---

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

            Monday, February 1, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 22


                            Headlines


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss 3rd Amended Suit Pending
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Court Grants Motion to Seal in "Church" Case
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Discovery Underway in "Anger" Action
AEROHIVE NETWORKS: To Defend Against "Hunter" Suit
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Remand Still Pending

AMERIS BANCORP: Defending Suits over Jacksonville Bancorp Merger
AMTECH SYSTEMS: Amended Stipulation of Settlement Reached
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. Class Suit
APOLLO GLOBAL: Dispositive Motions Due Feb. 29 in Trilegiant Case
APOLLO GLOBAL: Caesars Has Yet to Reply to Summary Judgment Bids

APOLLO GLOBAL: CAC's Deadline to Respond to "Koskie" Adjourned
APOLLO GLOBAL: Dismissal of CEC-Queso Merger Action Sought
APOLLO GLOBAL: Discovery Requests Served in "Silva" Case
APOLLO GLOBAL: Continues to Defend OM Group Stockholders Suit
APPLIANCE RECYCLING: "Feola" Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed

APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Monitoring Whirlpool's Defense of Class Suit
ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Briefing in 1st Cir. Appeal Completed
ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties in "Montalbano" Suit in Discovery
AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Defending 3 Securities Class Actions
BIOLASE INC: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval

BMW OF NORTH: "Barakezyan" Suit Alleges Breach of Warranty
CACIQUE INC: "Molina" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
CAESARS ACQUISITION: Deadline to Respond to Nevada Lawsuit Moved
CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Exemptions in Assembly Bill 1513
CALIFORNIA: Settlement with Pelican Bay Inmates Approved

CB FINANCIAL: Maryland Appeals Court Affirmed Case Dismissal
CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: MOU Reached in PMFG Shareholder Suits
CELLCEUTIX CORP: Faces "O'Connell" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
CHINA COMMERCIAL: Securities Case Remains Stayed Pending Service
CINEMARK USA: Class Cert. Inappropriate for "Amey" Case

CLUB CABARET: Entertainers May Sue Owner
CONAGRA: Margarine Contains Trans Fat, Calif. Suit Claims
CUBIC CORPORATION: Defending Consumer Suit in Illinois
CVB FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Class Action Lawsuit
CYNOSURE INC: 2nd Cir. Keeps Dismissal Ruling

DIGITAL TURBINE: Defending Class Suit in Israel
DIRECTV HOLDINGS: January 2016 Trial in MLB Litigation
DOLLAR TREE: 4,300 Plaintiffs Remain in Virginina Labor Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Suit by Store Managers
DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Employee's Class Suit Stayed

DOLLAR TREE: 2012 Store Manager's Suit Decertified, Resolved
DOLLAR TREE: 10 Named Plaintiffs Remain in North Carolina MDL
DOLLAR TREE: Limited Discovery Underway in Female Manager's Suit
DOLLAR TREE: March Trial Date in Ex-Store Manager's Suit
DOLLAR TREE: 2014 Class Suit by Ex-Store Manager Awaits Discovery

DOLLAR TREE: Distribution Center Employee's Suit Removed
DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar's Appeal on Remand Order Pending
DOLLAR TREE: Shareholder Suit in Del. Settled for Immaterial Sum
DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Awaits Decision on Arbitration Bid
DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Served with TCPA Suit in Missouri

DOLLAR TREE: Store Managers' Suit Sent to Arbitration
EFT HOLDINGS: Hearing Held on Class Certification Bid
EMERGENT CAPITAL: Fla. Court Dismissed "Rothenberg" Class Suit
EMERGENT CAPITAL: Defending "Jennings" Class Action
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Inked Deals to Settle 46,600 Mesh Cases

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 644 MCP Cases Pending Against Qualitest
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 2nd Amended Suit Filed in Testosterone Suit
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Stayed in Opana(R) ER Litigation
FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR: Sued in Over Prop. Sale to ON Semicon.
FANDUEL INC: "Halperin" Suit Alleges Negligence

FBR & CO: Underwriter Defendants Moved to Dismiss Securities Suit
FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Tendered $1MM to Settlement Administrator
FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Parties in "Ludwick" in Document Discovery
FIFTH STREET: Named as Defendant in Class Suits v. FSC
FIRST SOLAR: 9th Circuit Appeal Remains Pending

FORCEFIELD ENERGY: JPML Keeps Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y.
FORD MOTOR: MyFord Plaintiffs Expected to File Cert. Bid Jan. 28
FRANK A. REICHL: "Little River" Suit Alleges Sherman Act Breach
FX ENERGY: Defending Class Suits over ORLEN Upstream Deal
H & T GAMING: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Violation

HCSB FINANCIAL: Final Settlement Hearing Cancelled
HELEN ROSS: "Wei" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violation
HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal in Concession Recovery Fees Action Pending
HERTZ GLOBAL: Seeks Dismissal of 3rd Amended Securities Complaint
HOME DEPOT: 57 Class Suits Filed over 2014 Data Breach

HOWARD GROUP: Faces "Greenwell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
IIX INC: Faces "Shiverdaker" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ITT EDUCATIONAL: $16.9 Million Settlement Reached in N.Y. Suit
ITT EDUCATIONAL: $12.5 Million Settlement Reached in Indiana Case
ITT EDUCATIONAL: $400,000 Deal Reached in "Gallien" Lawsuit

J.G. WENTWORTH: New Action Filed in Illinois State Court
JC CHRISTENSEN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
JONES FINANCIAL: Transfer of "Ezersky" Case Sought
JUSTIN JONES: Court Rejects Class Cert. Bid in "Ali" Suit
KEURIG GREEN: Discovery Schedule Okayed in Vermont Suit

KEURIG GREEN: Consolidated Complaint Filed in California Suit
KEURIG GREEN: Bids to Dismiss Purchaser Suits Pending
KEURIG GREEN: Rainwater Action Transferred to MDL
KEURIG GREEN: Denies Allegations in "Sanchez" Wage & Hour Suit
KEY ENERGY: Class Certification Bid in Calif. Suit Still Pending

KEY ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Texas Suit Still Pending
KEY ENERGY: Fights FLSA Suit in Corpus Christi, Texas
KEY ENERGY: Fights Class Suit in Houston, Texas
KISS MY FACE: Falsely Marketed Toothpaste Products, Suit Claims
LAKELAND BANCORP: Consolidated Amended Suit Filed in N.J. Suit

LES VIANDES: Recalls Roch Brand Cooked Ham Loaf
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Sued in North Carolina over Driver Records
LIFELOCK INC: $68-Mil. "Ebarle" Case Settlement Has Initial Okay
LIFELOCK INC: Feb. 5 Final Hearing Set to Approve "Goldman" Deal
LIFELOCK INC: To Seek Dismissal of "Avila" Class Suit

LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Bid to Dismiss "Howard" Action Pending
LVNV FUNDING: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Settlement in "Alvarez" Suit Remains Pending
MACK: Recalls 2014 Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk
MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Paid $38MM to Questcor Settlement Fund

MASIMO CORP: Calif. Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Ruling
MASSAGE GREEN: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Salberg" Suit
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Briskin" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Cawthon" Suit over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Collier" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Graver" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Greenwalt" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Kimball" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Townes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Young" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

MDL 2226: 44 Propoxyphene Cases Remain Pending as of Nov. 2
MDL 2384: W.D. N.C. Judge Enters Stay in "Harris" Case
MDL 2492: Chicago Judge Okays $70MM NCAA Concussion Settlement
MDL 2521: Trial in Lidoderm Antitrust Case to Begin 2017
MDL 2545: 576 Testosterone Cases Pending as of Nov. 2

MDL 2672: Case Management Order Issued; Feb. 25 Hearing Set
MEPHISTO CANADA: Recalls Various Shoe Care Products
MERILIN INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Black Pepper Powder Due to Wheat
MGM RESORTS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Moved to Jan. 29
MICHAELS COMPANIES: Recalls Celebrate It(TM) Christmas Lights Set

MICHAELS COMPANIES: Recalls Bright Tiding 50 LED Light Set
MILLER BREWING: "Nelson" Suit Alleges CAFA Violation
MIXTURA LATINA: Recalls Salsa Products Due to Wheat
MODEL N: To Pay $250,000 in Securities Case Settlement
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Sued Over Workers Toxic Substances Exposure

NASA FEDERAL: Faces "Chambers" Suit Over Overdraft Fee Policies
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Jon2 Suit in Cal. Over All Sunday Games
NEW SOURCE ENERGY: May 16 Discovery Cutoff in Suit v. Rod's
NEW SOURCE ENERGY: Parties in EFS Suit Discuss Scope of Discovery
NEW SOURCE ENERGY: Defending "Vaccaro" Class Action

NEW YORK LIFE: Illegally Uses Compound Interest, Suit Claims
NEWMAR: Recalls Essex Class A Motorhome 2012 & 2013 Models
NEWMAR: Recalls Multiple Motorhome Models Due to Fire Risk
NEWMAR: Recalls Multiple Motorhome Models Due to Injury Risk
NINGBO EGO: Recalls Seasonal Light Products Due to Fire Risk

NISSAN: Recalls Rogue 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Banda" Action Claims
OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Still Defending Lawsuit by SEPTA
PANORAMIC RENTAL: Recalls X-ray Model PC-1000 Units

PASTA BAR: Faces "Urbano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PAULA G. KAPLAN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gentile" Suit Claims
PINGTAN MARINE: Bid to Dismiss "Fila" Case Pending
PORSCHE CARS: Faces "Vigran" Suit in Ga. Over RICO Violation
PROVIDENT FUNDING: Response to "Steinberg" Suit Due Feb. 19

PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: To Defend Against Securities Action
REALD INC: Being Sold on the Cheap, Calif. Suit Says
REG & DOREEN: Recalls Honey Products Due to Nitrofurans
RENTECH NITROGEN: Suits Related to CVR Merger at Initial Stage
REX ENERGY: Order Denying Cert. Bid in "Cardinale" under Appeal

RICK'S CITY: Faces "Timbrook" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RING ENERGY: Nevada Court Dismisses "Newman" Class Action
ROADRUNNER PREFERRED: Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Defending Wage Suits in Calif. & Ill.
ROLAND CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Wrongful Termination

SAKS INCORPORATED: Sued in Cal. Over False Merchandise Prices
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Defending Morning Song Bird Food Litigation
SELECT FOOD: Recalls Coconut Curry Sauce Due to Milk
SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Must Face Against Mortuary Drivers' Suit
SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Defendant in Delaware Stockholders' Suits

SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Defendant in New York Stockholders' Suits
SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Feb. 19 Case Management Conference Set
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Sued Over Porter Ranch Massive Gas Leak
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: $7MM Accord Reached in "Perry" Case
STATE STREET: Still Facing 2 ERISA Class Suits in Boston

SWISHER HYGIENE: Defending Against "Berger" Action in Illinois
SWISS-AMERICAN: Falsely Marketed EltaMD UV Products, Suit Says
SYMANTEC CORP: Paid $30 Million Settlement Amount
TALK FUSION: Operates Illegal Pyramid Scheme, "Gray" Suit Claims
TD AMERITRADE: Plaintiffs Balk at Dismissal Recommendation

TD AMERITRADE: Approval of Yield Plus Fund Case Settlement Sought
TECO ENERGY: MOU Reached in Merger Litigation
TEXTURA CORP: Bid to Dismiss Illinois Class Suit Pending
TOWERS WATSON: Defending Consolidated Suit over Willis Merger
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Cohen" Suit Claims

TREMOR VIDEO: Appeal from Case Dismissal Remains Pending
TRIMAC TRANSPORTATION: McCowen Plaintiff May File Amended Suit
TURTLE BEACH: Order Denying Motion to Dismiss under Appeal
US WELL: "Lackie" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
UTAH: No State Funding for Indigent Defense, Class Suit Claims

VANGUARD NATURAL: Time to Respond to Federal Suit Not Yet Set
VANGUARD NATURAL: Time to Respond to LRE Merger Suit Not Yet Set
VCA INC: Continues to Defend Suits by Veterinary Assistants
VCA INC: $1.25MM Settlement in Courier's Suit Still Pending
VCA INC: "Graham" Class Suit in Early Procedural Stage

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Katzschner" Seeks Damages Under CAFA
W2007 GRACE: W.D. Tenn. Judge Grants Final Approval of Settlement
WEC ENERGY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held
WSFS FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Alliance Merger Suit
XOMA CORP: "Markette" & "Fieser" Cases Related


                             *********


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss 3rd Amended Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a third amended
complaint in an Illinois securities class action lawsuit is fully
briefed and awaiting decision, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

On May 17, 2013, the Company, along with certain of its directors,
former directors and former officers, was named as a defendant in
a putative securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Hughes v.
Accretive Health, Inc. et al.). The primary allegations, relating
to its March 8, 2013 announcement that the Company would be
restating its prior period financial statements, are that its
public statements, including filings with the SEC, were false
and/or misleading with respect to its revenue recognition and
earnings prospects.

On November 27, 2013, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
Company's directors and former directors (other than Mary Tolan).
On January 31, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On September 25, 2014, the Court granted the Company
motion to dismiss without prejudice, however the plaintiffs filed
a second amended complaint on October 23, 2014.

On November 10, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. While that motion was still pending, on
January 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the second
amended complaint, seeking to add allegations regarding the
recently issued Restatement.

On April 22, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend,
and a third amended complaint was filed on May 13, 2015. The
Company moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on June 3,
2015. That motion is fully briefed and awaiting decision.

The Company continues to believe it has meritorious defenses and
intends to vigorously defend itself, Mary Tolan, and its former
officers against these claims. The outcome is not presently
determinable.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Court Grants Motion to Seal in "Church" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAHALA A. CHURCH, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ACCRETIVE HEALTH, INC., aka dba
MEDICAL FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-0057-
WS-B (S.D. Ala.), Chief District Judge William H. Steele granted
the parties' motions to seal as to these materials:

     (i) designated excerpts of defendant's two summary judgment
         briefs (docs. 94, 106);

    (ii) the original versions of defendant's summary judgment
         exhibits identified as Exhibits D, E, F, H, I, J, K, L,
         N, R, T, U, V, W, GG, HH, and II; and

   (iii) plaintiff's summary judgment Exhibit G and designated
         portions of plaintiff's Exhibits A, C and E.

These materials are sealed. In all other respects, the Motions to
Seal are deemed withdrawn based on defendant's representations in
its Supplemental Brief and defendant's recent filings of unsealed
copies of the subject briefs and exhibits.

A copy of the Court's December 28, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/YQSPb5from Leagle.com.

Accretive Health said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that on February 11,
2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama (Church v. Accretive Health, Inc.). The
primary allegation is that the Company attempted to collect debts
without providing the notice required by the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself
against these claims. The Company's summary-judgment motion is now
fully briefed and pending before the Court. Class-certification
proceedings have been deferred until that summary-judgment motion
has been resolved. The outcome is not presently determinable.

Mahala A. Church, Plaintiff, represented by Earl P. Underwood, Jr.
& Kenneth J. Riemer.

Accretive Health, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Brian
Clubok, Kirkland & Elis LLP, Claire M. Murray, Kirkland & Ellis,
LLP, Jennifer G. Levy, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Kathleen A. Brogan,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Kellen S. Dwyer, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP &
Sandy G. Robinson, Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Discovery Underway in "Anger" Action
------------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. expects discovery to be underway shortly in
the "Anger" class action lawsuit in Michigan, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

On July 22, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan (Anger v. Accretive Health,
Inc.). The primary allegations are that the Company attempted to
collect debts without providing the notice required by the FDCPA
and Michigan Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and failed to
abide by the terms of an agreed payment plan in violation of those
same statutes.

On August 27, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion to dismiss. A scheduling conference was held
on October 26, 2015, and the Company expects discovery to be
underway shortly.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The outcome is
not presently determinable.


AEROHIVE NETWORKS: To Defend Against "Hunter" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Aerohive Networks, Inc. intends to defend the case, Hunter v.
Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Shareholder Litigation, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

In June 2015, a class action complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors. This action was subsequently related and consolidated
with two identical, follow-on complaints and is captioned Hunter
v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Shareholder Litigation, Master
File No. 534070. The consolidated complaint alleges claims under
federal securities laws that the Registration Statement which the
Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form
S-1 in connection with its initial public offering in March 2014
contained false and/or misleading statements or omissions. The
consolidated action also names as defendants the investment firms
who underwrote the Company's initial public offering.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the Registration Statement
failed to disclose, among other things, product deficiencies, poor
sales, and a decline in sales-related personnel. The complaint
additionally alleges that the Company improperly recognized
revenue, including by booking certain sales with rights of return.
The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief. The Company is advancing certain defense costs
with respect to individual defendants, including the underwriting
investment firms, under written indemnification agreements.


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Remand Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
plaintiff's motion to remand a class action lawsuit is pending.

"In September 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company, including its Chief Executive
Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and members of its Board of
Directors, in the Business Litigation Section of the Suffolk
County Superior Court of Massachusetts," the Company said.  "The
complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who
purchased common stock of the Company pursuant or traceable to our
initial public offering, and purports to allege claims arising
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended (the "Securities Act").  The complaint generally
alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
by, among other things, making material misstatements or omissions
concerning the Phase 2b clinical study of vadadustat.  The
complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory
damages, rescission of certain stock purchases, attorneys' fees,
and costs."

"In October 2015, we removed the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the
plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to the Business
Litigation Section of the Suffolk County Superior Court of
Massachusetts.  The plaintiff's motion to remand is currently
pending.  The Company believes such claims are without merit, and
will engage in a vigorous defense of such litigation."


AMERIS BANCORP: Defending Suits over Jacksonville Bancorp Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameris Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that since the
announcement of the proposed merger with Jacksonville Bancorp on
October 1, 2015, the following two putative shareholder class
action suits have been filed against Jacksonville Bancorp, the
directors of Jacksonville Bancorp and the Company, 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
Jacksonville 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 Jacksonville Bancorp, that Jacksonville 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 Jacksonville Bancorp and the Company aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Jacksonville 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.

While the Company believes that the Florida Actions are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend its interest, it is not
possible to predict with certainty the outcome of the proceedings
or their impact on the Company.


AMTECH SYSTEMS: Amended Stipulation of Settlement Reached
---------------------------------------------------------
Amtech Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in a
stockholder class action lawsuit have entered into an Amended
Stipulation of Settlement, subject to court approval.

Shortly after the Company entered into the merger agreement with
BTU, two separate putative stockholder class action complaints
(together, the "Stockholder Actions") were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Court"). The
first was filed on November 4, 2014 and the second on November 17,
2014, on behalf of BTU's public stockholders, against BTU, members
of the BTU board, Amtech and the special purpose merger
subsidiary. The Stockholder Actions were consolidated on December
4, 2014.

The complaints generally alleged that, in connection with entering
into the merger agreement, the BTU board of directors breached
certain fiduciary duties owed to BTU's stockholders. The
complaints sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as compensatory damages.

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

On June 22, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other
defendants named therein, filed a Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise and Settlement with the Delaware Court to memorialize
the MOU. On November 6, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the
other defendants named therein, filed an Amended Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement (the "Amended Stipulation
of Settlement") with the Delaware Court. The Amended Stipulation
of Settlement provides for a release of all claims against the
Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein,
subject to an exception for certain securities law claims. In
addition, the Amended Stipulation of Settlement provides that BTU,
its insurer(s), or its successor(s) in interest will be
responsible for the payment of certain amounts in plaintiffs'
attorney fees and expenses in connection with the settlement, and
that the defendants in the Stockholder Actions agree not to oppose
an application to the Delaware Court for fees and expenses not to
exceed $325,000.

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

These Stockholder Actions may cause the company to incur
substantial costs and divert management's attention from
operational matters. Additionally, no outcome is certain, so
additional harm could potentially result to the Company from this
litigation.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
plaintiffs in the securities class action lawsuits in New York
have filed a notice of appeal of the court's dismissal of their
lawsuit.

"We and certain of our officers were defendants in related
putative securities class action lawsuits filed in February 2014
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York," the Company said.  "Plaintiffs in the lawsuits
purported to represent a class of our stockholders who purchased
shares between February 15, 2011 and December 11, 2013."

"On April 24, 2014, the court issued an order consolidating the
related actions, appointing lead plaintiffs and approving the
selection of co-lead counsel. On September 4, 2014, the lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The
consolidated amended complaint asserted claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and sought damages in an unspecified amount, attorney's
fees and other relief. The lead plaintiffs asserted the Section 11
claim on behalf of persons or entities who purchased our Series A
preferred stock in or traceable to our public offering on June 5,
2013, and did not sell those shares of Series A preferred stock
prior to December 12, 2013.

"On October 24, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, which the lead plaintiffs opposed
on December 10, 2014. On January 14, 2015, we filed our reply in
support of the motion to dismiss. The Court granted our motion to
dismiss with prejudice on September 29, 2015. On October 19, 2015,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal."

The case before the District Court is, MICHAEL D. HARRIS,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., BARRY D. ZYSKIND
and RONALD E. PIPOLY, JR., Defendants, No. 14-CV-736
(VEC)(S.D.N.Y.).  District Judge Valerie Caproni presided over the
case.  A copy of the Court's Sept. 29 Opinion and Order dismissing
the case is available at http://is.gd/bUIpuHfrom Leagle.com.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Dispositive Motions Due Feb. 29 in Trilegiant Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
parties in the case, In re: Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., face a
February 29, 2016 deadline for dispositive motions.

In March 2012, plaintiffs filed two putative class actions,
captioned Kelm v. Chase Bank (No. 12-cv-332) and Miller v. 1-800-
Flowers.com, Inc. (No. 12-cv-396), in the District of Connecticut
on behalf of a class of consumers alleging online fraud. The
defendants included, among others, Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
("Trilegiant"), its parent company, Affinion Group, LLC
("Affinion"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC ("AGM"), which is
affiliated with funds that are the beneficial owners of 68% of
Affinion's common stock.

In both cases, plaintiffs allege that Trilegiant, aided by its
business partners, who include e-merchants and credit card
companies, developed a set of business practices intended to
create consumer confusion and ultimately defraud consumers into
unknowingly paying fees to clubs for unwanted services. Plaintiffs
allege that AGM is a proper defendant because of its indirect
stock ownership and ability to appoint the majority of Affinion's
board. The complaints assert claims under the Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act; the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act; the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act; and the
California Business and Professional Code, and seek, among other
things, restitution or disgorgement, injunctive relief,
compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

The allegations in Kelm and Miller are substantially similar to
those in Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 3:10-cv-957), a
putative class action filed in the District of Connecticut in 2010
that names only Trilegiant and Affinion as defendants.

The court has consolidated the Kelm, Miller, and Schnabel cases
under the caption In re: Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. and ordered
that they proceed on the same schedule.

On June 18, 2012, the court appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel,
and on September 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint ("CAC"), which alleges the same causes of action
against AGM as did the complaints in the Kelm and Miller cases.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on December 7, 2012,
plaintiffs filed opposition papers on February 7, 2013, and
defendants filed replies on April 5, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, plaintiffs filed another putative class
action, captioned Frank v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 12- cv-1721), in
the District of Connecticut, naming the same defendants and
containing allegations substantially similar to those in the CAC.

On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs moved to transfer and consolidate
Frank into In re: Trilegiant. On July 24, 2013 the Frank court
transferred the case to Judge Bryant, who is presiding over In re:
Trilegiant, and on March 28, 2014, Judge Bryant granted the motion
to consolidate. On September 25, 2013, the court held oral
argument on defendants' motions to dismiss.

On March 28, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
motions to dismiss filed by Affinion and Trilegiant on behalf of
all defendants, and also granted separate motions to dismiss filed
by certain defendants, including AGM. On that same day, the court
directed the clerk to terminate AGM as a defendant in the
consolidated action. On April 28, 2014, plaintiffs moved for
interlocutory review of certain of the court's motion-to-dismiss
rulings, not including its order granting AGM's separate dismissal
motion.

Defendants filed a response on May 23, 2014, and plaintiffs
replied on June 5, 2014. On November 13, 2014, plaintiffs and the
remaining defendants filed a Joint Status Report Regarding
Discovery stating that no discovery had taken place since
plaintiffs filed their interlocutory-review motion.

On March 26, 2015, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
interlocutory review. On April 30, 2015, plaintiffs and the
remaining defendants filed a joint report under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(f) that, among other things, requested that the
Court extend the deadlines in its standing order for (i)
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint until May 29, 2015; (ii)
the close of fact discovery until January 15, 2016; and (iii) full
briefing of class certification until June 1, 2016.

On May 29, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' request to file an
amended complaint and set (i) a December 31, 2015 discovery
cutoff, (ii) a February 29, 2016 deadline for dispositive motions,
and (iii) jury selection for November 1, 2016 (if dispositive
motions are filed, or May 3, 2016, if they are not).

On June 15, 2015, the court held a pre-motion hearing on class
certification, and on June 16, 2015, the Court ordered class
certification to be fully briefed by November 30, 2015.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Caesars Has Yet to Reply to Summary Judgment Bids
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Caesars
Entertainment has not yet filed its response to the motions for
summary judgment filed by Meehancombs Global Credit Opportunities
Master Fund, L.P., et al. and the plaintiff in the Danner class
action.

Meehancombs Global Credit Opportunities Master Fund, L.P., et al.
v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 14-cv-7091 (S.D.N.Y.)
(the "Meehancombs Action").  On September 3, 2014, institutional
investors allegedly holding approximately $137 million in CEOC
unsecured senior notes sued CEOC and Caesars Entertainment for
breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith, Trust
Indenture Act violations and a declaratory judgment challenging
the August 2014 private financing transaction in which a portion
of outstanding senior unsecured notes were purchased by Caesars
Entertainment, and a majority of the noteholders agreed to amend
the indenture to terminate Caesars Entertainment's guarantee of
the notes and modify certain restrictions on CEOC's ability to
sell assets. Caesars Entertainment and CEOC filed a motion to
dismiss on November 12, 2014.

On January 15, 2015, the court granted the motion with respect to
a Trust Indenture Act claim by Meehancombs but otherwise denied
the motion. On January 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint seeking relief against Caesars Entertainment only, and
Caesars Entertainment answered on February 12, 2015.

On October 2, 2014, a related putative class action complaint was
filed on behalf of the holders of these notes captioned Danner v.
Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 14-cv-7973 (S.D.N.Y.)
(the "Danner Action"), against Caesars Entertainment alleging
claims similar to those in the Meehancombs Action.

On February 19, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and
Caesars Entertainment answered the amended complaint on February
25, 2015. In March 2015, each of Meehancombs and Danner served
subpoenas for documents on Apollo. Apollo produced responsive,
non-privileged documents in response to those subpoenas.

In July 2015, Meehancombs and Danner served subpoenas for
depositions on Apollo and those depositions were completed on
September 22, 2015.

On October 23, 2015, Meehancombs and Danner filed motions for
partial summary judgment, related to Trust Indenture Act and
breach of contract claims. Caesars Entertainment has not yet filed
its response.


APOLLO GLOBAL: CAC's Deadline to Respond to "Koskie" Adjourned
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
deadline for Caesars Acquisition Company to respond has been
adjourned indefinitely by agreement of the parties in the case,
Koskie v. Caesars Acquisition Company, et al., No. A-14-711712-C
(Clark Cnty Nev. Dist. Ct.) (the "Koskie Action").

On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie brought a shareholder class
action on behalf of shareholders of Caesars Acquisition Company
("CAC") against CAC, Caesars Entertainment, and members of CAC's
Board of Directors, including Marc Rowan and David Sambur (each an
Apollo partner). The lawsuit challenges CAC and Caesars
Entertainment's plan to merge, alleging that the proposed
transaction will not give CAC shareholders fair value. Koskie
asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty relating to the
director defendants' interrelationships with the entities involved
the proposed transaction. The deadline for CAC to respond to this
lawsuit has been adjourned indefinitely by agreement of the
parties.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Dismissal of CEC-Queso Merger Action Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
defendants have moved to dismiss a consolidated class action
complaint brought following the merger agreement between CEC
Entertainment, Inc. and certain entities affiliated with Apollo.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC
Entertainment, Inc. ("CEC") had entered into a merger agreement
with certain entities affiliated with Apollo (the "Merger
Agreement"), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in
the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas on behalf of
purported stockholders of CEC against, among others, CEC, its
directors and Apollo and certain of its affiliates, which include
Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII,
L.P., and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. The first purported class
action, which is captioned Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et
al., Case No. 14C57, was filed on January 21, 2014 (the "Coyne
Action"). The second purported class action, which was captioned
John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
14C55, was filed on January 22, 2014 (the "Solak Action"). The
Solak Action was dismissed for lack of prosecution on October 14,
2014. The third purported class action, which is captioned Irene
Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 14C81, was filed
on January 24, 2014 and additionally names as defendants Apollo
Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the "Dixon
Action"). The fourth purported class action, which is captioned
Louisiana Municipal Public Employees' Retirement System v. Frank,
et al., Case No. 14C97, was filed on January 31, 2014 (the "LMPERS
Action") (together with the Coyne and Dixon Actions, the
"Shareholder Actions"). A fifth purported class action, which was
captioned McCullough v. Frank, et al., Case No. CC-14-00622-B, was
filed in the County Court of Dallas County, Texas on February 7,
2014. This action was dismissed for want of prosecution on May 21,
2014.

Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges, among other things, that
CEC's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's
stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval
of the Merger Agreement, including by agreeing to an inadequate
price, agreeing to impermissible deal protection devices, and
filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction.
Each of the Shareholder Actions further alleges that Apollo and
certain of its affiliates aided and abetted those alleged
breaches.

As filed, the Shareholder Actions seek, among other things,
rescission of the various transactions associated with the merger,
damages and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs. On February 7,
2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Shareholder
Actions pursued a consolidated action for damages after the
transaction closed. Thereafter, the Shareholder Actions were
consolidated under the caption In re CEC Entertainment, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57, and the parties engaged in
limited discovery.

On July 21, 2015, a consolidated class action complaint was
brought by Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Trust in the Shareholder
Actions that did not name as defendants Apollo, Queso Holdings
Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII, L.P., or AP VIII
Queso Holdings, L.P., continued to assert claims against CEC and
its former directors, and added The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
("Goldman Sachs") as a defendant. The consolidated complaint
alleges, among other things, that CEC's former directors breached
their fiduciary duties to CEC's stockholders by conducting a
deficient sales process, agreeing to impermissible deal protection
devices, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the
transaction. It further alleges that two members of the board who
also served as the senior managers of the company had material
conflicts of interest and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the
board's breaches as a result of various conflicts of interest
facing the bank. The consolidated complaint seeks, among other
things, to recover damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 22, 2015, the parties to the consolidated action moved
to dismiss the complaint.

"Although Apollo cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the
consolidated action, and therefore no reasonable estimate of
possible loss, if any, can be made at this time, Apollo believes
that such action is without merit," the Company said.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Discovery Requests Served in "Silva" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that plaintiffs
in the class action lawsuit filed by Rachel Silva and Don Hudson
have served discovery requests limited to the motion to transfer
the case and Aviva plc's motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.

On June 12, 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California by Rachel Silva and Don Hudson, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, against Aviva plc; Athene
Annuity and Life Company f/k/a Aviva Life and Annuity Company
("Aviva"); Athene USA Corporation f/k/a Aviva USA Corporation;
Athene Holding; Athene Life Re Ltd.; Athene Asset Management; and
AGM. The complaint in this action alleges violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.
Sections 1962(c) and (d). The plaintiffs basically allege that
commencing in 2007 and continuing thereafter Aviva and its then
management engaged in a scheme to, among other things, falsely
represent the financial strength of and hide the true financial
condition of Aviva by, among other things, allegedly ceding risky
liabilities to Aviva's undercapitalized subsidiaries and
affiliates and misvaluing assets, and that after Athene Holding
purchased all of the outstanding stock of Aviva's parent effective
October 2, 2013 the scheme was unwound and rewound so as to
continue, and that as a result thereof some of the purchasers of
annuity products issued by Aviva were charged an excessive price
and were damaged as a result thereof.

All defendants (except Aviva plc) have (a) moved to transfer this
action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa and (b) moved to dismiss this action. Aviva plc
separately moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. All of these
motions were scheduled to be heard on December 15, 2015.

The plaintiffs have served discovery requests limited to the
motion to transfer and Aviva plc's motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction. If the action is not dismissed, Athene Asset
Management and AGM (and the other defendants) will deny the
material allegations of the complaint and will vigorously defend
themselves against these claims. Although neither Athene Asset
Management nor AGM can predict the ultimate outcome of this case,
each believes that it is without merit, and because this case is
in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if
any, can be made at this time.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Continues to Defend OM Group Stockholders Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a Delaware
court has not yet set a schedule for resolving the case, In re OM
Group Inc. Stockholders Litigation, on the merits.

Following the June 1, 2015 announcement that OM Group, Inc. ("OM
Group") had entered into a merger agreement (the "OM Group Merger
Agreement") with certain entities affiliated with Apollo Global
Management, LLC ("AGM"), and an entity affiliated with Platform
Specialty Products Corporation ("PSP"), six putative class actions
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on
behalf of purported OM Group stockholders against certain current
and former OM Group directors, the merger entities affiliated with
AGM, which include Duke Acquisition Holdings, LLC and Duke
Acquisition, Inc. (together with AGM, the "Apollo Parties"), and,
except in one action, the merger entity affiliated with PSP,
MacDermid Americas Acquisitions Inc. (together with PSP, the "PSP
Parties"). AGM, PSP, and OM Group were also named as defendants in
some of these putative class actions.

On July 16, 2015, these six actions were consolidated into a
putative class action captioned In re OM Group Inc. Stockholders
Litigation, Consol. Case No. 11216-VCN (the "Consolidated
Action"). The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action subsequently
designated the complaint previously filed in the action captioned
City of Sarasota Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Apollo Global
Management, LLC, Case No. 11249-VCN as the Consolidated Action's
operative complaint. That complaint challenges, among other
things, the OM Group Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby, alleging, among other things, that OM
Group's directors breached their fiduciary duties to OM Group
stockholders by engaging in a flawed sales process, agreeing to a
price that does not adequately compensate OM Group stockholders,
agreeing to certain unfair deal protection terms in the OM Group
Merger Agreement and by failing to disclose material information
to OM Group stockholders. The complaint also alleges that the
Apollo Parties and the PSP Parties aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks various remedies,
including declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief.

While plaintiffs had declared their intent to pursue preliminary
injunctive relief, and a hearing had been scheduled for August 6,
plaintiffs dropped that request on August 2, 2015. The court has
not yet set a schedule for resolving the case on the merits.

Because this action is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate
of possible loss, if any, can be made. Apollo believes that the
allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the Consolidated Action.


APPLIANCE RECYCLING: "Feola" Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. (NASDAQ: ARCI), a
provider of appliance recycling and retailing services, announced
on November 30, 2015, that the United States District Court for
the Central District of California entered an order on November
24, 2015, granting the motion of Appliance Recycling Centers of
America to dismiss the lawsuit commenced against the Company and
certain current and former officers of the Company on March 6,
2015, by Jason Feola, individually and as a putative
representative of a class consisting of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between March 15, 2012 and February 11,
2015.

The Court's order provides that the dismissal is without prejudice
and that the plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 21
days of the issuance of the order.

                           *     *     *

Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 19, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2015,
that the complaint was filed on March 6, 2015, in United States
District Court for the Central District of California by Jason
Feola, individually and as a representative of a class consisting
of purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 15, 2012
and February 11, 2015, against Appliance Recycling Centers of
America, Inc. and certain current and former officers of the
Company.  Mr. Feola, pursuant to terms of his retainer agreement
with The Rosen Law Firm, certified that he purchased 240 shares of
the Company's common stock for $984,000 in total consideration.

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

In October 2015, the court held a hearing on the Company's motion
to dismiss the complaint.

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


APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Monitoring Whirlpool's Defense of Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 19, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2015,
that the Company continues to monitor Whirlpool Corporation's
defense of the claims in a class action lawsuit over and believe
the possibility of a material loss is remote," the Company said.

In February 2012, various individuals commenced a class action
lawsuit against Whirlpool and various distributors of Whirlpool
products, including Sears, The Home Depot, Lowe's and the Company,
alleging certain appliances sold by Whirlpool through its
distribution chain, which includes us, were improperly designated
with the ENERGY STAR(R) qualification rating established by the
U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The claims against the Company include breach of warranty claims,
as well as various state consumer protection claims.  The amount
of the claim is, as yet, undetermined.

"Whirlpool has offered to fully indemnify and defend its
distributors in this lawsuit, including us, and has engaged legal
counsel to defend itself and the distributors.  We are monitoring
Whirlpool's defense of the claims and believe the possibility of a
material loss is remote," the Company said.


ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Briefing in 1st Cir. Appeal Completed
------------------------------------------------------------
ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that briefing
on a class action appeal with the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit has been completed.

On October 10, 2013, October 17, 2013, December 3, 2013 and
December 6, 2013, purported shareholder class actions, styled
Jimmy Wang v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., James L. Burch
v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters' Pension Fund v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al,
and Nabil Elmachtoub v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al,
respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts (the "District Court"), naming the
Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The lawsuits
allege that the defendants made material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact regarding clinical and safety data for
Iclusig in its public disclosures during the period from December
12, 2011 through October 8, 2013 or October 17, 2013, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On January 9, 2014, the District Court consolidated the actions
and appointed lead plaintiffs. On February 18, 2014, the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as contemplated by the order
of the District Court. The amended complaint extends the class
period for the Securities Exchange Act claims through October 30,
2013. In addition, plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company's
officers, directors and certain underwriters made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding
clinical and safety data for Iclusig in connection with the
Company's January 24, 2013 follow-on public offering of common
stock in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages
on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees.

On April 14, 2014, the defendants and the underwriters filed
separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 10,
2014, the District Court heard oral argument on the motion to
dismiss. On March 24, 2015, the District Court granted the
defendants' and the underwriters' motions to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaint in these consolidated actions.

On April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District
Court's decision to grant the motions to dismiss with the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Briefing on the
plaintiffs' appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit has been completed, and the Company expects a
hearing to be scheduled.


ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties in "Montalbano" Suit in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
parties in a product liability lawsuit filed by Thomas Montalbano,
Jr. are engaged in discovery.

On March 11, 2015, a product liability lawsuit, styled Thomas
Montalbano, Jr. v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
naming the Company as defendant. The lawsuit alleges that the
Company's cancer medicine Iclusig was defective, dangerous and
lacked adequate warnings when the plaintiff used it from July to
August 2013. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages,
punitive damages and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees.

On May 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in this action. On July 31, 2015, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida heard oral
argument on the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On
August 4, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
with respect to the plaintiff's cause of action for punitive
damages and denied the remainder of the Company's motion to
dismiss.

In response, on August 7, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint asserts punitive damages as a
remedy, in addition to seeking unspecified monetary damages and an
award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. The
parties are currently engaged in discovery.


AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Defending 3 Securities Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that three
putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in July 2015
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
each on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded
securities between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015. The lawsuits
assert claims under the Exchange Act and Securities Act and allege
that the defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and omitted allegedly material information related to,
among other things, the Phase 2a clinical trial for AVA-101 and
the prospects of AVA-101. The complaints seek unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs.


BIOLASE INC: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Biolase, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the settlement in
a consolidated securities class action lawsuit has been granted
final approval.

On August 23, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Brady Adams v. Biolase, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-CV-1300 JST
(FFMx) was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against Biolase, its then Chief
Executive Officer, Federico Pignatelli, and its then Chief
Financial Officer, Frederick D. Furry.

On August 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Ralph Divizio v. Biolase, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-CV-1317 DMG
(MRWx) was filed in the same court against Biolase, Messrs.
Pignatelli and Furry, and its then President and Chief Operating
Officer, Alexander K. Arrow. Each of the lawsuits alleges
violations of the federal securities laws and asserts causes of
action against the defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act").

In accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, on December 10, 2013, the court entered an order
consolidating the lawsuits, appointing a lead plaintiff and
approving the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel.

On February 24, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint against the Company and Messrs. Pignatelli, Furry, and
Arrow, alleging violations of the federal securities laws and
asserting causes of action against the defendants under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On November 19, 2013, the Board received a letter from attorneys
for purported shareholder David T. Long, demanding that the Board
investigate, institute litigation, and take measures to redress
and prevent alleged wrongdoing concerning the dissemination of
certain allegedly false and misleading public disclosures made by
the Company between January 2013 and August 2013.

On June 5, 2015, the United States District Court for the Central
District of California approved, on a preliminary basis, the
settlement of the consolidated securities class action lawsuit. On
October 13, 2015, the court granted final approval of the
settlement, and ordered the plaintiff to submit a proposed final
judgment consistent with the court's approval.  On October 30,
2015, the court entered final judgment which formally released all
claims against the Company.


BMW OF NORTH: "Barakezyan" Suit Alleges Breach of Warranty
----------------------------------------------------------
Norik Barakezyan, and all others similarly situated v. BMW of
North America, LLC and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC603695 (Cal.
Super., December 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
breaches of express and implied warranties pursuant to the Song-
Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violation
of the California Unfair Competition Act and false advertisement.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant's pattern and practice of
fraudulently, unfairly, deceptively, and unlawfully marketing,
advertising, promoting and leasing/selling various vehicles with
defective brake system that generate extremely loud squealing
noise when using the brakes.

BMW of North America, LLC engages in the marketing and sale of BMW
brand motor vehicles, including motorcycles in the United States
and internationally. It manufactures sports activity vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hovanes Margarian, Esq.
      THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM
      810 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 210
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (818) 553-1000
      Fax: (818) 553-1005
      E-mail: hovanes@margarianlaw.com


CACIQUE INC: "Molina" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Juan P. Molina, and all others similarly situated v. Cacique, Inc.
and Does 1 to 20, Case No. BC603600 (Cal. Super., December 9,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order and the
Business and Professions Code.

The Defendant manufactures and delivers Mexican-style cheeses and
other products to various retail stores throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Virginia Villegas, Esq.
      VILLEGAS CARRERA, LLP
      170 Columbus Ave., Ste 300
      San Francisco, CA 94133
      Tel: (415) 989-8000
      Fax: (415) 989-8028


CAESARS ACQUISITION: Deadline to Respond to Nevada Lawsuit Moved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caesars Acquisition Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
deadline to respond to the Nevada lawsuit related to the CAC-CEC
proposed merger has been indefinitely extended by agreement of the
parties.

On December 21, 2014, the Company and CEC entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which, among other things, CAC will merge with and into CEC, with
CEC as the surviving company (the "Proposed Merger").

On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie, on behalf of himself and,
he alleges, all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit (the
"Nevada Lawsuit") in the Clark County District Court in the State
of Nevada against CAC, CEC and members of the CAC board of
directors Marc Beilinson, Philip Erlanger, Dhiren Fonseca, Don
Kornstein, Karl Peterson, Marc Rowan and David Sambur (the
individual defendants collectively, the "CAC Directors"). The
Nevada Lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the CAC Directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
against CAC and CEC. It seeks (1) a declaration that the claim for
breach of fiduciary duty is a proper class action claim; (2) to
order the CAC Directors to fulfill their fiduciary duties to CAC
in connection with the Proposed Merger, specifically by announcing
their intention to (a) cooperate with bona fide interested parties
proposing alternative transactions, (b) ensure that no conflicts
exist between the CAC Directors' personal interests and their
fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value in the Proposed
Merger, or resolve all such conflicts in favor of the latter, and
(c) act independently to protect the interests of the
shareholders; (3) to order the CAC Directors to account for all
damages suffered or to be suffered by the plaintiff and the
putative class as a result of the Proposed Merger; and (4) to
award the plaintiff for his costs and attorneys' fees.

It is unclear whether the Nevada Lawsuit also seeks to enjoin the
Proposed Merger. CAC and the CAC Directors believe this lawsuit is
without merit and will defend themselves vigorously. The deadline
to respond to the Nevada Lawsuit has been indefinitely extended by
agreement of the parties.


CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Exemptions in Assembly Bill 1513
------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that two California farm businesses were intentionally excluded
from benefits of a state law to punish them for their labor
disputes with the United Farm Workers, the growers claim in
Federal Court in Fresno, Calif.

Gerawan Farming and Fowler Packing Co. sued the state on Jan. 22,
claiming that exemptions in Assembly Bill 1513 violate their
rights to equal protection. The United Farm Workers is not a party
to the case.

David Schwarz, attorney for Gerawan and Fowler, told Courthouse
News the intent of the legislation "was to carve out and punish
two growers targeted by the UFW."

"The effect is to deprive their employees of the benefits promised
to other farmworkers in this state. All of this was done at the
behest of a politically influential union as the price of their
support of this bill," Schwarz said.

AB 1513 was signed into law on Oct. 10, 2015, and took effect on
Jan. 1.  The bill essentially rewrote the rules governing payment
of piece-rate compensation in California.  It requires employees
to be paid for rest and recovery periods and other nonproductive
time at or above specified minimum hourly rates, separately from
any piece-rate compensation.

The law, written by Assemblyman Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara, is
intended to ensure that employees who get paid by the mile driven,
by the piece produced, or by the fruit piece picked have paid meal
and rest periods.  The law includes a safe harbor provision for
employers who could face liability for not properly paying their
piece-rate workers for recovery and rest periods in the past.
Employers have a grace period in which to pay back wages to
workers for nonproductive time. In return, they will be protected
from lawsuits for past failure to pay, potentially sparing them
from far higher penalties.

Although most growers can take advantage of the safe harbor
provision, Gerawan and Fowler say they were intentionally carved
out of the legislation.

"The ostensible purpose of AB 1513 was to insure that workers were
'made whole' promptly and to cause the resolution of pending wage
and hour class actions by minimizing the risk of crippling penalty
judgments caused by these litigations. As enacted, AB 1513
deliberately excluded Fowler and Gerawan," the complaint states.

The two Fresno County growers say they are defending themselves in
class actions based on nonproductive time wage and hour claims,
but are not allowed to apply for the law's so-called "Penalty
Relief Plan," like other growers in the state.

"In essence, the Legislature created an amnesty program for an
entire class of California employers facing wage and hour class
action suits, except for Fowler and Gerawan," the complaint
states.

The targeting was not accidental, the growers say, as several
carve-out dates in the legislation single out Gerawan and Fowler.

For example, the safe harbor does not apply to any nonproductive
wage and hour claim that was asserted in court before March 1,
2014 - which excludes Gerawan, because it was sued by the UFW
about three weeks before that cutoff date.

The legislation "was reverse-engineered via a last minute
legislative 'gut and amend' designed to punish Fowler and Gerawan.
The targeting was in response to demands by the United Farm
Workers of America that these growers be excluded from AB 1513's
'safe harbor' provisions as the price for the UFW's non-opposition
to this legislation," according to the complaint.

The UFW has been in a longstanding feud with Gerawan over
unionization and has had a series of labor disputes with Fowler
Packing. An attorney for the union is among the attorneys listed
on class action lawsuits filed against both growers.

"While the UFW now publicly claims credit for the passage of AB
1513, it does not mention its role in carving out Fowler and
Gerawan -- and their employees -- from the legislation, or the
reasons behind its demand that these two growers be singled out
for special punishment," the growers say.

They claim that Assemblyman Williams acknowledged that excluding
them from the bill's protection "was part of a 'pact' to keep the
UFW from opposing the measure."

Purposefully targeting them for punishment also puts their
employees at a disadvantage by stripping them of the benefits of
the law, the growers say.

"Unlike workers who might obtain prompt payment of back wages by
employers who opt for the protections afforded under AB 1513's
amnesty program, the workers represented by UFW's general counsel
in these class actions obtain no protection as a result of this
'pact' between the UFW and the Legislature," the complaint states.

Assemblyman Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, said that AB 1513 "was passed
under the cover of darkness and in the final hours of session
without any discussion and we all know why. It was rammed through
to hide the fact that Fowler Packing, Gerawan Farming and other
companies were unfairly targeted by the UFW and their cronies in
the Legislature."

Patterson said the bill "shredded the constitutional guarantee of
equal protection under law and was passed by the legislators who
swore to protect that sacred right. It is another example of the
consequences of dictatorial, one-party rule."

Gerawan and Fowler declaratory judgment that the provisions
exempting them from the benefits of the law are unconstitutional,
and a permanent injunction against enforcement.

Assemblyman Williams did not immediately respond to a request for
comment Jan. 25.  Nor did the UFW or the state's labor agencies.


CALIFORNIA: Settlement with Pelican Bay Inmates Approved
--------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in California gave final approval to the
settlement of a class action filed on behalf of hundreds of
prisoners held in solitary confinement, sometimes for years, at
California's Pelican Bay prison.

Under the terms of the settlement approved by U.S. District Judge
Claudia Wilken on Jan. 26, the state will continue the process of
reviewing the cases of prisoners placed in indefinite solitary
confinement.

Since September, when the preliminary settlement was originally
announced, 686 of the total 1,813 prisoners entitled to review
have begun that process and 437 have already been returned to the
general prison population.

Another 109 prisoners have been approved for release into the
general prison population.

One hundred and forty inmates not immediately approved for release
from solitary confinement will have their cases reconsidered after
their cases are subjected to a higher level of scrutiny by prison
officials.

Additionally, the state will no longer place prisoners in solitary
confinement simply for gang affiliation but only after convicted
of serious misconduct following a disciplinary due-process
hearing.

The settlement requires all first-level reviews to be complete
within one year.

The Center for Constitutional Rights sued Governor Jerry Brown on
behalf of the plaintiffs in May 2012, claiming that prolonged and
indeterminate solitary confinement in state prisons' Security
Housing Units -- known as "SHUs" -- violates Eighth Amendment
prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.

The suit also alleged that the prisons' lack of meaningful review
for SHU placement violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due
process.

At the original announcement of the agreement, the Center's
president, Jules Lobel, said that under the settlement's terms,
California "will dramatically change the way it retains alleged
gang members and will drastically reduce the SHU population."

"While there is still much work to be done, these early numbers
are an encouraging indication of the transformative effect this
settlement is having on California's solitary confinement
population," Lobel continued.

"Hundreds of men who have not had any meaningful contact with
another human being in years -- often in decades -- have finally
been able to hug their loved ones and to interact with other
prisoners."

The terms of the settlement change California's use of solitary
confinement from a status-based system to a behavior-based one, in
which solitary confinement may be used only as a punishment for
serious rule infractions and only for determinate periods of time.
Many prisoners placed in SHUs had been placed there on "vague and
unsubstantiated" allegations of gang affiliation, the CCR says.

The settlement also limits the total amount of time a prisoner can
spend in the SHU at Pelican Bay. It also includes a two-year
monitoring period.

The case captioned, TODD ASHKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNOR
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants, C 09-05796 CW
(N.D. Cal.).


CB FINANCIAL: Maryland Appeals Court Affirmed Case Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
CB Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of
the "Sutton" class action lawsuit.

On April 21, 2014, a class action complaint, captioned Sutton v.
FedFirst Financial Corp., et al., was filed under Case No.
24C14002331, in the Circuit Court in Baltimore City, Maryland (the
"Court"), against FedFirst Financial Corp., each of FedFirst
Financial's directors, and CB Financial. The complaint alleged,
among other things, that the FedFirst Financial directors breached
their fiduciary duties to FedFirst Financial and its stockholders
by agreeing to sell to CB Financial without first taking steps to
ensure that FedFirst Financial stockholders would obtain adequate,
fair and maximum consideration under the circumstances, by
agreeing to terms with CB Financial that benefit themselves and/or
CB Financial without regard for the FedFirst Financial
stockholders and by agreeing to terms with CB Financial that
discourages other bidders. The plaintiff also alleged that CB
Financial aided and abetted the FedFirst Financial directors'
breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among other
things, an order declaring the Merger Agreement unenforceable and
rescinding and invalidating the Merger Agreement, an order
enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger, as well as
attorneys' and experts' fees and certain other damages.

On June 20, 2014, FedFirst Financial and the individual defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. On July 29, 2014, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding an additional claim
that the Form S-4 filed by CB Financial in connection with the
merger contained material misstatements and omissions. On
September 22, 2014, the Court dismissed all claims as to all
defendants with prejudice, including claims against FedFirst
Financial and its directors as well as claims against CB
Financial. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of the complaint.

On October 29, 2015, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals
affirmed the dismissal of the case. The plaintiff has the ability
to file a petition for certiorari to the highest court in the
state, the Maryland Court of Appeals, who would then decide
whether to hear the appeal. CB Financial continues to believe that
the factual allegations in the complaint, as amended, are without
merit.


CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: MOU Reached in PMFG Shareholder Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a memorandum
of understanding has been reached to resolve the PMFG shareholder
lawsuits.

Since the public announcement of the proposed Mergers on May 4,
2015, CECO, Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II, PMFG Inc. and the members
of the PMFG Board have been named as defendants in three lawsuits
related to the Mergers, which were filed by alleged stockholders
of PMFG on May 17, 2015, June 29, 2015 and July 17, 2015. The
first filed lawsuit, which is a derivative action that also
purports to assert class claims, was filed in the District Court
of Dallas County, Texas (the "Texas Lawsuit"). The second and
third filed lawsuits, which are class actions, were filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and have now been
consolidated into a single action (the "Delaware Lawsuit," and
collectively with the Texas Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits").

In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs generally allege that the Mergers
fail to properly value PMFG, that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement,
and that those breaches were aided and abetted by CECO, Merger Sub
I and Merger Sub II.

In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, (a)
that the PMFG Board breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to
the Mergers for inadequate consideration and pursuant to a tainted
process by (1) agreeing to lock up the Mergers with deal
protection devices that, notwithstanding the ability of PMFG to
solicit actively alternative transactions, prevent other bidders
from making a successful competing offer for PMFG, (2)
participating in a transaction where the loyalties of the PMFG
Board and management are divided, and (3) relying on financial and
legal advisors who plaintiffs allege were conflicted; (b) that
those breaches of fiduciary duties were aided and abetted by CECO,
Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II and PMFG, and (c) that the disclosure
provided in the registration statement filed by CECO on June 9,
2015 was inadequate in a number of respects.

In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek, among other things, (a) to
enjoin the defendants from completing the Mergers on the agreed-
upon terms, (b) rescission, to the extent already implemented, of
the Merger Agreement or any of the terms therein, and (c) costs
and disbursements and attorneys' and experts' fees, as well as
other equitable relief as the courts deem proper.

Effective as of August 23, 2015, PMFG and the other defendants
entered a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the
Delaware Lawsuit regarding the settlement of the Delaware Lawsuit.
In connection with this memorandum of understanding, PMFG agreed
to make certain additional disclosures to PMFG's stockholders in
order to supplement those contained in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus. After PMFG enters into a definitive
agreement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit, the
proposed settlement will be subject to notice to the class, Court
approval, and, if the Court approves the settlement, the
settlement, as outlined in the memorandum of understanding, will
resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in
the Delaware Lawsuit, including all claims relating to the
Mergers, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in
connection therewith including any such claims against CECO,
Merger Sub I or Merger Sub II, but will not affect any
stockholder's rights to pursue appraisal rights.

On August 24, 2015, PMFG made a filing with the SEC on Form 8-K
satisfying its obligations under the memorandum of understanding
to make additional disclosures to supplement the joint proxy
statement/prospectus relating to the Mergers, dated as of July 31,
2015.

The memorandum of understanding was not, and should not be
construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any
defendant.

The Company is also a party to routine contract and employment-
related litigation matters and routine audits of state and local
tax returns arising in the ordinary course of its business.

The final outcome and impact of open matters, and related claims
and investigations that may be brought in the future, are subject
to many variables, and cannot be predicted.


CELLCEUTIX CORP: Faces "O'Connell" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------
Cellceutix Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a complaint
entitled O'Connell v. Cellceutix Corp. et al. (No. 1:15-cv-07194)
was filed in September 2015 by a law firm in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and its officers alleging that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially
adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations and
prospects. The Company believes that the claims are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend itself.


CHINA COMMERCIAL: Securities Case Remains Stayed Pending Service
----------------------------------------------------------------
China Commercial Credit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 23, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a
consolidated securities class action lawsut remains stayed pending
service of Huichun Qin.

On August 6, 2014, a purported shareholder Andrew Dennison filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court District of New Jersey (the "N.J. district court") relating
to a July 25, 2014 press release about the Company's progress in
recovering a significant portion of the $5.4 million the Company
paid in the first quarter of 2014 on behalf of loan guarantee
customers. The action, Andrew Dennison v. China Commercial Credit,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2014-cv-04956, alleges that the Company
and its current and former officers and directors Huichun Qin,
Long Yi, Jianming Yin, Jinggen Ling, Xiangdong Xiao, and John F.
Levy violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting in
prior public filings certain material facts about the risks
associated with its loan guarantee business.

On October 2, 2014, purported shareholders Zhang Yun and Sanjiv
Mehrotra (the "Yun Group") asserted substantially similar claims
against the same defendants in a putative class action captioned
Zhang Yun v. China Commercial Credit, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-
cv-06136 (D. N.J.). Neither complaint states the amount of damages
sought.

On or about October 6, 2014, Dennison, the Yun Group and another
purported shareholder, Jason Stark, filed motions to consolidate
the cases, be appointed as lead plaintiff and to have their
respective counsel appointed as lead counsel. On October 31, 2014,
the N.J. district court entered an order consolidating the cases
under the caption "In re China Commercial Credit Inc. Securities
Litigation" and appointing the Yun Group as lead plaintiff ("Class
Plaintiff") and the Yun Group's counsel as lead counsel.

On November 18, 2014, the Yun Group and the Company, which at that
point was the only defendant served, entered into a stipulation to
transfer of the case to the Southern District of New York. On
December 18, 2014, Mr. Levy, who had by then been served, joined
in the stipulation. On December 29, 2014, the N.J. district court
entered an order transferring the action. The transfer was
effected on January 22, 2015, and assigned docket number 1:15-cv-
00557-ALC (S.D.N.Y.).

Under the schedule stipulated by the parties, the Yun Group was to
file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date that the
transfer was effected, and the defendants' date to answer or move
was within 60 days of that filing. On April 7, 2015, the Class
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the
"CAC"). The CAC also asserts securities law claims against
defendants Axiom Capital Management, Inc., Burnham Securities Inc.
and View Trade Securities, Inc. (collectively, the "Underwriter
Defendants"). The CAC alleges that the Company engaged in a
fraudulent scheme by engaging in undisclosed and improper lending
practices and made misleading representations regarding its
underwriting policies, the loan portfolio quality, the loan loss
allowance, compliance with U.S. GAAP and its internal control
systems.

In accordance with the Court's procedures, the Company and Mr.
Levy and the Underwriter Defendants requested a Pre-Motion
Conference in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss the CAC,
which was held on June 25, 2015. At the conference, the Court
adjourned the date to answer or move in order to provide the Class
Plaintiff with time to serve certain overseas defendants. After
the conference, the Class Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Jianming
Yin, Jinggen Ling and Xiangdong Xiao from the action, and Long Yi
agreed to waive service, which left Huichun Qin as the sole
remaining defendant to serve. The case remains stayed pending
service of Huichun Qin.

The Company believes that this lawsuit was without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against it. At the early stage of the
proceedings, the Company is not able to estimate the probability
of success or loss.


CINEMARK USA: Class Cert. Inappropriate for "Amey" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court in San
Francisco, California, has determined that class certification is
not appropriate in the case, Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA,
Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669 (N.D. Cal., 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.


CLUB CABARET: Entertainers May Sue Owner
----------------------------------------
In the case, ALEIGHA WOODS, individually and on Case behalf of the
Class, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CLUB CABARET,
INC., Defendant, No. 1:15-cv-01213JEH (C.D. Ill.), Magistrate
Judge Jonathan E. Hawley:

     1. approved a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order among the
        parties that permits the Plaintiff to file her First
        Amended Complaint, adding Mr. Joseph Miller, the owner
        and majority shareholder of Club Cabaret, Inc., as a
        Defendant in this action in his individual capacity.

     2. certified the case as a class action pursuant to Federal
        Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of
        the following class: All persons who work(ed) as
        entertainers for Defendant at any time during the
        applicable three year statute of limitations. The
        certification of this class is without prejudice to
        Defendant's right to file a future motion, pursuant to
        Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C), seeking to decertify the
        class or otherwise alter or modify this class definition.

     3. ruled that the class claims and defenses include, inter
        alia, (i) whether Defendant misclassified class members
        as independent contractors; (ii) whether class members
        are entitled to minimum wage; (iii) whether class members
        are entitled to reimbursement of the fees and fines paid
        to Defendant; and (iv) the amount (if any) of class
        members' unpaid wages and damages.

     4. appointed the law firm of Nichols Kaster, PLLP to serve
        as Class Counsel.

     5. directed the parties to attend mediation no later than
        March 31, 2016.

A copy of the Court's January 25, 2016 Order is available at
http://is.gd/R0NXjDfrom Leagle.com.

Aleigha Woods, Plaintiff, is represented by:

     Julie L Galassi, Esq.
     Dustin Jensen, Esq.
     HASSELBERG ROCK BELL & KUPPLER
     4600 N. Brandywine Drive
     Peoria, IL 61614

          - and -

     Brittany Bachman Skemp, Esq.
     Paul Joseph Lukas, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER
     4600 IDS Center
     80 South Eighth Street
     Minneapolis, MN  55402
     Tel: (612) 256-3275
     E-mail: bbachmanskemp@nka.com
             lukas@nka.com

Club Cabaret, Inc., Defendant, is represented by:

     Bradley Jay Shafer, Esq.
     SHAFER & ASSOCIATES P.C.
     3800 Capital City Blvd, Suite 2
     Lansing, MI 48906
     Tel: 517-886-6560

          - and -

     Joseph R Napoli, Esq.
     JOSEPH R NAPOLI, LTD
     1 E Upper Wacker Dr #1720
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: 312-291-8727

          - and -

     Samuel Benjamin Zabek, Esq.
     LEITER GROUP
     309-A Main Street
     Peoria, IL 61602
     Tel: (309) 673-2922
     Fax: (309) 673-2387


CONAGRA: Margarine Contains Trans Fat, Calif. Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Conagra misrepresents its
Fleischmann's margarine and vegetable oil spreads as healthy
though they contain trans fat and partially hydrogenated oil, a
class action claims in San Francisco, Calif. federal court.


CUBIC CORPORATION: Defending Consumer Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
Cubic Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is
vigorously defending a consumer fraud lawsuit in Illinois.

"In October and December of 2013, and January of 2014, lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division against us and one of our
transit customers alleging variously, among other things, breach
of contract, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, unjust
enrichment and violation of the Electronic Funds Act," the Company
said.

"In January 2014, these cases were consolidated into a single case
and the plaintiffs are seeking to have the case certified as a
class action. Plaintiffs variously claim, among other things,
that: (i) they were wrongly charged for calling the call center
that we operate for patrons of our transit customer, (ii) they
were wrongly charged for a transfer and a second fare, (iii) they
were not credited the cost of a transit card even after
registration of the card, as is required under the terms of the
cardholder agreement, and (iv) they were double charged for rides
taken. We are undertaking the defense of the transit customer
pursuant to our contractual obligations to that customer.

"We are investigating the matter and are vigorously defending this
lawsuit. We cannot, at this time, estimate the probability of loss
or any range of estimate of possible loss."


CVB FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
CVB Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend a class action lawsuit.

In the wake of the Company's disclosure of the SEC investigation,
on August 23, 2010, a purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed against the Company, in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB
Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256- MMM, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (our President and
Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich, Jr. (our former
Chief Financial Officer) were also named as defendants. On
September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the Company, in an action originally
captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-
06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The Englund complaint named the same
defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations
substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint.

On January 21, 2011, the District Court consolidated the two
actions for all purposes under the Lloyd action, now captioned as
Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM (PJWx). That same day, the District Court
also appointed the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the
"Jacksonville Fund") as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action
and approved the Jacksonville Fund's selection of lead counsel for
the plaintiffs in the consolidated action.

On March 7, 2011, the Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated
complaint naming the same defendants and alleging violations by
all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the
individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented
and failed to disclose conditions adversely affecting the Company
throughout the purported class period, which is alleged to be
between October 21, 2009 and August 9, 2010. The consolidated
complaint sought compensatory damages and other relief in favor of
the purported class.

Following the filing by each side of various motions and briefs,
and a hearing on August 29, 2011, the District Court issued a
ruling on January 12, 2012, granting defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint, but the ruling provided the plaintiffs
with leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the date
of the order.

On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint against the same defendants, and, following filings by
both sides and another hearing on June 4, 2012, the District Court
issued a ruling on August 21, 2012, granting defendants' motion to
dismiss the first amended complaint, but providing the plaintiffs
with leave to file another amended complaint within 30 days of the
ruling.

On September 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint against the same defendants, the Company filed its third
motion to dismiss on October 25, 2012, and following another
hearing on February 25, 2013, the District Court issued an order
dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint for the third time on May 9,
2013.

Although the District Court's May 2013 order of dismissal provided
the plaintiffs with leave to file a third amended and restated
complaint within 30 days of the issuance of the order, on June 3,
2013, counsel for the plaintiffs instead filed a Notice of Intent
Not to File an Amended Complaint, along with a request that the
District Court convert its order to a dismissal with prejudice, so
that plaintiffs could proceed straight to appeal at the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On September 30, 2013, the
District Court entered its order dismissing the plaintiffs' second
amended complaint with prejudice, and the plaintiffs filed their
notice of appeal on October 24, 2013.

With respect to the appeal, the plaintiffs' opening brief was
filed on June 7, 2014, the Company's reply brief was filed on July
7, 2014, and the plaintiff's rebuttal brief was filed on August
20, 2014. On September 30, 2015, the parties received notice from
the Court of Appeals that oral argument in the case has been
scheduled for December 10, 2015, in Pasadena, California.
Following the hearing, it is expected that the Court of Appeals
would issue its opinion at some point within six to twelve months
thereafter.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the
plaintiff's allegations in this case.


CYNOSURE INC: 2nd Cir. Keeps Dismissal Ruling
---------------------------------------------
Cynosure, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has issued a corrected opinion
which did not change its September 16, 2015 dismissal of the
plaintiff's appeal in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class
action.

The appellate case is, ARI WEITZNER and ARI WEITZNER, M.D., P.C.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff-Appellants, v. CYNOSURE, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case
No. 314-723-CV (2nd Cir.).  A copy of the Decision dated September
16, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/k0Lmppfrom Leagle.com.

In 2005, a plaintiff, individually and as putative representative
of a purported class, filed a complaint against us under the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, in
Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County, captioned
Weitzner v. Cynosure, Inc., No. MICV2005-01778 (Superior Court,
Middlesex County), seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief,
costs and attorneys' fees. The complaint alleges that we violated
the TCPA by sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the
plaintiff and other recipients without the prior express
invitation or permission of the recipients.

Under the TCPA, recipients of unsolicited facsimile advertisements
are entitled to damages of up to $500 per facsimile for
inadvertent violations and up to $1,500 per facsimile for knowing
or willful violations.

Based on discovery in this matter, the plaintiff alleges that
approximately three million facsimiles were sent on the Company's
behalf by a third party to approximately 100,000 individuals. In
January 2012, the court denied the class certification motion. In
November 2012, the court issued the final judgment and awarded the
plaintiff $6,000 in damages and awarded us $3,495 in costs.

The plaintiff appealed this decision, and oral argument on the
appeal was held in October 2013 before the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Appeals Court. In March 2014, the appeals court
affirmed the lower court's ruling, and in April 2014 the plaintiff
filed a request for further appellate review by the Supreme
Judicial Court.

On May 6, 2014, the Supreme Judicial Court issued a Notice of
Denial of Application for Further Appellate Review. No further
appeals are possible in Massachusetts.

In addition, in July 2012, the plaintiff filed a new purported
class action, based on the same operative facts, asserting the
same claims and seeking similar monetary damages, injunctive
relief, costs and attorneys' fees as in the Massachusetts action,
in federal court in the Eastern District of New York, captioned
Weitzner, et al. v. Cynosure, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-03668-MKB-RLM (U.S
District Court, Eastern District of New York). In February 2013,
that court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
claims.

In March 2013, the plaintiff drafted a motion seeking
reconsideration of the court's judgment and vacation of the
court's order of dismissal.

In April 2013, the Company drafted a response opposing the
plaintiff's motion.

In August 2013, plaintiff filed its motion with the court,
although the deadline had been April 2013.

"We filed a letter with the court objecting to this untimely
motion and requesting sanctions," the Company said. "In February
2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion and denied our request
for sanctions."

"On March 6, 2014, plaintiff filed an appeal of the court's
judgment entered on March 5, 2013. On July 23, 2014, the Second
Circuit notified the parties that it will not hear oral arguments
and will decide the case based on the briefs.

"On September 16, 2015, the Second Circuit dismissed the
plaintiff's appeal. On September 30, 2015, the plaintiff filed a
Petition for Rehearing with Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc. On
October 27, 2015, the Second Circuit issued a corrected opinion
which did not change its September 16, 2015 dismissal of the
plaintiff's appeal."


DIGITAL TURBINE: Defending Class Suit in Israel
-----------------------------------------------
Digital Turbine, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit
in Israel, the Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On May 30, 2013, a class action suit in the amount of NIS 19,200,
or approximately $5,300, was filed in the Tel-Aviv Jaffa District
Court against Coral Tell Ltd., an Israeli company that owns and
operates a website offering advertisements. Coral Tell Ltd. is
currently being sued in a class action lawsuit regarding phone
call overages, and has served a third-party notice against Logia
and two additional companies for our alleged involvement in
facilitating the overages. The suit relates to a service offered
by the Coral Tell website, enabling advertisers to display a
virtual cellular number in the advertisement instead of their real
cellular number.

The plaintiff claims that calls were charged for the connection
time between two segments of the call, instead of the second
segment alone; that the caller was charged even if the advertiser
did not answer the call (as the charge began upon initiation of
the first segment); and that the caller was charged for text
messages sent to the advertiser, although the service did not
support delivery of text messages.

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

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

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

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

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


DIRECTV HOLDINGS: January 2016 Trial in MLB Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
A class was certified by Judge Shira Scheindlin in the case Garber
v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, 12-cv-3704 (SAS), filed
in May 2012 in federal court for the Southern District of New
York. Judge Scheindlin ruled that the plaintiffs are entitled to
seek an injunction on behalf of a class of subscribers who
purchased MLB Extra Innings or MLB.TV from DIRECTV, Comcast and
MLB, to prevent MLB from enforcing league rules that grant member
teams exclusive home team territories. The Judge also ruled that
the plaintiffs were not entitled to seek damages on behalf of the
class. A trial is scheduled for January 2016. The defendants
intend to defend the case and pursue appeals to reverse the
numerous errors of law that formed the bases of the trial court's
orders.


DOLLAR TREE: 4,300 Plaintiffs Remain in Virginina Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that approximately 4,300
plaintiffs remain in a Virginia class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In 2011, an assistant store manager and an hourly associate filed
a collective action against the Company alleging they were forced
to work off the clock in violation of the FLSA and state law. A
federal judge in Virginia ruled that all claims made on behalf of
assistant store managers under both the FLSA and state law should
be dismissed. The court, however, certified an opt-in collective
action under the FLSA on behalf of hourly sales associates.
Approximately 4,300 plaintiffs remain in the case.

The court denied the Company's motion to decertify the collective
action and is currently reviewing and considering a revised
settlement agreement. The proposed settlement amount has been
accrued.


DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Suit by Store Managers
-----------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a former store
manager filed in April 2015 a class action in California state
court alleging store managers were improperly classified as exempt
employees and, among other things, did not receive overtime
compensation and meal and rest periods and alleging claims under
the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").


DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Employee's Class Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a former Family
Dollar employee brought in 2014 a putative class action and
asserted claims under the Private Attorney General Act alleging
the Company failed to provide suitable seating to its California
store employees. The case has been stayed pending a ruling by the
California Supreme Court on whether a drug store retailer has an
obligation to provide suitable seating to drug store cashiers.


DOLLAR TREE: 2012 Store Manager's Suit Decertified, Resolved
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a former Family
Dollar assistant store manager, on behalf of himself and those
alleged to be similarly situated, filed in 2012 a putative class
action in a California state court, alleging the Company failed to
provide rest breaks to assistant store managers. The class was
decertified in July 2015 and the case has now been resolved.


DOLLAR TREE: 10 Named Plaintiffs Remain in North Carolina MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that 10 named plaintiffs
remain in a multi-district litigation in North Carolina involving
Family Dollar.

In 2008, a Multi-District Litigation forum ("MDL") was created in
North Carolina federal court to handle cases alleging Fair Labor
Standards Act violations against Family Dollar. In the first two
cases, the court entered orders finding the plaintiffs were not
similarly situated and, therefore, neither nationwide notice nor
collective treatment under the FLSA was appropriate. Since that
time, the court has granted 60 summary judgments ruling Store
Managers are properly classified as exempt from overtime.

Presently, there are 10 named plaintiffs in the remaining cases in
the MDL, for which the North Carolina Federal Court has not
decided the class certification or summary judgment issue.


DOLLAR TREE: Limited Discovery Underway in Female Manager's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit against Family Dollar over alleged
discriminatory pay are proceeding with limited discovery.

In 2008, a complaint was filed alleging discriminatory pay
practices with respect to Family Dollar's female store managers.
This case was pled as a putative class action or collective action
under applicable statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female
store managers. The plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay,
compensatory and punitive money damages, recovery of attorneys'
fees and equitable relief. The case was transferred to North
Carolina Federal Court in November 2008. The parties are
proceeding with limited discovery. The Company believes the case
is fully insured.


DOLLAR TREE: March Trial Date in Ex-Store Manager's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a March 2016 trial
date has been set on the individual claim in a 2013 class action
lawsuit filed by a former store manager.

In 2013, a former assistant store manager on behalf of himself and
others alleged to be similarly aggrieved filed a representative
Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claim under California law
currently pending in federal court in California. The suit alleges
that the Company failed to provide uninterrupted meal periods and
rest breaks; failed to pay minimum, regular and overtime wages;
failed to maintain accurate time records and wage statements; and
failed to pay wages due upon termination of employment. A trial
date on the individual claim has been set for March 2016.


DOLLAR TREE: 2014 Class Suit by Ex-Store Manager Awaits Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a former assistant
store manager filed in May 2014 a putative class action in a
California state court for alleged failure to provide meal
periods, overtime, timely payment of wages during employment and
upon termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, as
well as for alleged failure to indemnify employees for business
expenses in violation of California labor laws. Discovery has not
commenced and no trial date has been set.


DOLLAR TREE: Distribution Center Employee's Suit Removed
--------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a distribution
center employee filed in April 2015 a class action in California
state court with allegations concerning wages, meal and rest
breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely termination
pay. Additionally, the employee seeks to certify a nation-wide
class of non-exempt distribution employees for overtime
compensation. The Company removed this lawsuit to federal court in
California.


DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar's Appeal on Remand Order Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that plaintiffs filed in
2013 a claim against Family Dollar in Massachusetts state court
seeking unpaid overtime for a class of current and former
Massachusetts Store Managers whom plaintiffs claim are not
properly classified as exempt from overtime under Massachusetts
law. The Company then removed the case to Federal District court
in Massachusetts. In 2014, the case was remanded to state court.
Family Dollar has appealed the remand decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit and is awaiting that court's
decision.


DOLLAR TREE: Shareholder Suit in Del. Settled for Immaterial Sum
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a consolidated
shareholder class action against Family Dollar and Dollar Tree has
been settled for an immaterial amount.

Several shareholders of Family Dollar filed in 2014 class actions,
which were consolidated into one class action, in Delaware
chancery court against Family Dollar's CEO and board members
alleging breach of fiduciary duty. Dollar Tree and Family Dollar
were also named as defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting
the other defendants. The Delaware Chancery Court and appellate
court refused to issue an injunction against the Family Dollar
shareholder vote in favor of the merger. The case was dismissed in
August 2015 and was settled for an immaterial amount.


DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Awaits Decision on Arbitration Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that Family Dollar is
awaiting a California court's decision on its motion to compel
arbitration in a class action lawsuit filed by a former employee.

A putative class action was filed in 2014 in a California Federal
Court by a former employee alleging that Family Dollar had a
policy of requiring employee bag checks while the employees were
not clocked in for work. As a result of those actions, the
employee alleges the Company violated California law by failing to
provide meal periods and rest breaks, failing to pay regular and
overtime wages for work performed off the clock, failing to
provide accurate wage statements, failing to timely pay all final
wages and by engaging in unfair competition. He has also alleged
PAGA claims. While employed by the Company, the plaintiff agreed
to arbitrate matters related to his employment. Accordingly, the
Company filed a motion to compel arbitration and is awaiting the
court's ruling on that motion.


DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Served with TCPA Suit in Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that Family Dollar was
served in 2014 with a putative class action in Missouri Federal
Court alleging that customers received Short Message Service
("SMS") text message advertisements from the Company, without
providing appropriate express written consent in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), seeking all damages
available under the TCPA, including statutory damages of $500 -
$1,500 per willful violation.


DOLLAR TREE: Store Managers' Suit Sent to Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a lawsuit was
brought in 2015 as a collective action in Florida Federal Court on
behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated Family Dollar
store managers alleging the store managers are misclassified as
being exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The
court compelled plaintiff to arbitrate the matter based on the
standard Family Dollar arbitration agreement and dismissed the
collective action.


EFT HOLDINGS: Hearing Held on Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
EFT Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the United States
District Court for the Central District of California was
scheduled to hold a hearing December 7, 2015, to consider a motion
for class certification in a consolidated securities complaint.

On January 30, 2015, a class action entitled Wang, et al. v. EFT
Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of
all purchasers of the Company's products against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On April 14, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint.

On April 29, 2015, the court consolidated this action with the Li,
et al. v. Qin, et al. and Li, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al.
actions. On May 7, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which is currently pending.

On May 11, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a second amended and
consolidated complaint, alleging claims for operation of an
endless chain scheme, deception and common law fraud, unfair
competition, false advertising, and RICO violations. On May 29,
2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike
the class allegations from the second amended and consolidated
complaint.

On July 21, 2015, the court granted the motion to dismiss with
leave to amend, except with regard to the RICO claim, which was
dismissed with prejudice.

On May 29, 2015, the Company also filed a motion to strike the
class allegations from the second amended and consolidated
complaint. On July 28, 2015, the court granted the motion to
strike in part, finding that certain of Plaintiffs' counsel was
not adequate to represent the putative class.

On August 11, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On
September 1, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the third
amended complaint. On September 4, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a
supplemental brief in support of their motion for class
certification. On September 22, 2015, the Company filed an amended
answer to the third amended complaint.

On October 19, 2015, the Company filed an opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification is pending before the court and was scheduled
for hearing on December 7, 2015.

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


EMERGENT CAPITAL: Fla. Court Dismissed "Rothenberg" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emergent Capital, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a Florida court
has dismissed a federal class action lawsuit filed by Harry
Rothenberg and closed the case.

On January 20, 2015, a purported shareholder of the Company filed
a putative class action complaint against the Company, and the
individual members of the Board of Directors, in the Circuit Court
of the 15th Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County,
entitled Harry Rothenberg v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et al. (the
"State Court Complaint"). The Rothenberg State Court Complaint
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties of due care and sought to
invalidate a by-law amendment adopted by the Board of Directors on
October 30, 2014, which requires current and former shareholders
who wish to file a class or derivative action against the Company,
its directors or its officers to first obtain written consent from
shareholders beneficially owning at least 3% of the outstanding
shares of the Company. On March 2, 2015, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss and motion to strike certain allegations in the
State Court Complaint.

On April 20, 2015, Mr. Rothenberg filed a Verified Shareholder
Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the "Federal Court
Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, which named the same defendants and asserted
similar claims as in the State Court Complaint. The Federal Court
Complaint also alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the 1934 Securities Act, and asserted derivative claims for breach
of fiduciary duty, among other claims, based on the previously
disclosed IRS Investigation and allegations regarding the
Company's prior structured settlement business made in a case
styled Michael Lafontant v. Washington Square Financial, LLC, et
al. ("Lafontant Complaint"), which was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Company
has moved to dismiss the Lafontant Complaint based on contractual
arbitration provisions, which is pending an order by the district
court.

On April 21, 2015, Mr. Rothenberg voluntarily dismissed the State
Court Complaint, without prejudice. On June 9, 2015, Mr.
Rothenberg filed an Amended Complaint. On June 29, 2015, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction due to lack of injury in fact and
ripeness and failure to state a claim pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

On September 10, 2015, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida issued an order (the "Order")
granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Approval of Dismissal of
Shareholder's Derivative Claims and Class Action Claims. As
contemplated in the Order, the Federal Court Complaint was
dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed on October 14,
2015.


EMERGENT CAPITAL: Defending "Jennings" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Emergent Capital, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a complaint was
filed on April 10, 2015, against the Company's subsidiary in the
Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for St.
Clair County, Illinois, styled Kenneth Jennings v. Washington
Square Financial, LLC d/b/a Imperial Structured Settlements
("Washington Square"). The plaintiff seeks, in a purported class
action, to represent all individuals who sold all or a part of a
structured settlement annuity to Washington Square under the
Illinois Structured Settlement Protections Act (the "Illinois
Act"), where the underlying annuity contract contained an anti-
assignment clause, and where a court issued an order under the
Illinois Act approving the transaction. The complaint seeks, among
other things, a declaration that all such transactions are void
and compensatory and punitive damages. The Company has not
established any provision for losses in respect of this matter.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Inked Deals to Settle 46,600 Mesh Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that AMS and certain
plaintiffs' counsel representing mesh-related product liability
claimants have entered into various Master Settlement Agreements
(MSAs) regarding settling up to approximately 46,600 filed and
unfiled mesh claims handled or controlled by the participating
counsel as of September 30, 2015.

On October 20, 2008, the FDA issued a Public Health Notification
regarding potential complications associated with transvaginal
placement of surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP)
and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The notification provides
recommendations and encourages physicians to seek specialized
training in mesh procedures, to advise their patients about the
risks associated with these procedures and to be diligent in
diagnosing and reporting complications.

In July 2011, the FDA issued an update to the October 2008 Public
Health Notification regarding mesh to further advise the public
and the medical community of the potential complications
associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh to treat
POP and SUI. In this July 2011 update, the FDA maintained that
adverse events are not rare, as previously reported, and
questioned the relative effectiveness of transvaginal mesh as a
treatment for POP as compared to non-mesh surgical repair. The
July 2011 notification continued to encourage physicians to seek
specialized training in mesh procedures, to consider and to advise
their patients about the risks associated with these procedures
and to be diligent in diagnosing and reporting complications. The
FDA also convened an advisory panel which met on September 8-9,
2011 to further address the safety and effectiveness of
transvaginal surgical mesh used to treat POP and SUI.

At the conclusion of the meetings, the advisory panel recommended
reclassifying transvaginal mesh products used to treat POP to
Class III devices (premarket approval) and recommended that
manufacturers of these products be required to conduct additional
post-market surveillance studies. The advisory panel recommended
that transvaginal surgical mesh products used to treat SUI remain
as Class II devices. Regarding retropubic and transobturator (TOT)
slings, the advisory panel recommended that no additional post-
market surveillance studies are necessary. Regarding mini-slings,
the advisory panel recommended premarket studies for new devices
and additional post-market surveillance studies.

On January 3, 2012, the FDA ordered manufacturers of transvaginal
surgical mesh used for POP and of single incision mini-slings for
urinary incontinence, such as our subsidiary AMS, to conduct post-
market safety studies and to monitor adverse event rates relating
to the use of these products. AMS received a total of nineteen
class-wide post-market study orders regarding its pelvic floor
repair and mini-sling products; however, the FDA agreed to place
sixteen of these study orders on hold for a variety of reasons.
Three of these post-market study orders remain active and AMS is
continuing the process of complying with these orders. In these
orders, the FDA also noted that it is still considering the
recommendation of the September 9, 2011 advisory committee that
urogynecological surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP be
reclassified from Class II to Class III.

On April 29, 2014, the FDA issued a statement proposing to
reclassify surgical mesh for transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse
repair from Class II to Class III. Further, the FDA proposed to
reclassify urogynecologic surgical mesh instrumentation from Class
I to Class II, and to establish special controls for surgical
instrumentation for use with urogynecologic surgical mesh. The FDA
stated that it was proposing these changes based on the tentative
determination that general controls by themselves are insufficient
to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of
these devices. Although this proposal was subject to a 90-day
comment period, to date the FDA has not taken further action
regarding these proposals.

Since 2008, AMS, and more recently, in certain cases the Company
or certain of its subsidiaries, have been named as defendants in
multiple lawsuits in various state courts, a multidistrict
litigation (MDL) in the Southern District of West Virginia (MDL
No. 2325), as well as in Canada, where various class action and
individual complaints are pending, and other countries outside the
United States alleging personal injury resulting from the use of
transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat POP and SUI.
Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal injuries
including chronic pain, incontinence and inability to control
bowel function and permanent deformities.

As of September 30, 2015, AMS and certain plaintiffs' counsel
representing mesh-related product liability claimants have entered
into various Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) regarding
settling up to approximately 46,600 filed and unfiled mesh claims
handled or controlled by the participating counsel. These MSAs,
which were executed at various times from June 14, 2013 through
September 30, 2015, were entered into solely by way of compromise
and settlement and are not in any way an admission of liability or
fault by the Company or AMS. All MSAs are subject to a process
that includes guidelines and procedures for administering the
settlements and the release of funds.

In certain cases, the MSAs provide for the creation of Qualified
Settlement Funds (QSFs) into which funds may be deposited pursuant
to certain schedules set forth in those agreements. All MSAs have
participation thresholds requiring participation by the majority
of claims represented by each law firm. If certain participation
thresholds are not met, then AMS will have the right to terminate
the settlement with that law firm. In addition, one agreement
gives AMS a unilateral right of approval regarding which claims
may be eligible to participate under that settlement. To the
extent fewer claims than are authorized under an agreement
participate, the total settlement payment under that agreement
will be reduced by an agreed-upon amount for each such non-
participating claim. Funds deposited in Qualified Settlement Funds
are included in Restricted cash and cash equivalents in the
September 30, 2015 Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 644 MCP Cases Pending Against Qualitest
-----------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that approximately 644
MCP cases are pending against Qualitest and/or the Company as of
November 2, 2015.

Qualitest, and in certain cases the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries, along with several other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, have been named as defendants in numerous lawsuits
in various federal and state courts alleging personal injury
resulting from the use of the prescription medicine
metoclopramide. Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal
injuries including tardive dyskinesia, other movement disorders
and death. Qualitest and the Company intend to contest all of
these cases vigorously and to explore other options as appropriate
in the best interests of the Company and Qualitest.
Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions.

"However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such
litigation, or whether any additional litigation will be brought
against the Company or its subsidiaries," the Company said.

As of November 2, 2015, approximately 644 MCP cases, some of which
may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are
currently pending against Qualitest and/or the Company or certain
of its subsidiaries.

In 2014, the Company and its subsidiaries reached an agreement
with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve substantially all of
these pending MCP cases, and a Master Settlement Agreement (MSA)
was executed in October 2015. The agreement was entered into
solely by way of compromise and settlement and is not in any way
an admission of liability or fault by the Company or any of its
subsidiaries. An essential element of these settlements will be
participation by the majority of plaintiffs involved in pending
litigation. If certain participation thresholds are not met, the
Company will have the right to terminate the agreements.
Distribution of funds to any individual plaintiff will be
conditioned upon, among other things a full release and a
dismissal with prejudice of the entire action or claim as to the
Company and/or each of its subsidiaries. Prior to receiving an
award, an individual claimant shall represent and warrant that
liens, assignment rights, or other claims that are identified in
the claims administration process have been or will be satisfied
by the individual claimant. The amount of settlement awards to
participating plaintiffs, claimants, the claims evaluation process
and procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and
the negotiations leading to the settlement shall be kept
confidential by all parties and their counsel.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 2nd Amended Suit Filed in Testosterone Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the plaintiffs in
a civil class action complaint over the purchase of testosterone
products filed a Second Amendment Complaint.

On November 5, 2014, a civil class action complaint was filed in
the Northern District of Illinois against Endo Pharmaceuticals
Inc. (EPI), Auxilium, and various other manufacturers of
testosterone products on behalf of a proposed class of health
insurance companies and other third party payers that had paid for
certain testosterone products, alleging that the marketing efforts
of EPI, Auxilium, and other defendant manufacturers with respect
to certain testosterone products constituted racketeering activity
in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec.1962(c), and other civil RICO
claims. Further, the complaint alleges that EPI, Auxilium, and
other defendant manufacturers violated various state consumer
protection laws through their marketing of certain testosterone
products.

On June 10, 2015 plaintiffs in that action filed a Second
Amendment Complaint. The Company and/or its subsidiaries are
unable to predict the outcome of this matter or the ultimate legal
and financial liability, if any, and at this time cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss for this
matter, if any.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Stayed in Opana(R) ER Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that discovery has been
stayed in the Opana(R) ER litigation.

Multiple direct and indirect purchasers of Opana(R) ER have filed
cases against Endo Health Solutions Inc. (EHSI), Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI), Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., and Impax
Laboratories Inc., all of which have been transferred and
coordinated for pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of
Illinois by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Some
of these cases have been filed on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers, while others have been filed on
behalf of individual retailers. These cases generally allege that
the agreement reached by EPI and Impax to settle patent
infringement litigation concerning multiple patents pertaining to
Opana(R) ER and EPI's introduction of the re-formulation of
Opana(R) ER violated antitrust laws.

The complaints allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2), various state antitrust and
consumer protection statutes, as well as state common law. These
cases generally seek damages, treble damages, disgorgement of
profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The
defendants have filed motions to dismiss these actions and
discovery is currently stayed pending the outcome of these
motions.

"We cannot predict whether or not additional cases similar to
those described above will be filed by other plaintiffs or the
timing or outcome of any such litigation," the Company said.

The Company and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the outcome
of these matters or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if
any, and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of loss for these matters, if any, but will explore all
options as appropriate in the best interests of EPI and the
Company.


FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR: Sued in Over Prop. Sale to ON Semicon.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Wesley Woo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 11798 (Del. Ch. Ct., December 11, 2015) is
brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Fairchild
Semiconductor International, Inc., to enjoin to the attempt to
sell the Company to ON Semiconductor Corp., in a process that
failed to maximize stockholder value, and without providing
material information necessary for an informed decision regarding
whether or not to tender their shares, and seek appraisal.

Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. designs, develops,
manufactures, and markets power analog, power discrete, and non-
power semiconductor solutions worldwide.

ON Semiconductor Corp. manufactures and sells semiconductor
components for various electronic devices worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      E-mail: denright@zlk.com


FANDUEL INC: "Halperin" Suit Alleges Negligence
-----------------------------------------------
Michael Halperin, and all others similarly situated v. FanDuel,
Inc., FanDuel Deposits, LLC, and DraftKings, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-09725 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for negligence, fraud and misrepresentation, violation
of consumer protection acts, civil conspiracy, violation of the
New York Deceptive Acts and Practices Law and the New York False
Advertising Law and unjust enrichment.

The Defendants operate daily fantasy sports websites in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
      768 Plandome Road
      Manhasset, NY 11030
      Tel: (516) 426-6870
      Fax: (212) 658-9685
      E-mail: pcwhalen@gmail.com

          - and -

      Brian P. Murray, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      122 East 42nd St. Ste 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Tel: (212) 682-5340
      Fax: (212) 884-0988
      E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com

          - and -

      G. Oliver Koppell, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES G. OLIVER KOPPELL
      99 Park Ave #3,
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 867-3838
      E-mail: okoppell@koppellaw.com


FBR & CO: Underwriter Defendants Moved to Dismiss Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FBR & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that the underwriter defendants
have moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in a securities
class action lawsuit in New York.

On March 27, 2014, the Company entered into a Transaction
Agreement with Lazard Capital Markets LLC ("LCM") pursuant to
which FBR Capital Markets & Co. ("FBRCM") agreed to purchase LCM's
securities lending business (the "Transaction Agreement") and on
August 4, 2014, the Company completed its purchase of this
business.

FBRCM has been named a defendant in the putative class action
lawsuit Waterford Township Police & Fire, Retirement System, vs.
Regional Management Corp. et al., pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The amended
complaint, filed on November 24, 2014 (the "Amended Complaint"),
names FBRCM as a co-managing underwriter of offerings in September
2013 and December 2013.  Plaintiffs allege that the Registration
Statement and Prospectus used in connection with these offerings
were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue
statements of material fact and omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading. The Amended
Complaint asserts claims against all the underwriters under
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act.  Regional Management has
agreed to indemnify all the underwriters, including FBRCM,
pursuant to the operative underwriting agreement.

In response to the defendants' motions to dismiss, filed on
January 23, 2015, the putative class plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), which shall
serve as the operative complaint.  The underwriter defendants have
moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and the briefing was
completed in July 2015.


FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Tendered $1MM to Settlement Administrator
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that the Company has
tendered $1 million to the settlement administrator for a claim
review fund.

On July 18, 2011, a putative class action Complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. OM Financial Life
Insurance Company. The Plaintiff asked the Court to certify the
action as a class action on behalf of both a nationwide and a
California class defined as certain persons who were sold OM
Financial Life Insurance equity-indexed universal life insurance
policies.  The Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the Plaintiff
and members of the putative class relied on defendants' advice to
purchase unsuitable insurance policies.

After extensive motion practice, the federal court dismissed the
federal causes of action, with prejudice, and, on May 9, 2013,
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
claims, dismissed the state law claims, without prejudice, and
granted the Plaintiff leave to re-file the state law claims in
California state court.

On July 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life
Insurance Company, et al. in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles (the "Court"), Case No. BC-514340. The state
court Complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and
members of the putative class relied on Defendants' advice in
purchasing unsuitable equity-indexed insurance policies. The
Plaintiff sought to certify a class defined as "all persons who
reside or are located in the state of California who were sold OM
Financial/FGL Insurance equity-indexed universal life insurance
policies as an investment."

On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, FGL Insurance and the other two
defendants signed a Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which FGL
Insurance has agreed to pay a total of $5 million to settle the
claims of a nationwide class consisting, with certain exclusions,
of all persons who own or owned an OM Financial/FGL Insurance
indexed universal life insurance policy issued from January 1,
2007 through March 31, 2014, inclusive.  As part of the
settlement, FGL Insurance agreed to certification of the
nationwide class for settlement purposes only. An amended
Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on June 5, 2014.

On January 2, 2015, the Court entered the Final Judgment in
Cressy, certifying the class for settlement purposes, and
approving the class settlement. On August 10, 2015, the Company
tendered $1 million to the Settlement Administrator for a claim
review fund. The Company will implement an interest enhancement
for certain policies as part of the class settlement, which began
on October 12, 2015.

At September 30, 2015, the Company estimated the total cost for
the settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class
action would be $9 million and established a liability for the
unpaid portion of the estimate of $2 million. The Company has
incurred and paid $4 million related to legal fees and other costs
and $3 million related to settlement costs as of September 30,
2015. Based on the information currently available the Company
does not expect the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and
other related costs to differ materially from the amount accrued.

The Company had been seeking indemnification from OMGUK under the
First Amended and Restated Stock Purchase Agreement, dated
February 17, 2011 (the "F&G Stock Purchase Agreement") between FGL
(previously HFG) and OMGUK related to the settlement and the costs
and fees in defending the Cressy litigation in both the federal
and state courts. The settlement, legal fees and other costs
related to this class action and the amount recovered from OMGUK
are presented in the Consolidated Statements of Operations in
"Benefits and other changes in policy reserves."

During the third quarter of 2015, the Company, HRG, and OMGUK
reached a global settlement which resolved all prior outstanding
claims, resulting in the Company receiving $4 million in
settlement of its outstanding recoverable related to the Cressy
litigation.


FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Parties in "Ludwick" in Document Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in the
class action lawsuit filed by Dale R. Ludwick are engaging in
document discovery.

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri,
captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. HRG Group Inc., Fidelity & Guaranty Life
Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance Company, and Front Street Re
(Cayman) Ltd. The complaint alleges violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") requests
injunctive and declaratory relief, seeks unspecified compensatory
damages for the putative class in an amount not presently
determinable, treble damages, and other relief, and claims the
plaintiff overpaid at least $0 for her annuity. The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously
defend the litigation.

On April 13, 2015, the Company joined in the filing of a joint
motion to dismiss the complaint that was filed by all of the
defendants. The motion has been fully briefed and is pending
before the Court. The parties are currently engaging in document
discovery.

As of September 30, 2015, the Company did not have sufficient
information to determine whether the Company is exposed to any
losses that would be either probable or reasonably estimable
beyond an expense contingency estimate of $1 million, which was
accrued during the three months ended September 30, 2015.


FIFTH STREET: Named as Defendant in Class Suits v. FSC
------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company has been named as a defendant in three putative securities
class-action lawsuits arising from its role as investment adviser
to Fifth Street Finance Corp. (FSC), a publicly-traded business
development company managed by Fifth Street Management.

The first lawsuit was filed on October 1, 2015, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is
captioned Howard Randall, Trustee, Howard & Gale Randall Trust FBO
Kimberly Randall Irrevocable Trust UA Feb 15, 2000 v. Fifth Street
Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07759.

The second lawsuit was filed on October 14, 2015, in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut and is
captioned Lynn Waters-Cottrell v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01488.

The third lawsuit was filed on November 12, 2015, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is
captioned Robert J. Hurwitz v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-08908.

The defendants in all three cases are Leonard M. Tannenbaum,
Bernard D. Berman, Alexander C. Frank, Todd G. Owens, Ivelin M.
Dimitrov, and Richard Petrocelli (collectively, the "Individual
Defendants"), FSC, and the Company.

The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of
investors who purchased FSC common stock between July 7, 2014, and
February 6, 2015, inclusive.  The lawsuits allege in general terms
that defendants engaged in a purportedly fraudulent scheme
designed to artificially inflate the true value of FSC's
investment portfolio and investment income in order to increase
FSAM's revenue, which FSAM received as the asset manager and
investment advisor of FSC.  For example, the lawsuits allege that
FSC improperly delayed the write-down of five of its investments
until the fiscal quarter ending in December 31, 2014, after FSAM
conducted its Initial Public Offering ("IPO") in October 2014,
when FSC should have taken the write-down before FSAM's IPO.  The
plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of
damages being sought in any of the actions.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to defend itself vigorously against the plaintiffs' allegations.


FIRST SOLAR: 9th Circuit Appeal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------
On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (the "Arizona District Court") against the
Company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers (the "Defendants"). The complaint was filed on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly
traded securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012
(the "Class Action"). The complaint generally alleges that the
Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects. The
action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative
class.

On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted Defendants'
motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, and
certified an issue for immediate appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Court of Appeals"). The
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was denied.

On August 20, 2015, the Company filed a petition for interlocutory
appeal with the Court of Appeals. Upon the filing of this
petition, the Arizona District Court entered a stay until the
Court of Appeals decided whether to take the appeal and, if it
did, until the appeal is decided.

On November 18, 2015, the Court of Appeals issued an order
granting permission to proceed with the appeal and setting a
briefing schedule, First Solar said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2015.


FORCEFIELD ENERGY: JPML Keeps Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
ForceField Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation has declined to transfer a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit to the Eastern
District of New York.

On April 17, 2015, a class action lawsuit against the Company and
its officers, Messrs. David Natan and Jason Williams, former
chairman and officer Mr. Richard St-Julien, and certain other
third parties, was filed in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York. Additional class action complaints
were also filed in the Southern District on behalf of all persons
who purchased the Company's securities between September 16, 2013
and April 15, 2015 (together, the "Class Actions"). The Class
Actions alleged the Company and the other persons named therein
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
seek an unspecified amount of damages.

On July 22, 2015, the Class Actions were consolidated before the
Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the "Class Action"). On
November 6, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff in the Class Action filed a
second amended complaint. The Company and Individual Defendants
have permission to file a motion to dismiss on or before December
4, 2015.

On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an Order declining to transfer the Class Action
to the Eastern District of New York.


FORD MOTOR: MyFord Plaintiffs Expected to File Cert. Bid Jan. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case, In Re Myford Touch Consumer Litigation,
Case No. 13-cv-3072-EMC (N.D. Cal.), were slated to file a motion
for class certification on Jan. 28, 2016.

In a Stipulation approved on Jan. 22, District Judge Edward M.
Chen in San Francisco, California, permitted both parties to
exceed the page limit for briefs in support of class
certification.

Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Class Action Complaint and
served it on Defendant Ford Motor Company on October 13, 2015.
The Third Amended Class Action Complaint includes 19 plaintiffs
from 12 states collectively stating 44 causes of action.

Ford filed the Answer to Third Amended Class Action Complaint on
October 30, 2015.

Local Rule 7-2 provides that the points and authorities in support
of a motion for class certification may not exceed 25 pages.
Local Rule 7-11 permits a party to seek miscellaneous
administrative relief, including permission "to exceed otherwise
applicable page limitations," pursuant to a stipulation by the
parties.

Plaintiffs were slated to file their Motion for Class
Certification on or before Jan. 28, 2015.  They anticipate that
they will need 50 pages to adequately address the elements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b) in light of the
number of allegations and causes of action in the Third Amended
Class Action Complaint.

Ford expects that it may need to seek an extension of the page
limit for its opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification; however, until it has the opportunity to review
Plaintiffs' brief, it cannot know how much, if any, additional
pages it will need.

Accordingly, bot sides agree that Plaintiffs will have leave to
file a memorandum of points and authorities of no more than 50
pages in support of their Motion for Class Certification to be
filed on or before Jan. 28.

A copy of the Stipulation is available at http://is.gd/LhjmmFfrom
Leagle.com.


FRANK A. REICHL: "Little River" Suit Alleges Sherman Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Little River County R.D.A. Water System, and all others similarly
situated v. Frank A. Reichl, Chemtrade Logistics Inc., Chemtrade
Chemical US LLC and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-06564 (E.D.
Pa., December 11, 2015), seeks to recover treble damages,
equitable relief, and costs of suit, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, against the Defendants for violations of the
Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleged that beginning at least as early as January
1, 1997 and continuing through July 31, 2010, Defendants agreed to
fix prices, rig bids and allocate customers in the market for
liquid aluminum sulfate in the United States.

Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of liquid aluminum
sulfate used primarily by municipalities in potable water and
wastewater treatment and by pulp and paper manufacturers as part
of their manufacturing processes. Liquid aluminum sulfate is also
used for algae control in lakes and ponds, to fix dyes to fabrics
and textiles, and by poultry houses as a litter amendment for
ammonia control.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert D. Liebenberg, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
      Philadephia, PA 19107
      Tel: (215) 567-6565
      Fax: (215) 568-5872
      E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com

          - and -

      Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 907-0700
      Fax: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com

          - and -

      M. Chad Trammell, Esq.
      TRAMMEL PIAZZA LAW FIRM, PLLC
      418 North State Line Avenue
      Texarkana, AK 71854
      Tel: (870) 779-1860
      Fax: (870) 779-1861
      E-mail: chad@trammellpiazza.com

          - and -

      Paul Scarlato, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO& PENNY PC
      Eight Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
      161 Washington Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      E-mail: scarlato@lawgsp.com


FX ENERGY: Defending Class Suits over ORLEN Upstream Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
FX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is
defending class action lawsuits related to a definitive merger
agreement with ORLEN Upstream Sp. z o.o.

"On October 13, 2015, we announced that we have entered into a
definitive merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement") pursuant to
which ORLEN Upstream Sp. z o.o. will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of common stock of FX Energy on the terms and
subject to the conditions of the Merger Agreement," the Company
said.  ORLEN Upstream is the wholly owned exploration and
production subsidiary of PKN ORLEN SA (GPW: PKN).

"Subsequent to our announcement, and as of a recent practicable
date before filing of this document, five putative class action
lawsuits on behalf of our shareholders were filed in various
jurisdictions against us, each member of our board, ORLEN
Upstream, and Kiwi Acquisition Corp. The lawsuits generally
allege, among other things, that the members of our board breached
their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care by agreeing to sell FX
Energy without first taking steps to ensure that our shareholders
would obtain adequate and fair consideration and by engineering
the transaction to benefit themselves and or ORLEN Upstream
without regard to our shareholders. The lawsuits further allege
that the transaction is structured with deal protection devices
that preclude other bidders from making successful competing
offers.

"The lawsuits contend that we, ORLEN Upstream, and Kiwi
Acquisition Corp. knowingly assisted the board in breaching its
fiduciary duties. The lawsuits seek a declaration that the action
is a proper class action and an order requiring the board to
cooperate fully with any entity or person having a bona fide
interest in proposing any alternative transactions and to ensure
that no conflicts of interests exist between the directors' own
interests and their fiduciary duties.

"The lawsuits further seek an award of the plaintiffs' damages,
costs, and reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and enjoinment
of the acquisition of FX Energy by Kiwi Acquisition Corp. or,
alternatively, rescission of the transaction in the event it is
consummated.

On Dec. 8, 2015, FX Energy announced the successful completion of
the tender offer for the Company's common stock by ORLEN Upstream
and the commencement of subsequent offering period by ORLEN
Upstream.  The Tender Offer was extended twice.

On Nov. 20, 2015, FX Energy announced that Kiwi Acquisition Corp.
("Merger Sub"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of ORLEN Upstream,
extended the expiration of the tender offer.  The Tender Offer was
extended to allow for limited expedited discovery and to
accommodate the Court's calendar in a putative class action
lawsuit (Richards v. FX Energy, Inc. et al.) originally filed on
Oct. 19, 2015 on behalf of stockholders of the Company in the
Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada against the
Company, each member of the board of directors of the Company,
ORLEN Upstream and Merger Sub.


H & T GAMING: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated v. H & T Gaming, Inc., Case  No.
0:15-cv-62550 (S.D. Fla., December 4, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

H & T Gaming, Inc. is a Florida corporation engaged in commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Tse-Hua Ku, Esq.
      Louis I. Mussman, Esq.
      KU & MUSSMAN PA
      6001 NW 153 Street, Suite 100
      Miami Lakes, FL 33014
      Telephone: (305) 891-1322
      Facsimile: (305) 891-4512
      E-mail: brian@kumussman.com
              louis@kumussman.com


HCSB FINANCIAL: Final Settlement Hearing Cancelled
--------------------------------------------------
A final hearing scheduled for November 23, 2015, to approve a
class action settlement has been cancelled, HCSB Financial
Corporation said in a Form 8-K filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 23, 2015.

As disclosed in the Form 8-K filed by HCSB Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on September 22, 2015, a final hearing on the
proposed settlement of the previously disclosed putative class
action lawsuit between the Company, Horry County State Bank (the
"Bank"), James R. Clarkson, Glenn Raymond Bullard, Ron Lee Paige,
Sr., and Edward Lewis Loehr, Jr., the President and Chief
Executive Officer, Senior Executive Vice President, Executive Vice
President, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company and the
Bank, respectively, and Jan W. Snyder, Acey H. Livingston, and
Mark Josephs, on behalf of themselves and as representatives of a
class of similarly situated purchasers of the Company's
subordinated debt notes, was scheduled for November 23, 2015. The
proposed settlement is subject to several conditions, which have
not yet been met.

On November 17, 2015, all class members were notified that the
final hearing scheduled for November 23, 2015 has been cancelled
and that they will be advised when, and if, the final hearing is
rescheduled by the court.


HELEN ROSS: "Wei" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Kim J. Wei, and all others similarly situated v. Helen Ross,
Lotusan LLC, 888 Management LLC, Ronald Properties LLC and Does 1-
50, Case No. BC603699 (Cal. Super., December 9, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay all wages due and
overtime in violation of the California Business and Professions
Code and the California Labor Code.

The Defendant Helen Ross is the owner of Ronald Properties LLC,
888 Management LLC and Lotusan LLC, and controls them and
determines their policies, including the policies at issue herein.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles H. Jung,
      NASSIRI & JUNG LLP
      1055 West 7th Street, Ste 2800
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Tel: (213) 626-6200
      Fax: (213) 284-3900


HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal in Concession Recovery Fees Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that no oral
argument has been set in an appeal related to the class action
lawsuit over concession fee recoveries.

In October 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, or
"Enterprise," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada (Enterprise became a defendant in a separate
action which they have now settled.) The Sobel case is a consumer
class action on behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz
at airports in Nevada and were separately charged airport
concession recovery fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges
during the class period.

In October 2014, the court entered final judgment against the
Company and directed Hertz to pay the class approximately $42
million in restitution and $11 million in prejudgment interest,
and to pay attorney's fees of $3.1 million with an additional $3.1
million to be paid from the restitution fund.

In December 2014, Hertz timely filed an appeal of that final
judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and
the plaintiffs cross appealed the court's judgment seeking to
challenge the lower court's ruling that Hertz did not deceive or
mislead the class members.

"The matter has now been fully briefed by the parties," the
Company said. "No oral argument date has been set. The Company
continues to believe the outcome of this case will not be material
to its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows."


HERTZ GLOBAL: Seeks Dismissal of 3rd Amended Securities Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. is seeking court dismissal of the
third amended complaint filed by plaintiffs in the case, In re
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint
alleges that Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during
the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in
violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees.

In June 2014, Hertz Holdings responded to the amended complaint by
filing a motion to dismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the
court granted Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss the complaint. The
dismissal was without prejudice and plaintiffs were granted leave
to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order. In
November 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint which
shortened the putative class period such that it is not alleged to
have commenced until May 18, 2013 and makes allegations that were
not substantively very different than the allegations in the prior
complaint.

In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal judge in
the District of New Jersey and Hertz Holdings responded to the
second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss.

On July 22, 2015, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion to
dismiss without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff could file a
third amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015.

On August 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.
The third amended complaint includes additional allegations and
expands the putative class period such that it is alleged to span
from February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015.

On November 4, Hertz Holdings filed its motion to dismiss. Hertz
Holdings believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses and
it intends to vigorously defend against the complaint, but
litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of
this matter is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that
this matter could be decided unfavorably to Hertz Holdings.
However, Hertz Holdings is currently unable to estimate the range
of these possible losses, but they could be material to the
Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows in any particular reporting period.


HOME DEPOT: 57 Class Suits Filed over 2014 Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
The Home Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended November 1, 2015, that at least 57 putative
class actions have been filed in courts in the U.S. and Canada
allegedly arising from a 2014 data breach.

In the third quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company confirmed that
its payment data systems were breached, which potentially impacted
customers who used payment cards at self-checkout systems in the
Company's U.S. and Canadian stores (the "Data Breach"). The
Company's investigation to date has determined the intruder used a
vendor's user name and password to enter the perimeter of the
Company's network. The intruder then acquired elevated rights that
allowed it to navigate portions of the Company's systems and to
deploy unique, custom-built malware on the Company's self-checkout
systems to access payment card information of customers who
shopped at the Company's U.S. and Canadian stores between April
2014 and September 2014.

In the second quarter of fiscal 2015, the payment card networks
made claims against the Company for costs that they assert they or
their issuing banks have incurred in connection with the Data
Breach, including incremental counterfeit fraud losses and non-
ordinary course operating expenses (such as card reissuance
costs), and the Company recorded an accrual for estimated probable
losses it expected to incur in connection with those claims. In
the third quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company entered into
settlement agreements with American Express and Discover with
respect to their claims.

In addition, at least 57 putative class actions have been filed in
courts in the U.S. and Canada allegedly arising from the Data
Breach. The U.S. class actions have been consolidated for pre-
trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (the "District Court"). That court
ordered that the individual class actions be administratively
closed in favor of the filing of consolidated class action
complaints on behalf of customers and financial institutions
allegedly harmed by the Data Breach.

In the third quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company recorded an
accrual for estimated probable losses that it expects to incur in
connection with the U.S. customer class actions.


HOWARD GROUP: Faces "Greenwell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paige Greenwell and Zachary Fluker, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. Howard
Group, R Wings R Wild LLC, and Conway Wild Wings LLC, Case No.
4:15-cv-00742 (E.D. Ark., December 4, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a chicken wings restaurant located
at 675 Amity Rd, Conway, AR 72032.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com


IIX INC: Faces "Shiverdaker" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Shiverdaker v. IIX Inc., Al Burgio, and Does 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. 15-cv-288931 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 11, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a software and interconnection
company located at 3131 Jay St, Santa Clara, CA 95054.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Ainley, Esq.
      JOSEPH AINLEY & ASSOCIATES, A P.C.
      1494 Hamilton Way, Suite 100
      San Jose, CA 95125
      Telephone: (408) 465-4518
      Facsimile: (408) 834-7630
      E-mail: joe@ainleylaw.com


ITT EDUCATIONAL: $16.9 Million Settlement Reached in N.Y. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. has reached a $16.9 million deal to
settle a class action lawsuit pending in New York, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

The Company said, "On March 11, 2013, a complaint in a securities
class action lawsuit was filed against us, one of our current
executive officers and one of our former executive officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
under the following caption: William Koetsch, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational
Services, Inc., et al. (the "Koetsch Litigation"). On April 17,
2013, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against us, one of our current executive officers and one of our
former executive officers in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York under the following caption:
Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services,
Inc., et al. (the "MLAF Litigation")."

"On July 25, 2013, the court consolidated the Koetsch Litigation
and MLAF Litigation under the following caption: In re ITT
Educational Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "New York
Securities Litigation"), and named the Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
Retirement Fund as the lead plaintiffs. On October 7, 2013, an
amended complaint was filed in the New York Securities Litigation,
and on January 15, 2014, a second amended complaint was filed in
the New York Securities Litigation. The second amended complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by:

     * our failure to properly account for the 2007 RSA, CUSO RSA
       and PEAKS Program;

     * employing devices, schemes and artifices to defraud;

     * making untrue statements of material facts, or omitting
       material facts necessary in order to make the statements
       made, in light of the circumstances under which they were
       made, not misleading;

     * making the above statements intentionally or with reckless
       disregard for the truth;

     * engaging in acts, practices, and a course of business that
       operated as a fraud or deceit upon lead plaintiffs and
       others similarly situated in connection with their
       purchases of our common stock;

     * deceiving the investing public, including lead plaintiffs
       and the purported class, regarding, among other things,
       our artificially inflated statements of financial strength
       and understated liabilities; and

     * causing our common stock to trade at artificially inflated
       prices and causing the plaintiff and other putative class
       members to purchase our common stock at inflated prices.

"The putative class period in this action is from April 24, 2008
through February 25, 2013. The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award
of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, and such
equitable/injunctive and other relief as the court deems
appropriate.

"On July 22, 2014, the district court denied most of our motion to
dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim
for which relief can be granted. On August 5, 2014, we filed our
answer to the second amended complaint denying all of the
plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification on March 27, 2015.

"On June 16, 2015, to facilitate the parties' efforts to resolve
this action by mediation, the court entered a stipulation and
order providing for a three-month stay of all proceedings. On
September 14, 2015, the court extended the stay by an additional
two months.

"Following a mediation which began in the third quarter of 2015,
the parties came to an agreement in principle to settle the New
York Securities Litigation.

"On November 2, 2015, the parties in the New York Securities
Litigation entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
(the "New York Settlement") to resolve the action in its entirety.
Under the terms of the New York Settlement, we and/or our insurers
would make a payment of $16,962,000 in exchange for the release of
claims against the defendants and other released parties, by the
plaintiffs and all settlement class members, and for the dismissal
of the action with prejudice.

"The New York Settlement remains subject to the approval of the
court. Prior to any final court approval of the New York
Settlement, potential settlement class members (all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock
between April 24, 2008 and February 25, 2013, both dates inclusive
(with limited exclusions)) would have an opportunity to exclude
themselves from participating in the New York Settlement or to
raise objections with the court regarding the New York Settlement
or any part thereof.

"On November 2, 2015, the plaintiffs in the New York Securities
Litigation filed the New York Settlement and related exhibits with
the court and moved, among other things, for the court to
preliminarily approve the New York Settlement, to approve the
contents and procedures for notice to potential settlement class
members, to certify the New York Securities Litigation as a class
action for settlement purposes only, and to schedule a hearing for
the court to consider final approval of the New York Settlement.

"The New York Settlement contains no admission of liability, and
all of the defendants in the New York Securities Litigation have
expressly denied, and continue to deny, all allegations of
wrongdoing or improper conduct. If both the New York Settlement
and the Indiana Settlement are approved by the respective courts
in New York and Indiana, our insurance carriers will fund a
combined $25,000,000 collectively towards the settlement payments
for the New York Settlement and the Indiana Settlement. In the
event that the New York Settlement is not approved by the court or
otherwise does not become effective, all of the defendants intend
to continue to defend themselves vigorously against the
allegations made in the second amended complaint."


ITT EDUCATIONAL: $12.5 Million Settlement Reached in Indiana Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. reached a $12.5 million settlement
in a class action lawsuit in Indiana, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

"On September 30, 2014, a complaint in a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against us, one of our current executive
officers and one of our former executive officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under
the following caption: David Banes, on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated v. Kevin M. Modany, et al. (the "Banes
Litigation")," the Company said.

"On October 3, 2014, October 9, 2014 and November 25, 2014, three
similar complaints were filed against us, one of our current
executive officers and one of our former executive officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
under the following captions: Babulal Tarapara, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational
Services, Inc. et al. (the "Tarapara Litigation"), Kumud Jindal,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Kevin Modany, et al. (the "Jindal Litigation") and Kristopher
Hennen, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. et al. (the "Hennen
Litigation").

"On November 17, 2014, the Tarapara Litigation and the Jindal
Litigation were consolidated into the Banes Litigation. On January
21, 2015, the Hennen Litigation was consolidated into that
consolidated action (the "Indiana Securities Litigation"). On
December 1, 2014, motions were filed in the Indiana Securities
Litigation for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

"On March 16, 2015, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. Subsequently, the caption for the Indiana Securities
Litigation was changed to the following: In re ITT Educational
Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (Indiana).

"On May 26, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in the Indiana
Securities Litigation. The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
knowingly or recklessly making false and/or misleading statements
and failing to disclose material adverse facts about our business,
operations, prospects and financial results. Plaintiffs assert
that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of
business and that alleged misstatements and/or omissions by the
defendants caused members of the putative class to purchase our
securities at artificially inflated prices. The amended complaint
includes allegations relating to:

     * the performance of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program;

     * our guarantee obligations under the PEAKS Program and the
       CUSO Program;

     * our accounting treatment of the PEAKS Program and the
       CUSO Program;

     * consolidation of the PEAKS Trust in our consolidated
       financial statements;

     * the impact of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program on
       our liquidity and overall financial condition;

     * our compliance with Department of Education financial
       responsibility standards; and

     * our internal controls over financial reporting.

"The putative class period in the Indiana Securities Litigation is
from February 26, 2013 through May 12, 2015. The plaintiffs in the
Indiana Securities Litigation seek, among other things, the
designation of the action as a proper class action, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages against all defendants, interest,
costs, expenses, counsel fees and expert fees, and such other
relief as the court deems proper.

On July 14, 2015, to facilitate the parties' efforts to resolve
this action by mediation, the court granted a joint motion for a
stay of proceedings until October 13, 2015. On October 13, 2015,
the court extended the stay to October 27, 2015. On October 27,
2015, the court further extended the stay. On November 3, 2015,
due to the filing of the Indiana Settlement, the stay was lifted.

Following a mediation that began in the third quarter of 2015, the
parties came to an agreement in principle to settle the Indiana
Securities Litigation. On November 2, 2015, the parties in the
Indiana Securities Litigation entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Indiana Settlement") to resolve the
action in its entirety. Under the terms of the Indiana Settlement,
we and/or our insurers would make a payment of $12,538,000 in
exchange for the release of claims against the defendants and
other released parties, by the plaintiffs and all settlement class
members, and for the dismissal of the action with prejudice. The
Indiana Settlement remains subject to the approval of the court.
Prior to any final court approval of the Indiana Settlement,
potential settlement class members (all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock, purchased or
otherwise acquired call options on our common stock, or wrote put
options on our common stock, between February 26, 2013 and May 12,
2015, both dates inclusive (with limited exclusions)) would have
an opportunity to exclude themselves from participating in the
Indiana Settlement or to raise objections with the court regarding
the Indiana Settlement or any part thereof.

"On November 2, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Indiana Securities
Litigation filed the Indiana Settlement and related exhibits with
the court and moved, among other things, for the court to
preliminarily approve the Indiana Settlement, to approve the
contents and procedures for notice to potential settlement class
members, to certify the Indiana Securities Litigation as a class
action for settlement purposes only, and to schedule a hearing for
the court to consider final approval of the Indiana Settlement.

"The Indiana Settlement contains no admission of liability, and
all of the defendants in the Indiana Securities Litigation have
expressly denied, and continue to deny, all allegations of
wrongdoing or improper conduct. If both the Indiana Settlement and
the New York Settlement are approved by the respective courts in
Indiana and New York, our insurance carriers will fund a combined
$25,000,000 collectively towards the settlement payments for the
Indiana Settlement and the New York Settlement. In the event that
the Indiana Settlement is not approved by the court or otherwise
does not become effective, all of the defendants intend to
continue to defend themselves vigorously against the allegations
made in the amended complaint."


ITT EDUCATIONAL: $400,000 Deal Reached in "Gallien" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a $400,000
settlement has been reached to resolve the class action lawsuit
filed by La Sondra Gallien.

"On December 17, 2013, a complaint was filed against us in a
purported class action in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles under the following
caption: La Sondra Gallien, an individual, James Rayonez, an
individual, Giovanni Chilin, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. ITT
Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Gallien Litigation"),"
the Company said.

"The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2014.
The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that under
California law, we:

     * failed to pay wages owed;

     * failed to pay overtime compensation;

     * failed to provide meal and rest periods;

     * failed to provide itemized employee wage statements;

     * engaged in unlawful business practices; and

     * are liable for civil penalties under the California
       Private Attorney General Act.

"The purported class includes recruiting representatives employed
by us during the period of December 17, 2009 through December 17,
2013. The amended complaint seeks:

     * compensatory damages, including lost wages and other
       losses;

     * general damages;

     * pay for missed meal and rest periods;

     * restitution;

     * liquidated damages;

     * statutory penalties;

      * interest;

     * attorneys' fees, cost and expenses;

     * civil and statutory penalties;

     * injunctive relief; and

     * such other and further relief as the court may deem
       equitable and appropriate.

"Following a mediation that began in the third quarter of 2015,
the parties came to an agreement in principle to settle the
Gallien Litigation on a class-wide basis for $400,000.

"On October 28, 2015, the parties executed a Stipulation of Class
Action Settlement (the "Gallien Settlement") to document the terms
and conditions of the settlement. In connection with the Gallien
Settlement and subject to court approval, the settlement is based
on claims made with a specific reversion of funds paid back to us,
depending on the number of claims made by settlement class members
for individual settlement payments.

"Under the terms specified in the Gallien Settlement, 55% of a net
settlement amount of approximately $204,000 must be paid to
settlement class members in the form of individual settlement
payments. In the event the settlement is not approved by the court
or otherwise does not become effective, we intend to continue to
defend ourselves vigorously against the allegations made in the
amended complaint."


J.G. WENTWORTH: New Action Filed in Illinois State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
The J.G. Wentworth Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that one of the
plaintiffs of a purported class action has filed a new action in
the Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial District, St. Clair
County, Illinois, against J. G. Wentworth Originations, LLC.

In February 2014 a purported class action filing was made against
the Company and various subsidiaries, alleging, among other
claims, violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, which was removed by the Defendants to the
United States Court for the Southern District of Illinois, after
transfer, the Northern District of Illinois had entered an order
finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case
and remanded it back to St. Clair County. The Defendants filed
appeals.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted
the relief requested by certain of the Defendants, reversed the
previous ruling noting that the Northern District did have
jurisdiction and remanded the matter back to the Northern
District. The remaining Defendant, Settlement Funding, LLC, filed
its brief in support of its appeal with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit also granted the requested relief
by the remaining Defendant and remanded the matter back to the
Northern District.

Subsequent to the noted ruling by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, one of the plaintiffs from the
proceeding filed a new action in the Circuit Court for the 20th
Judicial District, St. Clair County, Illinois, against J. G.
Wentworth Originations, LLC alleging similar facts and violations
as the previously filed matter, and also included relief from the
Court which would declare each qualified order obtained void.


JC CHRISTENSEN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Staniland, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
08445 (D.N.J., December 3, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc. operates a credit counseling
service company in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JONES FINANCIAL: Transfer of "Ezersky" Case Sought
--------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 25,
2015, that the plaintiff in the case, Daniel Ezersky, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, has filed an
application to transfer the case to the Supreme Court of Missouri.

On March 14, 2013, Edward Jones was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, Missouri. The petition alleged that Edward Jones breached
its fiduciary duties and was unjustly enriched through the use of
an online life insurance needs calculator that plaintiff claims
inflated the amount of insurance he needed. The plaintiff sought
damages on behalf of Missouri residents who purchased certain life
insurance products from Edward Jones between March 2008 and the
present, including: actual damages, or alternatively, judgment in
an amount equal to profits gained from the sale of term, whole
life or universal life insurance to plaintiff/damages class;
punitive damages; injunctive relief; costs, including reasonable
fees and expert witness expenses; and reasonable attorneys' fees.

On August 18, 2014, Edward Jones filed a motion for summary
judgment, which was subsequently granted by the Court. Plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal on December 10, 2014.

The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District affirmed
summary judgment on October 20, 2015. On November 4, 2015,
plaintiff filed an application to transfer the case to the Supreme
Court of Missouri.


JUSTIN JONES: Court Rejects Class Cert. Bid in "Ali" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robin J. Cauthron of the Western District of
Oklahoma adopted the Second Supplemental Report and Recommendation
dated August 31, 2015, of Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell,
denying plaintiff's request for class certification in the case,
MURTAZA ALI, Plaintiff, v. JUSTIN JONES, et al., Defendants, No.
CIV-14-1174-C (W.D. Okla.).

Plaintiff brought the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983,
seeking recompense for alleged violations of his constitutional
rights.

A copy of Judge Cauthron's January 25, 2016 Order is available at
http://is.gd/wu3ltYfrom Leagle.com.


KEURIG GREEN: Discovery Schedule Okayed in Vermont Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended September 26, 2015, that the district
court in Vermont has approved a stipulated discovery schedule for
proceedings in a securities class action lawsuit which was
remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

A putative securities fraud class action, captioned Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System ("LAMPERS") v. Green
Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:11-cv-00289,
was filed on November 29, 2011, in the United States District
Court for the District of Vermont before the Honorable William K.
Sessions, III. Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged violations of
the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's
disclosures relating to its revenues and its inventory accounting
practices. The amended complaint sought class certification,
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other
relief as the court should deem just and proper.

Plaintiffs sought to represent all purchasers of the Company's
securities between February 2, 2011 and November 9, 2011. The
initial complaint filed in the action on November 29, 2011
included counts for alleged violations of (1) Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the
"Securities Act") against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the Company's underwriters in connection with a May
2011 secondary common stock offering; and (2) Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the Company and the officer
defendants, and for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the officer defendants.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
(the "PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs had until
January 30, 2012 to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of
the putative class. Competing applications were filed and the
Court appointed Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
System, Sjunde AP-Fonden, Board of Trustees of the City of Fort
Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System, Employees'
Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands, and
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi as lead
plaintiffs' counsel on April 27, 2012.

Pursuant to a schedule approved by the court, plaintiffs filed
their amended complaint on October 22, 2012, and plaintiffs filed
a corrected amended complaint on November 5, 2012. Plaintiffs'
amended complaint did not allege any claims under the Securities
Act against the Company, its officers and directors, or the
Company's underwriters in connection with the May 2011 secondary
common stock offering.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 1, 2013
and on December 20, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing the
amended complaint with prejudice.

On January 21, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to appeal
the court's December 20, 2013 order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. Pursuant to a schedule entered by
the appeals court, briefing on the appeal was completed on June
23, 2014.

The Second Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on December
1, 2014. On July 24, 2015, the Second Circuit issued an opinion
vacating the district court's dismissal of the amended complaint
and remanding the action to the district court.

On September 29, 2015, defendants answered the complaint and on
October 14, 2015, the district court approved a stipulated
discovery schedule for proceedings in the remanded action.

The underwriters previously named as defendants notified the
Company of their intent to seek indemnification from the Company
pursuant to their underwriting agreement dated May 5, 2011 in
regard to the claims asserted in this action.


KEURIG GREEN: Consolidated Complaint Filed in California Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended September 26, 2015, that the lead
plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action in California have
filed a consolidated complaint.

A consolidated putative securities fraud class action is pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and consists of the following actions: Blasco v. Keurig
Green Mountain, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 3:15-cv-02766-VC;
Jazlowiecki v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 5:15-
cv-03396-BLF; and Patel v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. et al.,
Civ. No. 3:15-cv-03715.  The pending putative securities fraud
class actions were filed on June 19, 2015.  The underlying
complaints in the actions allege violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's disclosures
relating to its forward guidance, as well as the Company's public
statements concerning the anticipated timing of the launch of
Keurig(R) Kold. The complaints include counts for violation of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants, and for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the officer defendants.

The plaintiffs seek to represent all purchasers of the Company's
securities between February 4, 2015 and May 6, 2015 or May 14,
2015 or, in the case of the Patel action, from November 19, 2014
through August 5, 2015. The plaintiffs seek class certification,
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other
relief as the court should deem just and proper.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
(the "PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3), stockholders had until
August 18, 2015 to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of
the putative class. Competing applications were filed and on
September 28, 2015, the court consolidated the pending actions,
appointed Jessica Lee, Alan Schlussel, and Lawrence E. Wilder as
lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of Glancy, Prongay &
Murray LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as co-lead counsel.

On October 6, 2015, the court approved a stipulation filed by the
parties providing for the filing of a consolidated complaint and
setting a briefing schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss.
Lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on November 6,
2015 and defendants' motions to dismiss were due on December 11,
2015.


KEURIG GREEN: Bids to Dismiss Purchaser Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended September 26, 2015, that a New York
court has not yet issued a decision on the motions to dismiss
consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser
and indirect purchaser plaintiffs.

On February 11, 2014, TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods,
LLC, and Sturm Foods, Inc. filed suit against Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters, Inc. and Keurig, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et
al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-
00905-VSB). The TreeHouse complaint asserted claims under the
federal antitrust laws and various state laws, contending that the
Company has monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee
brewers and single serve coffee pods, including through its
contracts with suppliers and distributors and in connection with
the launch of the Keurig(R) 2.0. The TreeHouse complaint sought
monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees.

On March 13, 2014, JBR, Inc. (d/b/a Rogers Family Company) filed
suit against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (JBR, Inc. v. Keurig
Green Mountain, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00677-KJM-CKD). The claims
asserted and relief sought in the JBR complaint were substantially
similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in the TreeHouse
complaint.

Additionally, beginning on March 10, 2014, 27 putative class
actions asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief were
filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect purchasers of the
Company's products in various federal district courts. On June 3,
2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML")
granted a motion to transfer these various actions, including the
TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a single judicial district for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. The actions are
pending before Judge Vernon S. Broderick in the Southern District
of New York (In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee
Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB) (the "Multidistrict
Antitrust Litigation").

On August 11, 2014, JBR filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction, which the Company opposed. After a hearing, the
district court in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation denied
JBR's motion by order dated September 19, 2014. JBR appealed the
district court's denial of the preliminary injunction to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; the appeal
was fully briefed on March 3, 2015.

On September 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals heard oral argument on
the appeal. On October 26, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
district court's denial of JBR's motion for a preliminary
injunction.

Consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser
and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed on July 24, 2014. The
Company filed motions to dismiss these complaints and the
complaints in the TreeHouse and JBR actions on October 6, 2014. On
November 25, 2014, all plaintiffs filed amended complaints and on
February 2, 2015 the Company again moved to dismiss.

Plaintiffs filed opposition briefs on April 10, 2015, and the
Company filed reply briefs on May 11, 2015. Oral argument on the
Company's motions to dismiss was held on July 9, 2015. The court
has not yet issued a decision on the motions to dismiss.


KEURIG GREEN: Rainwater Action Transferred to MDL
-------------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended September 26, 2015, that the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has ordered the transfer of the
Rainwater class action lawsuit to the Southern District of New
York for inclusion in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation.

On August 21, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the Circuit Court of Faulkner County,
Arkansas (Julie Rainwater et al. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.,
No. 23CV-15-818) (the "Rainwater Action"). The allegations raised
in the Rainwater Action are substantially similar to the
allegations in the complaints filed in the Multidistrict Antitrust
Litigation. Like the complaint filed by the putative class of
indirect purchaser plaintiffs in the Multidistrict Antitrust
Litigation, the Rainwater Action seeks relief under Arkansas state
law on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers of K-Cup
portion packs in the state of Arkansas.

On September 21, 2015, the Company removed the Rainwater Action to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (No.
4:15-cv-590-JLH). On September 25, 2015, the Company filed a
Notice of Potential Tag-Along Action with the JPML, and on
November 10, 2015, the JPML ordered the transfer of the Rainwater
Action to the Southern District of New York for inclusion in the
Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation.


KEURIG GREEN: Denies Allegations in "Sanchez" Wage & Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended September 26, 2015, that a putative
employment class action, captioned Alvaro Sanchez v. Keurig Green
Mountain, Inc. and Does 1 - 100, was filed against Keurig in the
Superior Court of California County of Monterey on July 14, 2015.
The complaint alleges that the Company failed to pay proper wages
and provide certain breaks to non-exempt employees of the
Company's processing plant located in Castroville, California
during the class period (which is defined as the period of time
beginning four years before the commencement of the action through
the date on which judgment on the action becomes final). The
complaint seeks alleged damages, attorneys' fees, penalties, and
injunctive and equitable relief on behalf of the putative class.

The Company filed its Answer denying all substantive allegations
and recently removed the lawsuit to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California. The Company intends
to vigorously defend itself against this complaint.


KEY ENERGY: Class Certification Bid in Calif. Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that no decision
has been made by the court on a motion for class certification.

Between May of 2013 and June of 2014, five lawsuits (four class
actions and one enforcement action) were filed in California
involving alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws.
In general, the lawsuits allege failure to pay wages, including
overtime and minimum wages, failure to pay final wages upon
employment terminations in a timely manner, failure to reimburse
reasonable and necessary business expenses, failure to provide
wage statements consistent with California law, and violations of
the California meal and break period laws, among other claims. Two
of the five cases have been consolidated in United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

A hearing on the class certification motion was held August 10,
2015. As of October 30, 2015, no decision has been made by the
court.

One of the remaining cases has been stayed pending outcome of the
class certification motion. The fourth case is waiting for a
decision regarding whether it will move forward in California
state court or in federal court. The fifth case is an enforcement
action for civil penalties based on California's Private Attorneys
General Act, which is pending in California state court. We have
investigated the claims in all five lawsuits, and intend to
vigorously defend them. At this time, we cannot estimate any
possible loss or range of loss.


KEY ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Texas Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the court in
Texas has not yet ruled on a motion to dismiss class action
lawsuits.

In August 2014, two class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
against the Company and certain officers of the Company, alleging
violations of federal securities laws, specifically, violations of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)-5, Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Those lawsuits were styled as follows: Sean
Cady, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated v. Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, and J.
Marshall Dodson, No. 4:14-cv-2368, filed on August 15, 2014; and
Ian W. Davidson, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J.
Alario, and J. Marshall Dodson, No. 4.14-cv-2403, filed on August
21, 2014.

On December 11, 2014, the Court entered an order that consolidated
the two lawsuits into one action, along with any future filed tag-
along actions brought on behalf of purchasers of Key Energy
Services, Inc. common stock. The order also appointed Inter-Local
Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the class action and
approved the law firm of Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. as
lead counsel for the consolidated class and Kendall Law Group,
LLP, as local counsel for the consolidated class. The lead
plaintiff filed the consolidated amended complaint on February 13,
2015.

Among other changes, the consolidated amended complaint adds
Taylor M. Whichard III and Newton W. Wilson III as defendants, and
seeks to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's stock
between September 4, 2012 and July 17, 2014.

Defendants Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, J.
Marshall Dodson and Newton W. Wilson III filed a Motion to Dismiss
on April 14, 2015.  Defendant Taylor M. Whichard III filed a
Joinder in Motion and Motion to Dismiss on the same date.

Lead plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion, and all
defendants filed reply briefs in support of the motion. The court
has not ruled upon it.

"Because this case is in the early stages, we cannot predict the
outcome at this time. Accordingly, we cannot estimate any possible
loss or range of loss," the Company said.


KEY ENERGY: Fights FLSA Suit in Corpus Christi, Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. has filed an answer and asserted
affirmative defenses in two collective actions in Texas, it said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

In March 2015, two collective action lawsuits were filed in the
Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

"We have answered the lawsuits and asserted affirmative defenses.
Because the cases are in the early stages, we cannot predict the
outcomes at this time. Accordingly, we cannot estimate any
possible loss or range of loss for either case," the Company said.


KEY ENERGY: Fights Class Suit in Houston, Texas
-----------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
has filed an answer to a class action lawsuit in Houston,
asserting affirmative defenses.

In May 2015, a class and collective action lawsuit was filed in
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

"We have answered the lawsuit and asserted affirmative defenses.
Because the case is in the early stages, we cannot predict the
outcome at this time. Accordingly, we cannot estimate any possible
loss or range of loss of this case," the Company said.


KISS MY FACE: Falsely Marketed Toothpaste Products, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Troncoso and John Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Kiss My Face, LLC, Case No. 1:15-
cv-09514 (S.D.N.Y., December 4, 2015) seeks redress for a
deceptive and otherwise improper business practice that Defendant
engages in with respect to the packaging of its Obsessively
Natural Children's 100% Natural Toothpaste product as "100%
Natural" when it is formulated with the non-natural, highly
chemically and industrially processed ingredient Glycerin.

Kiss My Face, LLC is a Delaware corporation that develops, markets
and sells personal care and hygiene products throughout the United
States under the popular brand name "Kiss My Face".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


LAKELAND BANCORP: Consolidated Amended Suit Filed in N.J. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lakeland Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a consolidated
amended class action complaint has been filed in Bergen County,
New Jersey.

In August 2015, the Company was served with a Civil Action Summons
and Class Action Complaint that was filed in the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County. A second action,
nearly identical to that described in the preceding sentence, was
served on the Company in September 2015 and consolidated with the
first action.

The complaints state that the plaintiffs are bringing the class
action claims on behalf of the public stockholders of Pascack
Bancorp against the Board of Directors of Pascack for their
alleged breach of fiduciary duties arising out of the Agreement
and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 3, 2015, by and between the
Company and Pascack Bancorp. The complaint alleges that the
Company has aided and abetted the individual defendants in their
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Company intends to
vigorously defend against these claims.

On November 3, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint, which reiterates and expands their prior
claims based upon the information contained in Lakeland's Form
S-4 Registration Statement.


LES VIANDES: Recalls Roch Brand Cooked Ham Loaf
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 27, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Les Viandes C.D.S. Inc.
Distribution: Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 10195

  Brand    Common name          Size      Code(s) on    UPC
  name     -----------          -----     product       ---
  ----                                    ----------
  ROCH     Cooked Ham Loaf 39"  Variable   16MA01       None
                                Weight


LEXISNEXIS RISK: Sued in North Carolina over Driver Records
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that LexisNexis and a police reports website obtained North
Carolina Motor Vehicle Department records and illegally used them
for marketing purposes, a class action lawsuit claims in
Statesville, North Carolina.

Deloris and Leonard Gaston are licensed drivers living in
Charlotte, N.C., who say they were involved in car accidents in
Mecklenburg County.  The Gastons sued LexisNexis Risk Solutions
Inc. and PoliceReports US LLC earlier in North Carolina Federal
Court. The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a
proposed class of people whose motor vehicle records were obtained
by LexisNexis and PoliceReports without their consent.

The companies violated the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA)
by obtaining the driver records and illegally releasing personal
information, according to the lawsuit. The DPPA restricts the
disclosure of personal information in motor vehicle records to
businesses for marketing and solicitation purposes.

"Defendants' websites allow the purchase of crash reports by
report date, location, or driver name and payment by credit card,
prepaid bulk accounts or monthly accounts," the complaint states.
"Purchasers are not required to establish any permissible use
provided in the DPPA to obtain access to plaintiffs' and class
members' [records]."

LexisNexis and PoliceReports "engaged in widespread commercial
usage" of driver records without drivers' permission, the Gastons
claim.

"Such conduct constitutes a highly offensive and dangerous
invasion of plaintiffs' and the class members' privacy and
safety," the Jan. 12 lawsuit states.

The lawsuit seeks class certification, disgorgement of ill-gotten
profits, restitution, an injunction against DPPA violations, and
compensatory and punitive damages.

The Gastons are represented by Larry McDevitt --
lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com -- of the Van Winkle Law Firm in
Asheville, N.C.

LexisNexis did not immediately respond to a request for comment
emailed Jan. 26.


LIFELOCK INC: $68-Mil. "Ebarle" Case Settlement Has Initial Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the Northern District
of California, granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Conditional Class Certification and Class Action Settlement
reached in the case, NAPOLEON EBARLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
LIFELOCK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-00258-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

LifeLock agrees to establish a non-reversionary Settlement Fund of
$68,000,000 for the benefit of the eligible Class Members, which
includes a Class and Subclass.  A Subclass Fund shall be created
based on the percentage of the Class that comprises the Subclass.
The Class Fund shall be the Settlement Fund less the Subclass
Fund.

The Class will comprise all members of Defendant's identity theft
protection plan in the United States at any time between September
1, 2010 and the date of the preliminary approval order.  The
Subclass will comprise all individuals who enrolled in Defendant's
identity theft protection plan in the United States at any time
between January 1, 2012 and April 30, 2015.

LifeLock also has agreed not to oppose an application for
$10,200,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses and $2,000 to each of
the four Class Representatives. The Settlement Agreement provides
that Defendant will pay each of these costs and awards in addition
to (and not out of) the Settlement Fund.

The Court approved the proposed Settlement Administrator Garden
City Group, as well as the proposed class representatives.  Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Carney Bates & Pulliam,
PLLC, are class counsel.

A copy of the Court's January 20, 2016 Order is available at
http://is.gd/vBjQ32from Leagle.com.

LifeLock said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that "In 2010, we entered into a
consent decree (the "FTC Order") with the Federal Trade Commission
("FTC").  On July 21 2015, the FTC initiated a contempt action
alleging that we had violated the FTC Order. Federal Trade
Commission v. LifeLock, Inc., et al., No. CV-10-00530-PHX-JJT (D.
Ariz.)."

"On January 19, 2015 a putative class action, Napoleon Ebarle et
al. v. LifeLock, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-258 (N.D. Cal.), was filed
against us on behalf of all LifeLock members from September 1,
2010 to the present alleging that we misrepresented our services
in various ways and failed to deliver certain promised services
(the "Ebarle Class Action").

"On October 28, 2015, we signed an offer of settlement that we
negotiated with FTC staff to present to the FTC to resolve the
contempt allegations. The offer remains subject to the FTC's
approval and entry by the court. On November 3, 2015, we signed an
agreement to settle the Ebarle Class Action and release all of the
class's related claims. The Ebarle Class Action settlement remains
subject to court approval. On November 4, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for preliminary approval. A hearing on the motion
for preliminary approval [was] scheduled for December 17, 2015. As
of September 30, 2015, we have accrued $113.0 million for these
two matters based on the proposed settlement agreements."

"In 2010, at the same time we entered into the FTC Order, we
entered into companion orders with 35 states' attorneys general
that imposed on us similar injunctive provisions as the FTC Order
relating to our advertising and marketing of our identity theft
protection services. At this stage, no states' attorneys general
have initiated proceedings against us alleging that we violated
the companion orders from 2010. However, in light of our initial
discussions with several states' attorneys general, we have
accrued $3 million for a potential settlement with certain states'
attorneys general to resolve allegations that we violated the
companion orders from 2010. The ultimate resolution of the matter
with the states' attorneys general is uncertain and may involve a
materially higher settlement than $3 million."

Napoleon Ebarle, Plaintiff, represented by Michael W. Sobol, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Randall K Pulliam, Carney Bates
& Pulliam, PLLC, RoseMarie Maliekel, Lieff Cabraser Heimann
Bernstein LLP & Joseph Henry Bates, III, Carney Bates & Pulliam,
PLLC.

Jeanne Stamm, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Henry Bates, III,
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC.

Jeanne Stamm, Plaintiff, represented by Michael W. Sobol, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Randall K Pulliam, Carney Bates
& Pulliam, PLLC & RoseMarie Maliekel, Lieff Cabraser Heimann
Bernstein LLP.

Brian Litton, Plaintiff, represented by Michael W. Sobol, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Randall K Pulliam, Carney Bates
& Pulliam, PLLC, RoseMarie Maliekel, Lieff Cabraser Heimann
Bernstein LLP & Joseph Henry Bates, III, Carney Bates & Pulliam,
PLLC.

LifeLock, Inc., Defendant, represented by Luanne Sacks, Sacks,
Ricketts & Case, LLP & Cynthia A. Ricketts, Sacks, Ricketts & Case
LLP.


LIFELOCK INC: Feb. 5 Final Hearing Set to Approve "Goldman" Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing is scheduled for February 5, 2016, in the
class action lawsuit filed by Etan Goldman against LifeLock, Inc.,
the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

"On January 29, 2015, plaintiff Etan Goldman filed a California
putative consumer class action complaint against us in Santa Clara
Superior Court in San Jose, California," the Company said. "The
complaint alleges that we violated California's Automatic Renewal
Law and Unfair Competition Law by failing to provide required
disclosures concerning our auto renewal terms and cancellation
policies. The complaint also seeks certification of a class
consisting of all persons in California who had purchased
subscriptions to identity theft protection services from us since
December 1, 2010, injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs."

"On May 15, 2015, the parties executed a class-wide settlement
agreement. On July 24, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement. If the settlement is finally approved, current and
former LifeLock members with a California billing address who were
enrolled in a LifeLock protection plan or subscription service
between December 1, 2010, and July 24, 2015, and paid one or more
auto renewed monthly or annual membership fees will automatically
receive a cash payment, unless they opt-out of the settlement.
Notice of the settlement has been distributed to the class. Class
members had until November 23, 2015, to object to the Settlement
or opt-out of the Settlement. The final approval hearing is
currently scheduled for February 5, 2016.

"As of September 30, 2015, we have accrued $2.5 million for this
matter based on the proposed settlement agreement."


LIFELOCK INC: To Seek Dismissal of "Avila" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company, along
with its CEO and CFO, was slated to file a motion to dismiss the
complaint filed by Miguel Avila by January 29, 2016.

"On July 22, 2015, Miguel Avila, representing himself and seeking
to represent a class of persons who acquired our securities from
July 30, 2014 to July 20, 2015, inclusive, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona," the Company said.  "His complaint alleges that our CEO,
our CFO, and we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading
statements, or failing to disclose material facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, including with
regard to our information security program, advertising,
recordkeeping, and our compliance with the FTC Order. The
complaint seeks certification as a class action, compensatory
damages, and attorney's fees and costs."

"On September 21, 2015, four other Company stockholders, Oklahoma
Police Pension and Retirement System, Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System, Larisa Gassel, and Donna Thompson,
and their respective attorneys all filed motions seeking to be
appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel in this class
action.

"On October 9, 2015, the Court appointed Oklahoma Police Pension
and Retirement System and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System as Lead Plaintiffs. On October 19, 2015, the
Court entered a scheduling order pursuant to which Lead Plaintiffs
will file an amended complaint by December 10, 2015, and we, along
with our CEO and CFO, will file a motion to dismiss that complaint
by January 29, 2016.


LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Bid to Dismiss "Howard" Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Liquidity Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 23, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is
awaiting a decision by the court on a motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit in the District of Columbia.

On July 14, 2014, Leonard Howard filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia against the Company and its chief executive officer,
chief financial officer, and chief accounting officer, on behalf
of stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 1, 2012, and May 7, 2014. The complaint alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the
Company's growth initiative, growth potential, and financial and
operating conditions, thereby artificially inflating its share
price, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

On October 14, 2014, the Court appointed Caisse de Depot et
Placement du Quebec and the Newport News Employees' Retirement
Fund as co-lead plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on December 15, 2014, which alleges substantially
similar claims but which does not name the chief accounting
officer as a defendant.

The Company believes the allegations are without merit and on
March 2, 2015, moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure
to state a claim or plead fraud with the requisite particularity.
That motion was fully submitted as of June 1, 2015, and the
Company is awaiting a decision by the Court.

The Company cannot estimate a range of potential liability, if
any, at this time.


LVNV FUNDING: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barrat Choonoo, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. LVNV Funding LLC, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08443 (D.N.J.,
December 3, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

LVNV Funding LLC is in the business of purchasing portfolios of
both domestic (U.S.) and international consumer debt owned by
credit grantors including banks and finance companies, and by
other debt buyers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Settlement in "Alvarez" Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
M/A-COM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the parties in a class action lawsuit filed by Philip
Alvarez, a former employee of Mindspeed Technologies, Inc., have
reached an agreement for the dismissal of all class action
allegations and claims in the action.  That settlement remains
pending.

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

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

The parties have reached an agreement for the dismissal of all
class action allegations and claims in the action, as well as
certain other claims against Mindspeed and M/A-COM Technology
Solutions Inc. The parties have stipulated to the filing of a
Second Amended Complaint that effectuates this agreement, and are
awaiting order by the Court on that stipulation.

After the Second Amended Complaint is filed, the matter will
proceed as an individual action by Alvarez seeking only his
personal claims, as well as claims under the Private Attorneys'
General Act.


MACK: Recalls 2014 Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Brakes
Units affected: 1
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015566TC
ID number: 2015566
Manufacturer recall number: SC0393

On certain vehicles, there may be a brake imbalance between the
steer axle and drive axle brakes. As a result, the rear brakes may
overheat, which would increase the risk of a tire blowout and/or a
wheel-end fire on the drive axle, increasing the risk of a crash
causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will
inspect and replace the front or rear brake chambers as necessary.

  Make      Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----       ----------------------
  MACK                  2014


MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Paid $38MM to Questcor Settlement Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24,
2015, for the fiscal year ended September 25, 2015, that during
fiscal 2015, the Company established a $38.0 million reserve for
the settlement in the case, In re Questcor Securities Litigation,
which amount was subsequently paid to a settlement fund.  The
Company acquired Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on August 14,
2014.

In September 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Questcor and certain of its officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
captioned John K. Norton v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, et al., No.
SACvl2-1623 DMG (FMOx). The complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of shareholders who purchased Questcor common stock between
April 26, 2011 and September 21, 2012. The complaint generally
alleges that Questcor and certain of its officers and directors
engaged in various acts to artificially inflate the price of
Questcor stock and enable insiders to profit through stock sales.
The complaint asserts that Questcor and certain of its officers
and directors violated sections l0(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("the Exchange Act"),
by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning
the clinical evidence to support the use of Acthar for indications
other than infantile spasms, the promotion of the sale and use of
Acthar in the treatment of multiple sclerosis and nephrotic
syndrome, reimbursement for Acthar from third-party insurers, and
Questcor's outlook and potential market growth for Acthar. The
complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and equitable
relief against the defendants. This lawsuit has been consolidated
with four subsequently-filed actions asserting similar claims
under the caption: In re Questcor Securities Litigation, No. CV
12-01623 DMG (FMOx).

In October 2013, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part Questcor's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. In October 2013, Questcor filed an answer to the
consolidated amended complaint and fact discovery was concluded in
January 2015.

In April 2015, the parties executed a long-form settlement
agreement, under the terms of which Questcor agreed to pay $38.0
million to resolve the plaintiff claims, inclusive of all fees and
costs.

Questcor and the individual defendants maintain that the
plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and have entered into the
settlement to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of
further protracted litigation.

During fiscal 2015, the Company established a $38.0 million
reserve for this settlement, which was subsequently paid to a
settlement fund. The court issued its final approval of the
settlement on September 18, 2015.


MASIMO CORP: Calif. Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the plaintiffs in
a California class action lawsuit have taken an appeal from a
court decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Company.

On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The
complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005
and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged
violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged
violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive
relief.

On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to stay the case
pending a decision on a related petition filed by the Company with
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). On May 22, 2014, the
District Court granted the motion and stayed the case pending a
ruling by the FCC on the petition.

On October 30, 2014, the FCC granted some of the relief and denied
some of the relief requested in the petition. Both parties
appealed the FCC's decision on the petition. On November 25, 2014,
the District Court granted the parties' joint request that the
stay remain in place pending a decision on the appeal.

The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the
claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail.
The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will occur or
to estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss
has been accrued by the Company as of the date of filing of this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

On January 31, 2014, an amended putative class action complaint
was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two participants
in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized
Trial at the University of Alabama. On April 21, 2014, a further
amended complaint was filed adding a third participant. The
complaint alleges product liability and negligence claims in
connection with pulse oximeters the Company modified and provided
at the request of study investigators for use in the trial.

A previous version of the complaint also alleged a wrongful death
claim, which the Court dismissed on January 22, 2014. The amended
complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs, interest, attorney
fees and injunctive and other relief.

On January 30, 2015, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment. On August 13, 2015, the Court granted summary judgment
in favor of the Company, rejecting the plaintiffs' claims. The
plaintiffs have appealed the Court's decision.

The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will occur or
to estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss
has been accrued by the Company as of the date of filing of this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.


MASSAGE GREEN: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Salberg" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Salberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Massage Green International Franchise Corporation,
Case No. 3:15-cv-02805-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal., December 14, 2015) is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Massage Green International Franchise Corporation operates a
massage salon and day spa in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
      AMARTIN LAW, PC
      600 West Broadway, Suite 700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 308-6880
      Facsimile: (619) 308-6881
      E-mail: alias@amartinlaw.com

         - and -

      Lindsay C. David, Esq.
      SAN DIEGO COUNTY LAW OFFICES
      2173 Salk Avenue, Suite 250
      Carlsbad, CA 92011
      Telephone: (760) 206-3566
      Facsimile: (760) 579-7319
      E-mail: info@sdlawoffices.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Briskin" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Briskin v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 5:15-
cv-02585 (N.D. Ohio, December 14, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. provides in-home personal care,
management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses,
therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Cawthon" Suit over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Cawthon v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02588 (N.D. Ohio, December 14, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. provides in-home personal care,
management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses,
therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Collier" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Collier v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02583-CAB (N.D. Ohio, December 14, 2015) is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for
work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. provides in-home personal care,
management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses,
therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Graver" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
John Graver v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
02567-JZ (N.D. Ohio, December 11, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. provides in-home personal care,
management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses,
therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Greenwalt" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Greenwalt v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
4:15-cv-02579-BYP (N.D. Ohio, December 14, 2015) is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for
work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. provides in-home personal care,
management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses,
therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Kimball" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Kimball v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-03776-ELH (D. Md., December 10, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. provides in-home personal care,
management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses,
therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248)355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Townes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Janice Townes v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02574 (N.D. Ohio, December 11, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. provides in-home personal care,
management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses,
therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Young" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Young v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-03783-JFM (D. Md., December 11, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. provides in-home personal care,
management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses,
therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248)355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MDL 2226: 44 Propoxyphene Cases Remain Pending as of Nov. 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that 44 propoxyphene
cases remain pending as of November 2, 2015.

Qualitest and, in certain cases, the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries, along with several other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, have been named as defendants in numerous lawsuits
originally filed in various federal and state courts alleging
personal injury resulting from the use of prescription pain
medicines containing propoxyphene. Plaintiffs in these suits
allege various personal injuries including cardiac impairment,
damage and death.

In August 2011, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) was formed, and
certain transferable cases pending in federal court were
coordinated in the Eastern District of Kentucky as part of MDL No.
2226. The MDL Judge's dismissal with prejudice of the claims
asserted against generic manufacturers, including Qualitest and
the Company, was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit on June 27, 2014,
as part of a consolidated appeal.

In November 2012, additional cases were filed in various
California state courts. While many of these cases were initially
remanded to a state court coordinated proceeding in Los Angeles,
the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc reversed these remands, finding
federal subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, these actions
were returned to the federal courts to which they were initially
removed. Subsequently, many of these actions have been transferred
to the Eastern District of Kentucky and assigned to U.S. District
Judge Danny C. Reeves.

On November 18, 2014, additional multi-plaintiff cases were filed
in state court in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma state court actions were
also removed to federal court and are currently pending in the
Western District of Oklahoma. Litigation similar to that described
above may also be brought by other plaintiffs in various
jurisdictions.

"However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such
litigation, or whether any additional litigation will be brought
against the Company or its subsidiaries, but Qualitest and the
Company intend to contest the litigation vigorously and to explore
all options as appropriate in the best interests of Qualitest and
the Company," the Company said.

As of November 2, 2015, approximately 44 propoxyphene cases, some
of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are
currently pending against Qualitest and/or the Company. The
Company and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the outcome of
this matter or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any,
and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, for this matter.


MDL 2384: W.D. N.C. Judge Enters Stay in "Harris" Case
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE SWISHER HYGIENE, INC. SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION ROBERT HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. SWISHER HYGIENE, INC., et
al., Defendants, No. 3:14-cv-2388, MDL No. 3:12-MD-2384-GCM (W.D.
N.C.), District Judge Graham C. Mullen in Charlotte, North
Carolina, gave his stamp of approval on a Stipulation and Order to
stay for 30 days, commencing November 18, 2015, the member case,
Harris v. Swisher Hygiene, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-2388.

During the pendency of the stay, all deadlines in the Harris
matter, No. 3:14-cv-2388, shall be stayed, including but not
limited to Defendants' deadline to answer, move or otherwise
respond to the complaint.

The parties reserve their rights to seek a modification of this
order or any other relief upon expiration of this order.

A copy of the November 19, 2015 Stipulation and Order is available
at http://is.gd/u1Dujifrom Leagle.com.

Attorneys for "Harris" Plaintiff:

          Ejola Cook, Esq.
          Simon M. Lassel, Esq.
          THE TICKTIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          600 W. Hillsboro Boulevard Suite 220
          Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

Attorneys for Defendant Swisher Hygiene, Inc.:

          James P. McLoughlin, Jr., Esq.
          Valecia M. McDowell, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Watkins, Esq.
          MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC
          100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4700
          Charlotte, NC 28202-4003
          Tel: (704) 331-1054
          Fax: (704) 378-2054
          E-mail: jimmcloughlin@mvalaw.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Lockwood, Esq.
          Alyssa S. O'Connell, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          Wilmington, Delaware,
          One Rodney Square
          920 N. King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Tel: (302) 651-3196
          Fax: (302) 574-3196
          E-mail: paul.lockwood@skadden.com
                  alyssa.schwartz@skadden.com


Swisher Hygiene Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that on August 13,
2012, the Arsenault derivative action, along with a related
putative securities class action pending in the Southern District
of New York, was transferred to the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina where other related
putative securities class actions were pending.  All actions were
consolidated under the caption In re Swisher Hygiene, Inc.
Securities and Derivative Litigation, MDL No. 2384.  On August 21,
2012, the Western District of North Carolina issued an order
governing the practice and procedure in the actions transferred to
the Western District of North Carolina as well as the actions
originally filed there.  On October 18, 2012, the Western District
of North Carolina held an Initial Pretrial Conference at which it
appointed lead counsel and lead plaintiffs for the securities
class actions, and set a schedule for the filing of a consolidated
class action complaint and defendants' time to answer or otherwise
respond to the consolidated class action complaint. The Western
District of North Carolina stayed the Arsenault derivative action,
pending the outcome of the securities class actions.


MDL 2492: Chicago Judge Okays $70MM NCAA Concussion Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a settlement with student athletes approved by a federal
judge in Chicago, Jan. 26 aims to revamp the way college-sports
programs handle player concussions.

U.S. District Judge John Lee in Chicago was first presented with
the settlement in 2014 after more than a year of negotiations.

Under terms of the agreement, the National Collegiate Athletic
Association will establish a new protocol to handle concussed
athletes and to monitor the health of those who might have
suffered concussions while playing a wide variety of college
sports.

The NCAA will fund a $70 million program to test current and
former athletes for brain injuries for the next 50 years, and
players will not be allowed to return to action the same day they
receive a concussion.

In addition, everyone on the sidelines, including players, coaches
and trainers, will be subject to mandatory concussion education,
and doctors trained in concussion diagnosis will have to be
present for all games played.

The proposed settlement also requires the NCAA to contribute
$5 million toward concussion-related research.

The settlement covers men and woman who participate in football,
soccer, basketball, ice hockey, wrestling, field hockey and
lacrosse.  It does not set aside a lump sum to pay damages to
athletes who have already suffered debilitating head injuries.

Lee modified the agreement to adopt one point made by objectors,
and he preserved a right for players to sue a single school and
the NCAA as a class.

The NCAA said in a statement it is reviewing Lee's modifications.

Lead counsel for plaintiffs Steve Berman told The New York Times:
"After all the wait, we've basically got 96% of what we expected
to get. It's understandable, with a settlement this big, there
could be some tweaking, but we're happy with the result."

The settlement drew objections from two members of the class:
former San Diego State football player Anthony Nichols and Adrian
Arrington, a former linebacker for Eastern Illinois University.

They claimed there is a conflict of interest between class members
who have not yet been diagnosed with a neurodegenerative disease,
and those who have, because the former will receive no benefit
from the medical-monitoring program.

Lee disagreed, finding that "even class members with already
diagnosed conditions will likely benefit from the Medical
Monitoring Program by enabling them to determine whether their
condition is progressively declining and/or whether they are
experiencing symptoms related to a different, yet-undiagnosed
condition."

Nichols also objected to the total release of classwide claims.

Lee distinguished this case from a settlement the National
Football League reached with pro that will provide up to $5
million per player if approved.

The NFL has 20,000 members all subject to the league's rules for
dealing with head injuries. The NCAA, on the other hand, has
approximately 4.4 million members in 43 different men and women's
sports, subject to rules that vary school to school, coach to
coach, and even year to year, all else equal.

Given the wide discrepancy in how players are treated for head
injuries across the NCAA, "the court finds it highly unlikely that
plaintiffs would be able to certify a nationwide personal injury
class under Rule 23(b)(3) and concludes that this procedural right
has little, if any, value," Lee wrote.

The judge also found, however, that a class of student-athletes
who played a single sport, on the same team, at the same time,
subject to the same concussion management protocols would not face
the same hurdles.

"As a result, the court cannot find that the release of personal
injury claims on a class-wide basis is reasonable as it is
currently set forth in the Amended Settlement Agreement," Lee's
53-page decision states. To the extent that the settling
plaintiffs and the NCAA seek approval of such a provision, the
scope of the release of class-wide personal injury claims must be
limited to those instances where the plaintiffs or claimants seek
a nationwide class or where the proposed class is comprised of
student-athletes from more than one NCAA-affiliated school."

This change, if accepted by the NCAA, will expose the association
to school-based class actions for years to come.

The case is, In re: National Collegiate Athletic Association
Student-Athlete Concussion Injury Litigation, MDL No. 2492, Master
Docket No. 13 C 9116 (N.D. Ill.).


MDL 2521: Trial in Lidoderm Antitrust Case to Begin 2017
--------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that trial is scheduled
to begin in 2017 in the Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation.

Multiple direct and indirect purchasers of Lidoderm(R) have filed
a number of cases against Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI) and co-
defendants Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd., Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc.
(collectively, Teikoku) and Actavis plc (now doing business as
Allergan plc) and a number of its subsidiaries (collectively
referred to herein as Allergan, Actavis or Watson). Certain of
these actions have been asserted on behalf of classes of direct
and indirect purchasers, while others are individual cases brought
by one or more alleged direct or indirect purchasers. The
complaints in these cases generally allege that Endo, Teikoku and
Actavis entered into an anticompetitive conspiracy to restrain
trade through the settlement of patent infringement litigation
concerning U.S. Patent No. 5,827,529 (the '529 patent) and other
patents. Some of the complaints also allege that Teikoku
wrongfully listed the '529 patent in the Orange Book as related to
Lidoderm(R), that Endo and Teikoku commenced sham patent
litigation against Actavis and that Endo abused the FDA citizen
petition process by filing a citizen petition and amendments
solely to interfere with generic companies' efforts to obtain FDA
approval of their versions of Lidoderm(R). The cases allege
violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.
Sections 1, 2) and various state antitrust and consumer protection
statutes as well as common law remedies in some states. These
cases generally seek damages, treble damages, disgorgement of
profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, issued an order on April 3, 2014,
transferring these cases as In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 2521, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

Litigation similar to that described may also be brought by other
plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and cases brought in federal
court will be transferred to the Northern District of California
as tag-along actions to In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation.

The cases are in the discovery phase of the litigation in
accordance with the pre-trial schedule. Trial is currently
scheduled to begin in 2017.


MDL 2545: 576 Testosterone Cases Pending as of Nov. 2
-----------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that approximately 576
testosterone cases are pending against the Company and/or its
subsidiaries as of November 2, 2015.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI) and in certain cases the Company
or certain of its subsidiaries, including Auxilium
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., along with other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging
personal injury resulting from the use of prescription medications
containing testosterone, including Fortesta(R) Gel,
Delatestryl(R), Testim(R), TESTOPEL(R) and Striant(R). Plaintiffs
in these suits allege various personal injuries including
pulmonary embolism, stroke, and other vascular and/or cardiac
injuries.

In June 2014, an MDL was formed to include claims involving all
testosterone replacement therapies filed against EPI, Auxilium,
and other manufacturers of such products, and certain transferable
cases pending in federal court were coordinated in the Northern
District of Illinois as part of MDL No. 2545. In addition to the
federal cases filed against EPI and Auxilium that have been
transferred to the Northern District of Illinois as tag-along
actions to MDL No. 2545, litigation has also been filed against
EPI in the Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County and in
certain other state courts. Litigation similar to that described
above may also be brought by other plaintiffs in various
jurisdictions, and cases brought in federal court will be
transferred to the Northern District of Illinois as tag-along
actions to MDL No. 2545.

"However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such
litigation, or whether any such additional litigation will be
brought against the Company and/or its subsidiaries," the Company
said.  "The Company and its subsidiaries intend to contest the
litigation vigorously and to explore all options as appropriate in
the best interests of the Company."

As of November 2, 2015, approximately 576 cases are currently
pending against the Company and/or its subsidiaries; some of which
may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, and
including a class action complaint filed in Canada.


MDL 2672: Case Management Order Issued; Feb. 25 Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles R. Breyer issued "PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 8:
INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT" which will govern the practice and
procedure in those actions transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation pursuant to its Transfer Orders of
December 8, 2015, any "tag-along" actions transferred to the Court
by the Panel pursuant to the Panel's Rules of Procedure, and all
related actions that have been or will be originally filed in,
transferred to, or removed to the Court and assigned thereto.

The Order and all subsequent Case Management Orders will be
binding on all parties and their counsel in all cases currently
pending or subsequently transferred to In re Volkswagen "Clean
Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2672, and will govern each case in the
proceedings unless the Order explicitly states that it does not
apply to specific cases or that it applies only to specific cases.

Pretrial Order No. 8 also directs the freshly-minted Plaintiff
Steering Committee to file a consolidated consumer class action
complaint on or before February 22, 2016.  The PSC shall decide,
in its discretion, whether claims on behalf of the independent
automobile dealers or any other plaintiffs should be included in
the consolidated consumer class action complaint or in a separate
consolidated class action complaint.

The Court had appointed Elizabeth J. Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP as Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel and as Chair
of the PSC.

The Court will convene periodic Status Conferences at the request
of Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, Defendants' Liaison Counsel, and
Government Coordinating Counsel, or on its own motion.

The next Status Conference is scheduled for February 25, 2016, at
8:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6 (not the Ceremonial Courtroom where
earlier proceedings were held) on the 17th Floor of the Phillip
Burton Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,
California. Counsel who wish to listen to the Status Conference by
telephone may call CourtCall at (866) 582-6878 not later than 5:00
p.m. on February 24, 2016.

Prior to the February 25 Status Conference, Plaintiffs' Lead
Counsel, Defendants' Liaison Counsel, and Government Coordinating
Counsel shall meet and confer on the following topics:

     (1) A discovery plan, including a plan regarding the
         preservation and production of electronically stored
         information;

     (2) A protective order; and

     (3) A categorized master case list (separately listing
         securities fraud cases, consumer class actions, dealer
         class actions, other brand class actions (Audi,
         Porsche), and individual consumer actions).

Three days prior to the February 25 Status Conference, Plaintiffs'
Lead Counsel and Defendants' Liaison Counsel, and Government
Coordinating Counsel (if appropriate) shall submit the following
to the Court:

     (1) A stipulated protective order. If the parties are unable
         to agree on the contents of such order, then each shall
         submit its own version with a memorandum (not to exceed
         five pages) explaining why the Court should adopt that
         party's particular proposal.

     (2) A proposed Pretrial Order No. 9 regarding discovery.
         Again, if the parties cannot reach an agreement, then
         each shall submit its own proposal with a memorandum
         (not to exceed 10 pages) explaining why the Court should
         adopt that party's proposal.

     (3) A proposed Pretrial Order No. 10 regarding a schedule
         for briefing and hearing of motions to remand, together
         with any other proposals the parties may wish the Court
         to consider.

     (4) A categorized master case list.

     (5) An agenda for the February 25, 2016 Status Conference.

Three days prior to the Status Conference, Plaintiffs' Lead
Counsel shall also submit to the Court a proposed Pretrial Order
No. 11 regarding PSC time and expense records and assessments and
disbursements.

The Court stays all pending motions to remand and vacates those
hearings.  Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel and Defendants' Liaison
Counsel are to propose a schedule for filing, briefing and hearing
any motions to remand. The Court further denies as moot all
motions to set a status conference.

The Court instructs all parties to monitor the case website for
information and instructions regarding upcoming proceedings,
significant court orders, and other documents. The website may be
accessed at cand.uscourts.gov/crb/vwmdl

A copy of Pretrial Order No. 8 is available at http://is.gd/kplxRX
from Leagle.com.


MEPHISTO CANADA: Recalls Various Shoe Care Products
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 1, 2015
Posting date: December 1, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety, Labelling and Packaging
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56054

This recall involves various shoe care products sold under the
brand name Mephisto.

  Product Name           Product description
  ------------           -------------------
  Nubuck Shampoo         UPC 777389038107
  metallic
  container with
  screw cap lid
  Patent leather         UPC 777389047017
  special
  metallic container
  with screw cap lid
  Leather restorer       UPC not available
  metallic container
  with screw cap lid
  Exclusive -            UPC 3597431452371,
  Waterproof Shoe        3545680105463,
  Cream, various         3597431460598,
  colours -              3597431452456,
  squeeze tube with      3597431452470
  integrated sponge
  Exclusive -            UPC 3597431375342
  Nubuck Dressing
  green aerosol
  container
  Exclusive -            UPC not available
  Leather Care
  green aerosol
  container
  Exclusive -            UPC 3597431375335
  Leather Protector
  green aerosol
  container
  Exclusive - Shoe       UPC not available
  Polish, various
  colors - round
  metal tin
  container with
  green lid
  Color Fix spray        UPC not available
  green aerosol
  container

Health Canada's inspection process has revealed that the products
do not meet labelling requirements for consumer chemical products
under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. The consumer
products do not have proper hazard labelling required by the
Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001 under the
Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. Improper labelling could
result in unintentional exposure to these products and lead to
serious illness, injury or death.

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

Approximately 17,351 of the recalled products were sold at
Mephisto and Firma Stores across Canada.

The recalled products were sold from January 2009 to November
2015.

Manufactured in France, Germany and Spain.

Distributor: Mephisto Canada Inc.
             Montreal
             Alberta
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
contact Mephisto Canada Inc. at 1-888-411-3310 for a full refund.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

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


MERILIN INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Black Pepper Powder Due to Wheat
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Merilin International Trading Inc.
Distribution: Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario,
Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10183

Merilin International Trading Inc. is recalling Merilin brand
Black pepper powder from the marketplace because they contain
wheat which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy
to wheat or a sensitivity to gluten should not consume the
recalled products described below.

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

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

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

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

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


  Brand name   Common name   Size    Code(s) on   UPC
  ----------   -----------   -----   product      ---
                                     ----------
  Merilin      Black pepper  200 g   All codes    6 935309 099865
               powder                where wheat
                                     is not
                                     declared on
                                     the label
  Merilin      Black pepper  454 g   All codes    6 935309 019979
               powder                where wheat
                                     is not
                                     declared on
                                     the label

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/frE8V5


MGM RESORTS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Moved to Jan. 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing to consider approval of the settlement agreement
reached in the case, In re MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation, was
continued to January 29, 2016, from December 15, 2015.

A copy of the December 7 Stipulation continuing the hearing is
available at http://is.gd/PT1gimfrom Leagle.com.  Information
about the settlement is available at:

     http://www.mgmmiragesecuritieslitigation.com/

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

MGM Resorts International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that in January
2011, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
alleging that between August 2, 2007 and March 5, 2009, the
Company, its directors and certain of its officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

In September 2013, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended complaint. Defendants answered the amended
complaint, the court entered a scheduling order and discovery is
proceeding.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November
2014. Defendants filed their opposition to class certification in
February 2015.

The court heard oral argument on the class certification motion on
April 21, 2015 and took the matter under advisement. No trial date
has been set in this case.

In July 2015, the lead plaintiffs and defendants agreed in
principle to settle the securities class actions. In August 2015,
the lead plaintiffs and defendants entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement").

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the claims against
the Company and the named former and current directors and
officers will be dismissed with prejudice and released in exchange
for a $75 million cash payment by the Company's directors and
officers liability insurers.

In August 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed with the court an
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement
Agreement.

In September 2015, the court entered an Order Preliminarily
Approving Settlement, and scheduled a hearing for December 15,
2015 to determine whether to grant final approval to the
settlement.   A copy of the September 11 Preliminary Approval
Order is available at http://is.gd/fJAvL4from Leagle.com.

If the court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement and
enters the proposed judgment, all claims in these cases against
the Company and the individual defendants will be resolved. In the
event that defendants are unable to obtain final court approval of
the Settlement Agreement, the Company and all other defendants
will continue to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in
these securities cases.


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Recalls Celebrate It(TM) Christmas Lights Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 24, 2015
Posting date: November 24, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55996

This recall involves CELEBRATE IT(TM) Christmas Basic Lights set
of 100 clear lights for indoor or outdoor use.  It has a length of
6.6 metres (21.6 feet), has clear bulbs and a green wire.  The
recalled product has model number HPCA100WBX/2S, CSA file number
241989, and UPC 886946745584.  The SKU number 10434665 and
manufacturing date code 2015-06, appear above the UPC code on the
packaging. Consumers may also locate the model number,
manufacturing date and CSA file number on the white tag affixed to
the wire.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
these lights may pose an overheating and fire hazard.

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

Approximately 4,392 seasonal lights were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were sold from October 2015 to November
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: The Michaels Companies, Inc.
             Irving
             Texas
             UNITED STATES

Manufacturer: Taizhou Hongpeng Colour Lanterns Co., Ltd
              Zhejiang
              CHINA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled seasonal
lights and contact Michaels for a refund.

For more information, consumers may contact the Michaels
Companies, Inc. by telephone at 1-800-642-4235, from 9:00 am to
6:00 pm, Monday to Friday, Central Time or visit the Michaels'
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

For the complete list of recalls posted as a result of this
sampling and evaluation project, visit the Consumer Product Update
on seasonal lights.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/ZXbO98


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Recalls Bright Tiding 50 LED Light Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 24, 2015
Posting date: November 24, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55994

This recall involves CELEBRATE IT(TM) Bright Tiding 50 LED light
set for indoor or outdoor use.  It is 3.5 metres (12 feet) long
with warm white coloured bulbs and a green wire.  The recalled
product is identified by model number HPCAL50AW/2S, CSA file
number 241989 and UPC 886946745584.  The SKU number 296260 and
manufacturing date code 2014-07 are located above the UPC code on
the packaging. Consumers may also locate the model number,
manufacturing date and CSA file number on the white tag attached
to the wire.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
these lights may pose an overheating and fire hazard.

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

Approximately 4,550 seasonal lights were sold in Canada.

Time period sold

The recalled products were sold from October 2014 to February
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: The Michaels Companies, Inc.
             Irving
             Texas
             UNITED STATES

Manufacturer: Taizhou Hongpeng Colour Lanterns Co., Ltd
              Zhejiang
              CHINA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled seasonal
lights and contact Michaels for a refund.

For more information, consumers may contact Michaels Stores Inc.
by telephone at 1-800-642-4235, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday to Friday, Central Time, or visit the Michaels' website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

For the complete list of recalls posted as a result of this
sampling and evaluation project, visit the Consumer Product Update
on seasonal lights.

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


MILLER BREWING: "Nelson" Suit Alleges CAFA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Leif Nelson, and all others similarly situated v. Miller Brewing
Co., Case No. 1:15-cv-07082 (E.D.N.Y., December 11, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for alleged unfair and deceptive
practices in violation of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant has been unjustly
enriched by marketing and selling beer in a way that misleads
consumers into believing that Foster's Beer
is still imported from Australia using the slogan "Foster's,
Australian for Beer", and selling Foster's Beer at prices
substantially higher than domestic beer, despite the fact that the
beer is now brewed in the United States with domestic ingredients.

Miller Brewing Co. operates a brewery. It offers brewing,
bottling, and marketing of beer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Reese, Esq.
      REESE LLP
      100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10001
      Tel: (212) 646-0500
      E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com

          - and -

      Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
      HALUNEN LAW
      1650 IDS Center
      80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 605-4098
      E-mail: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com


MIXTURA LATINA: Recalls Salsa Products Due to Wheat
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Mixtura Latina Co.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10189

  Brand      Common name    Size     Code(s) on   UPC
  name       -----------    -----    product      ---
  ----                               ----------
  Andina's   Huancaina      227 g    All codes    8 93184 00016 0
             Salsa                   where wheat
                                     is not
                                     declared on
                                     the label.
  Andina's   Ocopa Salsa    227 g    All codes    8 93184 00017 7
                                     where wheat
                                     is not
                                     declared on
                                     the label.


MODEL N: To Pay $250,000 in Securities Case Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Model N, Inc. will contribute $250,000 in a settlement of a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit in California, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 23, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

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

On March 2, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the two
class action lawsuits.

On November 4, 2015, all parties reached a mutually acceptable
resolution by way of a mediated settlement. The agreement in
principle calls for the company to contribute $250,000 toward the
settlement, with the remainder to be covered by the company's D&O
insurance. The company is satisfied with this resolution given the
risks and expenses associated with further litigation. The
settlement is subject to court approval.


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Sued Over Workers Toxic Substances Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Flores Garcia, et al. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., f/k/a
Motorola, Case No. 2015L012525 (Ill. Cir. Ct., December 11, 2015)
is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's
concealment and misrepresentation of the actual hazards of
exposure to its employees and their future offspring from toxic
substances and chemicals.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. owns, operates, manages and controls
certain semiconductor manufacturing facilities in and around the
Phoenix, Arizona metropolitan area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin J. Conway, Esq.
      Michael John Lubeck
      COONEY & CONWAY
      120 N. LaSalle Street, 30th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-6166
      Facsimile: (312) 236-3029
      E-mail: kconway@cooneyconway.com
              mlubeck@cooneyconway.com


NASA FEDERAL: Faces "Chambers" Suit Over Overdraft Fee Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Chambers, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NASA Federal Credit Union, Case No. 1:15-cv-02013
(D.C., November 17, 2015) is an action for damages and injunctive
relief against the Defendant arising from NFCU's breach of its
contracts with consumers in its implementation of an overdraft fee
program.

NASA Federal Credit Union is a state chartered credit union with
its headquarters located in Washington D.C.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven W. Teppler, Esq.
      ABBOTT LAW GROUP, P.A.
      2929 Plummer Cove Road
      Jacksonville, FL 32223
      Telephone: (904) 292-1111
      Facsimile: (904) 292-1220
      E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com

         - and -

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
      Redlands, CA 92374
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
      E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com

         - and -

      Taras Kick, Esq.
      THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
      201 Wilshire Boulevard
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310) 395-2988
      Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
      E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Jon2 Suit in Cal. Over All Sunday Games
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon2 LLC d/b/a Manny's on Second and Adam Matschullat, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. National
Football League, Inc., NFL Enterprises, LLC, DirecTV Holdings, LLC
and DirecTV, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-09655-BRO-JEM (C.D. Cal.,
December 15, 2015) seeks to enjoin the ongoing unreasonable
restraint of trade that the Defendants have implemented through
DirecTV's exclusive arrangement to broadcast all Sunday afternoon
out-of-market games.

National Football League, Inc. an unincorporated association of 32
American professional football teams in the United States.

NFL Enterprises, LLC was organized to hold the broadcast rights of
the 32 NFL teams and license them to providers and other
broadcasters.

DirecTV Holdings, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company and
has its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway,
El Segundo, California. DirecTV is a direct broadcast satellite
service provider and broadcaster.

DirecTV, LLC is a California Limited Liability Company that has
its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway, El
Segundo, California. DirecTV, LLC issues bills to its subscribers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


NEW SOURCE ENERGY: May 16 Discovery Cutoff in Suit v. Rod's
-----------------------------------------------------------
New Source Energy Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
discovery cutoff is May 16, 2016, in the case, Jeremy Saenz, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Rod's
Production Services, LLC.

This is a purported collective action and class action filed on
June 2, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District
of New Mexico. The plaintiff claims that RPS misclassified him as
an independent contractor under the FLSA and New Mexico state law.
The plaintiff also filed a motion to amend to add state law claims
under Pennsylvania and Ohio wage laws. The plaintiff seeks unpaid
overtime for the time he worked as a misclassified independent
contractor. The court conditionally certified the collective
action under the FLSA and the opt-in period closed on July 15,
2015. The parties dispute how many proper opt-ins have been filed,
but the class will range between 64 and 80 opt-in plaintiffs,
including the named plaintiff. The parties are beginning
discovery. The parties have a scheduling order from the court.
Discovery cutoff is May 16, 2016 and trial is scheduled for
February 2017.


NEW SOURCE ENERGY: Parties in EFS Suit Discuss Scope of Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New Source Energy Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
parties in the case, Jeremy Saenz, on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated v. Erick Flowback Services, LLC, are
briefing the scope of discovery.

This is a purported collective action and class action filed on
June 10, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma. The plaintiff claims that EFS misclassified
him as an independent contractor under the FLSA, and Ohio and
Pennsylvania state laws. The plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime for
the time he worked as a misclassified independent contractor. The
court conditionally certified the collective action and the opt-in
period closed on August 11, 2015. The parties dispute the number
of proper opt-in plaintiffs, but the class will be between 76 and
100 plaintiffs, including the named plaintiff. The parties had a
scheduling conference on September 16, 2015. Currently, the
parties are briefing the scope of discovery. The court has not yet
entered a scheduling order.

The Partnership recorded a reserve for the above Fair Labor
Standards Act Litigation of $1.5 million, reflective of the facts
and circumstances as currently known. The actual loss may differ
from the established reserve. On October 28, 2015, the parties
entered into an Agreement to Stay Proceedings that stays the
current litigation and provides the parties with a 60-day
mediation period, unless extended by the parties.


NEW SOURCE ENERGY: Defending "Vaccaro" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
New Source Energy Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a class
action complaint was filed on October 21, 2015, in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York against the Partnership, certain
current and former directors of the Partnership's general partner
and certain investment banking firms in the case styled Enrico
Vaccaro vs. New Source Energy Partners L.P., Kristian B. Kos,
Terry L. Toole, Dikran Tourian, Richard D. Finley, V. Bruce
Thompson, John A. Raber, Stifel, Nicholas & Company, Inc., Robert
W. Baird & Co. Inc., Janney Montgomery Scott LLC, Oppenheimer &
Co. Inc., and Wunderlich Securities, Inc.

The complaint asserts a state securities class action on behalf of
a putative class consisting of persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Partnership's Series A Preferred Units
pursuant to the related prospectus and prospectus supplement,
seeking to recover damages allegedly caused by the defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act").  The complaint alleges that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Partnership's
business and operations because such statements failed to properly
reflect the impact of certain actions by the Partnership's
contract operator on the Partnership's financial condition.

The Partnership and the other defendants associated with the
Partnership 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 plaintiff's claims and the defendants' defenses are fully
disclosed and analyzed. The Partnership has not established any
reserves relating to this action.


NEW YORK LIFE: Illegally Uses Compound Interest, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that New York Life Insurance
illegally charges compound interest on loans on permanent life
insurance policies, a class action claims in Contra Costa County
Court.


NEWMAR: Recalls Essex Class A Motorhome 2012 & 2013 Models
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Suspension
Units affected: 5
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015563TC
ID number: 2015563

On certain motorhomes equipped with IFS2000 model front
suspensions, the ABS valve may have been incorrectly oriented at
time of installation. As a result, the shaft of the ball joint on
the steering relay rod may contact the valve during full right or
left turns. If enough contact is made, the valve may fracture
without warning, which could result in service brake air pressure
not being applied to the affected wheel. This may increase
stopping distances or cause the vehicle to pull to one side which
could result in a vehicle crash. Correction: An Authorized Service
facility will inspect the modulator valve and if needed add a
spacer behind the ABS modulator valve.

  Make      Model                       Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----                       ----------------------
  NEWMAR    ESSEX CLASS A MOTORHOME     2012, 2013


NEWMAR: Recalls Multiple Motorhome Models Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 73
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015562TC
ID number: 2015562

On certain motorhomes, the cargo door lock actuator on the baggage
doors could overheat due to a faulty keyless entry module
configuration. If operated with a battery voltage below 9.5 VDC,
the actuator could chatter, overheat and melt along with a portion
of the inner door material which would increase the risk of fire
causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will
install a new low voltage disconnect module and wire harness.

  Make         Model                Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----                ----------------------
  NEWMAR       DUTCH STAR CLASS     2014, 2015
               A MOTORHOME
  NEWMAR       MOUNTAIN AIRE        2014
               CLASS A MOTORHOME
  NEWMAR       VENTANA CLASS A E    2014, 2015
               MOTORHOM
  NEWMAR       ESSEX CLASS A        2014
               MOTORHOME


NEWMAR: Recalls Multiple Motorhome Models Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 93
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015573TC
ID number: 2015573

Certain motorhomes may have been manufactured with a refrigerator
equipped with a travel latch that could inadvertently activated
without the users knowledge. If the latch accidently locked the
door shut, there would be no means to open it from the inside
which could potentially cause entrapment and/or injury to an
individual. Correction: Dealers will install a new door latch that
cannot be inadvertently locked and can only be activated from the
exterior of the refrigerator after the door is closed.

  Make      Model                Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----                ----------------------
  NEWMAR    DUTCH STAR CLASS     2012, 2013, 2014
            A MOTORHOME
  NEWMAR    CANYON STAR CLASS    2013
            A MOTORHOME
  NEWMAR    ESSEX CLASS A        2012, 2013, 2014
            MOTORHOME
  NEWMAR    KING AIRE CLASS A    2008, 2009
            MOTORHOME


NINGBO EGO: Recalls Seasonal Light Products Due to Fire Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 28, 2015
Posting date: November 28, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Electronics, Specialized Products, Tools and
Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Burn Hazard, Electrical Hazard, Fire Hazard, Product
Safety, Flammability Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56070

All seasonal lights, under various brand names, manufactured by
either Taizhou Hongpeng Colour Lanterns (CSA File Number 241989)
or Ningbo EGO International Co. Ltd. (CSA File Number 263917),
sold in various stores across Canada.

Indoor and outdoor decorative light strings that plug-in
manufactured by Taizhou Hongpeng Colour Lanterns or Ningbo EGO
International Co. Ltd. that have been widely distributed
throughout Canada in numerous retail chains under a wide variety
of brand names. Seasonal lights include Halloween and Christmas
lights.

Health Canada initiated a national sampling and evaluation project
to test seasonal lights due to a number of incident reports
received by the department. Testing by Health Canada has shown
hazards in several products including overheating, as well as the
risk of fire and electric shock.

The number of products affected is unknown. Health Canada is in
the process of obtaining this information from distributors and
retailers. Some of these products have already been recalled.
These can be found on our Consumer Product Update on seasonal
lights. As additional affected brands and retailers are
identified, they will be added to the Update.
The time period sold is unknown.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Taizhou Hongpeng Colour Lanterns Co., Ltd
              Hengjie Industrial Park, Luqiao Taizhou
              Zhejiang
              318056
              CHINA

Manufacturer: Ningbo Ego International Co. Ltd.
              3/F, No.168 East Road Songjiang, Yinzhou Area,
              Ningbo
              Zhejiang
              315100
              CHINA

Consumers should check all seasonal lights and their
Manufacturer's Product Identification label for the CSA file
numbers 241989 and 263917. The Manufacturer's Product
Identification label is typically attached to one end of a string
of lights. If your lights have either of these numbers you should
stop using these products immediately. Affected products cannot be
identified solely by product or brand names.

Consumers are encouraged to return these specific products to the
place where they were purchased. If there is a recall notice for
your specific product, you should follow the directions in the
notice.

Consumers are encouraged to check the Recall and Safety Alerts
Database on the Healthy Canadians website on a regular basis or
subscribe to receive health and safety alerts from the Department
via email, RSS feed or Twitter.

Report health or safety concerns
Canadians are encouraged to report any health or safety incidents
related to the use of any consumer product or cosmetic by filling
out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form.


NISSAN: Recalls Rogue 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Compliance Mfr
System: Powertrain
Units affected: 10956
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015564TC
ID number: 2015564

Certain vehicles may fail to conform to Canada Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (CMVSS) 102 - Transmission Control Functions and
CMVSS 114 - Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention. A defect in
the transmission shift selector assembly could allow the driver to
shift the transmission out of the PARK gear position without
depressing the brake pedal, change gear positions without
depressing the gear shift lever detent button, and/or remove the
ignition key without the transmission being in PARK. These issues
could cause unintended vehicle movement, increasing the risk of
injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will affect
repairs.

  Make       Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----      ----------------------
  NISSAN     ROGUE      2015


NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Banda" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Basya Banda, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Northland Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-06894
(E.D.N.Y., December 4, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Northland Group, Inc. is a provider of recovery solutions for the
financial services industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a hearing
was held in December to consider the Company's motion to dismiss a
consolidated class action lawsuit.

On March 10, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court, for the Southern District of California,
captioned Colley v. Orexigen, et al. The following day, two
additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in the same
court, captioned Stefanko v. Orexigen, et al., and Yantz v.
Orexigen, et al., asserting substantially similar claims.

The complaints purport to assert claims on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's stock between March 3, 2015 and March
5, 2015. It alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly making
false and misleading statements regarding the interim results of
the Light Study. The complaints seek an unspecified amount of
damages, attorneys' fees and equitable or injunctive relief. On
June 22, 2015, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed a
lead plaintiff.

On August 20, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint. The consolidated complaint purports to assert claims on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock between
March 3, 2015 and May 12, 2015. It alleges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by purportedly making false and misleading statements
regarding the interim results and termination of the Light Study.
The consolidated complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages,
attorneys' fees and equitable or injunctive relief.

On October 5, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. The defendants' motion was scheduled to be
heard by the Court on December 17, 2015.

Although management believes that the claims lack merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously, there are uncertainties
inherent in any litigation and the Company cannot predict the
outcome. As this time, the Company is unable to estimate possible
losses or ranges of losses that may result from such legal
proceedings, and it has not accrued any amounts in connection with
such legal proceedings other than ongoing attorney's fees.


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Still Defending Lawsuit by SEPTA
----------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors and
executive officers (collectively, "Orrstown Defendants") are
defendants in a putative class action filed by Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA") on May 25, 2012,
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.

In a later amended complaint, the list of defendants was expanded
to include the Company's independent registered public accounting
firm and the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public
offering of common stock.

The complaint, as amended, alleges among other things that (i) in
connection with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3
dated February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March
23, 2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 15,
2010 through April 5, 2012, the Company issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's lending
practices and financial results, including misleading statements
concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and
underwriting standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the
intended use of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public
offering of common stock.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks class certification, unspecified money
damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief.

On June 22, 2015, the Court dismissed without prejudice SEPTA's
amended complaint against all defendants, finding that SEPTA
failed to state a claim under either the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to
amend its amended complaint, accompanied by the proposed
amendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand on the
amended complaint.

On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under
Local Rule 15.1, as allowed by the Court's ruling on June 22,
2015. Many of the allegations of the proposed second amended
complaint are essentially the same or similar to the allegations
of the dismissed amended complaint. The proposed second amended
complaint also alleges that the Orrstown Defendants did not
publicly disclose certain alleged failures of internal controls
over loan underwriting, risk management, and financial reporting
during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation of the federal
securities laws.

The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's proposed
second amended complaint are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against those claims.

"Given that the Court has not yet granted SEPTA permission to file
its proposed second amended complaint, and that defendants have
not yet filed their opposition to SEPTA's motion to amend or had
the opportunity to challenge the legal sufficiency of the proposed
second amended complaint by motion to dismiss, it is not possible
at this time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a
range of reasonably possible losses, in connection with SEPTA's
proposed second amended complaint," the Company said.


PANORAMIC RENTAL: Recalls X-ray Model PC-1000 Units
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 3, 2015
Posting date: January 7, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56534

The recall relates to a potential problem with the jackscrew and
nut assemblies on some panoramic X-ray model PC-1000 units. In
some units, the jackscrew and nut assemblies may not have been
adequately lubricated during assembly, which may result in
excessive wear, and the assemblies may slip. Signs of excessive
wear may include unusual noise or hesitation or interference with
smooth operation while the unit is moving up or down.

Affected products:
A. PC-1000/LASER 1000
Lot or serial number: 6001 to 13885
Model or catalog number: PC-1000/LASER1000

B. PC-1000
Lot or serial number: 6001 to 13885
Model or catalog number: PC-1000

Manufacturer: Panoramic Rental Corporation
4321 Goshen Road
Fort Wayne
Indiana
UNITED STATES


PASTA BAR: Faces "Urbano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amador Urbano, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Pasta Bar
By Scotto II LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-09352 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 30, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Pasta Bar By Scotto II LLC owns and operates a restaurant located
in Suffolk County, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amador Urbano
      PRO SE


PAULA G. KAPLAN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gentile" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Gentile, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Paula G. Kaplan trading as Paula G. Kaplan Attorney At
Law and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-08426 (D.N.J., December
3, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Paula G. Kaplan owns and operates a law firm located at 55 Morris
Ave # 100, Springfield Township, NJ 07081.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glen H. Chulsky, Esq.
      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      E-mail: g.chulsky@att.net
              jkj@legaljones.com

         - and -

      Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
      17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
      Rutherford, NJ 07070
      Telephone: (201) 507-6300
      E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


PINGTAN MARINE: Bid to Dismiss "Fila" Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd.'s motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit filed by Paul Fila is pending, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

On January 14, 2015, Paul Fila, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, against the Company and
certain of its executive officers and directors, entitled Fila v.
Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. et al, No. 15 Civ. 267 (AJN).

On July 1, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's
public securities filings in 2013 and 2014 contained materially
false and misleading statements that the Company received 100% of
the annual net income and net profit from Fujian Provincial County
Ocean Fishing Group, Ltd. when it allegedly did not. The amended
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

On September 11, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, arguing that the amended complaint fails to
state a claim against the defendants.  Plaintiffs' opposition to
the Company's motion to dismiss was due November 10, 2015, and the
Company's reply in support of its motion to dismiss was due
December 10, 2015.

The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however,
given the unpredictability of litigation, there can be no
assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.


PORSCHE CARS: Faces "Vigran" Suit in Ga. Over RICO Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Vigran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-04089 (N.D. Ga., November 20, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is the
exclusive importer of Porsche vehicles for the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan J. Statman, Esq.
      STATMAN HARRIS & EYRICH LLC
      441 Vine Street, Suite 3700
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Telephone: (513) 621-2666
      E-mail: ajstatman@statmanharris.com

         - and -

      Darren W. Penn, Esq.
      Jed Davis Manton, Esq.
      Jeffrey R. Harris, Esq.
      Madeline Elizabeth McNeeley, Esq.
      Stephen G. Lowry, Esq.
      HARRIS PENN LOWRY LLP
      400 Colony Square
      1201 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 900
      Atlanta, GA 30361
      Telephone: (404) 961-7650
      E-mail: darren@hpllegal.com
              jed@hpllegal.com
              jeff@hpllegal.com
              molly@hpllegal.com
              steve@hpllegal.com


PROVIDENT FUNDING: Response to "Steinberg" Suit Due Feb. 19
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar gave his stamp of approval on a
stipulation extending to February 19, 2016, the time for
defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the first amended
class action complaint in the case, ROBERT L. STEINBERG and SONIA
STEINBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. PROVIDENT FUNDING ASSOCIATES, L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-03743-JST (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint (FAC) on
January 21, 2016.  Defendant's response to the FAC is currently
due on February 8.

In light of prior commitments and other scheduling issues of
counsel, Defendant requests additional time to answer or otherwise
respond to the FAC.

No trial date or discovery deadlines have been set, and this
enlargement of time will not have an effect on the schedule for
the case.

A copy of the Stipulation is available at http://is.gd/p4IOXHc
from Leagle.com.

Robert L. Steinberg and Sonia Steinberg are represented by:

     George Haksoo Kim, Esq.
     David A. Chandler, Esq.
     Douglas D. von Oiste, Esq.
     THE KARST & VON OISTE LAW FIRM
     19500 State Highway 249
     Houston, TX 77070
     Tel: (281) 970-9988

          - and -

     Katrina Carroll, Esq.
     Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Tel: (312) 750-1265
     Fax: (312) 212-5919
     E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
             kshamberg@litedepalma.com

Provident Funding Associates, L.P., Defendant, represented by:

     J. Christopher Mitchell, Esq.
     Neil Richard O'Hanlon, Esq.
     Robert B. Hawk, Esq.
     Stacy R. Hovan, Esq.
     Hogan Lovells US LLP
     4085 Campbell Ave., Suite 100
     Menlo Park, CA 94025
     Tel: (612) 402-3015
     Fax: (612) 402-3001
     E-mail: chris.mitchell@hoganlovells.com
             robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com
             stacy.hovan@hoganlovells.com


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: To Defend Against Securities Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Puma Biotechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
intends to vigorously defend the case, Hsu vs. Puma Biotechnology,
Inc., et al.

"On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit
against us and certain of our executive officers in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California (Case
No. 8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG)," the Company said.

"On October 16, 2015, lead Plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed an
amended complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased our
securities between July 22, 2014 and May 29, 2015.  The amended
complaint alleges that we and certain of our executive officers
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about our business, operations, prospects
and performance in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and
other unspecified equitable relief.

"We intend to vigorously defend this matter."


REALD INC: Being Sold on the Cheap, Calif. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling RealD
(three-dimensional movie technology) on the cheap to its CEO and
other insiders at public shareholders' expense, for $11 a share,
though it's worth more than $14, a class action claims in Superior
Court in Los Angeles.


REG & DOREEN: Recalls Honey Products Due to Nitrofurans
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 1, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Chemical
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Reg & Doreen Hicks
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10201

  Brand     Common name      Size        Code(s) on        UPC
  name      -----------      ----        product           ---
  -----                                  ----------
  None      Honey - Liquid   Variable    All 500 g,        None
  - Reg &                                750 g and
  Doreen                                 2 oz
  Hicks                                  packages
                                         sold by
                                         Reg & Doreen
                                         Hicks from
                                         July 28, 2015
                                         to November 9,
                                         2015, inclusive
  None -    Honey - Liquid   Variable    All 500 g,         None
  Packed                                 750 g, 3 oz and
  by Reg                                 12 oz packages
  &                                      sold by Reg &
  Doreen                                 Doreen Hicks
  Hicks                                  from July 28,
                                         2015 to November
                                         9, 2015, inclusive
  None      None             None        All unlabelled      None
                                         750 g jars of
                                         liquid honey
                                         sold by Reg &
                                         Doreen Hicks
                                         from July 28,
                                         2015 to November
                                         9, 2015, inclusive


RENTECH NITROGEN: Suits Related to CVR Merger at Initial Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rentech Nitrogen Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that class
action lawsuits relating to a merger transaction with CVR
Partners, L.P. are at a preliminary stage.

On August 9, 2015, Rentech Nitrogen Partners, L.P. (the
"Partnership") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement") under which the Partnership and Rentech
Nitrogen GP, LLC (the "General Partner") will merge with
affiliates of CVR Partners, L.P. ("CVR Partners"), and the
Partnership will cease to be a public company and will become a
wholly owned subsidiary of CVR Partners (the "Merger").

On August 29, 2015, Mike Mustard, a purported unitholder of the
Partnership, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
public unitholders of the Partnership against the Partnership, the
General Partner, Rentech Nitrogen Holdings, Inc., Rentech, CVR
Partners, DSHC, LLC, Lux Merger Sub 1 LLC ("Merger Sub 1") and Lux
Merger Sub 2 LLC ("Merger Sub 2"), and the members of the General
Partner's board of directors, in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (the "Mustard Lawsuit").

On October 6, 2015, Jesse Sloan, a purported unitholder of the
Partnership, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
public unitholders of the Partnership against the Partnership, the
General Partner, CVR Partners, Merger Sub 1, Merger Sub 2 and
members of the General Partner's board of directors in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Sloan
Lawsuit" and together with the Mustard Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits").

The Lawsuits allege, among other things, that the consideration
offered by CVR Partners is unfair and inadequate and that, by
pursuing the proposed transaction with CVR Partners, the
Partnership's directors have breached their contractual and
fiduciary duties to the Partnership's unitholders.  The Lawsuits
also allege that the non-director defendants aided and abetted the
director defendants in their purported breach of contractual and
fiduciary duties. Furthermore, the Sloan Lawsuit alleges that the
registration statement filed with the SEC with respect to the
transaction fails to disclose material information leading up to
the Merger, fails to disclose or contains misleading disclosures
concerning Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC's financial analyses and fails
to disclose or contains misleading disclosure concerning financial
projections. The Lawsuits seek to enjoin the Merger.

The Lawsuits are at a preliminary stage. The Partnership cannot
predict the outcome of the Lawsuits or any other lawsuit that
might be filed with respect to the Merger, nor can it predict the
amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve these
or other lawsuits. The Partnership believes the Lawsuits are
without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously.


REX ENERGY: Order Denying Cert. Bid in "Cardinale" under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rex Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the plaintiffs in
the Cardinale class action lawsuit have taken an appeal from the
court's order denying a motion for class certification.

"In October 2011, we were named as defendants in a proposed class
action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield
County, Pennsylvania (the "Cardinale case")," the Company said.
"The named plaintiffs are two individuals who have sued on behalf
of themselves and all persons who are alleged to be similarly
situated. The complaint in the Cardinale case generally asserts
that a binding contract to lease oil and gas interests was formed
between the Company and each proposed class member when
representatives of Western Land Services, Inc. ("Western"), a
leasing agent that we engaged, presented a form of proposed oil
and gas lease and an order for payment to each person in 2008, and
each person signed the proposed oil and gas lease form and order
for payment and delivered the documents to representatives of
Western."

"We rejected these leases and never signed them. The plaintiffs
seek the certification of a class and a judgment declaring the
rights of the parties with respect to those proposed leases, as
well as damages and other relief as may be established by
plaintiffs at trial, together with interest, costs, expenses and
attorneys' fees.

"In May 2012, the trial court dismissed the Cardinale case with
prejudice on the grounds that there was no contract formed between
us and the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal
during the second half of 2012.

"On May 3, 2013, the Superior Court reversed the decision of the
Common Pleas Court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

"In July 2012, while the Cardinale case was in the midst of the
appeals process, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Cardinale case
filed two additional lawsuits against us in the Court of Common
Pleas of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania: one a proposed class
action lawsuit with a different named plaintiff (the "Billotte
case") and another on behalf of a group of individually named
plaintiffs (the "Meeker case"). The complaints for both cases
contain the same claims as those set forth in the Cardinale case.
It is our understanding that these two additional lawsuits were
filed for procedural reasons in light of the dismissal of the
Cardinale case and the pendency of the appeal.

Proceedings in the Billotte case have been consolidated with the
Cardinale case; proceedings in the Meeker case are ongoing.

"In June 2015, the trial court conducted a hearing on plaintiff's
motion for certification of a class in the Cardinale case.  In
July 2015, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  Plaintiffs served notice of their appeal of that
decision in August 2015 and filed the appeal in September 2015.

"We continue to vigorously defend against each of these claims. At
this time we are unable to express an opinion with respect to the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or provide an estimate of
potential losses, if any."


RICK'S CITY: Faces "Timbrook" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Timbrook, Amy Mann, Toledo, Stepper Toth, and Beth Treuhaft
v. Rick's City Diner, LLC, Rick's City Diner 2, LLC and Richard M.
Salem, Case No. 3:15-cv-02599-JZ (N.D. Ohio, December 15, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a breakfast and lunch establishment
located at 5333 Monroe St. in Toledo, OH.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John T. Murray, Esq.
      Leslie O. Murray, Esq.
      Michael Stewart, Esq.
      MURRAY & MURRAY CO., L.P.A.
      111 East Shoreline Drive
      Sandusky, OH 44870-2517
      Telephone: (419) 624-3000
      Facsimile: (419) 624-0707
      E-mail: jotm@murrayandmurray.com
              leslie@murrayandmurray.com
              mjs@murrayandmurray.com

         - and -

      David W. Goldense, Esq.
      DAVID W. GOLDENSE CO. LPA
      50 Public Square, Suite 920
      Cleveland, OH 44113-2207
      Telephone: (216) 241-0300
      E-mail: dwgoldense@aol.com


RING ENERGY: Nevada Court Dismisses "Newman" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ring Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a Nevada court has
granted the Company's request to dismiss the class action lawsuit
filed by Rosalyn Newman.

"On July 10, 2015, a purported stockholder (the "Plaintiff") of
the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the District
Court of Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of herself and Ring
stockholders against the Company, the members of our Board of
Directors, and SunTrust Bank (the "Lawsuit")," the Company said.

The complaint is captioned Rosalyn Newman, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ring Energy, Inc., et
al. Defendants, under Case No. A-15-721253-C, in the District
Court of Clark County, Nevada, Dept. IV.

"The Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the members of our
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties, and that
SunTrust Bank aided and abetted such breaches, in connection with
our Credit Agreement as a result of certain provisions that gives
SunTrust Bank the right to accelerate the debt in the event of a
change in control, among other things," the Company said. "The
complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory relief, as well
as an award of costs and disbursements of the Lawsuit, including
attorney's fees, experts' fees, costs and expenses.  The Credit
Agreement has been amended to eliminate and modify such
provisions."

On October 27, 2015, the Court granted Ring's Motion to Dismiss
the Lawsuit.

It is anticipated that Plaintiff will seek recovery of its
attorney's fees associated with the Lawsuit, and Ring plans to
oppose the aware of any fees associated with the Lawsuit. The
Judge will determine the amount of any fees to be recovered.

"We believe any fees associated with the Lawsuit will be
immaterial," the Company said.


ROADRUNNER PREFERRED: Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Fred Beaver, and all others similarly situated v. Roadrunner
Preferred Delivery Systems, Inc. and Does 1 through 250, Case No.
BC603585 (Cal. Super., December 9, 2015), seeks damages for
Defendant's violations of the California Labor Code.

The Defendant provides courier services for items including, but
not limited to, medical specimens, escrow documents and court
documents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
      555 East Ocean Blvd., Ste 818
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Tel: (562) 432-8933
      Fax: (562) 435-1656
      E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com


ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Defending Wage Suits in Calif. & Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. is a defendant in four
purported class-action lawsuits in California alleging violations
of various California labor laws and one purported class-action
lawsuit in Illinois alleging violations of the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits seek to recover
unspecified monetary damages and other items. In addition, the
California Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement has brought
administrative actions against the Company on behalf of seven
individuals alleging that we violated California labor laws.

"Given the early stage of all of the proceedings . . . we are not
able to assess with certainty the outcome of these proceedings or
the amount or range of potential damages or future payments
associated with these proceedings at this time," Roadrunner said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.  "We believe we have meritorious defenses to
these actions and intend to defend these proceedings vigorously.
However, any legal proceeding is subject to inherent
uncertainties, and we cannot assure that the expenses associated
with defending these actions or their resolution will not have a
material adverse effect on our business, operating results, or
financial condition."


ROLAND CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Wrongful Termination
--------------------------------------------------------
Dan Krisher, and all others similarly situated v. Roland
Corporation U.S. and Does 1 to 100, Case No. BC603779 (Cal.
Super., December 9, 2015), seeks damages for Defendant's  wrongful
termination of his employment in violation of public policy and
discrimination.

Roland Corporation U.S. manufactures and distributes electronic
musical instruments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vahe Hovanessian, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF VAHE HOVANESSIAN
      100 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 536
      Glendale, CA 91203-2642
      Tel: (818) 240-1333
      Fax: (818) 240-1369
      E-mail: vahe@vhlaw.com


SAKS INCORPORATED: Sued in Cal. Over False Merchandise Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Nunez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Saks Incorporated and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
3:15-cv-02717-JAH-WVG (S.D. Cal., December 3, 2015) alleges that
the Defendants' advertised false comparable prices and false price
discounts for merchandise sold throughout its retail stores and on
its Internet website.

Saks Incorporated operates Saks Fifth Avenue OFF 5TH stores and
the saksoff5th.com website, and advertises, markets, distributes,
and sells clothing and clothing accessories in California and
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 233-4565
      Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
      E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      Erin G. Comite, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
              ecomite@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARPENTER LAW GROUP
      402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 756-6994
      Facsimile: (619) 756.6991
      E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Defending Morning Song Bird Food Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to defend against the
case, In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that

"In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were
the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, we, along with our
Chief Executive Officer, have been named as defendants in four
putative class actions filed on and after June 27, 2012, which
have now been consolidated in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California as In re Morning Song Bird
Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB," the Company
said.

The plaintiffs allege various statutory and common law claims
associated with the Company's sale of wild bird food products and
a plea agreement entered into in previously pending government
proceedings associated with such sales. The plaintiffs allege,
among other things, a purported class action on behalf of all
persons and entities in the United States who purchased certain
bird food products. The plaintiffs assert hundreds of millions of
dollars in monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential,
and restitution), punitive and treble damages; injunctive and
declaratory relief; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and
costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company disputes the plaintiffs' assertions and intends to
vigorously defend the consolidated action. "At this point in the
proceedings, it is not currently possible to reasonably estimate a
probable loss, if any, associated with the action and,
accordingly, no reserves have been recorded in our consolidated
financial statements with respect to the action. There can be no
assurance that this action, whether as a result of an adverse
outcome or as a result of significant defense costs, will not have
a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows," the Company said.


SELECT FOOD: Recalls Coconut Curry Sauce Due to Milk
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 26, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Select Food Products Ltd.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10187

  Brand   Common name    Size     Code(s) on   UPC
  name    -----------    -----    product      ---
  -----                           ----------
  Amaya   Coconut Curry  375 ml   All codes    8 72365 00003 8
          Sauce                   where milk
                                  is not
                                  declared on
                                  the label.


SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Must Face Against Mortuary Drivers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge refused to
dismiss a class action in San Francisco, California, accusing
Serenity Transportation and its "customer defendants," including
Service Corporation International, of misclassifying mortuary
drivers to deny them overtime.

Plaintiffs Curtis Johnson and Anthony Aranda bring this putative
class action against their employer, Defendants Serenity
Transportation, Inc., and its owner David Friedel, as well as
alleged "Customer Defendants" Service Corporation International,
SCI California Funeral Services Inc., and the County of Santa
Clara.  The Court previously dismissed the claims against the
"Customer Defendants" -- i.e., all entities other than Serenity
Transportation and Friedel -- concluding that Plaintiffs' Third
Amended Complaint had failed to allege sufficient facts to
plausibly infer the existence of joint employer status under
either federal or California law. Johnson v. Serenity Transp.,
Inc., ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, No. 15-2004-JSC, 2015 WL 6664834, at
*22 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2015).

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss claims against the Customer
Defendants in the Fourth Amended Complaint.

"The Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss the claims against
the SCI entities and the County. The [Fourth Amended Complaint]
sufficiently alleges Section 2810.3 as a basis for liability
against the SCI entities. The FAC also adequately alleges the
Customer Defendants' joint employer liability for the purposes of
federal and California law. The Court therefore denies Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Customer Defendants. The Customer Defendants
shall file an answer to the FAC by January 31, 2016, and this
action shall proceed pursuant to the schedule set forth in the
Pretrial Order," Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said.

The case is captioned, CURTIS JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. SERENITY
TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 15-cv-02004-JSC
(N.D. Cal.)

A copy of the Court's Jan. 22 order is available at
http://is.gd/kBCsB4from Leagle.com.

Curtis Johnson, Plaintiff, is represented by:

     Peter Scott Rukin, Esq.
     Jessica Lee Riggin, Esq.
     Valerie Jean Brender, Esq.
     RUKIN HYLAND DORIA & TINDALL LLP
     100 Pine Street, Suite 2150
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: 415-421-1800
     E-mail: prukin@rhdtlaw.com
             jriggin@rhdtlaw.com
             vbrender@rhdtlaw.com

Service Corporation International, Inc., Defendant, is represented
by:

     Jeffery M Hubins, Esq.
     John A. Mason, Esq.
     Gurnee Mason & Forestiere LLP
     2240 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 150
     Roseville, CA 95661
     Tel: (916)797-3100
     Fax: (916) 797-3131


SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Defendant in Delaware Stockholders' Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
SFX Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
has been named as a defendant in multiple putative stockholder
class action complaints challenging the proposal by Robert F.X.
Sillerman, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and
his affiliates to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the
Company's common stock not presently held, directly or indirectly,
by Mr. Sillerman and his affiliates in a merger with the Company.
All of the lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware and have been consolidated into a single
proceeding as In re SFX Entertainment, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation on July 9, 2015. The defendants named in the
consolidated complaint are the Company, SFXE Acquisition LLC, SFXE
Merger Sub, Inc., Sillerman Investment Company III LLC, and the
directors of the Company. The lawsuit was premised on allegations
that the price offered in the proposed merger is inadequate and
that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders in connection with the proposed merger. The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief enjoining the merger and payment of damages and
costs that would be incurred as a result of the proposed merger.
The outcome of the lawsuit is uncertain. An adverse judgment for
monetary damages could have an adverse effect on the operations
and liquidity of the Company. The defendants believe that the
claims asserted against them in the lawsuits are without merit.


SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Defendant in New York Stockholders' Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
SFX Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
has been named as a defendant in a securities class action
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on September 11, 2015 pursuant to
Sections10(b), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 of that Act and under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). The defendants named in
the complaint are the Company, Robert F.X. Sillerman, the
Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and three
independent directors of the Company. The three named directors
constituted the special committee of independent directors
appointed to review Mr. Sillerman's offer to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of common stock not presently held, directly or
indirectly, by Mr. Sillerman and his affiliates. The complaint
alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements
and engaged in a fraudulent course of conduct designed to
artificially inflate the Company's stock price during 2015 in
order to maintain the Company as an attractive acquisition
candidate for a third party purchaser at a time when the Company's
financial condition was declining.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for all losses and
damages suffered as a result of the defendants' alleged
wrongdoing, together with all fees and expenses incurred by the
class, including attorneys' fees and expenses.

Pursuant to the PSLRA, other plaintiffs have 60 days from the date
of filing of the complaint to join the lawsuit. Thus, there have
been no further proceedings to date and the defendants have not
yet responded to the complaint. The outcome of the lawsuit is
uncertain. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have an
adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of the Company. The
defendants believe that the claims asserted in the lawsuit are
without merit and they intend to defend the case vigorously.


SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Feb. 19 Case Management Conference Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Skyworks Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 24, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended October 2, 2015, that a court has scheduled
a case management conference for February 19, 2016, in the class
action lawsuits over the Company's merger with PMC-Sierra, Inc.

On October 5, 2015, the Company, and its newly formed, wholly
owned subsidiary, Amherst Acquisition, Inc., entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with PMC-Sierra, Inc. or PMC,
providing for, subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger
Agreement, the acquisition of PMC by the Company at a price of
$10.50 per share in cash through the merger of Merger Sub into
PMC, with PMC surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of
the Company. On October 29, 2015, the Company and PMC entered into
an Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, which
amended and restated in its entirety the Merger Agreement.

On November 23, 2015, PMC delivered to the Company a notice
terminating the Amended and Restated Merger Agreement. Prior to
the termination of the Amended and Restated Merger Agreement,
between October 8, 2015 and October 21, 2015, three putative class
action lawsuits challenging the then-proposed Merger were filed on
behalf of PMC stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware and in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara
County.

The actions are captioned Pietrus Industries Ltd. v. PMC-Sierra,
Inc., et al., CA. No. 11610-VCG (Delaware Court of Chancery),
Bhakta v. PMC-Sierra, et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-286967 (Superior
Court of California, Santa Clara County), and Azzalini v. Lang, et
al., Case No. 1-15-CV-287124 (Superior Court of California, Santa
Clara County).  The lawsuits name the Company, PMC, the directors
of PMC, and others as defendants.  In general, they allege that
the directors of PMC breached their fiduciary duties to PMC
stockholders in connection with the Merger by, among other things,
failing to fully inform themselves of the market value of PMC,
maximize stockholder value, and act in the best interest of public
stockholders, and by placing their personal financial interests
before the interests of stockholders.  These actions further
allege that the Company and PMC, among others, aided and abetted
the directors' purported breach of their fiduciary duties.  Among
other things, they seek (i) injunctive relief preliminarily and
permanently enjoining the Merger, (ii) in the event that the
Merger is consummated, rescission or an award of rescissory
damages, (iii) plaintiffs' costs and fees, including attorneys'
expenses and experts' fees; and (iv) an accounting for damages
sustained. The two actions pending in the Superior Court of
California have been assigned to the Complex Civil Litigation
Department, and all discovery in those matters has been stayed.
The court in those actions has scheduled a case management
conference for February 19, 2016.


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Sued Over Porter Ranch Massive Gas Leak
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Lee, Helen Han-Lee, Richard Yoon, Jinee Yoon, and David
Felender, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Southern California Gas Company, Sempra Energy, and
Does 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. BC604036 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
December 11, 2015) arises out of the a local state of emergency
declaration for the Porter Ranch community due to a massive leak
of millions of cubic feet of methane gas and other harmful
chemicals allegedly from the Defendant's facility.

The Defendants own and operate a natural gas storage facility,
known as the Aliso Canyon Storage Facility, located just north of
the Porter Ranch community.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Alberstone, Esq.
      Roland Tellis, Esq.
      Evan Zucker, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD,P.C.
      15910 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1600
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 839-2333
      Facsimile: (818)986-9698
      E-mail: dalberstone@baronbudd.com
              rtellis@baronbudd.com
              ezucker@baronbudd.com

         - and -

      Paul Kiesel, Esq.
      Helen Zukin, Esq.
      KIESEL LAW LLP
      8648 Wilshire Blvd.
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 854-4444
      Facsimile: (310)854-0812
      E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com
              zukin@kbla.com


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: $7MM Accord Reached in "Perry" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company has reached a $7 million settlement in principle with the
lead plaintiff in the case, John Perry v. Spectrum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Filed March 14, 2013 in United
States District Court, District of Nevada; Case Number 2:2013-cv-
00433-LDG-CWH).

This putative consolidated class action raises substantially
identical claims and allegations against defendants Spectrum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dr. Rajesh C. Shrotriya, Brett L. Scott,
and Joseph Kenneth Keller. The alleged class period is August 8,
2012 to March 12, 2013.

The lawsuits allege a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against all defendants and control person
liability, as a violation of Section 20(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, against the individual defendants. The
claims purportedly stem from the Company's March 12, 2013 press
release, in which it announced that it anticipated a change in
ordering patterns of FUSILEV. The complaints allege that, as a
result of the March 12, 2013 press release, the Company's stock
price declined. The complaints further allege that during the
putative class period certain defendants made misleadingly
optimistic statements about FUSILEV sales, which inflated the
trading price of Company stock. The lawsuits seek relief in the
form of monetary damages, costs and fees, and any other equitable
or injunctive relief that the court deems appropriate.

On March 21, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On May 20, 2014,
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint.

"On July 18, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended class action complaint," the Company said. "On March 26,
2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On June 15, 2015,
the Court ordered a stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of
mediation between the parties."

On October 27, 2015, the Company reached a $7 million settlement
in principle with the lead plaintiff (which involved our insurance
carrier, as the reimbursing party in full), subject to preliminary
and final court approval.  The Company has included this
settlement amount, along with $1.1 million of reimbursable legal
expenses for this matter, on the Company's accompanying Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2015 within "other
receivables" and "accounts payable and other accrued liabilities."


STATE STREET: Still Facing 2 ERISA Class Suits in Boston
--------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that two putative
class actions are pending in federal court in Boston alleging
various violations of ERISA on behalf of all ERISA plans custodied
with the Company that executed indirect foreign exchange trades
with State Street from 1998 onward. The complaints allege that
State Street caused class members to pay unfair and unreasonable
rates on indirect foreign exchange trades with State Street. The
complaints seek unspecified damages, disgorgement of profits, and
other equitable relief. Other claims may be asserted in the
future, including in response to developments in the actions
discussed or governmental proceedings.

"If these matters were to proceed to trial, we expect that
plaintiffs would seek to recover their share of all or a portion
of the revenue that we have recorded from indirect foreign
exchange trades. We cannot predict whether a court, in the event
of an adverse resolution, would consider our revenue to be the
appropriate measure of damages," the Company said.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Defending Against "Berger" Action in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swisher Hygiene Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a lawsuit seeking
to be certified as a class action (Paul Berger v. Swisher Hygiene
Inc., et al., Case No. 2015 CH 13325 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Co.)) was
filed on September 8, 2015, in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois County Department, Chancery Division by Paul Berger, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against
Swisher Hygiene Inc., the members of  Swisher Hygiene Inc.'s board
of directors, individually, and Ecolab in connection with the Sale
Transaction.

The plaintiff has alleged that (i) faced with an ongoing
investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the
USAO, the individual defendants embarked upon a self-interested
scheme to sell off Swisher International, Inc.'s assets and to
liquidate Swisher Hygiene Inc., (ii) the individual defendants,
through an alleged insufficient process, caused Swisher Hygiene
Inc. to agree to sell substantially all of its assets for
insufficient consideration, (iii) each member of Swisher Hygiene
Inc's. Board of Directors is interested in the Sale Transaction
and the plan of dissolution, and (iv) the proxy statement was
materially misleading and/or incomplete.

The causes of action set forth in the complaint are (i) a claim
for breaches of the fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, fair
dealing and due care, (ii) a claim for failure to disclose, and
(iii) a claim for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty.
The plaintiff primarily seeks to enjoin the consummation of the
Sale Transaction unless and until defendants provide all material
facts in the proxy statement, and the plaintiff also seeks
compensatory and/or rescissory damages as allowed by law for the
plaintiff.

The Company believes the claims alleged by the plaintiff are
without merit and it intends to vigorously defend against them.


SWISS-AMERICAN: Falsely Marketed EltaMD UV Products, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Dayan, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Swiss-American Products, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-06895 (E.D.N.Y., December 4, 2015) is brought on behalf of
all the individuals who purchased EltaMD UV Aero product at any
time during the applicable statute of limitations period up to and
including the present, that was falsely marketed to the public
that it is an SPF (sunburn protection factor) 45, when, in fact,
it is merely the equivalent of SPF 18.

Swiss-American Products, Inc. is a Texas corporation that
manufactures specialty moisturizer developed to stop dry skin
problems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      Joseph Lipari, Esq.
      Jean M. Sedlak, Esq.
      THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
      85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
      Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
      Telephone: (845) 483-7100
      Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
      E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
              liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com


SYMANTEC CORP: Paid $30 Million Settlement Amount
-------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2015, that the Company has paid
the $30 million settlement amount in a class action lawsuit.

On January 24, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and its previous e-commerce vendor Digital River, Inc.;
the lawsuit alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition
Law, the California Legal Remedies Act and unjust enrichment
related to prior sales of Extended Download Service ("EDS") and
Norton Download Insurance ("NDI").

On March 31, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota certified a class of all people who purchased these
products between January 24, 2005, and March 10, 2011.

In August 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement
pursuant to which the Company would pay the plaintiffs $30
million, which the Company accrued. On October 8, 2015, the Court
granted approval of the settlement, which was subsequently paid by
the Company.


TALK FUSION: Operates Illegal Pyramid Scheme, "Gray" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Gray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Talk Fusion, Inc., Talk Fusion International, Inc.,
Mane World Productions, Inc., and Robert Reina, Case No. 3:15-cv-
02665-LAB-JLB (S.D. Cal., December 26, 2015) seeks relief on
behalf of all persons who were the Defendants' Associates from
September 1, 2011, until the present, and who were injured as a
result of the Defendants' operation of illegal pyramid scheme.

The Defendants market and sell various video communication
products for both personal and business use, including Web
software that allows customers to videoconference and create
video-emails that can be sent to friends, family, and customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Geoffrey J. Spreter, Esq.
      SPRETER LAW FIRM, APC
      402 W. Broadway, Suite 860
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 865-7986
      Facsimile: (619) 956-3932
      E-mail: geoff@spreterlaw.com


TD AMERITRADE: Plaintiffs Balk at Dismissal Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
plaintiffs have objected to a magistrate judge's Findings and
Recommendations, recommending the dismissal of Order Routing class
action complaints.

Five putative class action complaints have been filed regarding TD
Ameritrade's routing of client orders. The cases are pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska: Jay Zola et
al. v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., et al.; Tyler Verdieck v. TD
Ameritrade, Inc.; Bruce Lerner v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.; Michael
Sarbacker v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.; Gerald
Klein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.

The complaints in Zola, Klein and Sarbacker allege that the
defendants failed to provide clients with "best execution" and
routed orders to the market venue that paid the most for its order
flow. The complaints in Verdieck and Lerner allege that the
defendant routed its clients' non-marketable limit orders to the
venue paying the highest rates of maker rebates, and that clients
did not receive best execution on these kinds of orders.

The complaints variously include claims of breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of best execution,
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violations of Section 10(b)
and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, violation of
Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act, violation of Nebraska's
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, aiding and abetting, unjust
enrichment and declaratory judgment. The complaints seek various
kinds of relief including damages, restitution, disgorgement,
injunctive relief, equitable relief and other relief.

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

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


TD AMERITRADE: Approval of Yield Plus Fund Case Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
parties in a class action lawsuit related to the Yield Plus Fund
have filed a request for preliminary court approval of the
settlement.

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

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

On March 19, 2015, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with
Reserve Management Company, Inc. and related defendants to settle
the claims against them, subject to court approval. On March 26,
2015, the Company and the plaintiffs reached an agreement in
principle to resolve the claims against the Company and its
directors, officers and shareholders named as defendants, subject
to definitive written terms that will require court approval.

Under the agreement, the Company will make a cash contribution of
$3.75 million toward a class settlement fund. All the parties
entered into a stipulation of settlement as of June 4, 2015,
subject to court approval, and filed a request for the Court's
preliminary approval of the settlement and approval of notices to
class members.


TECO ENERGY: MOU Reached in Merger Litigation
---------------------------------------------
TECO Energy, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 18, 2015, that TECO
Energy, Inc. (the "Company"), the individual directors of the
Company, Emera Inc. and Emera US Inc. on November 17, entered into
a memorandum of understanding with various shareholder plaintiffs
to settle, subject to court approval, all of the pending
shareholder lawsuits challenging the proposed merger of Emera US
Inc. with and into the Company pursuant to the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of September 4, 2015, by and among the
Company, Emera Inc. and Emera US Inc. (the "Merger Agreement").

The lawsuits comprising the Merger Litigation are:

     * Kulas v. Hudson, et al., Case No. 15-CA-008479 (Fla. Cir.
Ct., Hillsborough County, filed September 16, 2015);

     * Stein v. TECO Energy Inc., et al., Case No. 15-CA-008541
(Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough County, filed September 17, 2015);

     * Kanter v. TECO Energy Inc., et al., Case No. 15-CA-008604
(Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough County, filed September 17, 2015);

     * Rhodes v. TECO Energy Inc., et al., Case No. 15-CA-008666
(Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough County, filed September 18, 2015);

     * Raul v. Hudson, et al., Case No. 15-CA-008670 (Fla. Cir.
Ct., Hillsborough County, filed September 18, 2015);

     * Hartman, et al. v. TECO Energy Inc., et al., Case No. 15-
CA-008873 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough County, filed September 25,
2015);

     * Block v. TECO Energy Inc., et al., Case No. 2015-CA-009011
(Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough County, filed October 1, 2015);

     * Berlin v. TECO Energy Inc., et al., Case No. 2015-CA-009015
(Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough County, filed September 30, 2015);

     * Zoller v. TECO Energy Inc., et. al., Case No. 2015-CA-
009189 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough County, filed October 6,
2015);

     * Kruse, et al. v. TECO Energy, Inc., et al., Case No, 2015-
CA-009268 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough County, filed October 8,
2015);

     * Halberstam, et al. v. TECO Energy, Inc., et al., Case No.
2015-CA-9353 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough County, filed October
12, 2015); and

     * Kanarick v. TECO Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-
2571T35JSS (M.D. Fla., filed November 2, 2015).

Subject to court approval and further definitive documentation in
a stipulation of settlement, the memorandum of understanding
provides for the resolution of all of the claims brought in the
Merger Litigation and provides that the Company will make certain
additional disclosures related to the proposed merger. Nothing in
the Current Report on Form 8-K, the memorandum of understanding or
any stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality of any of the disclosures set forth
therein. The memorandum of understanding provides, subject to
court approval (following notice to class members), for a release
and settlement by the purported class of shareholders of all
claims against the defendants and their affiliates and agents in
connection with the Merger Agreement and transactions and
disclosures related thereto. There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties
were to enter into a stipulation of settlement.


TEXTURA CORP: Bid to Dismiss Illinois Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Textura Corporation's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit in
Illinois remains pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On October 7, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of federal securities laws was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its executive officers. An
amended complaint was filed on February 17, 2015.

"The amended complaint alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by the Company and its executive officers for
making allegedly materially false and misleading statements and by
failing to disclose allegedly material facts regarding its
business and operations between June 7, 2013 and September 29,
2014. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief. We believe the lawsuit is without merit and intend to
defend the case vigorously. We filed a motion to dismiss on May 4,
2015," the Company said.


TOWERS WATSON: Defending Consolidated Suit over Willis Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Towers Watson & Co. is defending a consolidated class action
lawsuit regarding the Company's merger with Willis Group Holdings
PLC, Towers said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

Multiple complaints challenging the Towers Watson | Willis Merger
have been filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware.  See New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity
Fund v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11270-CB (filed on
July 9, 2015), City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund v.
Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 11275-CB (filed on July 10, 2015), Cordell
v. Haley, et al., C.A. No. 11358-CB (filed on July 31, 2015) and
Mills v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11423 (filed on
August 24, 2015). These complaints were filed by purported
stockholders of Towers Watson on behalf of a putative class
comprised of all Towers Watson stockholders. The complaints
generally allege that Towers Watson's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Towers Watson stockholders by agreeing to
merge Towers Watson with Willis through an inadequate and unfair
process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, and by
agreeing to unfair deal protection devices, and that Willis and
the Merger Sub formed for purposes of consummating the proposed
merger aided and abetted those alleged breaches.

On August 17, 2015, the court consolidated the first three filed
actions (the fourth, Mills, had not at that time been filed) and
any other actions then pending or thereafter filed arising out of
the same issues of fact under the caption In re Towers Watson &
Co. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 11270-CB.  On
September 9, 2015, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action and
in Mills filed a consolidated amended complaint, which, among
other things, added claims for alleged misstatements and omissions
from a preliminary proxy statement and prospectus for the merger
dated August 27, 2015.  The consolidated amended complaint seeks,
among other things, to enjoin the merger and an award of damages
in an unspecified amount against the Towers Watson directors.

On September 17, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
proceedings and a motion for a preliminary injunction.  On October
14, 2015, the defendants filed opposition papers to the motion for
expedited proceedings.  On October 20, 2015, the plaintiffs
withdrew their motion for expedited proceedings and motion for a
preliminary injunction.

Based on all of the information to date, and given the stage of
the matter, we are currently unable to provide an estimate of the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss. The Towers Watson
directors intend to defend themselves vigorously against the
claims asserted in the consolidated amended complaint.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Cohen" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Cohen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Transworld Systems, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:15-cv-08449 (D.N.J., December 3, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Transworld Systems, Inc. operates a debt collection agency in New
Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 695-3282
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
      E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com


TREMOR VIDEO: Appeal from Case Dismissal Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Tremor Video, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that an appeal remains
pending related to the dismissal of a class action lawsuit in New
York.

In November 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(the "Court") against the Company, its directors and certain of
its executive officers, which alleged certain misrepresentations
by the Company in connection with its initial public offering
concerning its business and prospects.  The lawsuit seeks
unspecified damages.

On March 5, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit and entered judgment in the Company's favor.
On April 7, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the judgment
and for leave to file an amended complaint ("Motion to Vacate").
On June 5, 2015, the Court entered an order denying the Motion to
Vacate.

On July 1, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and on August 25,
2015 plaintiffs filed their appellate brief in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On September 29, 2015, the Company filed an answering brief in
response to plaintiffs' appeal.  On October 13, 2015, plaintiffs
filed their reply brief.


TRIMAC TRANSPORTATION: McCowen Plaintiff May File Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg for the Northern District of
California gave his stamp of approval on a joint stipulation
granting the plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint in
the case, LODUSKY McCOWEN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRIMAC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
(WESTERN), INC., a Delaware corporation; an DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-02694-RS (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff filed the putative class action Complaint against
Defendant on June 10, 2014, alleging the following causes of
action: (1) failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked; (2)
failure to pay designated rates for all hours worked; (3) wages
below the designated rate for actual miles driven; (4) failure to
provide meal periods; (5) failure to provide rest periods; (6)
failure to timely furnish accurate, itemized wage statements; (7)
failure to pay all wades due at time of termination of employment;
(8) violation of California's Unfair Competition Act (Bus. & Prof.
Code Sections 17200, et seq.); and (9) for civil penalties
pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act (Labor
Code Sections 2698, et seq.).

Plaintiff sent on June 10, 2014, a notice to the Labor Workforce
Development Agency (LWDA) of the violations alleged in the
Complaint and the facts and theories which support the alleged
violations, along with a copy of the Complaint.

Defendant filed its Answer on August 1, 2014.

More than 33 calendar days have passed since Plaintiff gave notice
to the LWDA, but the LWDA has provided no notice that it intends
to investigate the alleged violations.

Plaintiff now seeks to file a First Amended Complaint adding
allegations that the jurisdictional prerequisites to the
maintenance of Plaintiff's Ninth Cause of Action have been
satisfied.

A copy of the January 25, 2016 Stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/h06lGSfrom Leagle.com.

Lodusky McCowen, Plaintiff, is represented by:

     Christina Ann Humphrey, Esq.
     Leslie H. Joyner, Esq.
     Stanley Donald Saltzman, Esq.
     Marlin & Saltzman
     3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
     Irvine, CA 92602
     Tel: (714) 669-4900
     Fax: (714) 669-4570
     E-mail: ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com
             ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com

Trimac Transportation Services (Western), Inc., Defendant, is
represented by:

     Richard Howard Rahm, Esq.
     Angela Joy Rafoth, Esq.
     Littler Mendelson, PC
     650 California Street, 20th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Tel: (415) 433-1940
     Fax: (415) 399-8490
     E-mail: rrahm@littler.com


TURTLE BEACH: Order Denying Motion to Dismiss under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that an order
denying the motion to dismiss a merger class action lawsuit is
under review by the Nevada Supreme Court.

On August 5, 2013, VTB Holdings, Inc. ("VTBH") and its subsidiary,
Voyetra Turtle Beach, Inc. ("VTB"), and the Company (f/k/a
Parametric) announced that they had entered into the Merger
Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an approximately
80% ownership interest and existing shareholders would maintain an
approximately 20% ownership interest in the combined company.
Following the announcement, several shareholders filed class
action lawsuits in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the
Merger. The plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of the
Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the shareholders by agreeing to a Merger that allegedly
undervalued the Company.

VTBH and the Company were named as defendants in these lawsuits
under the theory that they had aided and abetted the Company's
Board of Directors in allegedly violating their fiduciary duties.
The plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin closing of the Merger, which, by agreement, was
heard by the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited
to participate. On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada
cases denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

Following the closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint, which made essentially the same
allegations and sought monetary damages as well as an order
rescinding the Merger. The California plaintiffs dismissed their
action without prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada
action, which was granted. Subsequent to the intervention, the
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which made essentially
the same allegations as prior complaints and sought monetary
damages.

On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the
action, but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014. That denial
is currently under review by the Nevada Supreme Court , which held
a hearing on the Company's petition for review on September 1,
2015.  After the hearing, the Nevada Supreme Court requested
supplemental briefing, which the parties completed on October 13,
2015.  The Nevada Supreme Court also invited the Business Law
Section of the Nevada State Bar to submit an amicus brief by
December 3, 2015.

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


US WELL: "Lackie" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------
Jeff Lackie, William Crandell, and all others similarly situated
v. U.S. Well Services, LLC and Achilles Group, LLC, Case No. 2:15-
cv-03078 (S.D. Ohio, December 11, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio
and Pennsylvania wage-and-hour statutes.

Defendant U.S. Well Services is an oilfield services provider of
well stimulation services to the upstream oil and gas industry and
engages in high-pressure hydraulic fracturing in unconventional
oil and natural gas basins.

Defendant Achilles Group is a management consulting company with
its principal place of business in Houston, Texas.

Defendant U.S. Well Services outsourced to Achilles Group its
entire Human Resources function.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER, LLC
      4580 Stephen Circle, N.W., Ste 201
      Canton, OH 44718
      Tel: (330) 470-4428
      E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com

          - and -

      Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
      46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104
      Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
      Tel: (440) 973-9000
      E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com

          - and -

      Steven G. Thomakos, Esq.
      STEVEN G. THOMAKOS, LLC
      P.O. Box 944
      221 Front Avenue, S.W.
      New Philadelphia, OH 44663
      Tel: (330) 308-0500
      E-mail: thomakoslaw6@aol.com


UTAH: No State Funding for Indigent Defense, Class Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Utah "for decades" has dumped the costs of indigent criminal
defense on its counties, leading to constitutionally inadequate
defense from overworked and underpaid attorneys, two men claim in
a class action.

William Cox and Edward Paulus sued the state, Washington County,
Gov. Gary Herbert and the leaders of both houses in the
Legislature on Jan. 22 in Federal Court.

Utah is one of only two states nationwide that provide no state
funding for indigent defense. It ranks 48th in the nation in per
capita funding of indigent defense, according to the complaint.
Nor has the state set standards for contracted indigent defenders,
or ensured that counties provide "constitutionally adequate" legal
representation, the men say. Utah counties design and administer
their own indigent defense programs.

Washington County uses fixed-price contracts to pay local
attorneys for indigent defense, and budgeted $760,688 for indigent
defense in this year. The county budgeted $2.8 million for
prosecution this year, and the state has budgeted $18.6 million
for criminal prosecution, and not a dime for defense.

Washington County is in the extreme southwest corner of the state.
Its seat is St. George.

"Defendants enter into fixed-price contracts with local attorneys
to provide indigent defense services to those charged with
criminal wrongdoing in the district court," the complaint states.
"The contacts are structured and administered in a manner that
impedes the ability of the attorneys to provide constitutionally
adequate legal representation to their clients."

The state does this, the plaintiffs say, "to minimize potential
financial liability rather than to ensure adequate defense
representation."

"To keep costs low, the defendants refuse to budget for necessary
attorney staff, they refuse to compensate indigent counsel
adequately, and they refuse to provide adequate funds for
necessary support services such as investigators, expert
witnesses, paralegal, and secretarial assistance," the lawsuit
adds.

Nor does the state require that public defenders be "hired on
merit, train them in criminal defense, issue written practice
standards, or monitor or limit excessive workloads."

"Defendants have known for decades that the failure to set
adequate and provide the resources to meet them, and the
consequent inability to provide constitutionally adequate legal
representation, was improper," the complaint states.

Plaintiffs' counsel Michael Studebaker told Courthouse News that
the state's funding requirements, or lack thereof, mean "only the
rich get justice."

"Our indigent defense system fails all national standards. More
importantly, it fails those charged with a crime," Studebaker
said. "It leads to a system of only the rich get justice.
Washington County is just the tip of the iceberg."

The ACLU of Utah, which is not a party to the case, said Utah is
"experiencing a catastrophic failure of public defense."

"Every day, all across Utah, members of our communities are being
either functionally or explicitly denied their Sixth Amendment
right to legal counsel, if they are unable to afford an attorney,"
the ACLU said.

Gov. Herbert's deputy director of communications, Aimee Edwards,
could not immediately be reached for comment Jan. 22

Cox, charged in Washington County with a third-degree felony for
working as an unlicensed broker or agent, faces at least 5 years
in prison.

Paulus faces up to life on first-degree felony aggravated sexual
abuse charges.  They seek class certification and an injunction
requiring the defendants to implement a full-time indigent defense
program, to comply with the Sixth and 14th Amendments.

Attorney Studebaker's office is in Ogden.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Time to Respond to Federal Suit Not Yet Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond
to the federal lawsuit litigation relating to the Eagle Rock
merger has not yet been set.

On October 8, 2015, Vanguard completed the merger with Eagle Rock
Energy Partners, L.P. and pursuant the terms of the merger
agreement, Eagle Rock has become a wholly-owned indirect
subsidiary of Vanguard.

On May 28, 2015 and June 10, 2015, alleged Eagle Rock unitholders
(the "State Plaintiffs") filed two derivative and class action
lawsuits against Eagle Rock, Eagle Rock GP, Eagle Rock Energy G&P,
LLC ("Eagle Rock G&P"), Vanguard, Talon Merger Sub, LLC, a wholly
owned indirect subsidiary of Vanguard ("Merger Sub"), and the
members of Eagle Rock G&P's board of directors (collectively, the
"Defendants"). These lawsuits have been consolidated as Irving and
Judith Braun v. Eagle Rock Energy GP, L.P. et al., Cause No. 2015-
30441, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 125th
Judicial District (the "State Lawsuits").

On June 1, 2015, another alleged Eagle Rock unitholder (the
"Federal Plaintiff" and, together with the State Plaintiffs, the
"Plaintiffs") filed a class action lawsuit against Defendants.
This lawsuit is styled Pieter Heydenrych v. Eagle Rock Energy
Partners, L.P. et al., Cause No. 4:15-cv-01470, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division (together with the State Lawsuits, the "Lawsuits").

The Plaintiffs allege a variety of causes of action challenging
the Eagle Rock Merger, including that (i) the members of Eagle
Rock G&P's board of directors have allegedly breached duties and
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in connection
with the Eagle Rock Merger, and (ii) Eagle Rock GP, Eagle Rock
G&P, Vanguard, and Merger Sub have allegedly aided and abetted in
these alleged breaches. In general, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Eagle Rock Merger (a) provided inadequate consideration to Eagle
Rock unitholders, (b) was not subject to minority unitholder
approval due to a support agreement and the absence of a majority-
of-the-minority vote requirement, (c) contained contractual terms
(e.g., the no-solicitation, matching rights, and termination fee
provisions) that may have dissuaded other potential merger
partners from making alternative proposals, and (d) did not
include a collar to protect Eagle Rock unitholders against
declines in Vanguard's unit price. The Federal Plaintiff also
alleges that Defendants have violated Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

In general, the Federal Plaintiff alleges that the registration
statement filed in connection with the Eagle Rock Merger failed,
among other things, to disclose allegedly material details
concerning (i) Eagle Rock's and Vanguard's financial and
operational projections, (ii) the analysis underlying the opinion
of the financial advisor to Eagle Rock, (iii) the analysis
underlying the opinion of the financial advisor to Vanguard, and
(iv) the background of the Eagle Rock Merger.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs seek to have the Eagle
Rock Merger rescinded. The Federal Plaintiff also seeks damages.
The Plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees.

The Defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise
respond to the Federal Lawsuit has not yet been set. The
Defendants have answered the State Lawsuits, denying the
allegations therein. Vanguard cannot predict the outcome of the
Lawsuits or any others that might be filed subsequent to the date
of the filing of this report; nor can Vanguard predict the amount
of time and expense that will be required to resolve the Lawsuits.
The Defendants believe the Lawsuits are without merit and intend
to vigorously defend against them.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Time to Respond to LRE Merger Suit Not Yet Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
Defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond
to the lawsuit related to the merger with LRR Energy, L.P. has not
yet been set.

On October 5, 2015, Vanguard completed the transactions
contemplated by the Purchase Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
as of April 20, 2015, pursuant to which a subsidiary of Vanguard
merged into LRR Energy, L.P. and, at the same time, Vanguard
acquired LRE GP, LLC, the general partner of LRR Energy, L.P.

A putative class action was filed on June 3, 2015 in connection
with the LRE Merger by a purported LRE unitholder (the "LRE
Delaware State Plaintiff") against LRE, LRE GP, the members of the
LRE GP board of directors, Vanguard, Lighthouse Merger Sub, LLC,
an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Vanguard ("Lighthouse
Merger Sub"), and the other parties to the LRE Merger Agreement
(collectively, the "LRE Litigation Defendants"). The lawsuit was
styled Barry Miller v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Case No. 11087-
VCG, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "LRE
Delaware State Lawsuit").

On July 23, 2015, the LRE Delaware State Plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed the LRE Delaware State Lawsuit without prejudice.

On July 10, 2015 and July 13, 2015, two additional purported LRE
unitholders (the "LRE Texas State Plaintiffs") filed putative
class action lawsuits against the LRE Litigation Defendants. These
lawsuits were styled (a) Christopher Tiberio v. Eric Mullins et
al., Cause No. 2015-39864, in the District Court of Harris County,
Texas, 334th Judicial District; and (b) Eddie Hammond v. Eric
Mullins et al., Cause No. 2015-40154, in the District Court of
Harris County, Texas, 295th Judicial District (the "LRE Texas
State Lawsuits"). On July 28, 2015, the LRE Texas State Lawsuits
were nonsuited without prejudice.

On July 14, 2015, an additional purported LRE unitholder (the "LRE
Texas Federal Plaintiff") filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the LRE Litigation Defendants. This lawsuit was styled
Ronald Krieger v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Civil Action No. 4:15-
cv-2017, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division (the "LRE Texas Federal
Lawsuit"). On July 17, 2015, the LRE Texas Federal Plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the LRE Texas Federal Lawsuit without
prejudice.

On August 18, 2015, another purported LRE unitholder (the "LRE
Plaintiff") filed a putative class action lawsuit against the
members of the LRE GP board of directors, Vanguard, and Lighthouse
Merger Sub (the "LRE Lawsuit Defendants"). This lawsuit is styled
Robert Hurwitz v. Eric Mullens et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-
00711-UNA, in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware (the "LRE Lawsuit").

The LRE Lawsuit alleges that the LRE Lawsuit Defendants violated
Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder. In general, the LRE Plaintiff alleges that
the proxy statement/prospectus filed in connection with the LRE
Merger failed, among other things, to disclose allegedly material
details concerning (i) the background of the LRE Merger, (ii) the
financial analyses conducted by LRE's and the LRE conflicts
committee's financial advisors in connection with the LRE Merger,
(iii) LRE's and Vanguard's financial and operational projections,
and (iv) alleged conflicts of interest held by one of LRE's
financial advisors.

The LRE Plaintiff seeks, among other relief, to rescind the LRE
Merger, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

The LRE Plaintiff has not yet served the LRE Lawsuit Defendants,
and the LRE Lawsuit Defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss,
or otherwise respond to the LRE Lawsuit has not yet been set.

Vanguard cannot predict the outcome of the LRE Lawsuit or any
others that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of
this report; nor can Vanguard predict the amount of time and
expense that will be required to resolve the LRE Lawsuit. The LRE
Lawsuit Defendants believe the LRE Lawsuit is without merit and
intend to vigorously defend against it.


VCA INC: Continues to Defend Suits by Veterinary Assistants
-----------------------------------------------------------
VCA Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuits filed by
veterinary assistants, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

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

"On May 7, 2014, we obtained partial summary judgment, dismissing
four of the eight claims of the complaint, including the claims
for failure to pay regular and overtime wages.

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

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

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

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

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


VCA INC: $1.25MM Settlement in Courier's Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
VCA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that a $1,250,000 settlement
reached in a class action lawsuit filed by an individual who
provided courier services with respect to the Company's laboratory
clients in California remains pending.

"On July 12, 2013, an individual who provided courier services
with respect to our laboratory clients in California filed a
purported class action lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Santa Clara - San Jose
Branch, titled Carlos Lopez vs. Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC,
Antech Diagnostics, Inc., et al. Logistics Delivery Solutions,
LLC, a co-defendant in the lawsuit, is a company with which Antech
has contracted to provide courier services in California," the
Company said.

The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of individuals who
were engaged by Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC to perform such
courier services and alleges, among other allegations, that
Logistics Delivery Solutions and Antech Diagnostics improperly
classified the plaintiffs as independent contractors, improperly
failed to pay overtime wages, and improperly failed to provide
proper meal periods. The lawsuit seeks damages, statutory
penalties, and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs.

The parties have an agreement in principle to settle the action,
on a class-wide basis, for an amount not to exceed $1,250,000.
Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, has agreed to pay half of the
claim.

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


VCA INC: "Graham" Class Suit in Early Procedural Stage
------------------------------------------------------
VCA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that the class action lawsuit
filed by Tony M. Graham is in an early procedural stage.

"On May 12, 2014, an individual client who purchased goods and
services from one of our animal hospitals filed a purported class
action lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, titled Tony M. Graham vs. VCA
Antech, Inc. and VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc.," the Company said.

"The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of the plaintiff and
other individuals who purchased similar goods and services from
our animal hospitals and alleges, among other allegations, that we
improperly charged such individuals for "biohazard waste
management" in connection with the services performed. The lawsuit
seeks compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts,
and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs.

"VCA successfully had the venue transferred to the Southern
District of California. This case is in an early procedural stage
and we intend to vigorously defend this action. At this time, we
are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of
possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any, would have a
material effect on our results of operations or financial position
taken as a whole."


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Katzschner" Seeks Damages Under CAFA
-------------------------------------------------------
Marc Katzschner, Brett Klynn, Joe Herr, Andrey Tavera, Lauren
Houlik, and Julie Price, and all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Audi of
America LLC, Audi of America, Inc., Porsche AG, and Porsche Cars
North America, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-05682 (N.D. Calif., December
11, 2015), seek damages, injunctive relief, and equitable relief
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act for the conduct of
Defendants over the installation of a "defeat device".

Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted
the Affected Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names
throughout all of the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jacob Richards, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
      300 Lakeside Drive, Ste 1000
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510) 463-3900
      Fax: (510) 463-3901
      E-mail: jrichards@kellerrohrback.com


W2007 GRACE: W.D. Tenn. Judge Grants Final Approval of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Western District of Tennessee,
has granted final approval to the W2007 Grace Acquisition I, Inc.
Preferred Shareholder Settlement, according to the law firm
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP.

Chimicles said the settlement is valued at more than $72 million.

The case is, Johnson, et al. v. W2007 Grace Acquisition I, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-2777 (W.D. Tenn.).  A copy of the firm's
post is available at http://is.gd/vWSMY7 Hon. Samuel H. Mays
presides over the case.

W2007 Grace Acquisition I, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that in
September 2013, a putative class action lawsuit (the Johnson
Lawsuit) was filed in the Chancery Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee (the Chancery Court) by several current and former
shareholders of the Series B and C preferred shares of Grace
Acquisition I. The complaint, which alleges, among other things,
breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty that resulted in
the loss of Series B and Series C preferred share value, names
Grace Acquisition I, members of Grace Acquisition I's board of
directors, PFD Holdings, GS Group, Whitehall, Goldman Sachs Realty
Management, L.P. and Grace I as defendants.

On October 4, 2013, the defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (the
Federal Court). In November 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand the case back to the Chancery Court, which the defendants
opposed.

On July 28, 2014, the Federal Court denied the plaintiffs' motion
to remand.

In addition, in January 2014, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Johnson Lawsuit and the motion was fully briefed on
April 24, 2014.

In October 2013, a similar lawsuit was filed by another plaintiff
in the same Chancery Court (the Dent Lawsuit), alleging similar
breaches against several of the same defendants named in the
Johnson Lawsuit, in addition to a former member of the Company's
board of directors.

In January 2014, the plaintiffs and defendants in the Dent Lawsuit
agreed to stay that case until the motion to remand in the Johnson
Lawsuit was decided.  As stipulated by the parties, plaintiff must
file any response to defendants' motion to stay within ten
business days after notice of the Federal Court decision denying
the remand motion.  Defendants notified plaintiff of the
resolution of the remand motion in the Johnson Lawsuit, and
plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion to stay. The
proposed settlement in the Johnson Lawsuit purports to encompass
the claims asserted in the Dent Lawsuit.

In August 2014, the Company and the other defendants entered into
a non-binding memorandum of understanding (the August 20, 2014
MOU) with respect to a settlement of the claims raised in the
Johnson Lawsuit. On August 22, 2014, the parties notified the
Federal Court of the proposed settlement, and the Federal Court
agreed that the parties would no longer be subject to pending
deadlines in the current scheduling order. On September 2, 2014,
in light of the proposed settlement, defendants filed a motion to
withdraw their motion to dismiss without prejudice to renew that
motion if the proposed settlement of the Johnson Lawsuit does not
become final. The Federal Court granted the motion. The parties
submitted the proposed settlement stipulation and related papers
to the Federal Court for approval on October 9, 2014, and filed
additional papers in support of settlement on December 4, 2014 and
March 20, 2015.

The stipulation was preliminarily approved by the Federal Court on
April 30, 2015 and remains subject to final approval by the
Federal Court.

A hearing on final approval was held on September 11, 2015.

The stipulation of settlement would settle claims with respect to
two classes described in the Johnson Lawsuit: (1) the "Holder
Class" consisting of any and all persons who, as of August 22,
2014 and through the effective time of the merger contemplated by
the stipulation, hold the preferred stock, excluding defendants
and their affiliates, persons who opt out of the Holder Class and
holders of dissenting shares and (2) the "Seller Class" consisting
of all persons who sold some or all of their shares of preferred
stock between October 25, 2007 and October 8, 2014, inclusive, and
suffered a loss, excluding the defendants, their affiliates and
persons who sold shares to PFD Holdings, and persons who opt out
of the Seller Class.

The stipulation of settlement generally provides for the
following: (1) the effectuation of a merger that will result in
the exchange of $26.00 in cash for each share of Series B and C
preferred stock outstanding; (2) the establishment of a $6 million
fund to be distributed pursuant to a plan of allocation to members
of the Seller Class; and (3) an award of $4 million in counsel
fees, subject to approval by the Federal Court.

Therefore, during the three months ended June 30, 2014, the
Company accrued $24.25 million related to the agreement which is
included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities in the
accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets and in
contingent loss on litigation settlement in the condensed
consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss. In
June 2015, the Company paid $0.25 million to the trust created for
the Seller Class and the Company anticipates funding the balance
of the settlement with cash on hand or, if necessary, funding from
Whitehall. The proposed settlement in the Johnson Lawsuit purports
to encompass the claims asserted in the Dent Lawsuit. Ongoing
defense costs will be expensed as incurred.

Grace Acquisition I, Inc. is the result of the October 25, 2007
acquisition of Equity Inns, Inc.  The company owned 111 hotels at
closing.


WEC ENERGY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held
--------------------------------------------------
WEC Energy Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court in
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, was scheduled to hold a hearing
December 17, 2015, to consider final approval of a settlement in a
class action lawsuit filed by former shareholders of Integrys.

On June 29, 2015, Wisconsin Energy Corporation acquired Integrys
Holding, Inc. (previously known as Integrys Energy Group, Inc.),
and the combined company was renamed WEC Energy Group, Inc.

Since the announcement of the acquisition, Integrys and its board
of directors, along with WEC Energy Group, have been named as
defendants in ten separate purported class action lawsuits filed
in Brown County, Wisconsin (three of the cases -- Rubin v.
Integrys, et al., Blachor v. Integrys, et al., and Albera v.
Integrys, et al.), Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (two of the cases -
- Amo v. Integrys, et al. and Inman v. Integrys, et al.), Cook
County, Illinois (two of the cases -- Taxman v. Integrys, et al.
and Curley v. Integrys, et al.), and the federal court for the
Northern District of Illinois (three of the cases -- Steiner v.
Integrys, et al., Tri-State Joint Fund v. Integrys, et al., and
Collison v. Integrys, et al.).

In the Tri-State Joint Fund case, WEC Energy Group's CEO was also
named as a defendant.

The cases were brought on behalf of proposed classes consisting of
shareholders of Integrys. The complaints allege, among other
things, that the Integrys board members breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to maximize the value to be received by
Integrys's shareholders, that WEC Energy Group aided and abetted
the breaches of fiduciary duty, and that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus contains material misstatements and
omissions. The Brown County and Cook County cases have been
dismissed in favor of the Milwaukee County actions.

On November 12, 2014, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding which provides the basis for a complete settlement
of these actions. A Stipulation of Settlement was presented to the
Court in late July 2015.

On September 8, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement, ordered notice of the proposed settlement to be
sent to the class consisting of former shareholders of Integrys,
and set a final hearing date of December 17, 2015 on this matter.


WSFS FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Alliance Merger Suit
---------------------------------------------------
WSFS Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a memorandum
of understanding has been reached by parties in the case, Alliance
Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania Derivative and Class Action
Litigation.

Four purported shareholder derivative and class action complaints
relating to the pending merger with Alliance Bancorp Inc. of
Pennsylvania were filed during the quarter ended June 30, 2015.
These actions were consolidated under the caption In re: Alliance
Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania Derivative and Class Action
Litigation, Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County,
Pennsylvania, Consol. Action Lead Case No. 2015-3606 (Civil Div.)
(the Alliance Action). The complaint named as defendants Alliance
Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania, its directors and certain of its
officers, and the Company (the Defendants).

On June 11, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, Alliance, WSFS and the other
Defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the MOU)
with the plaintiffs ( the Plaintiffs) regarding the settlement of
the Alliance Action. Pursuant to the MOU, Alliance filed with the
SEC and made publicly available to Alliance shareholders
supplemental disclosures, and the Plaintiffs agreed to release
Alliance, WSFS and the other Defendants from all claims related to
the Merger Agreement and the proposed merger, subject to approval
of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County (the Court).

In the MOU, the parties agreed to negotiate in good faith to
prepare a stipulation of settlement to be filed with the Court and
other documentation as may be required to effectuate the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties ultimately
will enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will
approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. The proposed settlement contemplated by the MOU will
become void in the event that the parties do not enter into such
stipulation or the Court does not approve the settlement.

"There were no material changes or additions to other significant
pending legal or other proceedings involving us other than those
arising out of routine operations. Management does not anticipate
that the ultimate liability, if any, arising out of such other
proceedings will have a material effect on the Consolidated
Financial Statements," the Company said.

On October 9, 2015, the Company completed the merger of Alliance
into the Company and Alliance Bank into WSFS Bank. Alliance is a
locally-managed institution with eight branch locations
headquartered in Broomall, PA.


XOMA CORP: "Markette" & "Fieser" Cases Related
----------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the Northern District
of California signed off on a stipulation and order providing that
these two cases should be related pursuant to Northern District of
California Local Rule 3-12(a):

     -- Joseph F. Markette's putative class action complaint,
        Case No. 3-15-CV-3425-HSG, against defendants XOMA
        Corporation, John W. Varian and Paul D. Rubin for
        violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
        Exchange Act of 1934, filed July 24, 2015; and

     -- Deborah A. Fieser's shareholder derivative action
        complaint, Case No. 4:15-CV-05236-KAW against defendants
        XOMA Corporation, W. Denman Van Ness, William K. Bowes
        Jr., Peter Barton Hutt, Joseph M. Limber, Kelvin M. Neu,
        Patrick J. Scannon, John W. Varian, Timothy P. Walbert,
        Paul D. Rubin, and Jack L. Wyszomierski, for breach of
        fiduciary duty, arising out of largely the same
        underlying facts as the Markette Class Action, filed
        November 16, 2015.

A copy of the Stipulation and Order to Relate Cases, dated January
25, 2016, is available at http://is.gd/ssu64Kfrom Leagle.com.

An Initial Case Management Conference scheduled for October 27,
2015, in the Markette case -- along with any associated deadlines
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules
(including ADR deadlines) -- was vacated and reset after
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, pursuant to an
August 27, 2015 Stipulation and Order, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/4JcVpifrom Leagle.com.

XOMA said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015, that on July 24, 2015, a purported
securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No.
3:15-cv-3425) against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Medical Officer.  The complaint asserts that all
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5, by
making materially false or misleading statements regarding the
Company's EYEGUARD-B study between November 6, 2014 and July 21,
2015. The plaintiffs also allege that Messrs. Varian and Rubin
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiffs seek
class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages,
an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.

Based on a review of the allegations, the Company believes that
the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims. Currently, the Company does
not believe that the outcome of this matter will have a material
adverse effect on its business or financial condition, although an
unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse effect on its
results of operations for the period in which such a loss is
recognized. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of loss that may arise from this lawsuit.

Joseph F. Markette, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Punzalan, Esq.
-- markp@punzalanlaw.com -- Punzalan Law, P.C.

Defendants John Varian, Paul D. Rubin, and XOMA Corporation are
represented by:

     Amanda Alison Main, Esq.
     Brett Hom De Jarnette, Esq.
     Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Esq.
     John C. Dwyer, Esq.
     Cooley LLP
     3175 Hanover Street
     Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
     Tel: (650) 843 5228
     Fax: (650) 849 7400
     E-mail: jsantamaria@cooley.com
             dwyerjc@cooley.com


                            *********

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  * * *