apart from the lawsuits Mr. Poynter is handling, a group of
Edmond-area residents filed a lawsuit on Jan. 11 against a dozen
energy companies, claiming damages from earthquakes that hit
Edmond in the past month.  Earthquakes of magnitudes 4.3 and 4.2
shook the Edmond area Dec. 29 and Jan. 1.



* Securities Class Action Filings Up in 2015, Slate Meagher Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
From the impacts of U.S. Supreme Court Omnicare and Halliburton
cases to the uptick in Securities Act class actions, Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher & Flom LLP litigation partners Scott Musoff and
Susan Saltzsteindiscuss the latest securities litigation
developments.

What were the most notable securities or credit crisis-related
litigation trends of 2015?

Scott: The pace of federal securities class action filings
increased last year, with over 180 class actions filed.  While
this number is slightly lower than the annual average between 2005
and 2014, it actually represents a higher percentage when compared
to the number of public companies, which has decreased.  Thus, the
chance that a public company will be named in such an action is
similar -- if not higher -- than prior averages.

Also, accompanying the uptick in initial public offerings in 2014
was an increase in Securities Act cases filed in 2015.  In some
jurisdictions, these cases can be brought in state court and will
not appear in the federal filing statistics.  In bringing
Securities Act claims, plaintiffs have relied on allegations in
connection with Item 303 disclosure, which relates to trends that
are known to management and are reasonably expected to have a
material impact.  Plaintiffs also have been pursuing Securities
Act claims when an IPO occurred at the close of a quarter but that
quarter's financial statements had not yet been issued.  In
defending these cases, it's important to put the alleged trends
and results in context, which may defuse the inference that there
was an undisclosed trend known to management.

As we predicted at the end of 2014, the median number of cases
settled and the settlement amounts increased in 2015.  Also, as
expected, the number of new credit crisis-related litigations
declined as statutes of limitations expired. However, there still
are a number of existing cases percolating through the courts, and
we may see some trials in 2016 relating to both residential
mortgage-backed securities "putback" and misrepresentation cases.

One of the biggest developments in 2015 was the Supreme
Court'sOmnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction
Industry Pension Fund decision.  What is the significance of that
case and how is it playing out in the lower courts?

Susan: Statements of belief captured the Supreme Court's interest
in Omnicare, which led to a new test for assessing whether
statements of opinion or belief in registration statements are
actionable pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act.  Justice
Elena Kagan, joined by six other justices, vacated the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's assessment that a statement of
opinion could be actionable under Section 11 if the opinion later
turned out to be untrue, regardless of the speaker's belief in the
statement's truth at the time it was given.  The Sixth Circuit's
standard was far afield of the standard adopted by other circuits
that had assessed opinion statements in the Section 11 context
over the years.

The Supreme Court's analysis injected an objective standard into
the assessment of whether an opinion is actionable based on
claimed omissions.  Ultimately, the Court determined that to steer
clear of Section 11 violations, "an issuer need only divulge an
opinion's basis, or else make clear the real tentativeness of its
belief."  And even if an issuer does not do so, to establish
liability, plaintiffs must be able to point to specific material
facts whose omission makes the opinion misleading in light of the
registration statement when read fairly and in context.

Lower courts have begun to apply Omnicare in earnest, and some
courts have extended its reach to cases arising under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act.  This application ofOmnicare by lower
courts suggests that plaintiffs will continue to face substantial
hurdles when alleging claims based on expressions of belief or
opinions.

Scott: This is certainly one of those cases that would have been
really harmful to corporate America, had it gone the other way.
The result brought the Sixth Circuit more in line with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and others.

Another important case was Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund,
known asHalliburton II, decided by the Supreme Court in 2014.  The
impact of that case is still being sorted out. Can you discuss the
key developments there and any other important lower court
decisions from 2015?

Susan: The 13-year-old Halliburton saga continued to play out in
2015 in the Northern District of Texas, where the court grappled
with how to apply Halliburton II.  Halliburton IIreaffirmed the
fraud-on-the-market presumption and clarified that defendants must
be allowed to rebut it at the class certification stage by
demonstrating that each alleged misstatement did not affect the
stock price.

Halliburton II followed the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Amgen
Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, in which the
Court held that a class of plaintiffs was not required to
demonstrate the materiality of alleged misstatements before class
certification because it did not bear on Rule 23(b)(3)'s
predominance requirement.  In Halliburton II, however, the Court
distinguished Amgen by noting that, unlike the materiality of an
alleged misstatement, price impact informs the issue of
predominance at class certification.  It remains to be seen how
lower courts will square Amgen, which precludes courts from
examining materiality of alleged misstatements at class
certification, with Halliburton II, which requires courts to allow
defendants to demonstrate a lack of price impact (which would seem
to be indicative of materiality), especially sinceHalliburton II
declined to address how a defendant could show this impact.

On remand, the Halliburton district court tackled that gap.  The
district court weighed the evidence submitted by the parties and
the arguments advanced by their competing experts, especially the
use of event studies.  The court focused on the experts' use of
confidence intervals, requiring the plaintiffs' expert to
demonstrate with 95 percent confidence that the alleged corrective
disclosure impacted price.  The court found that Halliburton's
expert demonstrated that the plaintiffs' expert failed to meet the
standard for some disclosures.  Further, the court rejected the
plaintiffs' use of a two-day window for measuring price impact,
reasoning that the stock price in an efficient market should
reflect a corrective disclosure within a day.  Finally, despite
claiming it would not consider whether a disclosure was actually
corrective, the court refused to find a price impact where the
plaintiffs' experts had "demonstrated" one using information
previously disclosed to the market.  In all, Halliburton won big:
Weighing the parties' competing experts, the district court found
no price impact for five of the six disclosures.

In the coming months, circuit courts will begin to review district
court decisions that analyze price impact and other arguments at
the class certification stage.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit recently agreed to hear an appeal of the Halliburton
remand.  Additionally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit also will address Halliburton II's contours in a case that
was argued on October 22, 2015.  IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v.
Best Buy Co. is an appeal of the district court's grant of class
certification.  Analyzing issues similar to those the Halliburton
district court examined, the Eighth Circuit is expected to address
Best Buy's argument that the district court incorrectly applied
Halliburton II by purportedly ignoring evidence that the supposed
misrepresentations had no impact on Best Buy's stock price.  Best
Buy contends that the alleged misrepresentations occurred during a
10 a.m. conference call and uncontroverted evidence shows the
alleged misrepresentations had no effect on its stock price,
pointing to the fact that the closing price of its stock that day
was virtually unchanged from when the call began.  If the Eighth
Circuit affirms the Best Buy district court, a potential split
with the Fifth Circuit could set the stage for the Supreme Court
to revisit price impact in Halliburton III.

In addition to these specific issues that are playing out, what
are the big-picture trends that could define securities litigation
in 2016?

Scott: As mentioned earlier, Securities Act class actions in
connection with IPOs saw an uptick last year, which is likely to
continue in 2016 if the window for IPOs opens.  We also have
observed an increasing trend of institutional individual actions
or so-called "opt-out" cases -- cases where institutional
plaintiffs choose to pursue securities claims individually or in
groups, rather than participate in a class action.  This is due,
in part, to the Second Circuit's 2014 decision in IndyMac, which
held that there could be no tolling of the Securities Act's two-
year statute of repose.  As a result, some institutions feel they
cannot wait until the resolution of a class action before deciding
whether to file an individual action and thus avoid the risk of
the claims being time-barred.  This may be the year we see IndyMac
play out in the class certification context as well.

We also have observed additional litigation over the meaning of
domestic transactions, even years after the Supreme Court's
Morrison decision, which held that the anti-fraud provisions of
the federal securities laws applied only to securities traded on
U.S. exchanges or in other domestic transactions.  In a world of
global offerings, courts are paying particular attention to
whether plaintiffs can adequately allege they purchased securities
in a domestic transaction.  ?Both the institutional individual
action and Morrison phenomena are evident in the current Petrobras
securities litigation pending in the Southern District of New
York.  In that case, Judge Jed S. Rakoff dismissed certain note
claims by foreign investors, who were unable to adequately allege
that they purchased securities in a domestic transaction.

Finally, as the initiation of financial crisis cases wanes, we
predict an increase in more traditional stock-drop cases.
Plaintiffs will seize upon volatility in the marketplace as well
as any corporate crises, such as cybersecurity breaches, to
initiate securities fraud class actions.


* West Va. Lawmakers Review Legislation on Internet Speed Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that West Virginia lawmakers want to
make sure that companies make good on the promise to customers of
high-speed Internet service.

The House of Delegates is reviewing legislation that would require
Internet providers to offer download speeds of at least 10
megabits per second to promote their broadband service as "high
speed," according to the Charleston Gazette-Mail.

Many rural West Virginians don't have Internet speeds anywhere
near that.  Customers with slow service can't use TV- and movie-
streaming services.

In 2014, Frontier Communications customers filed a class-action
lawsuit.  It alleges the company provides speeds slower than
advertised.

Frontier, the lone Internet provider in many rural parts of the
state, contends customers get the service they paid for.

Lawmakers say they've fielded an increasing number of complaints
from constituents about Internet service.  The complaints include
sluggish speeds, unreliable service, or no service at all.

Proposed legislation provides for sanctions for Internet providers
that don't deliver.  The Attorney General's Office would be
required to investigate customer complaints.

Customers could recover up to $3,000 in damages every time
Internet providers falsely advertise Internet speeds, and the
companies also could be fined up to $5,000 for each violation.

The proposed download speed requirement is significantly slower
than federal guidelines.  The Federal Communication Commission
recently changed its standards and doesn't consider anything below
25 megabits per second to be high-speed Internet.

Some lawmakers have suggested tying West Virginia's download speed
to the FCC's definition of high-speed Internet.  However, that
could discourage Internet providers from expanding into some rural
markets, where it's not cost-effective to provide speeds anywhere
close to 25 megabits.

On Jan. 15 a three-member subcommittee was named to study the
issue and revise the bill in the coming weeks.

Frontier lobbyists are closely watching.

Meantime, Sen. Chris Walters, R-Putnam, introduced legislation on
Jan. 15 that would create a $72 million fiber-optic Internet
network in West Virginia.  The bill aims to increase Internet
speeds, improve service and drive down prices for business and
residential customers.


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *