---

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

          Wednesday, September 7, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 179




                            Headlines


23ANDME INC: Arbitration Enforceable Under California Law
A & I TRANSPORT: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action
ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Appeal of Class Action Dismissal Underway
AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action in Mass.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Seeks Review From Ruling in "Vigna" Suit

AMAZON INC: Class Action Over Sale of Diet Pill Reinstated
ASHFORD INC: To Defend Against Suit Over Remington Deal
ASSURANT SPECIALTY: Faces Forced-Placed Insurance Class Action
AT&T: Court Tosses Data Plan Internet Speed Reduction Suit
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Settlement of Arkansas Customer's Case Okayed

BANCORPSOUTH INC: Class Certification Ruling Under Appeal
BITFINEX: Class Action Mulled Over Hacking
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Munro Appeals From Ruling in "Skeen" Suit
BROOKLAND MANOR: 150 Families File Class Action
C&J ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Delaware Shareholder Suit Pending

CADIZ INC: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Settles "Danner" Bondholder Class Action
CALHOUN, GA: Court Says Indigent Bail Practices Unconstitutional
CANADA: Tainted Blood Scandal Victim to Share $207MM Fund
CANADA: Mulls '60s Scoop Class Action Settlement

CANADA: '60s Scoop Class Action Plaintiffs Get Day in Court
CARRIER IQ: $9 Million Settlement Gets Final Approval
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Says Confidential Mediation Process Ongoing
CHEVRON CORP: "White" Action Dismissed with Leave to Amend
CHINA FINANCE: Settles Securities Class Action for $3 Million

COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Ambrosio" Suit
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Opposed Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification
COOPER TIRE: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Merger Class Action
DEAN FOODS: Milk Retailers Case Scheduled for March 2017 Trial
DEAN FOODS: Indirect Purchaser Action Dismissed

DEKALB COUNTY, GA: Ex-Judge Sued Over Mishandled Traffic Cases
DENVER: Faces Class Suit Related to Police Sweeps
DIRECTV LLC: Must Face Individual Plaintiff's TCPA Suit
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 1,084 Testosterone Cases Pending at July 29
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss 3rd Amended Suit Denied

ESKOM: OUTA Mulls Class Action Over Electricity Tariff Increase
FERRARA CANDY: Court Denies Bids to Certify in "Vazquez" Suit
FERRELLGAS: 8th Circuit Agreed for Consumers to Seek Damages
FIRST CASH: Defending Against "Samtoy" Class Action
FIRST HORIZON: "Hawkins" Settlement Awaits Definitive Agreement

FIRST PREMIER BANK: Must Face Class-Action in New York
FLOWERS FOODS: Oct. 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
FORD: Vehicles Stall or Suddenly Decelerate, Class Action Says
GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Sierra Headlight Lawsuit
GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Rules on Admissibility in Cockram Case

GENKI SUSHI: Sued in Hawaii Following Hepatitis-A Outbreak
GLOBALHUE: Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
GOODMAN GLOBAL: Bid to Certify Class in "Kotsur" Suit Denied
GROUP HEALTH: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hansen" Class Suit
HAIN CELESTIAL: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action

HARMONY GOLD: Scope of Nkala Silicosis Class Action Unprecedented
HCP INC: To Defend Against Boynton Beach Action
HERTZ GLOBAL: "Sobel" Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
HERTZ GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss 4th Amended Complaint Fully Briefed
HORTONWORKS INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Case

IOWA: City Tenants' Project Settles Landlord-Tenant Class Action
J.B. HUNT: Drivers File Class Action in Los Angeles
JOHN VECCHIONE: Patient Sues Over Endocarditis Infection Outbreak
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Over Trial Drug
LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Court Snubs Class Settlement in "Bailes" Suit

LOS ANGELES, CA: $1.4-Bil. Accord in Disability Access Case OK'd
MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Fober" Suit
MAINSOURCE FINANCIAL: Case Settlement Subject to Discovery
MDL 2521: Endo, Teikoku Appeal Ruling to 9th Cir.
MDL 2724: Philadelphia, Rhode Island Cases Transferred

MERCK & CO: 4,400 Fosamax Cases Pending as of June 30
MERCK & CO: Awaits 3rd Cir. Decision on Preemption Appeal
MERCK & CO: 3,020 Femur Fracture Cases Pending in New Jersey
MERCK & CO: 295 Femur Fracture Cases Pending in California
MGM RESORTS: Objector's Settlement Appeal Remains Pending

MORGAN STANLEY: Faces $150MM Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
MYLAN N.V.: Briefing on Objections to Recommendation Completed
MYLAN N.V.: Rhode Island Case Transferred to Pennsylvania
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action in U.S. Over Rate-Rigging
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Players Pay Close Attention to Concussions

NATIONAL PARK: Daniel Appeals From D. Mont. Ruling to 9th Circuit
NETSUITE INC: Being Sold Cheaply to Oracle, Shareholders Say
NEW MEXICO: Faces Workers' Class Action for Back Pay
NEW YORK: Court Hears Arguments in Rikers Island Rape Case
PARTY CITY: Still Defends Class Action in New York

PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Illinois Court Dismissed Class Suit
PRIVATEBANCORP INC: CIBC Merger Action Remains Pending
PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 26 Hearing to Approve Deal
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Settles Class Action Over Death Benefits
PTT EXPLORATION: Jokowi Urged to Confiscate Assets Over Oil Spill

QLOGIC CORPORATION: "Bushansky" Lawsuit Still Pending
RABOBANK NA: Faces Breach of Contract Class Action in Illinois
REGENCY CAR: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Return Deposits
RESOURCE AMERICA: To Defend Against "Gansman" Suit in Pa.
SEDGWICK: Seeks Arbitration of Gender Pay Discrimination Lawsuit

SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: MSLO Merger Lawsuit Remains Pending
SHARP ELECTRONICS: Defeats N.J. Flat Screen Class Action Again
SIMILASAN CORP: Court Tosses Homeopathic Product Case Settlement
SMITH & NEPHEW: Court Reverses Class Certification Dismissal
SOTHEBY'S: Appeal on Dismissal of Remaining Claims Pending

ST. JUDE: Faces Class Suit Related to Heart Implants
STAATSLOTERIJ: Settles Lottery Misleading Advertising Case
SUNTRUST BANKS: Judge Allows 401(k) Plan Class Action to Proceed
TAKATA CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Rollover Crash Case
TANDI PRODUCTIONS: Sia Responds to Israel Concert Controversy

TOPPS: Faces Class Action by Baseball Card Collector
TRAFIGURA: Ivory Coast Toxic Waste Victims Await Compensation
TRANS UNION: Seeks Review From Verdict in "Larson" Class Suit
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trial in "Low" Case to Begin in Late November
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Court Ruled on Bids to Bar Experts

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trump Allowed to Call Expert Witnesses
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Denies Trump's Request to Decertify Class
TRUMP NAT'L: Trial Ends in Jupiter Club Membership Class Action
TWITTER: Misappropriate People's Identities, Class Action Says
UNITED NATIONS: Haiti Cholera Epidemic Class Actions Pending

UNITED STATES: Child Immigrant Legal Rights Class Action Ongoing
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Faces Class Action Over Retirement Fund
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Replaces CFO Amid Class Actions, Probes
VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Paid $39.7MM for Judgments in 9 Engle Cases
VECTOR GROUP: 3 Class Actions Pending as of June 30

VICTIM SERVICES: Appeals From Ruling in "Breazeale" Class Suit
VIVINT SOLAR: Sept. 30 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
VIVINT SOLAR: 2nd Cir. Appeal Over Case Dismissal Pending
VIVINT SOLAR: Appeal on Arbitration Order Pending
VOLKSWAGEN: 210,000 Owners Registered to Settle with Company

WALGREENS BOOTS: Faces Class Action Over Bottled Water Sales Tax
WAYFAIR INC: "Carson" Plaintiffs Withdraw Action
WEBSENSE INC: November 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WELLS FARGO: Seeks Arbitration of Overdraft Fee Claims
WHIRLPOOL: Lawyers Want Settlement Objector Disqualified

ZARA: Faces $5MM Deceptive Pricing Class Action in California

* Americans Want to Take Their Banks to Court, Pew Survey Shows
* Banks' Contracts Prevent Customers From Joining Class Actions
* Banks Face ADA Class Actions Over Inaccessible Web sites
* CFPB Closes Comment Period on Arbitration Rule
* Credit Unions Seek Exemption from CFPB Arbitration Rule

* H.R. 1927 Bill Threatens to Neuter Class Action Process
* Recent Court Rulings May Boost Confidence of Gig Employers
* Retailers See 25% Spike in Chargebacks Amid EMV Migration


                            *********


23ANDME INC: Arbitration Enforceable Under California Law
---------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Aug. 23 ruled that arbitration
agreements between companies and consumers are enforceable under
California law, even if they require the losing party to pay
attorney fees and the costs of the proceedings.

The decision hands a victory to genetic testing kit company
23andMe Inc., which was hit with a slew of consumer suits after
federal regulators ordered it to stop making health claims about
its product.

But it's also a win for the defense bar more broadly.  If it
stands, the decision in Tompkins v. 23andMe gives companies clear
license to insert fee-shifting provisions into their arbitration
clauses, resolving what had been a murky legal landscape on that
issue left by a series of California state court decisions.
"I think that it is a significant expansion of defendants' ability
to force consumers to arbitrate claims where there are attorney
fee-shifting clauses in them," said Jeremy Robinson --
jrobinson@cglaw.com -- of Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt &
Penfield in San Diego, who argued for plaintiffs.  He added that
the opinion "runs against a lot of California decisions that have
held just the opposite."

Rachel Reichblum, a spokeswoman for 23andMe, declined to comment.

The company is represented by Robert Varian of Orrick, Herrington
& Sutcliffe in the litigation.

The question before the Ninth Circuit was whether 23andMe's
arbitration clause was "substantively unconscionable" and
therefore unenforceable.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of
California in 2014 found the clause to be procedurally
unconscionable because of the way it was forced on consumers.  But
courts have held that both elements must be satisfied in order for
a clause to be struck down.

Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, who penned the opinion in favor of
23andMe's arbitration agreement, acknowledged that several state
appellate courts have held that provisions shifting legal fees are
unconscionable in the arbitration context.

But Judge Ikuta went on to say that those cases all dealt with
instances in which the fee-shifting was unilateral -- in other
words, that only the plaintiff would have to bear the costs if
they lost.

"By contrast, the plaintiffs have not identified any case where a
state appellate court held that a bilateral clause awarding
attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party was
unconscionable, whether in an arbitration or nonarbitration
context," she wrote.

23andMe's requirement that the losing party pay arbitration fees
was also not unconscionable, according to the panel.  Judge Ikuta
noted that this goes against a holding in a 2000 California
Supreme Court case known as Armendariz, but wrote that state court
decisions since then have further clarified that, unless an
agreement imposes expenses that are so high as to deny redress, it
is enforceable.

The decision comes only a day after Judge Ikuta issued a sharp
dissent to a decision striking down an arbitration clause that
barred Ernst & Young employees from taking collective action
against the accounting firm.  In her opinion in the 23andMe case,
she opened with lengthy introduction to the Federal Arbitration
Act and U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have established a
"national policy favoring arbitration."

Rounding out the panel were Circuit Judges Paul Watford and
Stephen Trott.  Judge Watford issued a separate decision in
concurrence, saying he did not see a need to address the fee-
shifting provision because 23andMe waived its right to enforce it
after the lawsuits were filed.  But like Judge Ikuta, he was
unpersuaded by other arguments plaintiffs made for why the
arbitration pact was unenforceable -- such as its inclusion of a
forum selection clause that required proceedings to take place in
San Francisco.

The genetic testing company has had mixed luck using its
arbitration clause to shut down class action litigation.  Its
attorneys at Orrick successfully convinced one arbitrator that the
agreement did not allow class arbitration, but another arbitrator
ruled the opposite way and Orrick's attempt to undo that decision
was unsuccessful.  That class arbitration proceeding is still
underway.


A & I TRANSPORT: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco employment law attorneys at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on Aug. 16 disclosed that they filed a class
action lawsuit against A & I Transport, Inc. alleging that the
California trucking company failed to lawfully compensate their
employees working as Truck Drivers for all their time spent
working, including allegedly their time spent not transporting
goods for A & I Transport.  The class action lawsuit against A & I
Transport, is currently pending in the Santa Cruz County Superior
Court, Case No. 16-CV-01894.

The class action lawsuit filed against A & I Transport, Inc. by
the San Francisco labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik alleges that the California trucking company did not have
a policy or practice which provided a full off-duty, thirty minute
uninterrupted meal break to their California truck drivers.  The
Class action lawsuit alleges that the company's alleged failure to
provide the legally required meal breaks and paid rest breaks is
evidenced by their business records which contain no evidence of
these breaks.  As a result, Truck Drivers working for A & I
Transport, Inc. allegedly forfeited meal and rest breaks without
additional compensation.

Additionally, the lawsuit states that the truck drivers working
for the company in California were allegedly paid on a piece-rate
basis.  The lawsuit alleges that the truck drivers were not paid
minimum wages because of Defendant's alleged failure to record all
time worked.  Specifically, the Complaint claims that the truck
drivers should have been paid minimum wages for their non-driving
tasks, the time spent working during pre-trip and post trip
inspections and time spent allegedly waiting for Defendant's loads
to be ready for transport.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against A & I
Transport, Inc. call Attorney Nicholas De Blouw at (866) 771-7099.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik is a labor law firm with law
offices located in San Diego, Riverside, Los Angeles, Sacramento,
and San Francisco, and Chicago.  The firm has a practice of
representing employees on a contingency basis for violations
involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment,
wrongful termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct.


ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Appeal of Class Action Dismissal Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Plaintiff's appeal
challenges the dismissal of an amended class action complaint
remains pending.

The Company said, "On March 19, 2015, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed against Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc.,
Lawrence Mehren, and Steve Reichling, Rapp v. Accelerate
Diagnostics, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, District of
Arizona, 2:2015-cv-00504. The complaint alleges that we violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making false or misleading statements about
our ID/AST System, formerly called the BACcel System. Plaintiff
purports to bring the action on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired our stock between March 7, 2014
and February 17, 2015."

"On June 9, 2015, Julia Chang was appointed Lead Plaintiff of the
purported class. On June 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b- 5, by making false
or misleading statements or omissions about our ID/AST System and
by allegedly employing schemes to defraud. Plaintiff sought
certification of the action as a class action, compensatory
damages for the class in an unspecified amount, legal fees and
costs, and such other relief as the court may order.

"Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 21,
2015. The Court granted the motion and dismissed the case with
prejudice on January 28, 2016.

"On February 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which
challenges the dismissal of the amended complaint. Chang v.
Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-CV-00504-SPL (9th
Cir. filed Feb. 26, 2016). The appeal is pending; Plaintiff filed
her Brief on Appeal on June 6, 2016."


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Aug. 17 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Aegerion" or the "Company") in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of current stock
holders of Aegerion, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

On June 14, 2016, Aegerion's Board of Directors (the "Board")
caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger
(the "Merger Agreement").  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, each outstanding share of Aegerion common stock will be
exchanged for 1.0256 shares of Parent common stock.  The Complaint
alleges that on August 8, 2016, Defendants issued materially
incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration
Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.  The Registration Statement is
deficient and misleading in that it fails to provide adequate
disclosure of all material information related to the Proposed
Transaction.

If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Seeks Review From Ruling in "Vigna" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Allstate Insurance Company filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Marc Vigna v. Allstate Insurance
Company, Case No. 3:16-cv-05474-BHS, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma.

The appellate case is captioned as Marc Vigna v. Allstate
Insurance Company, Case No. 16-80110, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Respondent MARC DANIEL VIGNA, individually and as the
representative of all persons similarly situated, is represented
by:

          Stephen M. Hansen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M HANSEN, PS
          1703A Dock Street
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 302-5955
          E-mail: steve@stephenmhansenlaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by:

          Mark L. Hanover, Esq.
          Steven M. Levy, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 876-8000
          E-mail: mark.hanover@dentons.com
                  steven.levy@dentons.com

               - and -

          Jodi A. McDougall, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          1201 Third Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98101-3071
          Telephone: (206) 373-7233
          Facsimile: (206) 621-8783
          E-mail: jmcdougall@cozen.com


AMAZON INC: Class Action Over Sale of Diet Pill Reinstated
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
federal appeals court has reinstated a class action lawsuit
against Amazon Inc. regarding its sale of a diet pill that
contained a banned stimulant, finding the company failed to prove
the plaintiff had agreed to settle his claim through arbitration.

According to court papers, in January and April 2013,
Dean Nicosia purchased 1 Day Diet, a weight loss drug that
contains a banned substance called sibutramine, which is
classified as a schedule IV stimulant.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration withdrew sibutramine from
the market in 2010 after it was revealed that it was associated
with an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes.  But the FDA
did not reveal that 1 Day Diet contained the drug until November
2013.

Amazon ceased sale of the product but did not inform Nicosia
contained sibutramine or offer him a refund.

Mr. Nicosia filed a class action suit against Amazon alleging
violations of the Consumer Product Safety Act and seeking damages
and an injunction to prevent the company from further sale of
products containing sibutramine.

Amazon's conditions of use contains a provision mandating binding
arbitration to settle claims against Amazon regarding the products
it sells and that claims would be settled on an individual basis
and not through class action.

Amazon did not compel arbitration in the case and instead moved to
dismiss Nicosia's complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing
that he had registered for an Amazon account in 2008 and, in so
doing, agreed to the company's conditions of use.

The conditions did not include the mandatory arbitration provision
in 2008, but did include it after a 2012 update, which would have
applied when Nicosia bought the pills.

Mr. Nicosia challenged the company's argument that he had
registered for an account and noted that there was no arbitration
provision in place in 2008.

He also argued that, in 2008, the conditions contained a choice of
forum clause designating state and federal courts in King County,
Washington, as the exclusive forums for any claims against the
company exceeding $7,500.

In February 2015, Eastern District Judge Sandra Townes granted
Amazon's motion.  She found that Mr. Nicosia had constructive
notice of the company's conditions of use and that, regardless of
the fact that he agreed to the conditions before the mandatory
arbitration provision was added, he was given notice that the
terms were subject to change.

Judge Townes also ruled that Nicosia did not have standing to
bring an injunction.

But on Aug. 25, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit partially vacated Judge Townes' ruling.

Writing for the court in Nicosia v. Amazon, 15-423-cv, Judge Denny
Chin said the court was not convinced that Nicosia was bound by
the arbitration clause and that Judge Townes erred in relying on
Amazon's argument that Nicosia created the Amazon account in 2008,
which ignores the possibility that he could have used an account
he shared with a family member to buy the diet pills.


ASHFORD INC: To Defend Against Suit Over Remington Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Ashford Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that defendants have not yet
responded to the class action complaint related to the Remington
transaction.

On December 11, 2015, a purported stockholder class action and
derivative complaint challenging the Remington acquisition, was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and styled
Campbell v. Bennett et al., Case No. 11796. The complaint names as
defendants each of the members of the Company's board of
directors, Archie Bennett, Jr., Mark A. Sharkey, MJB Investments
GP, LLC and Remington Holdings GP, as well as the Company as a
nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the members of the
Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's stockholders in connection with the Transactions and
that Monty Bennett, Archie Bennett, Jr., Mark A. Sharkey, MJB
Investments GP, LLC and Remington Holdings GP aided and abetted
the purported breaches of fiduciary duty.

In support of these claims, the complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Company's board of directors engaged in an unfair
process with Remington Lodging and the Bennetts and as a result
the Company overpaid for the 80% limited partnership and 100%
general partnership interests in Remington Lodging. The complaint
also alleges that the proxy statement filed with the SEC contains
certain materially false and/or misleading statements. The action
seeks injunctive relief, including enjoining the special meeting
of stockholders and any vote on the contribution or the stock
issuances or rescinding the Transactions if they are consummated,
or in the alternative an award of damages, as well as unspecified
attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to any other
relief the court may deem proper. Since the filing of the
complaint, the special meeting of stockholders and related vote
occurred with the stockholders approving the acquisition.

The outcome of this matter cannot be predicted with any certainty.
A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the
consummation of the Transactions, and an adverse judgment granting
permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely prohibit
consummation of the Transactions. The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint but intend to defend the claims raised
in this lawsuit.


ASSURANT SPECIALTY: Faces Forced-Placed Insurance Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that yet
another lender insurance class action lawsuit could soon be in the
pipeline with investigation into the machinations of Cenlar FSB,
identified as a leading provider of mortgages and mortgage
servicing suspected of participation in a "cozy" relationship with
a provider of lenders insurance.

The allegation is that Assurant Specialty Property -- a subsidiary
of Assurant Inc., and a provider of Force-Place Insurance, over-
charges for insurance coverage offering less protection than
standard policies for the money, while secretively kicking back
rebates and commissions to Cenlar, or so it is alleged.

Forced-Placed Insurance terms have long been the bane and
frustration of attorneys general for several years now.  While the
practice of force-placing property, or homeowner's insurance onto
a mortgaged real estate holding is not new -- and in fact, given
the circumstances, quite appropriate and legal -- the level of
insurance provided, the cost to the homeowner and the various
commissions, rebates and incentives provided to the mortgage
servicer in exchange for placing the business, has been described
as anything but fair.

It has been reported that Assurant has been called to the carpet
in the past over Forced-Place Insurance, including an
investigation in March, 2013 by the New York State Department of
Financial Services.  That investigation determined that Assurant
maintained a practice of providing compensation to mortgage
service providers under the guise of commissions, reinsurance
fees, or reimbursements for "qualified expenses."

Many a Force-Placed Insurance lawsuit has grown from such alleged
practices.  As noted earlier, Assurant Specialty Property is a
subsidiary of Assurant Inc.  The latter is reported to have some
$30 billion in assets.

Force-Place Insurance or lenders insurance is a perfectly legal
option available to mortgage providers and servicers in the event
that property insurance on a mortgaged property is seen to have
lapsed.  While the property owner is on title and would suffer
losses in the event of a fire or other catastrophic event, so too
would the mortgage provider having extended funds for purchasing
the property and thus, has a vested interest.

Homeowners having allowed insurance to lapse for reasons of
financial hardship or simple carelessness, are notified that
insurance requires immediate re-instatement and are given a short
period of time to correct the situation on their own.  If not, the
mortgage servicer has the right to step in and force-place
insurance on the property to ensure it is protected.

This is perfectly legal.  What is not, say plaintiffs, are the
alleged kickbacks and other payments that often flow between a
mortgage provider and the insurer.  There have also been
widespread allegations of insurance that is far more costly than
standard policies, with less coverage.  The homeowner is left to
pay the inflated fees, while the mortgage provider earns kickbacks
and commissions from the insurer in exchange for placing the
lenders insurance with them.

There have also been previous allegations that Forced-Placed
Insurance coverage has overlapped periods when private insurance
has been in force, or coverage that is not particularly
appropriate for the property.

Various Force-Placed Insurance lawsuits have been filed not only
by consumers with the help of Forced-Place Insurance attorneys,
but also attorneys general of various states seeking an end to the
practice.


AT&T: Court Tosses Data Plan Internet Speed Reduction Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal appeals court has
dismissed a lawsuit by federal officials that claimed AT&T misled
millions of smartphone customers with unlimited data plans who had
their Internet speeds cut.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said on Aug. 29 that AT&T
was exempt from the prohibition against unfair and deceptive
practices that the Federal Trade Commission cited in its 2014
lawsuit.

AT&T said it informed all unlimited data-plan customers about the
practice well before it was implemented.

The FTC did not immediately respond to an emailed request for
comment.

The FTC said AT&T failed to adequately disclose that it would
reduce customers' data speeds if they used more than a certain
amount of data in a billing period.

The Federal Communications Commission fined AT&T $100 million for
the practice last year.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Settlement of Arkansas Customer's Case Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the settlement in the
class action lawsuit by an Arkansas customer has been approved.

On January 5, 2016, the Bank entered into an agreement to settle a
class action lawsuit filed on May 18, 2010 by an Arkansas customer
of the Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Florida. The suit challenged the manner in which overdraft fees
were charged and the policies related to the posting order of
debit card and ATM transactions. The suit also made a claim under
Arkansas' consumer protection statute. The plaintiff was seeking
to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief.

As a result of this agreement, the Company recorded an expense of
$16.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2015, representing amounts
to be paid in connection with the settlement, net of amounts the
Company had already accrued for this legal proceeding in previous
periods.  The settlement was approved by the court on July 15,
2016. Pursuant to the Court's order preliminarily approving the
settlement, in the first quarter of 2016 the amounts accrued for
settlement were paid into settlement escrow funds.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Class Certification Ruling Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a petition for
immediate appeal of the class certification in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has been filed and is
pending.

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

On July 10, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims concerning
the Company's expectations about the closing of the mergers.
Class certification was granted on April 21, 2016, and a petition
for immediate appeal of the class certification has been filed and
is pending.

The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages and awards of
costs and attorneys' fees and such other equitable relief as the
Court may deem just and proper.  At this stage of the lawsuit,
management cannot determine the probability of an unfavorable
outcome to the Company as it is uncertain whether class
certification will be upheld and the exact amount of damages
(should the class remain certified) is uncertain.  Although it is
not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial
liability with respect to the litigation, management is currently
of the opinion that the outcome of this lawsuit will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated
financial position or results of operations.


BITFINEX: Class Action Mulled Over Hacking
------------------------------------------
JP Buntinx, writing for Live Bitcoin News, reports that it was
only a matter of time until somebody decided to take action
against the Bitfinex team.  A new website has been created,
discussing the class action lawsuit against this company.  Even if
this were to be legitimate, it is doubtful people will get 100% of
their money back anyway.  This debacle is far from over, though,
that much is certain.

A Bitfinex Class Action Lawsuit?
Ever since the Bitfinex exchange was hacked and lost US$65 million
in Bitcoin, there has been a debate on whether or not a class
action lawsuit would take place.  After all, exchanges are
responsible for safekeeping customer funds, and the company
utterly failed in doing so.  Then again, no one should store money
on an exchange either, so there is some room for debate there.

Things took a turn for the worse once Bitfinex announced they
would recuperate losses by reducing user balances.  In the end,
every platform user who had some balance saw it reduced by 36%.  A
lot of people are not too happy with this decision, and some are
exploring legal means to get their money back.

At the same time, a class action lawsuit might not be the best
interest of affected Bitfinex users either, though.  While this
will force the company to go into liquidation, it will only
lengthen the process of getting money back.  Just look at what is
happening to the Mt. Gox users, who have been waiting on their
funds for several years now.

The BitfinexLawsuit website seems to go ahead with pressing
charges, though.  It is true every platform user has the right to
take bitfinex to court, as the company lost their money. Moreover,
the issuance of their BFX token and making it tradable against the
US Dollar is illegal, unless they have the specific licenses to do
so.  Right now, that is not the case.

What is rather interesting is how the website mentions legal teams
will be hired to help US and EU customers only.  For now, it is
very doubtful this website is legitimate, though, and may just be
another attempt to collect user information.  However, that should
not deter users from pursuing legal action against Bitfinex if
they want to do so.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Munro Appeals From Ruling in "Skeen" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gregory S. Munro filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Joshua Skeen, et al. v. BMW of North America
LLC, et al., Case No. 2-13-cv-01531, in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 19,
2016, the Hon. William H. Walls granted final certification of the
settlement class, approved the settlement, and granted in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Action arose from alleged defects in the MINI Cooper, a line
of vehicles produced by the defendants BMW of North America, LLC,
BMW (U.S.) Holding Corp., and Bayerische Motorenwerk
Aktiengesellschaft.

The appellate case is captioned as Joshua Skeen, et al. v. BMW of
North America LLC, et al., Case No. 16-3465, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellees JOSHUA SKEEN and LAURIE FREEMAN are
represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
          KIESEL LAW
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444
          E-mail: koncius@kbla.com

               - and -

          William J. Pinilis, Esq.
          PINILIS HALPERN
          160 Morris Street
          Morristown, NJ 07960
          Telephone: (973) 401-1111
          E-mail: wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com

Defendants-Appellees BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC and BAYERISCHE
MOTORENWERKE AKTIENGESOLLSCHAFT, a foreign corporation, are
represented by:

          Daniel Z. Rivlin, Esq.
          BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC.
          1290 Avenue of the Americas, 30th floor
          New York, NY 10104
          Telephone: (212) 440-4400
          E-mail: daniel.rivlin@bipc.com

Defendants-Appellees BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC, BAYERISCHE
MOTORENWERKE AKTIENGESOLLSCHAFT, and BMW HOLDING CORP are
represented by:

          Rosemary J. Bruno, Esq.
          Christopher J. Dalton, Esq.
          BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC.
          550 Broad Street, Suite 810
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 273-9800
          E-mail: rosemary.bruno@bipc.com
                  christopher.dalton@bipc.com


BROOKLAND MANOR: 150 Families File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Britain Eakin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
estimating that a redevelopment project will displace nearly 150
low-income families in northeast D.C., residents brought a federal
class action in Washington to protect their homes.

The controversy stems from the plan to overhaul Brookland Manor
Apartments, a 20-acre apartment complex at the intersection of
Rhode Island and Montana Avenues that has housed D.C. families for
decades.

According to a complaint filed August 25, Brookland Manor has
offered subsidized housing under the federal Section 8 program
since 1977, and less than 10 percent of the complex's 535
apartments are rented at full, market-rate without public
assistance.

Adriann Borum and Lorretta Holloman, two of the plaintiffs behind
the lawsuit, say that is set to change under a proposed
redevelopment filed with the local zoning board in 2014 by Mid-
City Financial Corp.  Along with property manager Brentwood
Village, Mid-City is planning to expand Brookland Manor to 1,760
units, of which 1,646 will be apartments.  One critical change,
the complaint says, is that "the redeveloped property would have
zero four- or five-bedroom apartment units."

Borum and Holloman both rent four-bedroom apartments -- just like
the 116 households total at Brookland Manor residing in four- and
five-bedroom apartment units, as of June 2015, according to the
complaint.

"They live in their apartments with their minor children or with
their minor children and extended family members, and these
larger-size apartments are necessary to accommodate their
families," the complaint states.

Brookland Manor has 75 three-bedroom units currently, but the
redeveloped property will have just 64.

Borum and Holloman say the message is clear: large families are
"not consistent with the creation of a vibrant new community."

"Defendants have publicly stated that they will not build four- or
five-bedroom apartment units in the redeveloped property because
defendants believe that allowing large families to reside in large
units at apartment complexes is unsuitable for such families, has
an 'adverse' impact on residential quality of life, and is
inconsistent with the new community defendants seek to create,"
the complaint states.

Facing homelessness, the women are accusing the developers of
discriminating against them on the basis of familial status.

Catherine Cone, a staff attorney with Washington Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, says the
redevelopment of Brookland Manor is indicative of other
redevelopment efforts in the city to push out long time residents,
and construct properties to bring new, more affluent residents
into gentrified areas.

In this instance, the redevelopment project will have a disparate
impact on larger families, Cone said in an interview.

"Generally what we think this case shows is that not only can
redevelopment that goes unchecked lead to displacement of longtime
residents, it can also specifically affect families," Cone said.

According to the complaint, Brookland Manor is among the only
affordable residences in the northeastern part of the city that
offers larger units for bigger families. D.C. housing codes
stipulate that large families cannot reside in smaller units. Many
of the families at Brookland Manor require at least a three-
bedroom apartment to be in compliance, the complaint states.

Though Mid-City refused to comment on the pending litigation, an
article on its website says the redeveloped complex, which will
span eight blocks, will be "mixed income." Affordable housing will
make up 20 percent of the units, and the new property will include
multifamily buildings, the article says.

Mid-City's founder, the late Eugene F. Ford Sr., has been
memorialized as a champion of affordable housing.

According to the D.C. Zoning Commission's first-stage approval of
the plan, the redevelopment will have a minimal impact on current
residents.

"Mr. Meers stated that the applicant's research of the families
that are currently living in the four and five-bedroom units
resulted in the finding that all but 13 of the existing four and
five-bedroom households can be housed in smaller units based on
prevailing HUD occupancy standards," the document says,
referencing Michael Meers, Mid-City's vice president. "Mr. Meers
stated that the Applicant would meet with those 13 families in
order to ensure that they will be reasonably accommodated into the
new Brentwood Village project."

But the residents who filed the complaint disagree with that
assessment.

"Under the current redevelopment plan, all 183 households
currently living in three, four, or five-bedroom apartments at
Brookland Manor would be forced to vie for 64 three-bedroom units
at the redeveloped property," the complaint alleges, adding that
the remaining units will not be affordable.

Cone says the redevelopment of Brookland Manor is reflective of a
general shortage of affordable housing in the district - units
with more than three bedrooms are in short supply.

A 2015 Urban Institute report on D.C. housing that Cone referenced
shows that only 21 percent of housing units in the district are
three bedrooms. Meanwhile, only 8 percent have four bedrooms,
while only 4 percent have five or more bedrooms.

"Those are pretty stark numbers," Cone said.

Cone noted that some Brookland Manor families have already been
displaced from their original units, while other families have
been broken up or have already moved off of the property.

Other Brookland Manor residents have begun looking for alternative
housing, but have found few units available, many of them in Wards
7 and 8, the poorest and most segregated parts of the city, she
said.

Others are looking for housing in Maryland in Prince George's
County, which raises a host of additional concerns, Cone added.
Those forced to move outside of the district will be cut off from
community support systems -- access to doctors, schools and
churches, she said.

The complaint goes into detail about how the redevelopment will
affect Borum, a mom of five who has lived in Brookland Manor for
25 years. Borum's younger children attend school nearby, and she
lives within walking distance of her job. She also says she relies
on her community church for religious and communal support, and
that her children enjoy recreational activities and programs at a
neighborhood recreation center.

"Ms. Borum will have an extremely difficult time finding an
adequately sized apartment in D.C. for her family because of the
scarcity of affordable housing of her unit type," the complaint
states.

When it comes to households like Borum's, the Urban Institute
report found that families of five or more are at higher risk for
homelessness. Just 1 percent to 2 percent of families with four or
less family members are at risk for homelessness, compared with 6
percent of large households.

"Mid-City's proposed redevelopment disproportionately impacts
families and exacerbates the affordable housing and homelessness
crises in the district and threatens the wellbeing of the city's
most vulnerable populations," according to a statement about the
lawsuit from Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and
Urban Affairs.

Attorneys from Covington & Burling joined the Washington Lawyers'
Committee in filing the class action against Mid-City, Brentwood
Village LLC, Brentwood Associates LP and Edgewood Management Corp.

Along with the individual residents, Organizing Neighborhood
Equity in Shaw and the District of Columbia joined the class
action as a lead plaintiff.  They allege violations of the Fair
Housing Act of 1968 and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.


C&J ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Delaware Shareholder Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
C&J Energy Services Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a Delaware court has
not yet issued a decision on the motions to dismiss shareholder
litigation relating to a Merger deal.

On March 24, 2015, C&J Energy Services, Inc. ("Legacy C&J") and
Nabors Industries Ltd. ("Nabors") completed the combination of
Legacy C&J with Nabors' completion and production services
business (the "C&P Business"), whereby Legacy C&J became a
subsidiary of C&J Energy Services Ltd. (the "Merger"). The
resulting combined company is currently led by the former
management team of Legacy C&J.

Upon the closing of the Merger, shares of common stock of Legacy
C&J were converted into common shares of C&J on a 1-for-1 basis
and C&J's common shares began trading on the New York Stock
Exchange ("NYSE") under the ticker "CJES." C&J is the successor
issuer to Legacy C&J following the closing of the Merger and is
deemed to succeed to Legacy C&J's reporting history under the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act").
Legacy C&J and Nabors determined that Legacy C&J possessed the
controlling financial interest in C&J and subsequently concluded
the business combination should be treated as a reverse
acquisition with Legacy C&J as the accounting acquirer.

In July 2014, following the announcement that Legacy C&J, Nabors,
and New C&J had entered into the Merger Agreement, a putative
class action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder of
Legacy C&J challenging the Merger. The lawsuit is styled City of
Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement
Trust, et al. ("Plaintiff") v. Comstock, et al.; C.A. No. 9980-CB,
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, filed on July
30, 2014 (the "Shareholder Litigation").

Plaintiff in the Shareholder Litigation generally alleges that the
board of directors for Legacy C&J breached fiduciary duties of
loyalty, due care, good faith, candor and independence by
allegedly approving the Merger Agreement at an unfair price and
through an unfair process. Plaintiff alleges that the Legacy C&J
board directors, or certain of them (i) failed to fully inform
themselves of the market value of Legacy C&J, maximize its value
and obtain the best price reasonably available for Legacy C&J,
(ii) acted in bad faith and for improper motives, (iii) erected
barriers to discourage other strategic alternatives and (iv) put
their personal interests ahead of the interests of Legacy C&J
shareholders. The Shareholder Litigation further alleges that
Legacy C&J, Nabors and New C&J aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by the Legacy C&J board of directors.

On November 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction. On November 24, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered a
bench ruling, followed by a written order on November 25, 2014,
that (i) ordered certain members of the Legacy C&J board of
directors to solicit for a period of 30 days alternative proposals
to purchase Legacy C&J (or a controlling stake in Legacy C&J) that
was superior to the Merger, and (ii) preliminarily enjoined Legacy
C&J from holding its shareholder meeting until it had complied
with the foregoing. The order provided that the solicitation of
proposals consistent with the order, and any subsequent
negotiations of any alternative proposal that emerges, would not
constitute a breach of the Merger Agreement in any respect.

Legacy C&J complied with the Court of Chancery's order while it
simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal of the Court of
Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. On
November 26, 2014, in response to, and in compliance with, the
Court of Chancery's order, the Legacy C&J board of directors
established a special committee, which retained separate legal and
financial advisors, to proceed with the ordered solicitation.

On December 19, 2014, following oral argument, the Delaware
Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Chancery and
vacated the order. As such, Legacy C&J's special committee
immediately discontinued the solicitation required by the order.
On October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming
additional defendants and generally alleging, in addition to the
allegations described, that (i) the special committee of the
Legacy C&J board of directors and its advisors improperly
conducted the court-ordered solicitation that the Delaware Supreme
Court vacated and (ii) the proxy statement filed in connection
with the Merger contains alleged misrepresentations and omits
allegedly material information concerning the Merger and court-
ordered solicitation process. The Shareholder Litigation asserts,
in addition to the claims described, claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
against the special committee of the Legacy C&J board of
directors, its financial advisor Morgan Stanley, and certain
employees of Legacy C&J. The defendants in the Shareholder
Litigation have filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

A hearing on these motions to dismiss was held on April 26, 2016,
but the Court has not yet issued a decision on the motions.
"Following the death of Josh Comstock, our founder and former
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors,
Plaintiff substituted the executor of Mr. Comstock's estate in
place of Mr. Comstock as a defendant in the Shareholder
Litigation," the Company said.

C&J Energy Services Ltd. provides well construction, well
completions, well support and other complementary oilfield
services to oil and gas exploration and production companies
primarily in North America.


CADIZ INC: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
Cadiz Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiffs' motion seeking
preliminary approval of the settlement of the securities related
class action lawsuit remains pending.

On April 24, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit, entitled Van
Wingerden v. Cadiz Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-03080-JAK-JEM, was
filed against Cadiz and certain of its directors and officers
("Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California purporting to assert claims for violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint, which
purports to be brought on behalf of all Cadiz shareholders,
alleges that the Company's public disclosures were inadequate in
relation to the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and
Storage Project (the "Water Project").  The complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The Company believes that the claims alleged in the purported
class action lawsuit are baseless and without merit.  On December
2, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit and a
hearing on the motion was held in late February 2016.

Following court-mandated mediation discussions in April 2016, and
notwithstanding that the Company disputes the allegations in the
complaint, the parties agreed to settle the case and filed a
notice of settlement with the Court on May 6, 2016.

On May 9, 2016, the Court dismissed the cased without prejudice.
On June 16, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
preliminary approval of the settlement and supplemented such
motion on July 14, 2016 at the request of the Court.   No further
action has been taken in the case to date.  Any potential losses
in the future related to this lawsuit will be covered by an
insurance policy.


CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Settles "Danner" Bondholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
igamingbusiness reports that Caesars Entertainment Corp has
settled one of several bondholder lawsuits in a move that could
signal the beginning of the end in its long-running $18 billion
(EUR15.9 billion) bankruptcy saga.

The settlement resolves a class-action lawsuit brought by
Frederick Barton Danner, one of the holders of unsecured bond debt
issued by its Caesars Entertainment Operating Co (CEOC) unit.

The suit, filed almost two years ago, claimed an August 2014
financing transaction was improperly designed to release Caesars
of its guarantee of $750 million in unsecured debt due in 2016.

Under the settlement, which Caesars disclosed on Aug. 17 in a
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, lead plaintiff
Danner agreed to drop the lawsuit in a New York federal court and
to support CEOC's Chapter 11 restructuring.

The filing said that in return, CEOC will pay Danner's legal fees
and provide extra cash to the unsecured bondholders, excluding a
Caesars affiliate and bondholders who are separately suing
Caesars.

The settlement also provides unsecured bondholders who back CEOC's
restructuring plan with extra cash equal to at least 6.38 cents
for each dollar of bond debt they hold.

According to the Wall Street Journal newspaper, Danner's lawyer,
Gordon Novod, said that the settlement marks "new and significant
progress in the pursuit of remedies" for the bondholders.

"We're optimistic that the settlement will be consummated in
conjunction with the successful reorganization of [CEOC]," said
Novod, of the Grant & Eisenhofer law firm.


CALHOUN, GA: Court Says Indigent Bail Practices Unconstitutional
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Christian Science Monitor's Ben Rosen reports that holding a
defendant in jail simply because they can't afford a fixed bail
amount is unconstitutional, the Justice Department said in a brief
it filed on Aug. 18 in a Georgia lawsuit.

"Bail practices that incarcerate indigent individuals before trial
solely because of their inability to pay for their release violate
the Fourteenth Amendment," the department said in an amicus brief,
referring to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

"Fixed bail schedules that allow for the pretrial release of only
those who can play, without accounting for the ability to pay
unlawfully discriminate based on indigence," said the department.

The friend-of-the-court brief marks the first time the Justice
Department has submitted a legal opinion in a federal court on
bail systems in state and local courts.  It also is the most
direct action by the Obama administration to push states to reform
court practices it has said discriminates against poorer
defendants.  Those defendants tend to be black, Latino, or high
school dropouts, as well as those with mental illness or substance
abuse problems.

The Justice Department filed the brief with the 11th US Circuit
Court of Appeals in the class-action lawsuit of Maurice Walker, a
Georgia man who spent six days in jail in the city of Calhoun
because he couldn't pay the $160 bail amount for a misdemeanor
charge.

Mr. Walker was arrested in September, and charged with a
misdemeanor of walking while intoxicated.  According to a Calhoun
ordinance, the charge carried a preset bail of $160 for
Mr. Walker to avoid jail before his first appearance before the
judge.  Mr. Walker -- who said he lives on $540 a month in Social
Security disability benefits -- was unable to pay that amount. So,
he remained in prison following his arrest while he waited for his
first court appearance before a municipal judge.

Mr. Walker, in the class-action lawsuit, challenged the city's
bail policy.  His attorneys argue the ordinance violates the equal
protection rights of poor defendants, and should be suspended for
any defendant that can't "pay a generically set amount" of bail.

A US District Court judge sided with Walker in January.  The judge
suspended the policy until the case is settled, instead ordering
those arrested on misdemeanor offenses be released on their own
recognizance, according to NBC News.

Calhoun appealed the ruling to the 11th Circuit.  In the appeal,
attorneys for the city said defendants such as Mr. Walker "should
not be relieved from the requirement of having to attempt to make
bail merely upon a bare claim of indigent status."  They added
misdemeanor and city ordinance violations for which defendants
face preset bail "are not petty, trivial offenses," and those
arrested for violations do "pose a risk or danger to the community
and, in some instances, themselves."

This isn't the first time the Justice Department has labeled
preset bail amounts as unconstitutional.  After an investigation
into the police department in Ferguson, Mo., the Justice
Department encouraged all states and local courts to abandon
preset bail amounts.  In a letter to all state chief justices and
court administrators it sent out March 14, the department said
preset bail discriminated against poorer defendants.  The same
day, the department announced the creation of a task force to will
investigate fines, fees, and bail practices.

The Justice Department's actions come as new evidence indicates
many state and local court systems work against the poor.  A
yearlong investigation by NPR found that the post-arrest process
in the criminal justice system appears to work against poorer
defendants.

The costs of the criminal justice system in the United States are
paid increasingly by the defendants and offenders.  It's a
practice that causes the poor to face harsher treatment than
others who commit identical crimes and can afford to pay.
And defendants, NPR found in a state-by-state survey, are charged
for many government services that were once free.

These fees -- which can add up to hundreds or even thousands of
dollars -- get charged at every step of the system, from the
courtroom, to jail, to probation.  Defendants and offenders pay
for their own arrest warrants, their court-ordered drug and
alcohol-abuse treatment and to have their DNA samples collected.
They are billed when courts need to modernize their computers.
Questions about the fairness of the criminal justice system even
extend to the Supreme Court.  A recent study published by Harvard
Law Prof. Andrew Manuel Crespo found that in two-thirds of Supreme
Court cases, criminal defense lawyers had argued fewer than two
cases before the Court.

"In many instances, these lawyers were going head-to-head with
lawyers from the Office of the Solicitor General, which represents
the federal government at the court," writes the Christian Science
Monitor's Henry Gass.  "A lawyer from the Solicitor General's
office had on average made about 25 previous arguments to the
court, compared with only 5.3 for the criminal defense lawyers
they faced."

The study examined cases over a 10-year period that ended in June
2015.


CANADA: Tainted Blood Scandal Victim to Share $207MM Fund
---------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Brean, writing for National Post, reports that victims of
the hepatitis C tainted blood scandal of the 1990s will be
compensated from a surplus of more than $200 million, now that an
Ontario court has rejected Canada's efforts to claw it back.

The excess money is part of a $1-billion trust created to settle a
class action launched in 1998 against the Canadian Red Cross,
which then administered blood banks, and the federal government
and provinces.  It is meant to compensate people infected between
1986 and 1990, when there was a lab test that could have prevented
it.

The year before the lawsuit began, a Royal Commission led to the
creation of Canadian Blood Services and Hema-Quebec, at arm's-
length from government.

The new decision from Judge Paul Perell of Ontario Superior Court
followed an unusual hearing in June in Toronto, with live links to
courtrooms in Vancouver and Quebec and a steady stream of
anguished stories from people infected with the liver disease by
tainted blood transfusions.  At issue was the court's
discretionary power to pay out the excess money, return it to the
government, or leave it sitting in the 80-year trust.

Many victims spoke of the inadequacy of the compensation so far,
in which individual payouts ranged between $10,000 and $250,000.

An estimated 50,000 were expected to apply when the fund was set
up but only 22,000 actually did.  Other mistakes were made in how
the money was allocated, court heard.

"The existence of excess capital provides an opportunity for Class
Members to correct what, with the benefit of hindsight, were
unfortunate decisions that their fellow Class Members were
unfortunately called on to make," Judge Perell wrote.

He agreed to the recommendations by victim representatives that
the amount of excess capital be revised down from $236 million to
$207 million to account for the possibility that some victims
might be reclassified because of the degenerating nature of
hepatitis C.

As a result, there remains more than $40 million in excess capital
in the trust.

Most of the remaining surplus is to be paid out to class members
who missed a deadline, or to increase fixed payments already being
made, or to increase payments to family class members, or for
support to dependents of deceased class members.


CANADA: Mulls '60s Scoop Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the federal government wants to
sit down and find a settlement to lawsuits over the '60s Scoop,
Indigenous Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett said on Aug. 17.

Ms. Bennett said she is open to finding a solution to legal cases
over the scoop, which saw thousands of aboriginal children taken
from their homes by child-welfare services and placed with non-
aboriginal families between the 1960s and 1980s.

"We, as you know -- as a government -- would like to get things
out of court and to a table where we can make those kinds of
agreements together, as a way forward," Ms. Bennett told reporters
in Winnipeg.

"We want to work together with all of the litigants that are
presently in court and try and get to the table."

Ms. Bennett made the comments one day after issuing a formal
apology and $33.6 million in compensation to the Sayisi Dene of
northern Manitoba for a forced relocation in 1956 that led to
poverty and despair.

There are a handful of lawsuits across the country over the '60s
Scoop, including a class-action lawsuit in Saskatchewan that seeks
unspecified damages for everything from loss of cultural identity
to sexual and physical abuse.

Another lawsuit in Ontario has been before the courts since 2009
and seeks $85,000 for each affected person.

Five indigenous leaders wrote an open letter on Aug. 16 to Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau urging him to apologize for the '60s Scoop
and settle the Ontario lawsuit, which they said has been
repeatedly delayed by the federal government.

The former Conservative government tried to overturn the decision
to certify the class-action suit, but lost its appeal in 2014.

"We are writing to you because you have publicly stated that
Canada has a sacred and legal obligation to First Nations, Metis
and Inuit peoples," reads the letter signed by leaders including
former Assembly of First Nations national chief Phil Fontaine.

Lawyer Tony Merchant, who is behind the class-action lawsuit in
Saskatchewan, said he welcomes Bennett's offer to discuss the
issue outside of court.  But he said the court action has been
necessary.

"Government is always saying 'take it out of the court', but they
are only coming forward and even talking about settling as a
result of the work that . . . lawyers have been doing."

The Liberal government has made for a "better political climate"
for indigenous people since being elected last year, Mr. Merchant
said.

"But governments still go very slowly and the people handling
things are still lawyers in the department of justice and they
don't change particularly simply because there are different
people politically in charge."


CANADA: '60s Scoop Class Action Plaintiffs Get Day in Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
thousands of aboriginals who argue the federal government robbed
them of their cultural identities finally get their day in court
but will have to wait months for Canada to make its case in the
unprecedented class action Ottawa has fought every step of the
way.

The plaintiffs and supporters from all over Ontario were expected
to rally at the Toronto courthouse on Aug. 23 as their lawyers
press for summary judgment in the legal battle started in February
2009.

The lawsuit turns on a federal-provincial arrangement -- now
dubbed the '60s Scoop -- in which Ontario child welfare services
placed as many as 16,000 aboriginal children with non-native
families from December 1965 to December 1984.

Their unproven claim alleges the children suffered a devastating
loss of cultural identity that Canada negligently failed to
protect.  The children, the suit states, suffered emotional,
psychological and spiritual harm from the lost connection to their
aboriginal heritage.  They want $1.3 billion in various damages --
$85,000 for each affected person.

"This is the first case in the western world (about) whether a
state government has an obligation to take steps to protect and
preserve the cultural identity of its indigenous people," said
Jeffery Wilson, lawyer for the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment to be heard on
Aug. 23 essentially calls on Superior Court Justice Edward
Belobaba to decide the case based on the evidence the court
already has without the need for a full trial.

Canada has previously tried to have the case thrown out as futile.
Among other things, Ottawa argues it was acting in the best
interests of the children and within the social norms of the day.
However, Divisional Court ruled in December 2014 that the
plaintiffs deserved a chance to argue the merits of their position
at trial.

"It is difficult to see a specific interest that could be of more
importance to aboriginal peoples than each person's essential
connection to their aboriginal heritage," the three-justice panel
concluded.

In early March, the courts ruled the action should proceed over
two weeks, starting Aug. 23.  However, much to the chagrin of the
plaintiffs, the government in July asked for a delay, saying it
needed more time to come up with experts to counter the claims.
The court refused.

But with buses ordered and courthouse rallies planned for
Aug. 23, the prospect of more government appeals and delays
prompted the plaintiffs to agree to the one-day hearing.  In
exchange, the government since filed thousands of pages of
materials, but has until November to file expert evidence. The
hearing is slated to resume for two days on Dec. 1.

Mr. Wilson said he hoped the hiatus would allow for a negotiated
settlement -- a tack the Liberal government now appears to favor.
Indigenous Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett said she would like to
see the case discussed at the table rather than in court.

The Ontario case differs from scoop lawsuits in several other
provinces in that it does not take legal issue with the placement
of Indian children in non-aboriginal homes because it was done
under court orders in the best interests of the child.

In addition, Ontario was the only province to sign a formal
agreement with Ottawa to take over the protection and adoption of
First Nations children.  The case turns on a single provision the
plaintiffs say essentially required the federal government to
consult Indian bands and maintain oversight of the children's
welfare.

"I lost everything, including my name.  I lost my family.  I lost
my language.  I lost everything about my culture," Marcia Brown
Martel, the representative plaintiff in the Ontario case, told The
Canadian Press. "This should never have happened. It was wrong."

Ms. Martel, a member of the Temagami First Nation near Kirkland
Lake, Ont., was taken by child welfare officials and adopted by a
non-native family as a child.  She later discovered the Canadian
government had declared her original identity dead.

Five aboriginal leaders wrote Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to
urge his government to settle, and admit the "immense wrong" done
the scoop children.

"This moment is an opportunity for Canada to put an ugly legacy
behind us," the letter states.


CARRIER IQ: $9 Million Settlement Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Carrier IQ will pay $9 million to settle claims that it
collected personal information from smartphone users without their
permission before sending it to Sprint, AT&T and other companies.

Carrier IQ and several telecoms were hit in 2011 with a raft of
consumer privacy class actions alleging Carrier used a device
called IQRD to access smartphones while hiding its presence and
subverting standard operating system functions or other
applications.

Plaintiffs said the software allowed Carrier IQ to log users'
keystrokes, including their private text messages and web
searches, in violation of federal and state wiretap laws.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen granted final approval of the $9
million settlement and $2.25 million in attorneys' fees after
throwing it in limbo in July over questions about how many people
knew they were eligible for an award.

However, Chen denied approval of incentive awards to named
plaintiffs who spent less than 26 hours on the case, lowering the
award to $3,000 from the requested $5,000.

Once attorneys' fees, costs and incentive awards are subtracted
from the settlement fund, an estimated $5.9 million will remain
for distribution to about 42,000 class members, according to an
order Chen issued. It's estimated that each member will receive
between $138.35 and $149.28.

"The number of objections and opt-outs is small, which indicates
that the class largely supports the settlement," Chen said in his
12-page ruling. "While the number of claims is also small, this
cannot be said to be the result of inadequate notice."

In deferring to grant final approval in July, Chen ordered class
counsel to provide more information about the "reach" of the class
notice, citing the low number of claims submitted by class members
as a potential indicator that not enough people learned about the
settlement and their eligibility for an award during the notice
period.

With a response rate of 0.14 percent, Chen said the reach may have
been insufficient. He asked for more information about how people
were reached through both paper publications and the Internet, as
well as what additional notice could be done and how much it would
cost.

In response, plaintiffs' counsel provided a declaration from
settlement administrator Alan Vasquez explaining that the
publication notice placed in USA Today and People magazine, as
well as a banner advertisement notice, likely reached 81 percent
of the class.

"In our experience, the claims rate in this settlement is
consistent with many other settlement administrations with similar
class characteristics," Vasquez said in his declaration.

Based on Vasquez's declaration, Chen found that "a substantial
portion of the settlement class were likely exposed to the multi-
faceted notice provided by the administrator."

The plaintiffs were represented by:

     Daniel Warshaw, Esq.
     PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
     15165 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400
     Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
     Tel: (818) 788-8300

Carrier IQ was represented by Tyler Newby --
tnewby@fenwick.com -- of Fenwick & West in San Francisco.

Neither attorney could be reached for comment.

The case is captioned, IN RE CARRIER IQ, INC., CONSUMER PRIVACY
LITIGATION., Case No. 12-md-02330-EMC (N.D. Cal.).


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Says Confidential Mediation Process Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a confidential
mediation process in the drinking water litigation is ongoing and
expected to continue as the litigation proceeds.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA (collectively,
perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium
salt) in drinking water.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project. Chemours, through DuPont, funded a
series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by
an independent science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel).
The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to
evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable
link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between
exposure to PFOA and human disease. The C8 Science Panel found
probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between
exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension, including
preeclampsia, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease,
ulcerative colitis and diagnosed high cholesterol.

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing
of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel
recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years
after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical
panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion
of its protocol.

Through DuPont, Chemours is obligated to fund up to $235 million
for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and,
in addition, administrative cost associated with the program,
including class counsel fees. In January 2012, Chemours, through
DuPont, put $1 million in an escrow account to fund medical
monitoring as required by the settlement agreement. The court-
appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established the
program to implement the medical panel's recommendations and the
registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is
ongoing. Diagnostic screening and testing has begun and associated
payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow
account.

As of June 30, 2016, less than $1 million has been disbursed from
the escrow account related to medical monitoring.

In addition, under the settlement agreement, DuPont must continue
to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in
water to six area water districts and private well users. At
separation, this obligation was assigned to Chemours, which is
included in the accrual amounts recorded as of June 30, 2016.
Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont
only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel
determined a probable link exists.

At June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, there were approximately
3,500 lawsuits filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio
and West Virginia, an increase of approximately 600 over year end
2014. These lawsuits are consolidated in multi-district litigation
(MDL) in Ohio federal court. Based on the information currently
available to the Company, the majority of the lawsuits allege
personal injury claims associated with high cholesterol and
thyroid disease from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. There are
30 lawsuits alleging wrongful death.

Although the majority of the plaintiffs in the MDL allege multiple
diseases, the table below approximates the number of plaintiffs in
each of the six probable link disease categories.

     Alleged Injury                   Approximate Number of
                                      Plaintiffs
     --------------                   ---------------------
     Kidney cancer                              200
     Testicular cancer                           70
     Ulcerative colitis                         300
     Preeclampsia                               200
     Thyroid disease                          1,430
     High cholesterol                          1,340

In the third quarter of 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were
selected for individual bellwether trials.

All six bellwether cases in the MDL have now been tried, resolved,
appealed or otherwise addressed. Two bellwether cases have been
tried. The first case (Bartlett v. DuPont / kidney cancer) was
tried to a verdict in October 2015. The jury found in favor of the
plaintiff, awarding $1.1 in damages for negligence and $0.5 for
emotional distress. The jury found that DuPont's conduct did not
warrant punitive damages.

A second case  (Freeman v. DuPont / testicular cancer) was tried
to verdict in July 2016.  The jury found in favor of the plaintiff
awarding $5.1 million in compensatory damages and $0.5 million in
punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Court rulings made before
and during both trials resulted in several significant grounds for
appeal and an appeal to the Sixth Circuit has been filed for the
first case. The Company, through DuPont, will pursue post-trial
motions and appeals for the second case.
Three bellwether PFOA cases were settled in 2016 as trial
approached. These cases (Wolf v. DuPont / ulcerative colitis,
Dowdy v. DuPont / kidney cancer, Baker v. DuPont / kidney cancer)
were settled for amounts well below the incremental cost of
preparing for trials. To date, the settlements have been
individually and in aggregate immaterial to the Company. The final
case (Pugh v. DuPont / ulcerative colitis) was removed from the
bellwethers when it was determined that the plaintiff did not
suffer from the alleged disease.

The trial court announced that, starting in May 2017, 40
individual plaintiff trials will be scheduled for a 12-month
period. With the conclusion of the six bellwether cases, the court
moved two of the 40 matters (Vigneron v. DuPont / testicular
cancer and Moody v. DuPont / testicular cancer) forward on July
19, 2016 and set the cases for trial on November 14, 2016 and
January 17, 2017, respectively. The trial court's multi-year plan
pertains only to the approximately 270 cases claiming cancer. The
remaining cases, comprising approximately 93% of the docket, will
remain inactive.

A confidential mediation process that the court established early
in this MDL is ongoing and expected to continue as the litigation
proceeds.

Chemours, through DuPont, denies the allegations in these lawsuits
and is defending itself vigorously. No other claims have been
settled or resolved during the periods presented. DuPont is the
named defendant in each of these cases and is directly liable for
any judgment. If DuPont were to claim that it is entitled to
indemnification from Chemours as to some or all of any judgment,
Chemours retains its defenses to such claims.


CHEVRON CORP: "White" Action Dismissed with Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San
Francisco dismissed with 30 days leave to amend an ERISA class
action accusing Chevron of imprudently investing its employees'
retirement money.

The case is captioned, CHARLES E WHITE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants., Case No. 16-cv-0793-PJH
(N.D. Cal.).


CHINA FINANCE: Settles Securities Class Action for $3 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
China Finance Online Co. Limited on Aug. 22 announced that it has
entered into a Stipulation of Settlement with lead plaintiffs in
the class action lawsuit against the Company filed in June 2015.

The securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California and later
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Wang v. China Finance Online, Case no. 1:15-
CV-07894-RMB) against the Company and alleges that the Company's
public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission
included materially false statements and/or omitted material facts
that the Company's transactions with a Chinese entity were related
party transactions, which inflated the price of the Company's
securities during the period from April 29, 2013 and June 3, 2015.
The Company entered into the Stipulation of Settlement without any
admission of wrongdoing and provided for a settlement fund of $3
million.

The Stipulation of Settlement remains subject to court approval
and certain other conditions including notice to the class members
and administration of the settlement.


COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Ambrosio" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Cogent Communications, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling relating to the lawsuit titled Joan Ambrosio, et al.
v. Cogent Communications, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02182-RS, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

The Case is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Joan Ambrosio, et al. v. Cogent
Communications, Inc., Case No. 16-16514, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Appeals Court set this schedule:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by September 26, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on October 24, 2016;

   -- Appellant Cogent Communications, Inc.'s opening brief is
      due on December 5, 2016;

   -- Appellees' answering brief is due on January 5, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees Joan Ambrosio, Keith Swick, Cosmin Banu,
Shahid Rahmatullah, Dana Rogers, Christian Halloran, Novelett
Witt, Art Baimkin, Angelito Muyot, Jr., Jason Ruiz, Keshav
Lilburn, Kamath Peet Sapsin and Alicia Erby are represented by:

          Tom Duckworth, Esq.
          Monique Olivier, Esq.
          Mark Christopher Peters, Esq.
          DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-0333
          E-mail: tom@dplolaw.com
                  monique@dplolaw.com
                  mark@dplolaw.com

Defendant-Appellant COGENT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., is represented
by:

          Kimberly A. Chase, Esq.
          Matthew Costello, Esq.
          Tamara Devitt, Esq.
          Mary-Christine Sungaila, Esq.
          HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 700
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 202-3058
          Facsimile: (949) 202-3158
          E-mail: kimberly.chase@haynesboone.com
                  matthew.costello@haynesboone.com
                  tamara.devitt@haynesboone.com
                  mc.sungaila@haynesboone.com

               - and -

          Polly Fohn, Esq.
          HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
          1221 McKinney Street
          Houston, TX 77010-2007
          Telephone: (713) 547-2000
          Facsimile: (713) 547-2600
          E-mail: polly.fohn@haynesboone.com


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Opposed Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case,
Strauch et al. Fair Labor Standards Act Class Action, the Company
has filed its opposition to the motion for Rule 23 class
certification of California, Connecticut and North Carolina state-
law classes.

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

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

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

The Company's position in this litigation continues to be that the
employees identified as belonging to the conditional class were
paid in accordance with the FLSA.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add additional plaintiffs
and allege violations under Missouri and North Carolina wage and
hour laws.

"We do not believe these additional claims differ materially from
those in the original complaint," the Company said.

On June 3, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion for Rule 23 class
certification of California, Connecticut and North Carolina state-
law classes and the Company filed its opposition to the motion on
July 15, 2016.


COOPER TIRE: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Merger Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miles Moore, writing for Tire Business, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed a Delaware
federal court's dismissal of a class-action lawsuit against Cooper
Tire & Rubber Co. over Cooper's failed merger with Apollo Tyres
Ltd.

The appeals court ruled straight down the line for Cooper
Aug. 22, concluding that the Delaware court was correct in its
decision that OFI Asset Management and Timber Hill L.L.C. failed
to demonstrate sufficient facts to support their claims that
Cooper committed violations of federal securities laws.

Cooper and Apollo agreed in June 2013 to a $35-per-share merger,
totaling $2.5 billion.  Nine days later, workers at Cooper
Chengshan Tire Co. Ltd. -- Cooper's Chinese tire-making joint
venture with Chengshan Group -- went on strike in protest over the
merger, with the encouragement of Chengshan management.

Because of the strike, Apollo requested a reduction of between
$2.50 and $9 per share in the purchase price.  Cooper filed a
lawsuit against Apollo in October 2013 in the Delaware Supreme
Court, and by the end of the year the merger was dead.

OFI and Timber Hill filed suit against Cooper, Cooper CEO Roy V.
Armes and Cooper Chief Financial Officer Bradley Hughes in January
2014, alleging that all three deliberately withheld information
about Chengshan's opposition to the merger and other information
from shareholders.  OFI claimed the omission constituted
securities fraud.

Cooper filed a petition to dismiss the class action, and in July
2015 Judge Richard G. Andrews of the Delaware court did just that.
The plaintiffs' allegations were based on an uncorroborated
confidential witness statement, and that statement did not speak
to what Armes and Hughes knew on the day the merger agreement was
signed, Andrews ruled.

In its Aug. 22 ruling, the Third Circuit court said the plaintiffs
were incorrect in alleging that the lower court mismanaged the
debate over Cooper's motion to dismiss.

Not only do federal district courts have a great deal of
discretion in managing complex disputes, but the plaintiffs'
complaint against Cooper was unusually long and circuitous, the
appeals court said.

"As pled, the complaint presents an extraordinary challenge for
application of the highly particularized pleading standard
required by the PSLRA (Private Securities Litigation Reform Act),"
it said.

"This is true not only due to the length of the complaint, but
also its lack of clarity," the court said.  "It is difficult to
discern precisely which statements OFI alleges to be actionable,
let alone what specific facts are asserted to support each such
allegation."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs could not be immediately reached for
comment.

Cooper told Tire Business it had no further comment on the case.


DEAN FOODS: Milk Retailers Case Scheduled for March 2017 Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a class action against
Dean Foods and other milk processors is scheduled for trial on
March 28, 2017.

A putative class action antitrust complaint (the "retailer
action") was filed against Dean Foods and other milk processors on
August 9, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege generally that we, either
acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry,
lessened competition in the Southeastern United States for the
sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other
customers. Plaintiffs further allege that the defendants' conduct
artificially inflated wholesale prices paid by direct milk
purchasers.

In March 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in
favor of defendants, including the Company, as to all counts then
remaining. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision, and
in January 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment as to one of the
five original counts in the Tennessee retailer action.

Following the Sixth Circuit's denial of our request to reconsider
the case en banc, the Company petitioned the Supreme Court of the
United States for review. On November 17, 2014, the Supreme Court
denied our petition and the case returned to the district court.

On January 19, 2016, the district court granted summary judgment
to defendants on claims accruing after May 8, 2009. On January 25,
2016, the district court issued orders denying summary judgment in
other respects and denying plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

On February 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to
appeal the district court's order denying class certification.
That petition was denied on June 14, 2016.

On March 30, 2016, the district court issued an order holding that
the case will be judged under the rule of reason. The case is
presently scheduled for trial on March 28, 2017. At this time, it
is not possible for us to predict the ultimate outcome of the
matter.


DEAN FOODS: Indirect Purchaser Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in the
indirect purchaser class action stipulated to the dismissal of the
indirect purchaser action.

On June 29, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of indirect purchasers of
processed fluid Grade A milk (the "indirect purchaser action").
This case was voluntarily dismissed, and the same plaintiffs filed
a nearly identical complaint on January 17, 2013. The allegations
in this complaint were similar to those in both the retailer
action and the 2009 indirect purchaser action, but involved only
claims arising under Tennessee law.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, and on September 11, 2014,
the district court granted in part and denied in part that motion,
dismissing the non-Tennessee plaintiffs' claims. The Company filed
its answer to the surviving claims on October 15, 2014.

On March 16, 2016, the court granted a joint motion to stay the
indirect purchaser action pending the Sixth Circuit's decision on
the pending class certification review petition in the retailer
action. On July 11, 2016, the parties stipulated to the dismissal
of the indirect purchaser action; the stipulation does not address
whether the right of plaintiffs to file a new complaint has been
waived or lost.


DEKALB COUNTY, GA: Ex-Judge Sued Over Mishandled Traffic Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
R. Robin McDonald, writing for Daily Report, reports that
attorneys for defendants whose traffic cases were allegedly
mishandled by the now-defunct DeKalb County Recorders Court are
asking a federal judge in Atlanta to certify the year-old case as
a class action.

The case -- based on what the suit describes as "a long-standing,
systemic dysfunction" of the court's daily operations -- seeks to
represent a class of people who either wrongly had their driver's
license suspended or whose licenses were not reinstated by court
personnel when they should have been and who, as a result, were
all wrongly arrested for driving with a suspended license.

Filed on behalf of 17 former defendants whose licenses were
erroneously suspended or whose privileges were not restored by the
Recorders Court, which was abolished by the state legislature last
year.  The suit names DeKalb County, former Recorders Court Chief
Judge Nelly Withers, and former court administrator
Troy Thompson as defendants.

As far back as 2009, a DeKalb County grand jury had noted that the
court had record-keeping issues, and multiple lawsuits have raised
questions about the court's legal jurisdiction and whether it had
the constitutional authority to adjudicate the cases it handled.

The current suit claims that court personnel routinely failed to
properly process traffic tickets, instead either providing
inaccurate information to the Georgia Department of Driver
Services that defendants' drivers licenses had been suspended or
failing to notify the department that a defendant's license should
be reinstated.

In petitioning the court for class certification, lawyers
contended that after reviewing information provided by the county
about errors made by 14 court clerks who had provided inaccurate
information about the lawsuit's plaintiffs, they identified at
least 34 more class members.  A 3.5-hour online review of "a
handful" of thousands of court records led to the identification
of another five likely class members.

Gerry Weber, who with co-counsel Atlanta attorney William Atkins
is counsel for the plaintiffs, said they still have not received
most of the court documents they have requested from the county,
including court correction requests to the state driver's license
agency saying the court had made an error.  The court correction
requests, the attorneys contended, "are an invaluable tool" for
identifying class members and would likely reveal what they
suspect are "hundreds of thousands" of additional class members.
Also missing are an unknown number of disciplinary actions against
employees who made mistakes that wrongly stripped the drivers
licenses of defendants who appeared in Recorders Court, Mr. Weber
said.

DeKalb County claims that court correction records sent to the
state drivers license division are also missing, the lawyer added.
"A large body of those records no longer exist, according to the
county."

What is "strange," he added, is the county's ability to locate
disciplinary records of the clerks who mishandled the plaintiffs'
cases while claiming that all other similar disciplinary records
that might identify other potential class members could not be
found.  "Why would the disciplinary records of clerks associated
with our named plaintiffs' driver's license suspensions be the
only ones that exist?" Mr. Weber said.  "That's what we are going
to explore."

Atlanta attorney James Dearing, who is defending Withers, Thompson
and the county, said on Aug. 24 that Recorders Court handled an
estimated 500,000 citations a year and "less than a portion of 1
percent is under the microscope as far as potential errors.  We
are talking about an extremely small portion of hundreds of
thousands of citations where there have been errors committed, and
we are not even sure about that."

"This," he added, "was not a situation where the Recorders Court
was just haphazardly doing things intentionally or without any
regard to drivers' privileges."


DENVER: Faces Class Suit Related to Police Sweeps
-------------------------------------------------
Emma Gannon, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action accuses Denver of inflicting cruel and
unusual punishment on the homeless in police sweeps that not only
roust them from camps but destroy their tents, blankets and few
possessions.

"It is difficult to imagine what it must feel like to be already
homeless and suffering, then be forced to watch as everything you
own in the world is thrown into a dump truck while you are
afforded no means to contest the seizure and destruction of your
property," lead plaintiff Raymond Lyall says in the Aug. 25
lawsuit.

The City Council prohibited urban camping in May 2012 by 9-4 vote.
It banned sleeping in public spaces, forcing the homeless out of
city parks, public sidewalks and areas around the South Platte
River.

In the repeated sweeps, Denver police have seized and destroyed
tents, sleeping bags, blankets and other possessions. Sometimes
police used Denver County inmates to assist in the seizures.

"Plaintiffs are often ordered to stand by as their belongings are
thrown into defendant Department of Public Works' dump trucks by
not only DPW workers, but inmates from county jail," Lyall and
eight co-plaintiffs say.

They add: "While perhaps not legally cognizable, there is
something ugly about using poor people against poor people in this
manner, i.e. those caught in mass incarceration to destroy the
property of the destitute."

The city intended its ordinance to send people from scattered
encampments into homeless shelters. But according to an ACLU
study, there are nine homeless people for every four shelter
spaces in Denver.

City representatives did not respond to requests for comment on
August 29.

The homeless plaintiffs' attorney Jason Flores-Williams compares
the city policy to the heartlessness detailed in John Steinbeck's
"Grapes of Wrath."

"The homeless sweeps have been something out of 1930's Depression
era America, where the homeless and displaced have been
consistently harassed, detained, arrested, deprived of their
rights and property with no concern for substantive and procedural
safeguards," the complaint states.

"One of the main statements repeated over again and again by
police officers during these sweeps has been: 'If you people would
just leave Denver, all of this would stop.'"

The plaintiffs seek class certification, a restraining order and
injunction, return of their property if it still exists, and
punitive damages for violations of due process, unconstitutional
search and seizure, and cruel and unusual punishment.

Flores-Williams did not immediately respond to requests for
comment on August 29.


DIRECTV LLC: Must Face Individual Plaintiff's TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy H. Koo, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that DirecTV LLC
must face an individual plaintiff's lawsuit alleging that the
company called his mobile phone without consent using an automated
or prerecorded voice (Swetra v. DirecTV, LLC , 2016 BL 257323,
D.N.J., No. Civil No 15-8761 (RBK/AMD), 8/9/16).

Judge Robert B. Kugler of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey said that DirecTV can't argue in a related class
action that Telephone Consumer Protection claims against it
shouldn't be granted class certification and then argue that the
plaintiff in this case is a part of the proposed class and
therefore can't allege individual claims.

Companies facing related class and individual TCPA lawsuits should
be careful to coordinate legal strategy to take into account the
status of class certification in those suits.  DirecTV was
represented by different law firms in the class action and the
individual suit.

First-to-File Rule

According to plaintiff Gregory Swetra, throughout 2015, DirecTV
called his mobile phone numerous times in reference to an account
of a third party.  Mr. Swetra never had an account with DirecTV
and never consented to receiving these phone calls.  Mr. Swetra
filed his complaint Dec. 19, 2015, seeking damages and injunctive
relief.

In November 2012, a woman named Jenny Brown joined a putative
class action in a federal district court in Missouri, alleging
violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, against various
defendants, the court said. Brown's individual and class claims
were severed from those of her co-plaintiff and she filed an
amended class complaint in August 2013, naming DirecTV.

DirecTV moved to dismiss Mr. Swetra's lawsuit, arguing that
pursuant to the "first-to-file" rule, it should be dismissed,
transferred or stayed.  The first-to-file rule provides that in
all cases of federal concurrent jurisdiction, the court that first
deals with the subject matter must decide it.  DirecTV argued that
the proposed class in the Brown class action includes plaintiff
Mr. Swetra, and therefore, Mr. Swetra can't pursue his individual
claims.  The plaintiff argued that without a certified class in
the Brown case, DirecTV's arguments are premature.

The court held that even if the class were certified in the Brown
action, plaintiff Mr. Swetra's claims wouldn't necessarily fall
within the class.

The proposed class in the Brown case involves claims related to
debt collection calls and excludes claims related to telemarketing
calls.  The court found that it is improper for it to "assume that
plaintiff received debt-collection calls -- a requirement to be a
member of the proposed class in the Brown action -- when Plaintiff
does not assert that the calls he received were related to a debt,
and does not even attempt to characterize the types of calls he
received."

DirecTV argued in the Brown case that a class action is
"unworkable" and now, it is arguing that Mr. Swetra is part of the
proposed class in the Brown case, even though Mr. Swetra may not
actually be in the proposed class, the court said.  "This is
improper, and cannot be," the court said, concluding that the
first-filed rule doesn't apply.

Glapion Law Firm represents Mr. Swetra.  Day Pitney represents
DirecTV.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 1,084 Testosterone Cases Pending at July 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of July 29, 2016,
approximately 1,084 Testosterone cases are pending against the
Company.

The Company said, "We and certain of our subsidiaries, including
Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI) and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(Auxilium), 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 and seek
compensatory and/or punitive damages, where available."

"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.

"In July 2014, a class action complaint was filed in Ontario,
Canada against EPI.

Litigation similar to that 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 us. We intend to contest the litigation vigorously
and to explore all options as appropriate in our best interest.

"As of July 29, 2016, approximately 1,084 cases are currently
pending against us; some of which may have been filed on behalf of
multiple plaintiffs. By order dated July 5, 2016 and with
plaintiffs' consent, a Canadian Court dismissed without prejudice
the class action complaint filed in Ontario, Canada against EPI."


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss 3rd Amended Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has denied
defendants' motion to dismiss a third amended complaint as to the
claims against EPI, Auxilium and certain other defendants.

The Company said, "In November 2014, a civil class action
complaint was filed in the Northern District of Illinois against
EPI, Auxilium, and various other manufacturers of testosterone
products on behalf of a proposed class of health insurance
companies and other third party payors 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 Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 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 and
raises other state law claims.

"In March 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
and plaintiffs responded by filing amended complaints. In February
2016, the District Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss. The District Court declined to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims for conspiracy to commit racketeering
activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d) and claims for
negligent misrepresentation.

In April 2016, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which
defendants moved to dismiss in June 2016.

In August 2016, the court denied the motion as to the claims
against EPI, Auxilium and certain other defendants, and directed
that answers be filed by August 31, 2016.

In October 2015, a similar civil class action complaint was filed
against EPI and other defendant manufacturers in the Northern
District of Illinois. Similar litigation may be brought by other
plaintiffs.

The Company said, "We 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, but we will explore all options
as appropriate in our best interest."


ESKOM: OUTA Mulls Class Action Over Electricity Tariff Increase
---------------------------------------------------------------
TMG Digital reports that the activist group Organisation Undoing
Tax Abuse (OUTA) says it is investigating the possibility of
bringing a class action against Eskom.

This follows a court decision setting aside the 9.4% Eskom
electricity tariff increase.

The North Gauteng High Court ruled on Aug. 16 that Eskom had not
followed the correct methodology when requesting an additional
tariff increase for 2016 using the Revenue Clearing Account.

Eskom had failed to submit quarterly reports to the national
energy regulator Nersa to lay the basis for the application and
also submitted late, outside of the permitted time frame.

The case was brought by the Nelson Mandela Bay Business Chambers
and others.

OUTA said on Aug. 17 it would be engaging with various experts to
assess the viability of launching a class action against Eskom on
behalf of the public to recoup the amounts unlawfully charged.

"We applaud the businesses and the Nelson Mandela Bay Business
Chambers for successfully challenging the irrational manner within
which NERSA approved the increase in Eskoms tariffs. Although not
all amounts overcharged will be deemed significant in the eyes of
some, it is an absolute matter of principle that Eskom pay back
every cent they have overcharged" said
Ivan Herselman, director of legal affairs at OUTA.

On March 31, 2016, OUTA applied to interdict the Eskom tariff
increase on the basis of insufficient time and information to
analyze the reasons for the electricity tariff increase agreed to
by NERSA, before it came into effect.

OUTA is currently on appeal against the judgment which ruled
against the organization.  It said the judgment of this latest
court ruling specifically confirmed OUTA's position that Eskom
could revert to the lowest tariff, if the interdict was granted.

"We are fully aware that Eskom and/or NERSA are likely to appeal
the ruling but will start with our preparations to determine
whether a class action is feasible in the circumstances" Herselman
added.


FERRARA CANDY: Court Denies Bids to Certify in "Vazquez" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Maria Valdez entered a memorandum opinion and order in
the lawsuit styled SATURNINO Z. VAZQUEZ v. FERRARA CANDY COMPANY
and THOMAS P. POLKE individually, Case No. 14 C 4233 (N.D. Ill.),
denying:

   -- Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification under the
      Fair Labor Standards Act; and

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify a class action for his claims
      under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and Illinois Wage
      Payment Collection Act.

The Plaintiff's proposed collective action covers:

     All persons who are or have been employed by defendant
     Ferrara Candy Company in Illinois, who were not paid at a
     rate equal to one and one half times his or her regular rate
     of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per
     workweek because the individual performed work for the
     Company that was uncompensated, in the form of unpaid
     donning and doffing (putting on and taking off) of uniforms
     and/or safety equipment (including time spent walking to
     obtain the uniforms and/or safety equipment and time spent
     walking to employee work stations).

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://goo.gl/TFgxsQfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Valentin Tito Narvaez, I, Esq.
          Raisa Alicea, Esq.
          Susan Jane Best, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 878-1302
          Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
          E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com
                  ralicea@yourclg.com
                  sbest@yourclg.com

               - and -

          Amit Singh Bindra, Esq.
          Kristen E. Prinz, Esq.
          THE PRINZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1 East Wacker Drive, Suite 550
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 212-4450
          E-mail: abindra@prinz-lawfirm.com
                  kprinz@prinz-lawfirm.com

Defendants Ferrara Candy Company and Thomas P. Polke are
represented by:

          James J. Convery, Esq.
          Antonio Caldarone, Esq.
          LANER MUCHIN, LTD.
          515 North State Street, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 467-9800
          Facsimile: (312) 467-9479
          E-mail: jconvery@lanermuchin.com
                  acaldarone@lanermuchin.com


FERRELLGAS: 8th Circuit Agreed for Consumers to Seek Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that it is too late, the Eighth
Circuit said, for consumers to seek damages from propane-tank
distributors Ferrellgas and AmeriGas over price-fixing that
already resulted in settlements with the Federal Trade Commission
and a prior class action in St. Louis.

Plaintiffs Morgan-Larson, LLC, Johnson Auto Electric, Inc., Speed
Stop 32, Inc., and Yocum Oil Company, Inc. took an appeal from the
district court's dismissal of their claims for damages in their
action against Defendants Ferrellgas and AmeriGas under Section 1
of the Sherman Act.

Plaintiff-Appellants are all direct purchasers, that is purchasers
who purchased tanks directly from Defendants for resale. In their
complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the 2008 reduction in fill level
was the product of improper collusion between Defendants, and
despite the settlement agreements, Defendants continue to conspire
and maintain their illegally agreed upon fill levels in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The district court determined that Plaintiffs' claims are barred
by the statute of limitations. The court concluded that none of
the tolling theories advanced by Plaintiffs were sufficient to
adjust or toll the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the
district court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
claims for damages.

Plaintiffs timely appealed. On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the
district court erred in failing to find that the continuing
violations theory, which has the effect of restarting the
limitations period, prevented the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims.
No other issues were raised on appeal.

"Although Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that Defendants
reached an unlawful agreement in 2008, this occurred outside the
limitations period. Without a sufficient overt act to restart the
running of the statute of limitations period, Plaintiffs' claims
that Defendants are engaging in a continuing antitrust violation
must fail," the Eighth Circuit said.

The Appeals Court also said Plaintiffs have not pled overt acts
sufficient to show a continuing conspiracy. Thus, Plaintiffs'
claim of a conspiracy in violation of Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act is
barred by the statute of limitations, and our conclusion reflects
the objectives of Congress in encouraging timely lawsuits for the
public good.

The case is, In re: Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litigation,
No. 15-2789 (8th Cir.).


FIRST CASH: Defending Against "Samtoy" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
First Cash Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on July
6, 2016, Andrew Samtoy, a purported shareholder of Cash America,
filed a Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Petition in the
District Court of Dallas County of the State of Texas, styled
Samtoy et al. v. Stuart et al., DC-16-08063 (the "Samtoy Action"),
against Cash America's board of directors, the Company and Merger
Sub. The complaint in the Samtoy Action also names Cash America as
a nominal defendant. The complaint in the Samtoy Action asserts
direct and derivative claims against Cash America's board of
directors for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with their
approval of the proposed Merger. The complaint in the Samtoy
Action also asserts direct and derivative claims against the
Company and Merger Sub for allegedly aiding and abetting Cash
America's board of directors' breach of fiduciary duties. The
Samtoy Action seeks, among other things, an injunction enjoining
the proposed Merger from closing and an award of attorneys' fees
and costs. Cash America, its board of directors, the Company and
Merger Sub believe that the claims in the complaint are entirely
without merit and intend to defend this action vigorously.


FIRST HORIZON: "Hawkins" Settlement Awaits Definitive Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
settlement in the case, Hawkins v. First Tennessee Bank National
Association, remains subject to a definitive settlement agreement.

First Tennessee Bank National Association is a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit concerning overdraft fees charged in
connection with debit card transactions. A key claim is that the
method used to order or sequence the transactions posted each day
was improper. The case is styled as Hawkins v. First Tennessee
Bank National Association, before the Circuit Court for Shelby
County, Tennessee, Case No. CT-004085-11. The plaintiff seeks
actual damages of at least $5 million, unspecified restitution of
fees charged, and unspecified punitive damages, among other
things.

In July 2016 FHN and the plaintiff submitted a notice of proposed
settlement to the court. That proposed settlement is subject to
negotiation of a definitive settlement agreement and a court
approval process involving several steps and significant remaining
uncertainty. FHN's estimate of RPL for this matter is subject to
significant uncertainties regarding: whether the class
contemplated by the proposed settlement will be certified by the
court; whether outside parties will object or intervene in the
approval process; and whether the court will determine the
settlement to be fair.


FIRST PREMIER BANK: Must Face Class-Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service reported that,
for consumer-protection advocates this year, there have been
perhaps no greater archvillains than payday lenders and consumer
arbitrators, and the Second Circuit dealt significant setbacks to
both on August 29.

The ruling advances a federal class action filed by Deborah Moss,
a New Yorker who sued two out-of-state banks three years ago for
saddling her with a 30 percent interest rate on a $350 loan.

More than 19 million U.S. households, or nearly 1 in 6, have
accepted similar terms to these, but a growing number of states
have banned payday lending for keeping the poor trapped in a
spiral of debt.

New York is one of the 18 states that prohibits predatory loans as
usury, but its online industry keeps drawing desperate people from
across state lines. The banks that lured Moss -- First Premier
Bank and Bay Cities Bank -- operated in South Dakota and Florida,
respectively.

Moss had logged on to oneclickcash.com in 2010 when she signed her
name electronically to a clause that said she would resolve any
dispute before the Minnesota-based National Arbitration Forum
(NAF).

As it happened, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson had shut
down NAF's consumer-arbitration business a year earlier.

Saying the company had hid its ties to the collection industry and
stacked the deck against debtors, Swanson brought charges for
fraud, false advertising and deceptive-trade practices.

After Moss sued over her loan in 2013, the banks insisted that
their arbitration clause still applied, and they asked U.S.
District Judge Joseph Bianco to appoint a different arbitrator.

Bianco rejected that request last year, and the Second Circuit
affirmed that ruling on August 29.

"The arbitration agreement in this case contains numerous
indicators that the parties contemplated one thing: arbitration
before NAF," U.S. Circuit Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote for a three-
person panel.

Since NAF is permanently out of the consumer-arbitration business,
the banks must face their class-action lawsuit in the Eastern
District of New York.


Attorneys for the banks and debtor-class did not immediately
respond to email requests for comments.

Meanwhile, the ruling against a Florida-based bank could have
political reverberations one day before a significant
congressional election there.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who recently resigned as head of
the Democratic Party following the release of embarrassing emails
by WikiLeaks, faces a stiff challenge for her congressional seat
from Tim Canova, a law professor who has attacked her for her past
support of payday lenders.

"After taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from Goldman Sachs
and other Wall Street banks, she has voted to prevent the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau from regulating payday loans and
addressing racial discrimination in car loans," Canova wrote on
his website in March.

Politifact ranked that statement "Mostly True" weeks later, and
continuing pressure caused Wasserman Schultz to drop her former
opposition to tougher regulation of the industry.

The case is captioned, DEBORAH MOSS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FIRST PREMIER
BANK, a South Dakota state-chartered bank, and BAY CITIES BANK, a
Florida state-chartered bank, Defendants-Appellants (2nd Cir.).


FLOWERS FOODS: Oct. 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 17 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Flowers Foods, Inc. ("Flowers Foods" or the
"Company") (NYSE:FLO) and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, and docketed under 16-cv-06523, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Flowers Foods securities between February 7,
2013 and August 10, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period").  This
class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Flowers Foods securities
during the Class Period, you have until October 11, 2016 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Flowers Foods is a producer and marketer of packaged bakery foods
in the United States.  The Company operates 46 bakeries that
produce breads, buns, rolls, snack cakes, pastries, and tortillas.
The Company's products are sold regionally through a direct store
delivery network that encompasses the East, South, and Southwest,
and are sold nationwide via delivery to retailer's warehouses.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) the Company's labor practices were not in compliance
with applicable federal laws and regulations; (ii) this non-
compliance exposed the Company to legal liability and/or negative
regulatory action; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Flowers Foods' business, operations,
and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On August 10, 2016, Flowers Foods disclosed in a Current Report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the
U.S. Department of Labor had notified Flowers Foods that the
Company was scheduled for a compliance review under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The Company further stated that it intended to
cooperate with the Department, and that because the review process
was confidential, Flowers Foods would not comment further at that
time.

On this news, Flowers Foods' stock price fell $1.60 per share, or
9%, to close at $16.15 per share on August 10, 2016, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

After the market closed on August 10, 2016, the Company issued a
press release announcing its Q2 2016 financial results.  Therein,
the Company announced revenue of $935 million, which fell below
the Wall Street projection of $949 million.

On this news, Flowers Foods' stock price fell $1.20 per share, or
7.4%, to close at $14.95 per share on August 11, 2016, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.


FORD: Vehicles Stall or Suddenly Decelerate, Class Action Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
Santa Ana, Calif., claims Ford vehicles with a Delphi Gen 6
electronic throttle body in model years 2011 to 2015 have a
dangerous defect that makes them stall or suddenly decelerate.


GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Sierra Headlight Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that General
Motors wants a GMC Sierra headlight lawsuit dismissed after owners
said the headlights were too dim in the 2014-2015 GMC Sierra 1500
and the 2015 GMC Sierra 2500 and 3500.

Plaintiffs Armando J. Becerra and Guillermo Ruela filed the GMC
Sierra headlight lawsuit after claiming GM has long been aware of
the alleged headlight defect in the GMC trucks but has concealed
the problem from customers.

The lawsuit says GM used three different bulbs for the headlights
in Sierra trucks prior to the 2014 model year trucks: a H11LL bulb
for the low beams, a 9005LL bulb for the high beams and a 5202
bulb for the fog lights.

However, GM allegedly designed a new system that used one 9012
halogen single filament bulb for both the low and high beams.
Historically, vehicle manufacturers have used dual filament bulbs
for low and high beams.  The plaintiffs say General Motors used a
moving shield to alternatively project a low- or high-beam from
the 9012 bulb that can leave drivers blind trying to drive at
night.

The lawsuit says despite numerous complaints about the 2014 GMC
Sierra 1500 headlights, General Motors still expanded the same
allegedly dim headlight design to the 2015 GMC Sierra 1500 and the
2015 GMC 2500HD and 3500HD.

GM argues truck owners don't allege the lights malfunction in any
way, so the case should be dismissed because other lawsuits have
been dismissed because of similar claims.

GM also says the plaintiffs may talk about how insufficient light
for safe night driving can and will lead to accidents and
fatalities, the plaintiffs haven't showed any claims of injuries
or accidents due to the allegedly defective headlights.

Additionally, attorneys for GM told the court the case should be
pitched out because the plaintiffs don't accuse the automaker of
making inaccurate statements about the brightness of the
headlights.  The court was also told the case should be dropped
because there are no claims alleging the automaker intentionally
sold trucks GM believed would be worth less due to the headlights.

General Motors told the judge that truck owners are upset because
the headlights are manufactured differently, not because they are
defective.

The GMC Sierra headlight lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California -- Armando J.
Becerra, Guillermo Ruela, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, Premier
Legal Center, and Patrick Law Firm P.C.

CarComplaints.com has complaints about GMC Sierra headlight
problems:

   -- 2014 GMC Sierra 1500 Headlight Problems
   -- 2015 GMC Sierra 1500 Headlight Problems
   -- 2015 GMC Sierra 2500 Headlight Problems
   -- 2015 GMC Sierra 3500 Headlight Problems


GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Rules on Admissibility in Cockram Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the
father of the plaintiff in the next General Motors trial will get
to tell the jury he tried for several minutes to remove his
daughter's car key from a jammed ignition switch at the scene of
the accident.

Southern District Judge Jesse Furman said Danny Cockram is
"plainly competent" to testify about the position of the ignition
switch following the car crash that left Stephanie Cockram with
serious injuries in 2011.

The ruling was one of several critical calls made by Judge Furman
on Aug. 18 ahead of a Sept. 12 trial date in the next bellwether
case in In Re: General Motors Ignition Switch Litigation,
14-MD-2543.  The cases are against "New GM," the incarnation of
General Motors after "Old GM" went into bankruptcy in 2009.

The judge said GM's motion to preclude Danny Cockram from
testifying about whether the ignition switch on his daughter's
2006 Chevrolet Cobalt was in the "crank" position "borders on
frivolous."

Stephanie Cockram is alleging the ignition switch on her Cobalt
went from the "on" to the "accessory" or "off" position.  She does
not claim the switch caused her accident, but she says the flaw
prevented the air bags from deploying.

In an important ruling for GM, however, the judge said emergency
medical technicians who responded to the accident scene -- all of
whom believed, based on their experience, that the airbags should
have deployed -- cannot offer their opinions to the jury.

But one EMT can testify that he did not observe any "chest
deformities," which made him believe Ms. Cockram's chest didn't
hit the steering wheel and that she may have unbuckled her seat
belt after the crash.

Judge Furman also barred GM from inquiring about Stephanie
Cockram's history of marijuana and alcohol use, employment-related
drug test results, and her temporary termination and
rehabilitation.  The judge said her history was relatively minor,
"has little or no probative value," and could prove highly
prejudicial.

But he opened the door to allowing evidence that she smoked
cigarettes, subject to objections, as relevant to the question of
life expectancy and damages -- although GM may not introduce
evidence she smoked while pregnant.  Judge Furman had barred the
automaker from introducing employment records showing she was
"sleepy" due to taking the anti-anxiety medication clonazepam at
the time of the crash and might have been impaired.

He also ruled against Ms. Cockram's motion to block any mention of
her attempt to get money from the GM Ignition Switch Compensation
Claims Resolution Facility, run by attorney Kenneth Feinberg.

New GM established the fund following the announc0ement in 2014
that millions of cars would have to be recalled because of faulty
switches.  It has paid out some $600 million to date.

Since it is likely Ms. Cockram will ask for punitives "to punish
GM for putting millions of drivers at risk," Judge Furman said,
"New GM should be entitled to show that it attempted to make
amends after the recalls were announced by voluntarily"
establishing the fund.

In another opinion on Aug. 18, Judge Furman said Ms. Cockram could
introduce general evidence of 32 "other similar incidents"
involving GM cars and could possibly introduce 23 others with
greater specificity.

GM is represented by Kirkland & Ellis, led by Richard Godfrey --
richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- Mike Brock --
mike.brock@kirkland.com -- and Andrew Bloomer.


GENKI SUSHI: Sued in Hawaii Following Hepatitis-A Outbreak
----------------------------------------------------------
The Atlantic reports that the Hawaii State Health Department
ordered the immediate closure of nearly a dozen locations of the
restaurant chain Genki Sushi on the islands of Oahu and Kauai amid
the state's worst Hepatitis-A outbreak in decades.

Officials have confirmed 168 cases of the virus since June,
including dozens of people who required hospitalization, saying
imported frozen scallops served raw at Genki Sushi are likely to
blame.  The scallops were imported from the Philippines, according
to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, and distributed by the Honolulu-
based wholesale company Koha Oriental Foods.

A Hepatitis-A outbreak of this scale is unusual but not
unprecedented in recent decades.  In 2003, 565 people were
sickened in Pennsylvania after eating contaminated green onions at
a Chi-Chi's Mexican restaurant.  Three people died as a result.
That same year, 297 cases of Hepatitis A recorded in Georgia were
also linked to contaminated green onions. In 2013, 162 people
across 10 states got Hepatitis A after eating products containing
tainted pomegranate seeds.

Still, the incidence of the virus has dropped dramatically -- by
some 95 percent -- in the United States since a vaccine became
available 20 years ago, according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.  The CDC recommends vaccinating children
at 1 year old, but officials believe many adolescents and adults
remain unvaccinated, which is part of why outbreaks like the one
in Hawaii are concerning.  Hepatitis A is rarely fatal, though it
can cause fatal liver failure.

The virus, which sickens those who consume contaminated food or
water, is highly contagious and spreads fastest in settings where
personal hygiene is subpar or sanitary conditions are poor.  Those
who are infected stay contagious for up to two weeks, and are
often most contagious before symptoms ever appear.  It can take
several weeks -- in some cases even months -- after an infection
before symptoms show up, making the risk of spreading the virus
even greater.  Many people who get the virus never show symptoms.
In young children, the vast majority of Hepatitis A infections are
asymptomatic.  Signs of Hepatitis, when they appear, can include
fever, fatigue, loss of appetite, abdominal pain, clay-colored
bowel movements, vomiting, diarrhea, and yellowing skin and eyes.

Along with closing Genki Sushi for clean-up, the Hawaii State
Department of Health also issued a list of establishments where
food service workers sickened in the latest outbreak are employed
-- including Baskin-Robbins, Chili's, Costco Bakery, Taco Bell,
Papa John's, and several local restaurants on Oahu. This
information is important, as Hepatitis A is often spread by food
handlers who are themselves infected.

State officials told the Star-Advertiser that they're working with
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to further investigate the
origin of the tainted scallops.  Raw shellfish are considered
particularly risky for spreading Hepatitis A, since shellfish make
efficient filters for extracting bacteria from water -- making
them great receptacles for the virus when they're exposed to it.
Although many states have regulations aimed at preventing the
distribution of contaminated shellfish in the United States,
researchers have linked several outbreaks to the illegal
harvesting of oysters and scallops.  The lesson here, health
officials say, is not to eat raw shellfish.

Then again, Hepatitis A is unpredictable, which is part of what
makes outbreaks so disconcerting. Going back to the 1960s, major
outbreaks of the virus have been traced back to frozen
strawberries, frozen raspberries, lettuce, sandwiches, salads,
glazed doughnuts, and pastry icing.

                         Lawsuits

In an article posted by Wayne Parsons, Esq. of Wayne Parsons Law
Offices at The Legal Examiner, he said "I will be filing lawsuits
on behalf of Hawai'i residents who got hepatitis A as a result of
contaminated scallops eaten at one of the Genki Sushi restaurants
in the islands.  Lawsuits for people who have contracted hepatitis
A in this outbreak will not be part of a "class action".  These
will be individual lawsuits for each affected person because the
injury suffered by each person is unique to that person.  The
lawsuits will be filed in state Circuit Court which is the main
court for jury trials in Hawai'i.  Since there will be multiple
lawsuits, it is not uncommon for the court to assign the cases to
a single judge for the purposes of having consistency in rulings
by the court on pretrial matters and an orderly setting of cases
for trial.  For more detailed questions call my office at 808-845-
2211 or my mobile phone at 808-753-0290. There will be no charge
for this call.  It is most important that people get answers to
their health questions so the injuries can be prevented or the
harm minimized."

"I am currently involved in 30+ lawsuits filed on behalf of
Hawai'i residents who suffered liver damage as a result of another
food product.  My office has great experience in helping people
with injury to their liver get back on their feet.  In those other
cases, as well as the upcoming cases to be filed in regard to the
contaminated scallops, I will be working with Andrews & Thornton,
a mainland law firm, which has a long history of success in
representing persons who have suffered damage to their liver from
food products.  In these types of cases I work on a contingency
fee which means that the lawyers do not get paid unless and until
money is recovered for the injured person.  All litigation costs
are paid by my firm and Andrews & Thornton.  The fact that two law
firms are working on the cases together does not mean an increased
fee.  The fee will be the same as charged for a single law firm
and my firm and Andrews & Thornton divide up the standard fee.
The client gets the benefit of two law firms for the price of one.
The client also will have me as their local lawyer to be
responsible for all aspects of the case. Anne Andrews has
developed national prominence in legal circles for representing
people who have suffered injuries like those suffered by the
patrons of Genki Sushi who ate the contaminated scallops."

"Some people have called over the weekend  with questions about
what they should do  if they  ate the scallops at Genki Sushi but
have not  become ill.  The answer is that they should go to a
doctor  and get  a blood test  to see if they have  hepatitis A.
They should then follow the doctor's directions  going forward.
The incubation period  for hepatitis A is 15 - 60 days  and people
should be  alert  to the following symptoms  according to the CDC:

"Some persons, particularly young children, are asymptomatic. When
symptoms are present, they usually occur abruptly and can include
the following:

Fever
Fatigue
Loss of appetite
Nausea
Vomiting
Abdominal pain
Dark urine
Clay-colored bowel movements
Joint pain
Jaundice

"If you ate at Genki Sushi and develop any of these symptoms go to
your doctor  or an emergency room and get a blood test to find out
if you have hepatitis A."

"Remember that hepatitis A can be spread by human contact and
therefore is important to find out if a person has contracted
hepatitis A.  Since the incubation period can stretch up 60 days
the fact that a person does not have symptoms is not completely
reassuring so they don't spread it to family members and friends.
It is equally important to know that you could contract hepatitis
A even though you didn't eat the contaminated scallops but had
contact  with someone  who has contracted  hepatitis A from the
scallops.  The Hawaii Department of Health has been outstanding
in  managing this outbreak and getting information to the public
that will allow people to protect themselves.  Following daily
announcements at the Department of Health website is the best way
to get the latest information on how to protect you and your
family.


GLOBALHUE: Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Coffee, writing for AgencySpy, reports, that in June
AdWeek reported that one-time Adweek "multicultural agency of the
decade" GlobalHue had not paid its employees since March 15.  Many
of those employees reached out to elaborate on their experience
with us, and today one said the window without pay was even
longer, writing, "I can confirm that the last paycheck we received
was Feb 29."

Recently, 10 of those staff members joined a class action suit
against the company and its founder/CEO Don Coleman.

The suit, officially filed on August 15th in Manhattan federal
court by the Filosa Law Firm, accuses Mr. Coleman and his company
of violating these employees' individual contracts as well as the
minimum wage requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law's wage payment requirements.

In addition to the suit, we also hear that GlobalHue will soon
close its New York office after losing its last client, Walmart.
That company recently consolidated its accounts with Publicis, and
multiple sources have told us that the multicultural portion of
the business was part of that move.

For our June post, Mr. Coleman claimed that his company would pay
all of its debts, adding, "We have over a million dollars that has
been held up by my bank over a dispute."  These promised payments
never arrived.  On Aug. 17 Mr. Coleman told AdWeek that he is
"evaluating [the] situation and will comment upon conclusion."

The suit makes various claims beyond what we reported earlier this
summer in seeking "declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief,
as well as monetary damages" for the employees involved.

Those parties range from executive creative director Ola Kudu
Green and account director Sean Creighton to SVP Angela Spencer
Ford, who has been an employee since 2007.

The documents filed by Filosa specifically reference our post,
noting that Coleman "repeatedly assured employees that they would
be paid for the work that they performed" and that he doubled down
on those promises in his June email exchange with AgencySpy. The
suit reads, "Despite this and other assurances, Plaintiffs have
not received any compensation from Defendants for the work that
they performed from March 16, 2016 through the present."  It also
notes that Coleman has continued to assign work to these staffers
despite his repeated failure to pay them and that they have, in
some capacity, served as GlobalHue employees up to the present
day.

The suit also refers to the Walmart account in the past tense,
thereby confirming sources' claims that the company recently ended
its relationship with GlobalHue after more than a decade.

Two separate legal complaints have also been filed against
Mr. Coleman and GlobalHue in recent weeks.

In June, Leonard C. Howard filed suit claiming that Mr. Coleman
had failed to pay him for his duties as driver for Kelli Coleman,
the CEO's daughter.

That suit claims that Mr. Howard's assignment was to drive
Ms. Coleman to work, to wait for her outside the office during the
day, and to take her to "any business and social activities she
attended in the evenings."  He "typically worked about 75 hours
per week," and the suit also claims that Mr. Coleman "frequently
spent long evenings in various clubs in New York City, not
emerging until the early hours of the morning."
Mr. Howard would then be tasked with driving her home and picking
her up to take her to the gym at 8:00 a.m. the following morning.

According to the documents, this "grueling pace" lasted until
Kelli Coleman left the agency in July 2015.  At that time,
Mr. Howard began driving her father, who "did not have the same
social activities."

Like the other employees, Mr. Howard continued working after
receiving his last paycheck on March 15.

The real estate company that owns the agency's headquarters at 123
Williams Street in Manhattan has also sued Coleman for breaking
the lease.  According to The New York Post, the company seeks
$1.24 million from the former NFL linebacker.


GOODMAN GLOBAL: Bid to Certify Class in "Kotsur" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In a memorandum opinion, the Hon. Wendy Beetlestone denies the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Defendants'
motion to exclude opinions of the Plaintiff's metallurgical
engineering expert, Paul J. Sikorsky in the lawsuit captioned
ROBERT KOTSUR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GOODMAN GLOBAL, INC., GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
L.P., and GOODMAN COMPANY, L.P., Case No. 14-1147 (E.D. Pa.).

The Case is a putative class action against a heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) manufacturer.  Defendant
Goodman Global Inc. is the parent company of the other two
Defendants, Goodman Manufacturing L.P. and Goodman Company L.P.;
the latter two "are in the business of designing, manufacturing,
and selling to distributors and dealers heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning [HVAC] components for use in residential
applications."  The Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses to
Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint.

Mr. Kotsur alleges HVAC units built with a Goodman-manufactured
evaporator coil malfunction -- cease to adequately heat or cool
air -- because a defect causes the coil to "prematurely leak
refrigerant during normal use."  He notes formicary corrosion -- a
particular type of corrosion in copper caused by exposure to air,
moisture, and certain organic acids -- as a "potential cause" of
the alleged malfunction.  He argues he need not identify a
specific, common defect because a high rate of malfunction in
Goodman's HVAC units shows such a defect exists.

Judge Beetlestone denies the Motion to Certify because Mr. Kotsur
fails to satisfy the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule
23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
ascertainability and predominance requirements for the proposed
damages class.  The injunctive relief class also cannot be
certified because class members lack standing and the relief
proposed is a disguised request for individualized damages, Judge
Beetlestone opines.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is available at no charge at
http://goo.gl/aNG4Jkfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Silver, Esq.
          Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq.
          Lorenzo B. Cellini, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: asilver@tzlegal.com
                  jtycko@tzlegal.com
                  lcellini@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq.
          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: enafisi@wbmllp.com
                  gmason@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Scott A. George, Esq.
          TerriAnne A. Benedetto, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LP
          1515 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com
                  tbenedetto@seegerweiss.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kimberly A. Brown, Esq.
          Louis A. Chaiten, Esq.
          Richard J. Bedell, Jr., Esq.
          Sharyl A. Reisman, Esq.
          Theodore M. Grossman, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Delmedico, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          500 Grant Street, Suite 4500
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2514
          Telephone: (412) 391-3939
          Facsimile: (412) 394-7959
          E-mail: kabrown@jonesday.com
                  lachaiten@jonesday.com
                  rjbedell@jonesday.com
                  sareisman@jonesday.com
                  tgrossman@jonesday.com
                  jdelmedico@jonesday.com


GROUP HEALTH: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hansen" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Karen Hansen and Bette Joram filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled KAREN HANSEN, each on her own
behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons; BETTE
JORAM, each on her own behalf and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE, Case No. 2:15-cv-
01436-RAJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Richard
A. Jones denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the Case.  The
Court granted in part and denied, in part, the Defendant's motion
to dismiss.  In their complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that GHC
engages in unfair and deceptive practices, in violation of
Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA), through its
development and implementation of coverage determination
guidelines that limit the ability of Washington State
psychotherapists to provide mental health services to GHC plan
members.

The appellate case is captioned as Karen Hansen, et al. v. Group
Health Cooperative, Case No. 16-35684, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Appeals Court set this time schedule:

      September 1, 2016 -- Mediation Questionnaire is due;

      December 2, 2016 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts
      of record will be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and
      9th Cir. R. 32-1;

      January 3, 2017 -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts
      of record will be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and
      9th Cir. R. 32-1; and

      The optional Appellant's reply brief will be filed and
      served within 14 days of service of the Appellee's brief,
      pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1.

Failure of the appellant to comply with the Time Schedule Order
will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on Aug. 17
disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of
purchasers of The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. ("Hain" or the
"Company") securities during the period between November 5, 2015
and August 16, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action
was filed in the Eastern District of New York and is captioned
Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-
04597 (E.D.N.Y).

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 17, 2016.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman, Mario Alba Jr. or Andrew L. Schwartz of Robbins Geller at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.
If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/haincelestial/

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

The complaint charges Hain and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Hain is a publicly traded organic and natural products company
with operations in North America, Europe and India.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented and failed to disclose material adverse facts
regarding the Company's business and prospects, which were known
to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them, including that:
(a) the Company had been improperly and prematurely recognizing
revenues where it had granted customer concessions; (b) Hain's
financial results were materially false and misleading in
violation of U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (c)
Hain's internal controls were so materially inadequate that its
reported results were not reliable; and (d) as a result, the
Company was not on track to achieve the financial results it
stated it was on track to achieve during the Class Period.

On August 15, 2016, after the close of trading, Hain issued a
press release disclosing that it would have to delay the release
of its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2016 financial results.  The
Company announced that during the fourth quarter, it had
identified concessions that were granted to certain distributors
in the United States and it was evaluating whether the revenue
associated with those concessions was accounted for properly.
Hain also announced that it was evaluating its internal control
over financial reporting.  As a result of these disclosures, the
price of Hain common stock fell more than $14 per share to close
at $39.35 per share on August 16, 2016, a one-day decline of more
than 26%, on extremely high trading volume of more than 41.5
million shares traded, or 25 times the average trading volume over
the preceding ten trading days.

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

Robbins Geller is a law firm advising U.S. and international
institutional investors in securities litigation and portfolio
monitoring.  With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has
obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in
history and was ranked first in both total amount recovered for
investors and number of securities class action recoveries in
ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report for the last two years.


HARMONY GOLD: Scope of Nkala Silicosis Class Action Unprecedented
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Pansegrouw, writing for BDLive, reports that the scope and
magnitude of the proposed class actions envisaged in Nkala v
Harmony Gold (with the Treatment Action Campaign and Sonke Gender
Justice as friends of the court) is unprecedented in SA; it will
traverse novel and complex issues of fact and law, and help the
development of class action law in SA.

Class actions, which represent a paradigm shift in South African
law, are processes that permit one or more plaintiffs to file and
prosecute a lawsuit on behalf of a larger group or "class" against
one or more defendants.

Class action processes in SA are part of the equity-developed law
designed to cover situations where the parties, particularly
plaintiffs, are so numerous that it would be almost impossible to
bring them all before the court in one hearing, and where it would
not be in the interest of justice for them to come before the
court individually.

They are also designed to protect the plaintiffs and the
defendants from facing a multiplicity of actions, resulting in the
defendants having to recast their case against each individual
plaintiff.

A class action process moves the litigation forward, is in the
interest of justice, and enhances judicial economy by protecting
courts from having to consider the same issues and evidence in
multiple proceedings, which carries with it the possibility of
different decisions by a different court on the same issue.

It allows for a single finding on the issues, which binds all the
plaintiffs and defendants.

The High Court in Johannesburg handed down a judgment on the Nkala
matter in May, after 69 applicants sought to bring a class action
against 32 companies operating in the gold-mining industry to
claim compensation on behalf of current and former underground
mineworkers who contracted silicosis or pulmonary tuberculosis
(TB), and on behalf of the dependants of mineworkers who died of
silicosis or TB contracted while employed in gold mines.

They sought an order for the certification of one consolidated
class action comprising two classes -- a silicosis class and a TB
class -- against the respondents.  They proposed a bifurcated
process, through which the single class action would proceed in
two stages, one during which issues common to both classes will be
determined, and another during which individual issues will be
determined, with the court sanctioning the adoption of a
bifurcated process.

The potential class members may range from 17,000-500,000, the
bulk of which belong to the silicosis class.

The court followed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in
Children's Resource Centre Trust and Others v Pioneer Food and
Others where that court provided a list of seven requirements of
overlapping nature, which should guide a court in making a
certification decision.

There should be the existence of a class identifiable by objective
criteria, a cause of action raising a tryable issue and that the
right to relief depends upon the determination of issues, of fact,
or law, or both, common to all members of the class.

The Supreme Court of Appeal also held that the relief sought, or
damages claimed, flow from the cause of action and are
ascertainable and capable of determination; and that where the
claim is for damages there is an appropriate procedure for
allocating the damages to the members of the class.

It said that the proposed representative should be suitable to
conduct the action and represent the class; and it should be
determined whether a class action is the most appropriate means of
determining the claims of class members.

The court held that the criteria used to identify members of the
two classes must be objective and, in defining the class, it is
unnecessary to identify all the putative class members, but the
class must be defined with sufficient precision to allow for an
individual's membership to be objectively determined.

The court expressed a view that there was no need for the entire
class membership to be determined before the common issues of fact
or law could be determined or before evidence common to all class
members that advances their cases was entertained.

The court held that a class action is the only realistic option
through which justice can prevail and most mineworkers can assert
their claims effectively against the mining companies, and the
only avenue to realize the right of access to courts, guaranteed
for the mineworkers by the Constitution.

It stated that once the determination on whether there were
sufficient common issues to warrant a class action were made, the
question of the most appropriate way to proceed would almost
certainly fall away, and it concluded that the proposed class
action was the most appropriate way for this matter to proceed.

On the transmissibility of general damages, the majority of the
court held that the common law had to be developed to allow for a
claim for general damages to be transmissible, without being
restricted only to class action suits, to the estate or executor
of a deceased mineworker, even though the stage of close of
pleadings before trial procedures commence had not been reached at
the time of the mineworker's death.

The court rejected the submissions of the mining companies that
the class action is untenable and unmanageable. The liability of
each mining company will be determined at the second stage of the
proceedings, when all the mineworkers and all the dependants of
deceased mineworkers have staked their claims.

In June, the high court refused an application for leave to appeal
brought by some of the mining companies against the certification
of silicosis and TB classes in the class action.  It granted the
mining companies leave to appeal against a finding amending the
common law in respect of the transmissibility of general damages.

Some of the mining companies have petitioned the Supreme Court of
Appeal for leave to appeal the class action certification
judgment.  They are of the view that, due to this being an
unprecedented area of law and that the court failed to address a
number of important aspects in its judgment, the principles have
to be considered by a higher court.

The mining companies have also indicated that they are conscious
of the concerns that the appeal process will delay the
finalization of the matters, and have indicated that should the
leave to appeal be granted, they will request the appeal to be
dealt with on an expedited basis.

The operation and execution of the high court's judgment on the
transmissibility of general damages is suspended pending the
outcome of the appeal, unless the court, in exceptional
circumstances and upon application by the mineworkers, allows its
judgment to be carried into effect pending the decision of the
appeal.

But the operation and execution of the high court's judgment on
the certification of the class action is not suspended pending the
outcome of the petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal for an
application for leave to appeal the certification; and the
processes envisaged dealing with the preparation of the class
action proceedings can proceed pending the outcome.

The Occupational Lung Disease Working Group, consisting of some of
the respondents who have petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeal
for leave to appeal against the certification judgment, said
achieving a mutually acceptable comprehensive settlement that was
fair to past, present, and future employees, and sustainable for
the mining sector, was preferable to protracted litigation and
there were efforts to achieve common ground with relevant
stakeholders.

Despite the development of class action law through case law and
the enactment of constitution-like provisions in the companies and
the consumer protection legislation, there is still a need for
legislative reform of class actions to bring it in line with the
South African Law Commission's report.

As Nkala will undoubtedly lead to further class actions being
launched in SA, the need to have a comprehensive legislative
framework within which to govern class actions is now more
prevalent than before.

The case law to date has greatly assisted with the development and
refinement of the certification process of South African class
actions, but the regulatory framework for the procedure and
conduct of class actions is yet to be developed, especially from a
case management perspective.

When considering the potential of 500,000 or more class members
who could be part of Nkala -- which sets it among the ranks of the
largest class action cases yet certified in the world -- it is
clear that, save for it being in a country with no formal
legislative framework governing class actions, there is also a
dire need for clear guidance to be provided from a case management
perspective on the procedures and conduct in a case of such
unparalleled proportions to ensure its timeous, proactive, cost-
effective, efficient, and pragmatic adjudication to the benefit of
all concerned.  Although legislative reform of class actions by
the government is necessary, the judges in Nkala should be
commended for their active judicial approach in the development of
the legal position of class actions in SA.


HCP INC: To Defend Against Boynton Beach Action
-----------------------------------------------
Quality Care Properties, Inc. in an exhibit to Amendment No. 1 to
Form 10 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 9, 2016, that on May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of
HCP filed a putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-
01106-JJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio against HCP, certain of its officers, HCR ManorCare, Inc.,
and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the federal
securities laws. The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that HCP
made certain false or misleading statements relating to the value
of and risks concerning its investment in HCRMC by allegedly
failing to disclose that HCRMC had engaged in billing fraud, as
alleged by the DOJ in a pending suit against HCRMC arising from
the False Claims Act. As the Boynton Beach action is in its early
stages and a lead plaintiff has not yet been named, the defendants
have not yet responded to the complaint. HCP believes the suit to
be without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.


HERTZ GLOBAL: "Sobel" Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the appeal in the
Sobel class action lawsuit has been fully briefed by the parties
and no oral argument date has been set.

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 ("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 vehicles 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. 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: Bid to Dismiss 4th Amended Complaint Fully Briefed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Old Hertz Holdings
and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint in its entirety in the case, In re Hertz Global
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, is fully briefed.

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
Old Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint
alleged that Old 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.
The complaint sought 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, Old Hertz Holdings responded to the amended
complaint by filing a motion to dismiss. After a hearing in
October 2014, the court granted Old Hertz Holdings' motion to
dismiss the complaint. The dismissal was without prejudice and
plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint
within 30 days of the order. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint which shortened the putative class period
such that it was not alleged to have commenced until May 18, 2013
and made 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 Old Hertz Holdings responded to
the second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss.
On July 22, 2015, the court granted Old 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, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The
third amended complaint included additional allegations, named
additional current and former officers as defendants and expanded
the putative class period such that it was alleged to span from
February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015.

On November 4, 2015, Old Hertz Holdings filed its motion to
dismiss. Thereafter, a motion was made by plaintiff to add a new
plaintiff, because of challenges to the standing of the first
plaintiff. The court granted plaintiffs leave to file a fourth
amended complaint to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint
was filed on March 1, 2016.

Old Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants moved to dismiss
the fourth amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice on
March 24, 2016, and plaintiff filed its opposition to same on May
6, 2016. On June 13, 2016, Old Hertz Holdings and the individual
defendants filed their reply briefs in support of their motions to
dismiss. The matter is now fully briefed.

New Hertz and Herc Holdings are each responsible for a portion of
the matter and Hertz Global will be responsible for managing the
settlement or other disposition of the matter. Hertz Global
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 Global.

"However, we are 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," the Company said.


HORTONWORKS INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hortonworks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the lead plaintiff and
another named plaintiff have filed an amended complaint seeking to
represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Hortonworks' securities between August 5, 2015 and January 15,
2016, inclusive.

On February 29, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of federal securities laws was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned
Monachelli v. Hortonworks, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00980-SI. The
lawsuit names as defendants the Company, Robert G. Bearden, and
Scott J. Davidson. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
allegedly making materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and operations.

On June 1, 2016, the court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel. On July 28, 2016, the lead plaintiff
and another named plaintiff filed an amended complaint seeking to
represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Hortonworks' securities between August 5, 2015 and January 15,
2016, inclusive. 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.

Hortonworks, Inc. seeks to advance the market adoption of Hadoop
and provide enterprises with a new data management solution that
enables them to harness the power of big data to transform their
businesses through more effective and efficient management of
their valuable data assets.


IOWA: City Tenants' Project Settles Landlord-Tenant Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Davis, writing for Iowa city Press-Citizen, reports that the
Iowa City Tenants' Project has again reached a settlement in a
landlord and tenant class action lawsuit.

A Johnson County District Court judge on Aug. 17 approved the
settlement, filed jointly by Tenants' Project attorney
Chris Warnock and attorneys representing landlord Tracy Barkalow
and his property ownership and management companies.

In a two-page ruling, Judge Ian Thornhill wrote that the
settlement agreement would be accepted and plaintiffs named in the
case would receive security deposit refunds within 30 days of the
ruling.  Those plaintiffs and refunds include Brooke Staley, $844;
Tyler Lammer, $850; Shelby Burdette, $255; and $900 to be split
between Dakota Thomas, Bradley Pollpeter and Dylan Thieman.

Per the settlement, all members of the class -- those who rented
from TSB Holdings and Big Ten Property Management during lease
years 2010-11 and 2011-12 -- are eligible to receive $65, or up to
$130 if they were tenants both years.

The original case challenged illegal provisions included in leases
for Mr. Barkalow's property management companies.

In March 2014, Judge Douglas Russell granted the Tenants' Project
class action certification and ruled that several provisions in
the leases, including one that imposed an automatic fee for carpet
cleaning when a tenant moved out, were illegal.  Other illegal
provisions included fees, fines, penalties and charges that go
beyond actual, proven damages, and provisions that removed the
landlord's liability in a number of areas, including for injuries
and loss of property related to theft, fire or other
circumstances.

According to the settlement, the dollar amount for the class award
is $10,400 to be dispersed in $65 payments to former tenants.  The
settlement stipulates that, if there are fewer than 160 class
members registered, leftover money will be donated to a mutually
agreed charity or the state of Iowa.  If there are more than 160
eligible registered class members, payments to tenants will be
reduced proportionally.

Mr. Warnock said via email that tenants who rented from 2010 to
2012 can find more information and register to collect repayment
at the Iowa Tenants' Project website.  The deadline to register is
Dec. 15, according to the Tenant's Project website.

The Aug. 17 ruling comes less than a month after the Tenants'
Project reached a settlement with Iowa City's largest property
management company, Apartments Downtown.  That settlement
established a complaint process in which Apartments Downtown will
pay to retain attorneys from the Iowa Tenants' Project to
represent its tenants over the next three lease years.

Mr. Warnock has said the aim of the class action cases is not to
receive large payments from landlords but to ensure that renters
have a right to legal leases and to defend themselves in court.


J.B. HUNT: Drivers File Class Action in Los Angeles
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
Los Angeles accuses J.B. Hunt Inc. of stiffing drivers for
overtime and expenses.


JOHN VECCHIONE: Patient Sues Over Endocarditis Infection Outbreak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
News12 reports that a patient who was sickened by an infection
outbreak at a Morris County dental office has filed a class-action
lawsuit.

The patient was 23-years-old when he was infected with
endocarditis -- a bacterial infection of the heart.  The outbreak
left one man dead and at least 14 others seriously ill.

The New Jersey Department of Health released a report in July
linking Dr. John Vecchione to at least 15 cases of the outbreak.
Health officials found several safety and sanitary breaches at Mr.
Vecchione's Budd Lake and Parsippany practices during a 2014
investigation.

Most of the patients needed surgery and will have long-term
complications.

TJ Leahy died after the infection attacked his heart.  His wife
Connie wants to know how this happened.

"I have three children looking at me wondering why the Department
of Health found breaches of infection practices, and this man is
still practicing," she says.

Connie Leahy says that she hopes her husband's death will lead to
changes.

"You need to be held accountable. The state needs to be held
accountable.  People need to be held accountable.  And the law
needs to change," she says.

State health officials began their investigation after being
notified of three cases of the same infection in 2014.

Dr. Vecchione didn't answer News 12 New Jersey's request for an
interview.


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Over Trial Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Keown, writing for BioSpace.com, reports that Juno
Therapeutics (JUNO) is facing a class action lawsuit that alleges
the company violated federal securities law.  The lawsuit, filed
in July alleges Hans Bishop, Juno's chief executive officer, and
the company, did not inform investors of a patient death in a
Phase II trial of its lead drug.

In total three patients died during the mid-stage trial of
JCARO15, a CAR-T therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory
B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.  The first patient died in
May.  The trial was ultimately placed on hold by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), but was allowed to resume in July, only
days after the lawsuit was filed. The trial though had a revised
protocol, only allowing the enrollment of patients with
cyclophosphamide pre-conditioning only.

In a July conference call, Mr. Bishop said there were "confounding
factors and a change in plans was not warranted" following the
first death in May.  BioSpace previously reported the first
patient had received not only JCAR015, but also the chemotherapy
drug, fludarabine. The other two patients had also received the
chemotherapy drug as part of treatment protocol.  All three
patients died from cerebral edema, selling in the brain caused by
excess fluid.

Under the initial trial protocol, the patients received a dose of
drugs that kill their existing T-cells and then have them replaced
with genetically engineered T-cells that are designed to target
the cancer cells.  Fludarabine was added to the mix to help the
newly administered T-cells take hold.  Once the company made the
connection of the deaths to fludarabine, Juno sought permission to
renew the trial only with cytoxan and JCAR015, which was what was
being done earlier in the trial.

The lawsuit was filed by Block & Leviton LLP and Tousley Brain
Stephens PLLC on behalf of investors.  In the lawsuit the
plaintiffs say Juno consulted with its data safety monitoring
board as well as the FDA following the death.  However, the
plaintiffs allege the company failed to tell investors about the
first death and instead issued a press release they called
"glowing" and included what they termed "misleading disclosures."
However, the plaintiffs said there was no mention of the first
patient death.  It wasn't until the other two deaths were revealed
that the first one came to light, the plaintiffs said. They also
allege that Bishop and "other Juno insiders old heavily in the
weeks prior to these revelations."

According to the lawsuit, Bishop sold more than $8.6 million
shares of Juno stock in June -- more than twice his total sales
for the entirety of 2015.  After news of the deaths went public,
Juno's stock fell more than 30 percent.  The lawsuit likens
Bishop's actions to his tenure at Dendreon Corporation (DNDN),
which ultimately went bankrupt following disappointing drug
development and sales. Bishop served that company as chief
operations officer.  However, he, along with other executives,
were accused of selling millions of dollars of stock before
releasing disappointing news about the leukemia drug it was
developing.

The lawsuit was initially filed on behalf of a Bulgarian resident,
Goce Velkanoski, who bought Juno stock in June, before information
of the first patient death was reported.  The lawsuit said he has
been "damaged by the revelation of the company's material
misrepresentations and material omissions."

Christopher Williams, a spokesperson for Juno, told GeekWire that
the lawsuit was without merit.

Juno's stumble though was a chance for other companies working on
CAR-T therapies to move forward in the immuno-oncology race.
Following the revelation of Juno's death, Kite Pharma (KITE)
announced its program was on track and said it had "done all the
due diligence a company should do, including for the chemo-
conditioning dose."


LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Court Snubs Class Settlement in "Bailes" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Daniel D. Crabtree entered a memorandum and order in the
lawsuit titled BRYAN BAILES, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others v. LINEAGE LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-02457-DDC-TJJ (D.
Kan.):

   -- denying, without prejudice to future submissions, the
      Plaintiff's amended joint motion for preliminary approval
      of class action settlement;

   -- denying as moot the Plaintiff's joint motion for
      preliminary approval of class action settlement; and

   -- directing the parties to notify the Court on or before
      October 19, 2016, of their intention either to:

      * file a revised settlement agreement and supporting
        documentation in accordance with the Memorandum and
        Order; or

      * abandon settlement and proceed to litigate this dispute.

Plaintiff Bryan Bailes brings the lawsuit on behalf of himself and
putative class members alleging that Defendant, Lineage Logistics,
LLC, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  The parties met,
negotiated, and have agreed to a compromise.

The parties have agreed to settle counts two and three of the
Plaintiff's Complaint for a total of $149,205.  They propose to
distribute this sum as follows: attorneys' fees and costs of
$49,237 (should the court approve the amount); costs of the
settlement administrator, expected to be about $18,000; a $5,000
incentive award for Bryan Bailes, the named plaintiff; and then
the remaining (estimated) $76,968 will be distributed among the
estimated 3,430 class members.  The parties have not yet named
settlement administrator, but they agree that the administrator
will locate correct addresses for class members and, if necessary,
run one skip trace to find any missing class members.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order is available at no charge at
http://goo.gl/W1cSUHfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Jason Brown, Esq.
          Jayson A. Watkins, Esq.
          BROWN AND WATKINS LLC
          301 US 169 Hwy.
          Gower, MO 64454
          Telephone: (816) 505-4529
          Facsimile: (816) 424-1337
          E-mail: brown@brownandwatkins.com
                  watkins@brownandwatkins.com

Defendant Lineage Logistics, LLC, is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Place, Esq.
          Uzoamaka Nwonwu, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          1201 Walnut Street, Suite 1450
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 627-4400
          Facsimile: (816) 627-4444
          E-mail: jplace@littler.com
                  unwonwu@littler.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: $1.4-Bil. Accord in Disability Access Case OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Los Angeles approved a $1.4 billion
settlement in which Los Angeles agrees to fix broken sidewalks and
crosswalks to make them accessible to disabled people -- the class
attorney called it the largest disability access settlement in
history.

U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall also awarded $11.7 million
in legal fees and costs to the class attorneys, resolving the
class action brought by lead plaintiff Mark Willits in 2010.
Marshall signed both orders on Aug. 25.

Los Angeles agreed to spend $1.37 billion over the next three
decades to make its pedestrian facilities accessible. City
Councilman Joe Buscaino called the settlement a good deal for
everyone in Los Angeles, disabled or not.

"There are no losers here," he said.

Willits claimed that the city's crumbling sidewalks and other
barriers prevented people in wheelchairs or with other impairments
from using public sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks and other
walkways, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Among other things, the city will install missing curb ramps, fix
curb ramps that are too steep or narrow, and repair broken
sidewalks and crosswalks.

The $1.37 billion will be spent at about $31 million per year for
the first five years -- about five times as much as the city
typically spends on access improvements.

The annual investment will eventually increase to more than $63
million.

Guy Wallace, lead counsel for the class, called it the largest
disability access class action settlement in U.S. history.

"By making the city's sidewalks and crosswalks accessible, this
settlement will make it much easier for persons with mobility
disabilities to get to and use government facilities, to find or
get to jobs and workplaces, to go shopping, to go to the doctor,
to participate in community life, and to be with their friends and
families," Wallace said.

Under the settlement, people with disabilities can request
improvements in their own neighborhoods, such as curb ramp
installations or tree root repairs.

City Attorney Mike Feuer said the settlement shows L.A.'s
"ironclad long-term commitment" to repair its broken sidewalks.

"It's so much better to prevent residents from being injured in
the first place than to react after the fact. This settlement
directs taxpayer dollars to where they belong: solving one of our
city's most longstanding problems," Feuer said.

The settlement called for the city to pay $13.3 million to the 24
attorneys who litigated the case, but Marshall reduced the award
to $10.2 million. She also approved $1.5 million in attorneys'
costs.

The case is captioned, MARK WILLITS, JUDY GRIFFIN, BRENT PILGREEN
and COMMUNITIES ACTIVELY LIVING INDEPENDENT & FREE ("CALIF"), on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v.s. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity, Defendant.,
Case No. CV 10-05782 CBM (RZx)(C.D. Cal.).


MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Fober" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Audrey Fober filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Audrey Fober v. Management and Technology
Consultants, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01673-CJC-DFM, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa
Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Audrey Fober
seeks to stop the Defendants' alleged practice of placing calls on
consumers' cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice.

Management and Technology Consultants, L.L.C. owns and operates a
marketing company in California.

The appellate case is captioned as Audrey Fober v. Management and
Technology Consultants, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-56220, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Appeals Court set this schedule:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by September 26, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on December 27, 2016;

   -- Appellant Audrey Fober's opening brief is due February 6,
      2017;

   -- Appellees Does and Management and Technology Consultants,
      LLC's answering brief is due on March 8, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant Audrey Fober, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

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

Defendant-Appellee MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANTS, LLC, is
represented by:

          Harrison Maxwell Brown, Esq.
          Anahit Tagvoryan, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 239-3400
          Facsimile: (424) 239-3434
          E-mail: hbrown@blankrome.com
                  atagvoryan@blankrome.com


MAINSOURCE FINANCIAL: Case Settlement Subject to Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Mainsource Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
settlement contemplated by a memorandum of understanding is
subject to confirmatory discovery and customary conditions.

Two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Common Pleas, Hamilton, Ohio, Civil Division, challenging the
proposed merger and naming as defendants Cheviot, its directors,
and MainSource (collectively, the "defendants"). These actions are
captioned: (1) Raymond J. Neiheisel v. Cheviot Financial Corp., et
al., Case No. A1600359 (filed January 15, 2016); and (2) Stephen
Bushansky v. Steven Hausfeld, et al., Case No. A1600936 (filed
February 16, 2016) (together, the "Actions").

On February 29, 2016, each plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
On March 24, 2016, the court consolidated the actions under
Raymond J. Neiheisel v. Cheviot Financial Corp., et al., Case No.
A1600359 (collectively, the "Actions"). The amended consolidated
complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of
Cheviot breached their fiduciary duties of due care, independence,
good faith and fair dealing to the stockholders of Cheviot, that
the consideration to be received by the stockholders is inadequate
and undervalues Cheviot, that the Merger Agreement includes
improper deal-protection devices that purportedly lock up the
Merger and may operate to prevent other bidders from making
successful competing offers for Cheviot, that the deal protection
devices unreasonably inhibit the ability of the directors of
Cheviot to act with respect to investigating and pursuing superior
proposals and alternatives and that the Merger Agreement involves
conflicts of interest.

The complaint further alleges that Cheviot and MainSource aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the
directors of Cheviot. The amended consolidated complaint also
alleges that the registration statement on Form S-4, initially
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on
February 11, 2016 in connection with the Merger, provides
materially misleading and incomplete information rendering the
stockholders of Cheviot unable to make an informed decision with
respect to the Merger.

On April 21, 2016, defendants and lead plaintiffs entered into a
memorandum of understanding ("MOU"), which provides for the
settlement of the Actions. The settlement contemplated by the MOU
is subject to confirmatory discovery and customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to Cheviot's
stockholders. If the settlement is finally approved by the court,
it will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of Cheviot
challenging any aspect of the merger, the merger agreement, and
any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms
that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of
the settlement.

The Company does not anticipate a material financial impact as a
result of the Actions or the MOU.


MDL 2521: Endo, Teikoku Appeal Ruling to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------
Defendants Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teikoku Pharma USA and
Teikoku Seiyaku Co. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Lidoderm Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 3:14-md-02521-WHO, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

The Respondent is the District Court.

The appellate case is captioned as Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al. v. USDC-CASF, Case No. 16-72817, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising out
of allegations that the Defendants violated federal and state
antitrust laws by excluding generic competition for Endo's name
brand drug Lidoderm, a topical patch containing 5% lidocaine for
use in treating pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia.  The
Defendants' alleged anticompetitive conduct includes, inter alia,
engaging in sham patent infringement litigation and entering into
an anticompetitive reverse payment agreement in order to prevent
generic competitors to Lidoderm from entering the market.

Defendant-Petitioner ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., is represented
by:

          Daniel B. Asimow, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
          Telephone: (415) 471-3100
          E-mail: daniel.asimow@aporter.com

               - and -

          Steven Reade, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          601 Massachusetts Ave, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 942-5678
          E-mail: steven.reade@aporter.com

Defendants-Petitioners TEIKOKU PHARMA USA and TEIKOKU SEIYAKU CO.
are represented by:

          David S. Elkins, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          620 Hansen Way
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1043
          Telephone: (650) 843-3378
          E-mail: david.elkins@squirepb.com

               - and -

          Joseph A. Meckes, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 954-0200
          E-mail: joseph.meckes@squirepb.com

Real Parties in Interest UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL
1776 & PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, NECA-IBEW
WELFARE TRUST FUND, CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND, IRON WORKERS
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW ENGLAND WELFARE FUND, INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 49 HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 132 HEALTH AND
WELFARE FUND are represented by:

          Natalie F. Bennett, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLC
          35 E. State St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (610) 891-9883
          E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E-1250 First National Bank Bldg.
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
          THE DUGAN LAW FIRM
          365 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 648-0180
          Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
          E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403-3415
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 S. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400
          Facsimile: (312) 676-2676
          E-mail: lfanning@millerlawllc.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com

Real Party in Interest UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL
1776 & PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND is
represented by:

          Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: smg@girardgibbs.com

Real Parties in Interest UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL
1776 & PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, NECA-IBEW
WELFARE TRUST FUND, CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND, IRON WORKERS
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW ENGLAND WELFARE FUND, INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 49 HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 132 HEALTH AND
WELFARE FUND are represented by:

          Ralph Kalfayan, Esq.
          KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite # 530
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0331
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4019
          E-mail: rkalfayan@kkbs-law.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: jkodroff@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Joseph Carl Kohn, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Karen Leser Grenon, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLC
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          Facsimile: (860) 526-1120
          E-mail: kleser@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Rosemary Farrales Luzon, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKLEMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          401 West A Street, Suite 2350
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 235-2416
          E-mail: rluzon@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          William H. London, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: wlondon@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 S. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400
          Facsimile: (312) 676-2676
          E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com

               - and -

          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Brian Oliver O'Mara, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: DavidM@rgrdlaw.com
                  bomara@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Douglas R. Plymale, Esq.
          THE DUGAN LAW FIRM
          365 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 648-0180
          Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
          E-mail: dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
                  jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          J. Douglas Richards, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
          E-mail: drichards@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          28 W. 44th Street
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 564-1637
          Facsimile: (212) 564-1807
          E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403-3415
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com

Real Party in Interest PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 178 HEALTH &
WELFARE TRUST FUND is represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG, LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 432-1495
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com

Real Parties in Interest LOCAL 17 HOSPITALITY BENEFIT FUND and
STEVEN ROLLER are represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Ralph Kalfayan, Esq.
          KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite # 530
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0331
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4019
          E-mail: rkalfayan@kkbs-law.com

               - and -

          Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
                  jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com

Real Party in Interest ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC., is
represented by:

          Peter R. Kohn, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          101 Greenwood Avenue
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
          E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Sarah Rebecca Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          David Francis Sorensen, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3053
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  dsorensen@bm.net

               - and -

          Tom Sobol, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
          E-mail: tom@hagens-berman.com

Real Party in Interest DROGUERIA BETANCES, INC., is represented
by:

          Joseph Opper, Esq.
          GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
          Wall Street Plaza
          88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 398-0055
          E-mail: jopper@garwingerstein.com

               - and -

          Tom Sobol, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
          E-mail: tom@hagens-berman.com

Real Party in Interest WELFARE PLAN OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATION ENGINEERS LOCALS 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R, is
represented by:

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403-3415
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Brian Oliver O'Mara, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: DavidM@rgrdlaw.com
                  bomara@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Douglas R. Plymale, Esq.
          THE DUGAN LAW FIRM
          365 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 648-0180
          Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
          E-mail: dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: apurdy@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          J. Douglas Richards, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
          E-mail: drichards@cohenmilstein.com

Real Party in Interest ALLIED SERVICES DIVISION WELFARE FUND is
represented by:

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E-1250 First National Bank Bldg.
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
          THE DUGAN LAW FIRM
          365 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 648-0180
          Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
          E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: jkodroff@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Joseph Carl Kohn, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Brian Oliver O'Mara, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: DavidM@rgrdlaw.com
                  bomara@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Douglas R. Plymale, Esq.
          THE DUGAN LAW FIRM
          365 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 648-0180
          Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
          E-mail: dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: apurdy@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          J. Douglas Richards, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
          E-mail: drichards@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          28 W. 44th Street
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 564-1637
          Facsimile: (212) 564-1807
          E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com

Real Party in Interest AMERICAN SALES COMPANY, LLC, is represented
by:

          Joseph Carl Kohn, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Tom Sobol, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
          E-mail: tom@hagens-berman.com

Real Party in Interest CESAR CASTILLO, INC., is represented by:

          Brent William Landau, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          325 Chestnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 985-3273
          Facsimile: (215) 985-3270
          E-mail: blandau@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP
          850 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumllp.com

               - and -

          Tom Sobol, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
          E-mail: tom@hagens-berman.com

Real Party in Interest GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HEALTH ASSOCIATION,
INC., is represented by:

          Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
          BERMAN DeVALERIO
          One California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
          E-mail: tseaver@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
          One North Broadway, Fifth Floor
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          E-mail: pstphillip@lowey.com

Real Party in Interest END-PAYOR PLAINTIFFS is represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Christina C. Sharp, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  chc@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
                  jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com

Real Parties in Interest WALGREEN CO., THE KROGER CO., SAFEWAY
INC., HEB GROCERY COMPANY LP and ALBERTSONS LLC are represented
by:

          Anna Theresa Neill, Esq.
          Scott Eliot Perwin, Esq.
          Lauren Carol Ravkind, Esq.
          KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A.
          1441 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 373-1000
          Facsimile: (305) 372-1861
          E-mail: aneill@knpa.com
                  sep@kennynachwalter.com
                  lcr@kennynachwalter.com

Real Parties in Interest RITE AID CORPORATION and RITE AID HDQTRS.
CORP. are represented by:

          Monica L. Rebuck, Esq.
          HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL PUDLIN & SCHILLER
          4400 Deer Path Road, Suite 200
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 364-1007
          Facsimile: (215) 568-0300
          E-mail: mrebuck@hangley.com


MDL 2724: Philadelphia, Rhode Island Cases Transferred
------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation has issued an order transferring
certain cases as In Re Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 2724, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The Company said, "Beginning in January 2016, several complaints,
including multiple class action complaints, have been filed in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and in the U.S. District Courts
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the District of Rhode
Island against us and certain of our subsidiaries, including Par,
along with other manufacturers of certain generic pharmaceutical
products, seeking compensatory and punitive or treble damages, as
well as injunctive relief and alleging that certain marketing and
pricing practices by the defendant companies violated state law,
including consumer protection law and/or federal and state
antitrust laws.

"The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, issued an order in August 2016 transferring
certain of these cases as In Re Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2724, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Additional similar claims
may be brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions."


MERCK & CO: 4,400 Fosamax Cases Pending as of June 30
-----------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Merck remains a
defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States
involving Fosamax (Fosamax Litigation). As of June 30, 2016,
approximately 4,400 cases are filed and pending against Merck in
either federal or state court, including one case which seeks
class action certification, as well as damages and/or medical
monitoring.

In approximately 20 of these actions, plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw
(ONJ), generally subsequent to invasive dental procedures, such as
tooth extraction or dental implants and/or delayed healing, in
association with the use of Fosamax. In addition, plaintiffs in
approximately 4,380 of these actions generally allege that they
sustained femur fractures and/or other bone injuries (Femur
Fractures) in association with the use of Fosamax.

Cases Alleging ONJ and/or Other Jaw Related Injuries

In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) ordered that certain Fosamax product liability cases
pending in federal courts nationwide should be transferred and
consolidated into one multidistrict litigation (Fosamax ONJ MDL)
for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with the
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to
resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the Fosamax ONJ MDL and
in the state courts for an aggregate amount of $27.7 million.
Merck and the PSC subsequently formalized the terms of this
agreement in a Master Settlement Agreement (ONJ Master Settlement
Agreement) that was executed in April 2014 and included over 1,200
plaintiffs.

In July 2014, Merck elected to proceed with the ONJ Master
Settlement Agreement at a reduced funding level of $27.3 million
since the participation level was approximately 95%. Merck has
fully funded the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement and the escrow
agent under the agreement has been making settlement payments to
qualifying plaintiffs. The claims of approximately 20 non-
participants' will remain once the settlement is complete. The ONJ
Master Settlement Agreement has no effect on the cases alleging
Femur Fractures.


MERCK & CO: Awaits 3rd Cir. Decision on Preemption Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has heard oral argument on
plaintiffs' appeal of the preemption ruling and the parties await
the decision.

Cases Alleging Femur Fractures

In March 2011, Merck submitted a Motion to Transfer to the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) seeking to have
all federal cases alleging Femur Fractures consolidated into one
multidistrict litigation for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.
The Motion to Transfer was granted in May 2011, and all federal
cases involving allegations of Femur Fracture have been or will be
transferred to a multidistrict litigation in the District of New
Jersey (the Femur Fracture MDL). Judge Pisano presided over the
Femur Fracture MDL until March 2015, at which time the Femur
Fracture MDL was reassigned from Judge Pisano to Judge Freda L.
Wolfson following Judge Pisano's retirement. In the only
bellwether case tried to date in the Femur Fracture MDL, Glynn v.
Merck, the jury returned a verdict in Merck's favor.

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

In August 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court entered an order
requiring plaintiffs in the Femur Fracture MDL to show cause why
those cases asserting claims for a femur fracture injury that took
place prior to September 14, 2010, should not be dismissed based
on the court's preemption decision in the Glynn case. Pursuant to
the show cause order, in March 2014, the Femur Fracture MDL court
dismissed with prejudice approximately 650 cases on preemption
grounds. Plaintiffs in approximately 515 of those cases are
appealing that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

In June 2015, the Femur Fracture MDL court dismissed without
prejudice another approximately 520 cases pending plaintiffs'
appeal of the preemption ruling to the Third Circuit. On June 30,
2016, the Third Circuit heard oral argument on plaintiffs' appeal
of the preemption ruling and the parties await the decision.

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

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

As of June 30, 2016, approximately 20 cases were pending in the
Femur Fracture MDL, excluding the 515 cases dismissed with
prejudice on preemption grounds that are pending appeal and the
520 cases dismissed without prejudice that are also pending the
aforementioned appeal.


MERCK & CO: 3,020 Femur Fracture Cases Pending in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, 2016,
approximately 3,020 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed
in New Jersey state court and are pending before Judge Jessica
Mayer in Middlesex County. The parties selected an initial group
of 30 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery. Two additional
groups of 50 cases each to be reviewed through fact discovery were
selected in November 2013 and March 2014, respectively. A further
group of 25 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery was
selected by Merck in July 2015, and Merck has recently begun
selecting the next group of cases to be reviewed through fact
discovery.


MERCK & CO: 295 Femur Fracture Cases Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, 2016,
approximately 295 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed
and are pending in California state court.

A petition was filed seeking to coordinate all Femur Fracture
cases filed in California state court before a single judge in
Orange County, California. The petition was granted and Judge
Thierry Colaw is currently presiding over the coordinated
proceedings.

In March 2014, the court directed that a group of 10 discovery
pool cases be reviewed through fact discovery and subsequently
scheduled the Galper v. Merck case, which plaintiffs selected, as
the first trial. The Galper trial began in February 2015 and the
jury returned a verdict in Merck's favor in April 2015, and
plaintiff has appealed that verdict to the California appellate
court. The next Femur Fracture trial in California that was
scheduled to begin in April 2016, was stayed at plaintiffs'
request and a new trial date has not been set.

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

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


MGM RESORTS: Objector's Settlement Appeal Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
MGM Resorts International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that an objector's Appeal as
to the Final Judgment and related orders in the case, In re MGM
MIRAGE Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:09-cv-01558-GMN-LRL,
remains pending.

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 named the Company and certain
former and current directors and officers as defendants and allege
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. After transfer of the cases in
2010 to the Honorable Gloria M. Navarro, the court appointed
several employee retirement benefits funds as co-lead plaintiffs
and their counsel as co-lead and co-liaison counsel.

In January 2011, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, alleging that between August 2, 2007 and March 5, 2009,
the Company, its directors and certain of its officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

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

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 was 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, preliminarily certified the
class for settlement purposes only, established class notification
procedures and scheduled a hearing to determine whether to grant
final approval to the settlement.

On March 1, 2016 the court conducted a settlement hearing and
entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice
(the "Final Judgment").  At the hearing, the court considered,
among other factors, the strength of the available defenses on the
merits, the size of the settlement, the non-objections to the
settlement by more than 200,000 putative members of the settlement
class, and the express endorsement of the settlement by the four
court-appointed institutional lead plaintiffs.  Only one class
member objected to the adequacy of the settlement and the court
entering Final Judgment. The court entered the Final Judgment over
his objection.

In the Final Judgment, the court found that the settlement was
fair, reasonable and adequate to the settlement class in all
respects.  The court granted final approval of the Settlement
Agreement, dismissed the actions and all released claims with
prejudice as to all defendants, and expressly provided that
neither the settlement nor associated negotiations and proceedings
constitute an admission or evidence of liability, fault or
omission by the defendants.

On March 25, 2016, the objector filed a Notice of Appeal as to the
Final Judgment and related orders entered by the court concerning
the plan of settlement distribution and award of attorneys' fees
and expenses to the lead plaintiffs' counsel. Appellant's opening
brief was due in August 2016. The Company and all other defendants
plan to vigorously defend the Final Judgment on appeal. If the
Final Judgment is affirmed, the Company may pursue an award of
damages against the objector on the grounds that the appeal filed
was frivolous. If the Final Judgment is reversed on appeal, the
Company and other defendants will vigorously defend against the
claims asserted in these securities cases.


MORGAN STANLEY: Faces $150MM Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Love and Alex Padalka, writing for Financial Advisor IQ,
reports that a $150 million class action suit against Morgan
Stanley alleges the firm mismanages its employees' retirement
funds by placing them in inferior products and charging excessive
fees, according to a press release from the law firm representing
the plaintiffs.

The suit, filed by attorney Charles Field --
cfield@sanfordheisler.com -- for plaintiff Robert Patterson and
60,000 other current and former plan participants, accuses Morgan
Stanley of investing its employees' retirement savings in "funds
that consistently underperform compared to other similar
collective investment funds," Mr. Field's firm, Sanford Heisler,
said in its press release.  Morgan Stanley's 401(k) plan has over
$8 billion in assets, making it one of the biggest in the country,
according to the press release.

The complaint also alleges that Morgan Stanley was at one point
"self-dealing" by investing in mutual funds it managed itself
without "thoroughly investigating" whether plan participants were
better off with funds managed by third parties, according to the
press release.  One such fund allegedly performed at the bottom
10% among its peers, Field said in an interview with FA-IQ.

Furthermore, the suit alleges that Morgan Stanley charges higher
fees in the plan than it does to outside investors in "like assets
and similar investment strategies," the press release said.

The suit, which targets Morgan Stanley, its subsidiaries and its
board of directors, seeks $150 million in compensation for losses
allegedly suffered as a result of the plan's underperforming
products and excessive fees, an overhaul of Morgan Stanley's
retirement plans in regard to the selection of investments and
recordkeeping expenses, and the removal of the people overseeing
the plan who the plaintiffs allege violated their fiduciary duty,
according to the press release.

"It appears that Morgan Stanley was using the plan to promote
their own mutual funds," says Mr. Field.  "The result seems to be
that if participants wanted to invest in a mid-cap growth fund,
they had no choice but to select a fund that was performing as low
as the 90th percentile."

Mr. Field, who also recently filed a class action suit against
Columbia University's 403(b) plan, says while this is not the
first time a financial services firm has been sued by its own
employees over retirement savings provisions, he believes it is
the first case involving a wirehouse and its employees.

Last year in separate class actions plan participants filed suits
against Allianz Asset Management's and BB&T Corporation's 401(k)s,
while in 2013 both SunTrust and MassMutual were the targets of
similar suits.

When approached by FA-IQ, a Morgan Stanley spokeswoman said the
firm did "not have a comment" on the lawsuit.


MYLAN N.V.: Briefing on Objections to Recommendation Completed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that in a consolidated shareholders
class action, briefing on the plaintiffs' objections to a
magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation has been completed.

On June 11, 2015, City of Riviera Beach General Employees
Retirement System and Doris Arnold (collectively, the
"plaintiffs") filed a purported class action complaint against
Mylan and directors of Mylan Inc. (the "Directors") in the
Washington County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas (the
"Pennsylvania Court"), on behalf of certain former shareholders of
Mylan Inc. The complaint alleged both breach of fiduciary duty by
the Directors and breach of contract by Mylan and the Directors,
relating to certain public disclosures made in connection with the
EPD Transaction and the organization of, and Call Option Agreement
with, the Foundation. The plaintiffs asked the Pennsylvania Court
to: find that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties and
that Mylan and the Directors breached the purported contract,
rescind the vote of Mylan Inc.'s former shareholders approving the
EPD Transaction, award compensatory damages and award Plaintiffs
their costs relating to the lawsuit.

On June 22, 2015, Mylan and the Directors removed the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the
"District Court"). The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
the District Court on July 10, 2015, that included the same basic
causes of action and requested relief, dropped allegations against
some of the Directors named in the original complaint and asserted
the breach of contract claim not on behalf of a purported class of
former shareholders of Mylan Inc. but on behalf of a purported
subclass of such shareholders who held shares of Mylan
continuously for a specified period following consummation of the
EPD Transaction.

On July 21, 2015, a second purported class action complaint
against the same defendants, asserting the same basic claims and
requesting the same basic relief on behalf of the same purported
class and subclass, was filed by a different plaintiff in the
District Court.

On August 28, 2015, the District Court consolidated the three
actions, and, on September 4, 2015, the plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed a consolidated amended complaint (the
"Consolidated Amended Complaint") against the same defendants,
asserting the same basic claims and requesting the same basic
relief on behalf of the same purported class and subclass, but
asserting the breach of contract claim against only Mylan.

On September 30, 2015, two of the plaintiffs in the consolidated
action filed a motion for partial summary judgment, on the breach
of contract claim against Mylan (the "Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment").

On October 23, 2015, the District Court approved the voluntary
dismissal of a third purported class action, commenced on August
28, 2015 against Mylan and the Directors, alleging federal
securities and breach of contract claims against all defendants
and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Directors, all
arising out of the same basic alleged facts and requesting the
same basic relief on behalf of certain former shareholders of
Mylan Inc.

On November 25, 2015, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint, and Mylan filed an Opposition to
the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and a Motion to Deny
Summary Judgment.

On December 21, 2015, the District Court consolidated the action
with a fourth purported class action, commenced on November 24,
2015 by, among others, the plaintiff in the third action, against
the same defendants, alleging only breach of contract arising out
of the same basic alleged facts, and requesting the same basic
relief on behalf of certain former shareholders of Mylan Inc. In
consolidating the actions, the District Court ordered, among other
things, that the Consolidated Amended Complaint would remain the
operative complaint in the consolidated action and that the Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss were not
disturbed by the consolidation.

A Report and Recommendation was issued by the Magistrate Judge on
May 10, 2016, recommending to the District Court that the
defendants' Motion to Dismiss the plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended
Complaint be granted and that the case be dismissed with
prejudice. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the
District Court deny the plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment as moot. Briefing on the plaintiffs' objections to the
Report and Recommendation was completed on June 7, 2016.

"We believe that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and
intend to continue to defend against them vigorously," the Company
said.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


MYLAN N.V.: Rhode Island Case Transferred to Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has ordered that cases in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and
Rhode Island related to Doxycycline and Digoxin products be
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Beginning in March 2016, fourteen putative class action complaints
have been filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and one filed in the District of
Rhode Island by indirect purchasers against Mylan Inc., Mylan
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and other pharmaceutical manufacturers,
alleging conspiracies to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
prices of certain Doxycycline and Digoxin products and to allocate
markets and customers for those products.

In addition, three putative class action complaints have been
filed in the same court by direct purchasers against Mylan and
other pharmaceutical manufacturers. Plaintiffs have petitioned the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to establish a
Multidistrict Litigation proceeding for these matters.

A hearing before the JPML took place on July 28, 2016 and it was
subsequently ordered that the cases be transferred to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. Mylan and its subsidiary intend to deny
liability and to defend these actions vigorously.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action in U.S. Over Rate-Rigging
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swati Pandey and Cecile Lefort, writing for Reuters, report that
Australia's four biggest banks said on Aug. 18 they were among 17
global lenders being sued by U.S. funds for alleged benchmark
interest rate rigging, denying the claims and pledging to contest
the action.

The suit follows ongoing court action on the matter by Australian
regulators, and comes amid increasing scrutiny by global watchdogs
on potential market manipulation.  Recent investigations have
ensnared major global lenders and led to hefty fines.

In the latest suit naming National Australia Bank, ANZ Banking
Group, Westpac Banking Corp and Commonwealth Bank of Australia,
two U.S.-based investment funds and an individual derivatives
trader have brought a class action in a writ filed in United
States District Court for the southern district of New York on
Aug. 16.

Allegations center around the banks making hundreds of millions of
dollars in profits by setting benchmark bank bill swap rates
(BBSW) at levels that benefited their trading books, according to
the filing, supplied to Reuters by one of the banks.

National Australia Bank, Australia's top lender, said in a
statement it did not agree with the claims, while fourth-biggest
ANZ Banking Group said it would vigorously defend the legal
action.

No.3 lender Westpac said it was aware that a class action had been
filed but was not formally served with any proceedings. "Westpac
denies the allegations in this claim and, if served with the
claim, will defend those allegations vigorously."

These three are already facing charges laid by the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) for allegedly
manipulating the same benchmark interest rates.  All three have
refuted the claims.

A spokeswoman for Commonwealth Bank of Australia -- not named in
the Australia action -- said the nation's second-largest lender
would defend the claim filed in court in the United States.

The BBSW is the primary interest rate benchmark used in Australian
financial markets to price home loans, credit cards and other
financial products.

Earlier this year, statements of claims filed in Australian courts
by ASIC revealed rare evidence -- including emails, phone calls
and electronic chats -- that demonstrated what the regulator said
was a conspiracy among BBSW panel banks and brokers to fix the
prices.

The banks "manipulated BBSW so frequently that traders often joked
about how easy it was to fix the rate", according to the writ
filed in the U.S. court.

"When one ANZ trader sarcastically commented 'lucky the rate sets
are all legit and there is no manipulation within the Australian
financial system', his colleague replied 'ahahah'," according to
the U.S. filing.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Players Pay Close Attention to Concussions
------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Jacobs, writing for The News & Observer, reports that
concussions and their consequences remain a topic of intense
interest from courthouses to pathology labs, Hollywood studios to
locker rooms, doctor's offices to sidelines.  While concerns
haven't noticeably lessened fan enthusiasm for football -- the
NCAA achieved record attendance levels in 2015 -- college players
are paying close attention, as evident during the July 2016 ACC
Football Kickoff at Charlotte.

A random survey of players in attendance found about a third had
knowingly suffered concussions during their college careers.  Keep
in mind that only one in six concussions is diagnosed, according
to the Concussion Legacy Foundation.  "A lot of times they go
unnoticed, and it's up to the athlete to report that to us," says
Rob Murphy, N.C. State's director of sports medicine. "The
mentality of an athlete is fight through it, be tough.  But the
reality is, you can't be tough when you're dealing with head
trauma."

Wake Forest linebacker Marquel Lee didn't hide anything.  "I felt
my bell get rung," recalls Lee, felled while trying to tackle
Florida State quarterback Jameis Winston in 2014. "I knew
something wasn't right.  I stayed on the ground." After
ministrations by trainers, Mr. Lee was sidelined during a bye
week, then returned to action.  "Concussions, it's part of the
game," says the team captain.  "I've been playing this all my
life.  It happens. I t doesn't deter me from doing my job."

Several ACC players reported watching the 2015 film "Concussion,"
in which Will Smith portrays Dr. Bennet Omalu, who deduced that
CTE, chronic traumatic encephalopathy, is caused by repeated blows
to the head, leading to memory loss, depression, mood swings and
suicides among a number of prominent former NFL players.  Central
to the movie's narrative was the NFL's years of obfuscating the
dangers of brain injury, particularly the cumulative harm caused
over the course of players' careers.

By now, though, the leader in denial has come around.  The shift
was emphasized earlier this year when Jeff Miller, the NFL's vice
president for health and safety policy, responded to a
congressional query about a possible link between playing football
and degenerative brain disorders.  According to The New York
Times, the NFL official conceded, "The answer to that is
certainly, yes."

Contrasting concerns

The prospect of risking long-term trauma has depressed youth
participation and persuaded a trickle of NFL players to retire
early, vocally citing health concerns.  Included was seven-year
pro veteran Eugene Monroe, an All-ACC pick at Virginia in 2008.
"Has the damage to my brain already been done?" he asked in "The
Players' Tribune" upon retiring as an NFL offensive tackle. Monroe
suffered a concussion and sat out three games in 2015.  "Do I have
CTE? I hope I don't, but over 90 percent of the brains of former
NFL players that have been examined showed signs of the disease.
I am terrified."

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman appears unworried.  He recently
minimized any relationship between CTE and repeated concussions as
"nascent science."  With his league facing a lawsuit by former
players over failure to warn of the long-term effects of head
injuries -- the NFL and the NCAA have settled similar class-action
suits -- Mr. Bettman attempted to deflect concerns by fingering a
familiar culprit, echoing Gov. Pat McCrory's defense of House Bill
2 by blaming "media hype."

In contrast, Nathan Peterman, a quarterback and grad transfer
enrolled in Pitt's business school, watched "Concussion" and found
it "pretty educational."  He took note of a statistic shown on the
screen at the end of the film.  "Actuaries hired by the NFL have
concluded that 28 percent of all professional football players
will suffer from serious cognitive impairment, including CTE," it
said.

"I've been very blessed to not have that to happen to me yet, and
hopefully ever," Mr. Peterman says.  And while he didn't knock on
wood to ward off a concussion, three other ACC players did.
Peterman's football career had more targeted protection -- control
over who in his family in Jacksonville, Fla., got to see
"Concussion."  "It would probably scare my mother at home," he
notes.  "I don't know if my dad's let her watch the movie yet."

Accepting the risks

Virginia's Micah Kiser was assigned to view the Smith movie for a
class called "Race, Sport and Film." He demurred.  "I did not
watch it because I kind of know what it's about.  I don't want any
doubt in my head."  Nor did he care to watch a movie that cast "a
bad light" on the sport he loves.

The inside linebacker says the violence inherent in football
attracts spectators, consistent with entertainment popular for
thousands of years.  "If you look at history, places like in Rome
wanted to watch gladiators, boxing. Football, people want to see
that kind of sport.  I think there's always going to be a lane for
it."

Mr. Kiser believes those uncomfortable with a game that might
cause cognitive decline, schoolmates among them, don't appreciate
football as he does.  "I think that's what a lot of people don't
understand -- how important football can be in your life," he
says.  "They don't understand just because they're looking from
afar.  Why would you want to play a sport where you can be getting
these concussions, you could get CTE? But until you're part of it
you'll never understand."

Jack Tocho understands -- both the lure of football and the pain
of a concussion, which he incurred last season in a 56-41 home
defeat against Clemson, the ACC champion.  The N.C. State
cornerback struck his chin on the Carter-Finley turf defending a
pass into the end zone. "The experience was breathtaking," Mr.
Tocho says.  "You take pause. You just think, like, wow! Because I
was blacked out.  I woke back up and my trainers were over me."

Step back and think

Mr. Murphy was with Mr. Tocho when he regained consciousness.  The
Wolfpack athletic trainer won't discuss specifics for privacy
reasons, but acknowledges Mr. Tocho, a graduate of Charlotte's
Independence High, underwent a standard protocol for handling
concussions.  That meant immediate removal from the game; checks
for everything from balance and memory problems to pain levels to
sensitivities to light and noise; and distancing for a while from
"noxious stimuli" such as computers, cellphones and TV.

Mr. Tocho sat out the ensuing contest at Boston College.  "You
just have to step back and think about the impact a concussion can
have on your body, on your life," he says.  "As for myself now,
you don't go into a game thinking I'm going to get hurt or stuff
like that."

In fact, ACC players were quick to express confidence in
protection against traumatic head injuries afforded by updated
equipment and tackling techniques.

Mr. Murphy says individual differences, and the body's position
when it takes a blow, prevent easy visual analysis to determine
when a concussion occurs.  Team doctors and trainers watch
closely, whether as press box observers through a program the ACC
initiated last season, or from the sidelines.  "We know our
athletes very, very well, and we've been embedded with them
throughout every activity that we do, so if something's wrong we
can pick up clues as to what that might be," Mr. Murphy notes.

Diagnosing concussions, and promoting recovery, is a start.
Football rulesmakers are increasingly focused on curtailing
kickoffs in order to reduce injuries, especially concussions.  And
the National Institutes of Health just launched a 7-year, $16
million study aimed at identifying and possibly ameliorating CTE's
long-term effects.  The study could ultimately save lives and,
perhaps, the enduring popularity of playing football.


NATIONAL PARK: Daniel Appeals From D. Mont. Ruling to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Stephanie Daniel filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Stephanie Daniel v. National Park Service, et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00018-SPW, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Montana, Billings.

The appellate case is captioned as Stephanie Daniel v. National
Park Service, et al., Case No. 16-35689, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case
arises out of alleged violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The National Park Service is an agency of the United States
federal government that manages all national parks in the U.S.,
many American national monuments, and other conservation and
historical properties with various title designations.

The Appeals Court set this schedule:

   -- Appellant Stephanie Daniel's opening brief is due on
      December 5, 2016;

   -- Appellees Does and National Park Service's answering brief
      is due on January 3, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant Stephanie Daniel, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Timothy M. Bechtold, Esq.
          BECHTOLD LAW FIRM PLLC
          P.O. Box 7051
          Missoula, MT 59807
          Telephone: (406) 721-1435
          E-mail: tim@bechtoldlaw.net

Defendant-Appellee National Park Service is represented by:

          Victoria L. Francis, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE US ATTORNEY
          2601 2nd Avenue North
          Billings, MT 59101-2238
          Telephone: (406) 247-4661
          E-mail: victoria.francis@usdoj.gov


NETSUITE INC: Being Sold Cheaply to Oracle, Shareholders Say
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling
Netsuite too cheaply through an unfair process to Oracle, for $109
a share or $8.8 billion, shareholders say in a federal class
action in San Francisco.


NEW MEXICO: Faces Workers' Class Action for Back Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Victoria Prieskop, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that it took six years for New Mexico to adjust wages under its
Public Works Minimum Wage Act, so the state owes tens of thousands
of workers back pay for those years, 52 workers say in a federal
class action in Albuquerque.

When the Legislature amended the Public Works Minimum Wage Act in
2009, the Labor Relations Division of the Department of Workforce
Solutions was tasked with adjusting the minimum and prevailing
wages and benefits for mechanics and laborers in all public works
projects with budgets of $60,000 or more.

But the state didn't do this until 2015, lead plaintiff Randy
Cummings et al. say in the Aug. 23 lawsuit, so it owes more than
10,000 workers pay adjustments and benefits. They sued the
Department of Workforce Solutions and its Labor Relations Division
for violations of due process.

They seek class certification, liquidated damages, back pay and
benefits, and punitive damages, because they call the state
actions "intentional, willful, wanton and in reckless disregard"
of their rights.

They are represented by:

     James A. Montalbano, Esq.
     YOUTZ & VALDEZ, P.C.
     900 Gold Ave. SW
     Albuquerque, NM 87102
     Tel: (505) 244-1200
     E-mail: james@youtzvaldez.com


NEW YORK: Court Hears Arguments in Rikers Island Rape Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hayes, writing for BuzzFeed, reports that attorneys
representing female prisoners at Rikers Island argued before a
Manhattan appeals court on Aug. 17 for their clients' right to
bring a class action lawsuit in federal court alleging rape and
sexual assault inside the New York City jail.

The lawsuit claims that correction officer Benny Santiago
regularly raped the two plaintiffs in the case, referred to only
as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, while they were incarcerated in the
Rikers Island women's jail, Rose M. Singer Center.

According to the complaint, from a period starting in 2011,
Mr. Santiago raped Jane Doe 1 as many as four times a week.
During the assaults, Mr. Santiago would allegedly force her to
perform oral sex on him, have intercourse, and would pull her hair
and choke her.

Mr. Santiago is also accused of driving to the house of Jane Doe
1's mother, parking outside, and observing her family.  Then he
would later allegedly report his observations to her and remind
her to "make the right decision."

The complaint further alleges that Mr. Santiago took advantage of
Jane Doe 1's "limited intellectual capacity."

Jane Doe 2 accuses Mr. Santiago of raping and sexually assaulting
her while she was incarcerated at Rikers between 2012 and 2013.
She claims that after she reported Santiago, he and other
correction officers threatened and harassed her, called her a
"snitch," twice refused to feed her for over 24 hours, didn't
allow her to bathe, and placed her in solitary confinement without
justification.

Jane Doe 2 also claims that Santiago gave her trichomoniasis, a
sexually transmitted disease.

The two plaintiffs are seeking individual claims against
Mr. Santiago and the City, but are also hoping to represent all
female prisoners at Rikers in a class action lawsuit.  Such a
lawsuit could lead to federally mandated reforms inside the jail.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs claim to have
information that at least seven other correction officers who work
at the Rose M. Singer Center have sexually abused inmates, and
three may have impregnated prisoners.

Earlier this year, a district court judge denied the plaintiffs'
claims for class action certification in the case, but they
appealed the decision to a higher court.

On Aug. 17, attorneys from the City Law Department defended the
district court's decision not to grant class action certification
in the case.

The city is claiming that too much time has passed between when
the abuse is alleged to have happened and when the complaint was
filed.  Additionally, the city is arguing that reform efforts at
the jail since the time these assaults allegedly occurred should
be considered when deciding whether the two plaintiffs in the case
are the right women to represent the whole female population at
Rikers at a current trial.

Attorneys for the city told the three judge panel which heard the
appeal arguments that the period between 2013, when the most
recent incidents are alleged in the complaint, and when it was
filed in 2015 was a "significant two and half years" during which
reform efforts were underway at Rikers.

They pointed to the fact that, in that time, a new Department of
Corrections commissioner had been hired, new cameras had been
installed inside the jails, and consultants were retained to
respond to a 2013 Department of Justice report that found evidence
of mistreatment of Rikers prisoners.

City attorneys said there were "two starkly different cases,"
arguing that women whose allegations spanned a time period almost
three years prior weren't the right plaintiffs to represent all
women at Rikers, especially those presently incarcerated.

The plaintiffs rebutted the city's argument claiming that the
reforms they cite are not enough to prove that they have curbed a
"systemic problem" of sexual abuse at Rikers.

They dismiss the city's contention that reforms at Rikers related
to the 2013 DOJ consent decree is relevant to their particular
case because that report is focused on excessive force, not sexual
abuse.

Mitchell Lowenthal, attorney for the plaintiffs, added that
presenting evidence as to how the institution has changed doesn't
change problems currently evident at Rikers, such as "the fact
that men guard women."

The two sides are also in disagreement about Jane Doe 1's standing
as a plaintiff in the case.  The city claims that when the case
was filed, the plaintiffs "knew Jane Doe 1 was leaving Rikers in a
matter of days."  In fact, she was transferred to another facility
after taking a guilty plea in her case.

The city argues that the fact that she left Rikers shortly after
the case was filed reduces Jane Doe 1's standing in the case to "a
peppercorn."

Several New York City public officials have expressed their
support through court filings for the case to move forward as a
class action, including New York City Public Advocate Letitia
James, who filed a declaration of support in the case.

In her filing, James cited statistics from the city's Department
of Health, which reported 116 claims of sexual assault sent to the
Department of Corrections in 2014, 47 of which included
allegations of rape.

In another filing, Ms. James along with 10 members of the city
council filed an amicus brief, encouraging the district court to
reconsider its decision to deny class action certification.

The decision now rests with the court of appeals, who will decide
whether to overturn the district court's decision or side with the
judge from the lower court.

"There continue to be reports of women being raped,"
Mr. Lowenthal said on Aug. 17.  "If not this plaintiff, who could
represent this class?"


PARTY CITY: Still Defends Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------
Party City Holdco Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend a class action lawsuit in New York.

On November 18, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
naming Party City Holdco Inc. and certain executives as
defendants. An Amended Complaint was filed on April 25, 2016,
which named additional defendants. The Amended Complaint alleges
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 in connection with public filings related to the Company's
April 2015 initial public offering ("IPO"). The plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of shareholders who purchased stock in the
initial public offering or who can trace their shares to that
offering. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and costs. The
Company intends to vigorously defend itself against this action.
The Company is unable, at this time, to determine whether the
outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on its
results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Party City Holdco Inc. designs, manufactures, sources and
distributes party goods, including paper and plastic tableware,
metallic and latex balloons, Halloween and other costumes,
accessories, novelties, gifts and stationery throughout the world.


PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Illinois Court Dismissed Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Privatebancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a Circuit Court in
Illinois has dismissed a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "In June 2013, we were served with a complaint
naming the Bank as an additional defendant in a lawsuit pending in
the Circuit Court of the 21st Judicial Circuit, Kankakee County,
Illinois known as Maas v. Marek et al. The lawsuit, brought by the
beneficiaries of two trusts for which the Bank served as the
successor trustee, sought reimbursement of penalties and interest
assessed by the IRS due to the late payment of certain generation
skipping taxes by the trusts, as well as certain related attorney
fees and other damages. The other named defendants included legal
and accounting professionals that provided services related to the
matters involved."

In April 2016, the claims were bifurcated to proceed as two
separate trials.

The Company said, "In June 2016, we entered into a settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs, without admitting liability,
providing for the final settlement of the litigation amongst the
plaintiffs and the Bank and releasing the Bank from any and all
claims and damages arising from or out of any acts that were, or
could have been, the subject of the litigation.  The Circuit Court
subsequently issued an order to dismiss the litigation with
prejudice. The amount of settlement did not require us to
recognize any additional expense beyond the reserve we had
established in prior quarters."


PRIVATEBANCORP INC: CIBC Merger Action Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Privatebancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending a class action lawsuit related to the merger with
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

On June 29, 2016, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce ("CIBC"), a
Canadian chartered bank, and CIBC Holdco Inc. ("Holdco"), a
Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of
CIBC, pursuant to which the Company will merge with and into
Holdco, with Holdco surviving the merger. Following the merger,
the Bank will be headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, retain its
Illinois state banking charter and be an indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary of CIBC.

Since the announcement of the proposed transaction with CIBC,
three stockholders of the Company have filed separate putative
class actions on behalf of public stockholders in the Cook County
Circuit Court, Chicago, Illinois. The actions name as defendants
the Company and each of its directors individually. The complaints
assert that each of the directors breached his or her fiduciary
duties in connection with the proposed transaction. Two of the
complaints are also brought against CIBC and assert that the
Company and CIBC aided and abetted the individual directors'
alleged breaches. All three lawsuits seek to enjoin or rescind the
proposed transaction and to obtain an award of costs and
attorneys' fees and damages. The defendants, including the
Company, believe the demands and complaints are without merit and
there are substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims
asserted.


PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 26 Hearing to Approve Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
has set a hearing on September 26, 2016 to approve the settlement
in a class action lawsuit.

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

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

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

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

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

On October 1, 2015, the Court entered an order staying a ruling on
the Motion to Dismiss pending a mediation to resolve the
Securities Litigation in its entirety. A mediation occurred on
October 28, 2015. On January 28, 2016, a settlement terms sheet
(the "Terms Sheet") was executed by counsel for the Company and
counsel for the Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated Securities
Litigation.

Pursuant to the Terms Sheet, the parties agree, contingent upon
the approval of the court in the consolidated Securities
Litigation, that the cases will be settled as a class action on
the basis of a class period of December 17, 2013 through May 22,
2014. The Company and its insurance carrier agreed to pay the
total amount of $3.5 million (the "Settlement Funds") into an
interest bearing escrow account upon preliminary approval by the
court in the Consolidated Securities Litigation. The Company has
determined that it is probable that the Company will pay $1.85
million of the total, which has been accrued at December 31, 2015
and was paid in March 2016. The insurance carrier will pay $1.65
million of the total directly to the plaintiff's trust escrow
account and it will not pass through the Company. Notice will be
provided to shareholder members of the class. Shareholder members
of the class will have both the opportunity to file claims to the
Settlement Funds and to object to the settlement. If the court
enters final approval of the settlement, the Securities Litigation
will be dismissed with full prejudice, the Defendants will be
released from any and all claims in the Securities Litigation and
the Securities Litigation will be fully concluded. If the court
does not give final approval of the settlement, the Settlement
Funds, less any claims administration expenses, will be returned
to the Company and its insurance carrier.

A Stipulation of Settlement encompassing the details of the
settlement and procedures for preliminary and final court approval
was filed on March 8, 2016. The Stipulation of Settlement
incorporates the provisions of the Terms Sheet and includes the
procedures for providing notice to stockholders who bought or sold
stock of the Company during the class period. The Stipulation of
Settlement further provides for (1) the methodology of
administering and calculating claims, final awards to
stockholders, and supervision and distribution of the Settlement
Funds and (2) the procedure for preliminary and final approval of
the settlement of the Securities Litigation.

On April 7, 2016, the court in the Securities Litigation held a
hearing on preliminary approval of the settlement, entered an
order preliminarily approving the settlement, ordered that the
class be notified of the settlement as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement, and set a hearing on September 26, 2016
to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate to the class; whether the class should be certified
and the plan of allocation of the Settlement Funds approved;
whether to grant Lead Plaintiff's request for expenses and Lead
Plaintiff's counsel's request for fees and expenses; and whether
to enter judgment dismissing the Securities Litigation as provided
in the Stipulation of Settlement. If the settlement is not
approved and consummated, the Company intends to defend vigorously
against all claims in the Consolidated Complaint.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Settles Class Action Over Death Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
Prudential Financial Inc. has agreed to a $33 million settlement
of a class action on behalf of shareholders who claimed the
company misstated its financial condition by failing to fully
account for liabilities owed to beneficiaries of policyholders.

The settlement provides an estimated 23 cents per share to class
members, who are defined as people who purchased or acquired
Prudential common stock between May 5, 2010, and Nov. 4, 2011.
The settlement also calls for an award of legal fees not to exceed
30 percent of the settlement, plus expenses of up to $1 million.
Plaintiffs moved for final approval of the settlement on Aug. 24.

The class asserted that Prudential failed to consistently consult
the Social Security Administration's Death Master File, a database
of all deaths recorded in the United States, to determine when
death benefits are due for beneficiaries.  The effect of the
company's practice was that it retained money that should have
been paid out to beneficiaries of policy-holders, or to relevant
state authorities after a statutory dormancy period expired,
causing its stock to trade at inflated rates.
The alleged practice came to light in May 2011, when Prudential
filed a Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, disclosing that it was being audited by certain states
regarding its compliance with their unclaimed property laws.  And
in August 2011, the company filed another Form 10-Q, stating that
it had been subpoenaed by the New York attorney general regarding
its unclaimed property procedures and that the state's Office of
Unclaimed Funds was beginning an additional investigation into its
practices.

After that announcement, the company's stock fell from $53.99 per
share to $48.14 per share in three days' time.

And on Nov. 2, 2011, the company reported third-quarter earnings
of $1.07 per share, missing Wall Street expectations of $1.54 per
share, after the company reported it had set aside $99 million to
increase reserves related to its use of the Social Security Death
Master File.

The class brought claims under Sections 10b, 10b-5, 20a and 20b of
the Exchange Act.  The defendants' asserted that the suit ignored
settled insurance and unclaimed property law, that Prudential's
unclaimed property practices exceeded legal requirements and that
even if fraud occurred, it did not cause any recoverable damages
for the class.  The settlement was reached following mediation
with Layn Phillips, who served as a U.S. district judge and as
U.S. attorney in Oklahoma.  The settlement was reached after the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted Prudential's
petition for leave to appeal an August 2015 order granting class
certification in the case.  An agreement in principle was reached
this February, and notice of the settlement was mailed to 227,900
potential class members. No objections have been filed so far,
although the objection deadline runs until Sept. 8.  The class
action had originally been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, in Newark.

The settlement represents 13.2 percent of plaintiffs' estimate of
maximum losses, "an excellent recovery in light of the risks of
continued litigation," the plaintiffs said in their motion for
final approval of the settlement.  The median recovery in similar
cases settled in 2015 is 1.8 percent, according to "Securities
Class Action Settlements: 2015 Review and Analysis," from
Cornerstone Research, the motion said.

The plaintiffs' lead counsel, Ellen Gusikoff Stewart --
elleng@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San
Diego, and liaison counsel Peter Pearlman of Cohn, Lifland,
Pearlman, Hermman & Knopf in Saddle Brook, did not return calls
about the settlement.  Edwin Schallert --
egschallert@debevoise.com -- of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York,
representing Prudential, declined to comment on the case.
Prudential spokeswoman Laura Burke said the company would not
comment on the case.


PTT EXPLORATION: Jokowi Urged to Confiscate Assets Over Oil Spill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yohanes Seo, writing for TEMPO.CO, reports that Indonesian
President Joko "Jokowi" Widodo is urged to confiscate the assets
of PTT Exploration and Production Public Company Limited (PTTEP)
worth US$3.5 billion, because it has denied liability for
polluting the Timor Sea, East Nusa Tenggara (NTT), from the
explosion of Montara oil rig in West Atlas Block Timor Sea on
August 21, 2009.

"We also demand the government to cancel the [boundary] treaty in
the Timor Sea in 1997, which has not been ratified," the NTT
Seaweed Farmers Advocacy Team chairman Ferdi Tanoni told Tempo,
Monday, August 22, 2016.

They have made the demands since the issue of Timor Sea pollution
has yet to be addressed after seven years.  The PTTEP has denied
liability in the marine pollution, prompting NTT residents to file
a class action against PTTEP in the Federal Court of Australia in
Darwin.

Timor sea oil spill has affected fishermen in NTT.  "Before the
pollution, our earnings in the Timor Sea could reach Rp20 million,
we can only get Rp5 million now," said Timor Sea Traditional
Fishermen Alliance (Antralamor) chairman Mustafa.

Consequently, he went on, some fishermen had to change occupation
into logging. Those who are still fishermen have been fishing not
in the Timor Sea, but in Kalimantan. "I've also changed my
occupation and become a logger," he said.


QLOGIC CORPORATION: "Bushansky" Lawsuit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
QLogic Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a putative securities
class action was commenced on July 22, 2016, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California asserting claims
arising under federal securities laws against the Company and
certain defendants, including the directors and an officer. The
plaintiff, Stephen Bushansky, purports to represent the public
stockholders of the Company.  The plaintiff alleges that the
proposed acquisition of QLogic by Cavium pursuant to the Merger
Agreement (the Proposed Transaction), is the result of an unfair
process and coercive deal-protection devices and provides the
Company's stockholders with inadequate consideration. The
plaintiff further alleges that the Company's
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9, filed
with the SEC on July 13, 2016, omits or misrepresents material
information concerning the Proposed Transaction in violation of
federal securities laws.  The plaintiff seeks class certification,
an injunction enjoining the Proposed Transaction, a declaration
that the defendants violated certain federal securities laws,
compensatory damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Because the lawsuit is in its early stages, it is not possible to
determine the potential outcome of the lawsuit or to make any
estimate of probable losses at this time.  The Company believes
that the claims asserted in the lawsuit are without merit and
intends to defend its position.  A negative outcome in the lawsuit
could have a material adverse effect on the Company if it results
in preliminary or permanent injunctive relief or rescission of the
Merger Agreement.  The Company currently believes the disposition
of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition or results of operations.


RABOBANK NA: Faces Breach of Contract Class Action in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an Illinois
company has filed a class-action lawsuit against a California
corporation for allegedly breaching a contract.

McGarry & McGarry LLC filed a complaint on behalf of those
similarly situated on June 8 in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against Rabobank
N.A. alleging that the California corporation violated 12 U.S.C.
Sec. 1972 by furnishing banking services to Eugene Crane with
several conditions.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that it suffered
damages.  The plaintiff holds Rabobank N.A. responsible because
the defendant allegedly breached their contractual agreement with
bankruptcy trustees.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory
damages, treble damages, court costs, attorney fees and any
further relief the court grants.  The plaintiff is represented by
Marianne C. Holzhall of Dunnegan & Scileppi LLC in New York.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois case
number 1:16-cv-05978


REGENCY CAR: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Return Deposits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that two individuals have filed a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against
three car rental companies that allegedly failed to return their
deposit.

Nishil Patel and Gurraj Singh filed a complaint Aug. 10 in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against
Regency Car Rentals LLC, Hertz Global Holdings Inc. and The Hertz
Corp., citing alleged breach of contract, fraud and unjust
enrichment.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants knowingly
violated the California Business and Professions Code.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that in November
2015, Patel rented a vehicle from Regency for a two-day period.
His Visa card was charged for the full amount of $3,254.25, while
his American Express Card was charged $3,299.40 as a deposit, the
suit states.  He claims he was told it would be refunded upon
return of the vehicle.  The plaintiff alleges that Regency
assessed two unauthorized charges after the rental.

Mr. Singh claims to have encountered a similar experience, where
he did not receive a return of his security deposit and was
assessed unauthorized charges to his credit card.  As a direct
result, the plaintiffs and other class members allegedly have
suffered injury, and have lost money or property.

The plaintiffs hold Regency Car Rentals LLC, Hertz Global Holdings
Inc. and The Hertz Corp. responsible because the defendants
allegedly deceived consumers by making false statements,
misrepresented the cost of the rental of vehicles, double-billed
and assessed unauthorized fees to consumers.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek to certify the
proposed nationwide class and each state sub-class as class
actions, order for injunctive and declaratory relief, damages,
attorneys' fees and costs and other relief as the court deems
reasonable.  The plaintiffs are represented by Todd M. Friedman
and Adrian R. Bacon of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC in
Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:16-cv-05967


RESOURCE AMERICA: To Defend Against "Gansman" Suit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------
Resource America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the company is
defending against the "Gansman" class action in Pennsylvania.

The Company said, "On June 15, 2016, a putative class action
lawsuit, Gansman v. Resource America, Inc., et al., Case No.
160601492, was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County by a purported stockholder of Resource America that names
us, our board of directors, C-III and Merger Sub as defendants. On
July 11, 2016, the plaintiff filed a stipulation with the Court
seeking an order discontinuing the action without prejudice."

The Company said, "On July 14, 2016, a putative class action
lawsuit, Gansman v. Resource America, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-
3820, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and names us, our board of
directors, C-III and Merger Sub as defendants. The lawsuit seeks
to enjoin the transaction and alleges, among other things, that
the definitive proxy statement we distributed in connection with
our upcoming special meeting of stockholders being held to approve
the proposed merger with C-III omits material information
regarding the sale process followed by us, the negotiation of the
definitive merger agreement with C-III and certain analyses
prepared by our financial advisor. We believe that the allegations
in the complaint are without merit."


SEDGWICK: Seeks Arbitration of Gender Pay Discrimination Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Strom, writing for Law.com, reports that Am Law 200 firm
Sedgwick on Aug. 24 asked a California federal judge to send to
arbitration a lawsuit filed against the firm by one of its female
partners alleging the firm discriminated against women.
Sedgwick argues nonequity partner Traci Ribeiro's lawsuit is
subject to an arbitration clause in the firm's partnership
agreement that bars her from pursuing disputes with the firm in
federal court.

Last month, the Chicago-based insurance expert said in a lawsuit
filed in California state court that she has been denied a
promotion to equity partner since 2012, despite being the third-
highest revenue generator at the roughly 300-lawyer firm.  The
lawsuit said Ms. Ribeiro and other women "cannot crack the glass
ceiling at Sedgwick," documenting instances where female
associates were paid up to $50,000 less than comparable males.

Sedgwick, which denies the discrimination claims, has since moved
the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.  The firm argues Ms. Ribeiro's claims "fall
squarely within" an arbitration agreement in the firm's
partnership contract.

"Plaintiff's claims here are inextricably intertwined with the
[partnership] agreement," says Sedgwick's filing, made by Seyfarth
Shaw lawyers.

"The gravamen of her complaint is that she was unfairly
undercompensated as a partner and denied election to equity
partner status," Sedgwick says in the motion.  "These issues are
explicitly governed by the agreement.  Indeed, these are two
extremely vital issues for any partnership -- who is elected into
the partnership and how they are compensated."

Ms. Ribeiro's attorney, J. Bryan Wood of The Wood Law Office in
Chicago, said the arbitration attempt was anticipated, primarily
because Sedgwick sued his client in arbitration after she filed a
charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before
filing the lawsuit.

"We do not believe the claims asserted are subject to an
enforceable arbitration agreement," Mr. Wood says.

In the complaint, Ms. Ribeiro argues the arbitration agreement in
the partner handbook is unenforceable for a number of reasons,
including because of what the complaint alleges is an "illegal and
unenforceable" clause that allows an arbitrator to decide what
issues fall under the arbitration agreement.

"This court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether an
agreement to arbitrate was formed; that issue cannot be decided by
an arbitrator," the complaint says.

Sedgwick chairman Michael Healy did not immediately return an
email requesting comment.

Seeking to fight employment disputes in arbitration is a common
tactic used by employers.  Earlier this year, the Michigan Supreme
Court ruled an arbitration agreement protected Miller, Canfield,
Paddock and Stone partners named in a lawsuit brought by a former
partner alleging they stripped him of his equity stake in the
firm.

Ms. Ribeiro's complaint says she was subjected to alleged sexist
comments made by partners at Sedgwick, where she continues to
work.

The filing says the two sides had negotiated over the arbitration
process before Ms. Ribeiro's lawsuit was filed on July 26, even
selecting an arbitrator through JAMS.  Sedgwick asks the court to
stay the federal lawsuit until that arbitration is complete.


SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: MSLO Merger Lawsuit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Sequential Brands Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the consolidated
lawsuit related to the merger of Sequential Brands Group, Inc. and
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. remains pending.

The Company was formed on June 5, 2015, for the purpose of
effecting the merger of Singer Merger Sub, Inc. with and into
SQBG, Inc. (formerly known as Sequential Brands Group, Inc.) ("Old
Sequential") and the merger of Madeline Merger Sub, Inc. with and
into Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. ("MSLO"), with Old
Sequential and MSLO each surviving the merger as wholly owned
subsidiaries of the Company (the "Mergers"). Prior to the Mergers,
the Company did not conduct any activities other than those
incidental to its formation and the matters contemplated in the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 22, 2015, as
amended, by and among the Company, MSLO, Old Sequential, Singer
Merger Sub, Inc., and Madeline Merger Sub, Inc.

On December 4, 2015, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Old
Sequential and MSLO completed the strategic combination of their
respective businesses and became wholly owned subsidiaries of the
Company. Old Sequential was the accounting acquirer in the
Mergers; therefore, the historical consolidated financial
statements for Old Sequential for periods prior to the Mergers are
considered to be the historical financial statements of the
Company and thus, the Company's consolidated financial statements
reflect Old Sequential's consolidated financial statements for the
period from January 1, 2015 through December 4, 2015, and the
Company's consolidated financial statements thereafter.

In connection with the Mergers, the following 13 putative
stockholder class action lawsuits have were been filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: (1) David Shaev Profit
Sharing Plan f/b/o David Shaev v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia
Inc. et al. filed on June 25, 2015; (2) Malka Raul v. Martha
Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et al. filed on June 26, 2015; (3)
Daniel Lisman v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et al. filed
on June 29, 2015; (4) Matthew Sciabacucchi v. Martha Stewart
Living Omnimedia Inc. et al. filed on July 2, 2015; (5) Harold
Litwin v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et al. filed on
July 5, 2015; (6) Richard Schiffrin v. Martha Stewart filed on
July 7, 2015; (7) Cedric Terrell v. Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia Inc. et al. filed on July 8, 2015; (8) Dorothy Moore v.
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et al. filed on July 8, 2015;
(9) Paul Dranove v. Pierre De Villemejane. et al. filed on July 8,
2015; (10) Phuc Nguyen v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et
al. filed on July 10, 2015; (11) Kenneth Steiner v. Martha Stewart
Living Omnimedia Inc. et al. filed on July 16, 2015; (12) Karen
Gordon v. Martha Stewart et al. filed on July 27, 2015; and (13)
Anne Seader v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. et al. filed
on July 28, 2015.

All of the 13 class action lawsuits name Old Sequential, MSLO, the
MSLO board of directors, Madeline Merger Sub, Inc., Singer Merger
Sub, Inc. and the Company as defendants and allege that (a)
members of the MSLO board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties and (b) Old Sequential, MSLO, Madeline Merger Sub, Inc.,
Singer Merger Sub, Inc. and the Company aided and abetted such
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the MSLO board of
directors.

On August 18, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court issued an order
consolidating these actions for all purposes under the caption In
re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et al. to be the
operative complaint in the consolidated action. On January 12,
2016, after the consummation of the Mergers, the plaintiffs filed
a Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, naming Ms.
Martha Stewart, the Company, Old Sequential, Madeline Merger Sub
Inc. and Singer Merger Sub Inc. and alleging that (a) Ms. Stewart
breached her fiduciary duties to MSLO's stockholders and (b) the
Company, Old Sequential, Madeline Merger Sub Inc. and Singer
Merger Sub Inc. aided and abetted Ms. Stewart's breach of her
fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified
damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs, restitution and
disgorgement by Ms. Stewart, the recovery of plaintiff's
attorney's fees and other relief.

"We believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims made
by the plaintiffs, and we are vigorously defending such claims.
Litigation costs in this matter may be significant. We do not
expect that the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a
material effect on our consolidated financial statements."

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


SHARP ELECTRONICS: Defeats N.J. Flat Screen Class Action Again
--------------------------------------------------------------
Noell Wolfgram Evans, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
Sharp Electronics, for a second time, has defeated class action
claims over its flat screen televisions brought before Judge
William Martini of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

In October, Jason Popejoy sued Sharp for false marketing.  He
alleged that the advertised LED TVs were in fact made with a
different technology.  Judge Martini first ruled that the suit
lacked the necessary details for the case to continue, but he did
leave the door open for Mr. Popejoy to amend his complaint, which
he did.

Mr. Popejoy filed a second complaint, clarifying that he purchased
a Sharp television because Sharp had stated on the internet and at
the point of sale that the TV in question was LED. Martini again
dismissed the case, but did so with prejudice again.

In his June 9 ruling, Judge Martini stated Mr. Popejoy failed to
meet the standards set up in Rule 9(b), which requires a plaintiff
to provide the "who, what, when, where and how" of the alleged
fraud.  In his dismissal, Martini also found that there was not
enough information to explain how any consumer was misled by
Sharp's advertising.

"Similar to the TV cartoons already deemed by this court not to be
deceptive, Sharp's website contained a clear disclosure in the
'tech specs' section of its web page for each 'LED TV' model that
Sharp's LED TVs were, in fact, displayed on LCD panels," Judge
Martini wrote.

"Thus, the court cannot 'draw any reasonable inference' at this
stage that Sharp is liable for consumer fraud.  Despite being
given the opportunity to amend their complaint, plaintiffs remain
unable to identify a single specific misrepresentation made by
Sharp."

Darren McKinney, spokesman for the American Tort Reform
Association (ATRA), told Legal Newsline his organization applauded
the ruling.

"We're pleased with the decision.  I wish it would have a broader
impact, but I don't imagine that it will," he said.

A plaintiff may amend an initial complaint any number of times.
Mr. McKinney said it is up to the judge's discretion on how far to
go in any given case.  Because of that, Mr. McKinney said this
particular ruling likely will not have a far-reaching effect.

"A few defendants may point to this case as a reference . . . from
our bias, we'd love to see this case have some effect," he said.


SIMILASAN CORP: Court Tosses Homeopathic Product Case Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Iandolo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the Office
of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has announced that a federal
court agreed with the state's brief, rejecting the proposed class
action settlement in the Similasan Corporation case.

Similasan had been accused of false advertising for its
homeopathic products.  A proposed settlement would have only paid
class attorneys and two plaintiffs, while not providing relief for
affected consumers.

"Class actions should be a means to make injured persons whole,
not a tool to enrich lawyers at the expense of the very injured
persons they claim to represent," Mr. Paxton said.

To fight the settlement, Arizona, Texas and six other attorneys
general filed a brief July 28.  In the brief, the attorneys
general said the settlement was unfair, unreasonable and
inadequate for consumers.  "Only the defendant, class counsel, and
the named plaintiffs receive particularized value from the deal,
which fails to protect the absent class members," the brief
stated.

"All class members are giving up all of their non-personal injury
monetary claims against the defendant without receiving any
compensation different from the public at large," the court said.


SMITH & NEPHEW: Court Reverses Class Certification Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
John Blair, Esq. -- JBlair@blg.com -- and Sandi Shannon, Esq., of
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports
that the Alberta Court of Appeal recently allowed an appeal in
Warner v Smith & Nephew Inc., overturning a lower court decision
declining to certify a class action in a product liability matter.
Few national class actions have been certified in Alberta and
therefore the reasoning of Alberta's highest court (affirming a
low certification standard) may be of interest to institutions
operating nationally.

The appellant commenced an action against a manufacturer for
damages resulting from the implantation of the Birmingham Hip
Replacement System.  Under the Alberta Class Proceedings Act
("CPA"), the appellant sought certification of the action as a
class action.  The lower court denied certification, holding on
the strength of competing evidence that "there was not an
identifiable class of 2 or more persons, that the claims did not
raise a common issue, that a class proceeding was not a preferable
method for resolving the common issue, and that the appellant was
not a proper representative plaintiff".

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and certified the action, a
rare example of this appellate court disagreeing with the findings
of a case management judge on a certification motion.  It affirmed
that a certification motion "does not involve a consideration of
the claim on its merits", but rather is a procedural motion
concerning the form of an action.  The motion is intended to show
whether a class proceeding is the appropriate procedure for the
prosecution of the claim, and the standard is merely whether the
evidence establishes that there is "some basis in fact" that a
class proceeding is the preferable procedure to resolve the common
issues in the claim.

The court examined each of the statutory criteria through that
lens, a relatively low threshold, criticizing the certification
judge for weighing conflicting evidence on the relative merits of
the parties' positions.

The majority said:

As the Supreme Court of Canada has made clear, the question at
this stage is not whether the plaintiff's claim is likely to
succeed at trial, or even whether there is some basis in fact for
the claim itself, but rather whether there is some basis in fact
that establishes the procedural certification requirements, in
this case that a class action is a preferable procedure.

In his dissent, Justice Slatter would have allowed the appeal and
certification but would have limited the class proceeding to a
narrower set of potential class members and common issues.
However, he too noted the low threshold at the certification
stage, concluding:

"I think it important to emphasize that the Canadian approach at
the certification stage does not allow for an extensive assessment
of the complexities and challenges that a plaintiff may face in
establishing its case at trial. . ."

The Canadian position is that the certification application is
still heavily focused on whether the procedure is appropriate.  It
is not a place for a "robust" analysis of the merits, nor the
resolution of disputed factual issues, and any in-depth weighing
of the evidence is inappropriate.  The test of the merits on
certification is a very low standard, but it must amount to more
than symbolic scrutiny.  The sufficiency of the evidence may often
be a factor in determining, ultimately, whether a class proceeding
is the "preferable procedure".

This decision will be important in Alberta actions brought under
the CPA, and defendants will need to be prepared to focus on the
key elements of the statutory test (Identifiable class? Common
issues? Is a class proceeding the preferable procedure? Suitable
representative plaintiff?) rather than the ultimate merits of the
case.


SOTHEBY'S: Appeal on Dismissal of Remaining Claims Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Sotheby's said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that plaintiffs' appeal of the
district court decision granting Sotheby's motion to dismiss the
remaining claims is still pending.

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

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

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

On May 5, 2015, an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit issued a decision affirming the lower court
decision that the Resale Royalties Act was unconstitutional
insofar as it sought to apply to sales outside of the state of
California. The plaintiffs filed a motion for certiorari to the
U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on January 11, 2016. On April
12, 2016, the district court granted Sotheby's motion to dismiss
the remaining claims in the action, which relate to sales that
occurred in California. The plaintiffs have appealed this
decision.


ST. JUDE: Faces Class Suit Related to Heart Implants
----------------------------------------------------
Don DeBenedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that in a class action in Los Angeles that sounds like a Tom
Clancy novel, a patient claims that pacemakers and other implanted
heart devices sold by St. Jude Medical can be attacked by hackers
to steal personal information and even harm patients.

Clinton W. Ross Jr. claims that several lines of St. Jude's heart-
regulating devices designed to be monitored remotely with in-home
equipment, rather than during in-person visits to the doctor, lack
"even the most basic security defenses" to safeguard their
computer communications from outsiders.

"St. Jude's failure to protect these important sensitive network
credentials reveals a complete lack of any focus on security and
provides a potential avenue for obtaining unauthorized access,"
Ross says in his Aug. 26 federal complaint.

The security flaws not only put patients' medical and personal
information at risk, Ross says, but the pacemakers, defibrillators
and heart resynchronizers are vulnerable to attack "in ways
previously not possible."

For instance, "a bad actor could monitor and modify the implant
without necessarily being close to the victim," Ross says. "Such
attacks can put at risk the safety of the patient with the
implantable device, with fatal consequences in certain cases."

Implanted cardiac devices that talk to special units on patients'
nightstands have become popular in the past 10 years for their
convenience. St. Jude's devices use radio telemetry to communicate
with home units called Merlin@home transmitters.

Ross bought a Merlin@home transmitter to monitor his St. Jude
cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator in November 2015.
Based on his doctor's recommendation, he says, he unplugged the
transmitter after the security concerns became known.

The concerns became public on August 25, when a stock short-sale
firm, Muddy Waters Capital, released a 33-page report claiming
that hundreds of thousands of St. Jude's home-monitored cardiac
devices have "severe security vulnerabilities." Ross filed his
class action the next day.

Citing the Muddy Waters report, he says an investigation by cyber
security firm MedSec Holdings "demonstrated at least three ways to
obtain 'root access' to the Merlin@home transmitter," and two ways
-- "with very little effort" -- to deliver "potentially
catastrophic attacks" against a cardiac device.

An attack could slowly drain the device's battery over a few
weeks. A "crash attack" could use telemetry signals to put a
pacemaker or "into a state of malfunction," making it ignore
signals or queries from the Merlin transmitter.

Or a crash attack could make a device speed up a patient's heart
enough to cause "severe adverse health consequences," the
complaint states.

St. Jude did not respond to a request for comment. But on August
26, the Milwaukee-based company issued a long statement blasting
the Muddy Waters and MedSec claims as "false and misleading."

St. Jude said its devices regularly update their software
automatically and that the software has been tested, audited and
certified by outside experts.

Ross seeks certification of two classes: a national one, and one
of purchasers from Illinois, where he lives, and restitution and
damages for breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, negligence
and unjust enrichment.

His lead attorney Mike Arias -- mike@asstlawyers.com -- with
Arias, Sanguinetti, Stahle & Torrijos, did not return a call
seeking comment.


STAATSLOTERIJ: Settles Lottery Misleading Advertising Case
----------------------------------------------------------
DutchNews.nl reports that the Dutch national lottery has settled a
case with a player who claimed to have been misled by the game.

The Staatsloterij secretly agreed last year to pay EUR4,250 to the
man from Amsterdam, the Telegraaf revealed on Aug. 22.  The deal
included a gagging clause that prevented him disclosing the amount
or terms of the settlement.

The settlement was welcomed by the Loterijverlies organisation,
which is looking to bring a class action on behalf of nearly
200,000 lottery players who say they were duped by misleading
adverts.  Last year it won a ruling from the Supreme Court that
the lottery had exaggerated the chances of winning between 2000
and 2008.

Loterijverlies spokesman Ferdy Roet said the agreement was a
'fatal blow' for the lottery operator and said all claims should
now be refunded. But Arjan van 't Veer, on behalf of the lottery,
insisted the deal was a one-off settlement to stop the man
blocking negotiations with other claimants.

"This man from Amsterdam was threatening to take various forms of
legal action and wanted to go to the media with his story just as
we were in talks with claims organizations.  We decided on a
separate arrangement for him because he was holding up the
process." Mr. Van 't Veer also insisted that the basis for the
settlement did not apply to the Loterijverlies case.  "In the case
of this individual the circumstances were different and other
arguments were used.  We still have to establish if there is any
question of loss by participants in the Loterijverlies action."


SUNTRUST BANKS: Judge Allows 401(k) Plan Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
R. Robin McDonald, writing for Daily Report, reports that SunTrust
Banks' decision at the onset of the recession to allow its
employee retirement plan to continue investing in bank stock as it
sustained billions in losses and the housing market collapsed is
at the heart of multidistrict litigation that a federal judge has
said will now proceed against the banking company as a class
action.

U.S. District Judge Richard Story decided Aug. 17 that certifying
the eight-year-old litigation as a class action would "help bring
an efficient resolution to the case."  The class includes an
estimated 50,000 individuals who either participated in or were
beneficiaries of SunTrust's 401(k) savings plan from May 15, 2007,
through March 30, 2011, when the bank's stock was being pounded
because of losses stemming from its mortgage portfolios.
The suits, first filed in 2008, allege that bank executives and
members of SunTrust's board continued to offer SunTrust stock as a
retirement investment and used stock as the company's 401(k) match
long after they became aware of the magnitude of the bank's
growing losses.

Those losses stemmed from what the suits allege were high-risk
loans, largely in the residential housing and commercial real
estate markets, that were made with inadequate loan reserves and,
often, inadequate documentation.  SunTrust operates primarily in
Georgia and Florida, two states that were particularly hard-hit by
the collapse of the housing market at the end of 2007 and the
rapid devaluation of mortgage-backed securities.

The litigation claims that bank executives responsible for
overseeing the retirement plan breached their fiduciary duties by
continuing to approve investments in SunTrust stock, even as it
lost 64 percent of its value, plummeting from $77 to less than $28
a share.  The suits also allege that the continued investment in
SunTrust stock by the retirement plan artificially inflated the
bank's earnings.  According to the amended complaint, $67.8
million in bank stock was funneled into the retirement plan in
2007 followed by an additional $78.9 million in stock in 2008.

The suits seek to recover those losses for newly minted class
members, contending that bank executives knew that SunTrust loan
portfolios had been gravely mismanaged and that the bank's
financial holdings were "deteriorating rapidly" but failed to
share that information with retirement plan participants.  They
also contend that as the housing market collapsed, SunTrust should
have abstained from using bank stock to match employee
contributions.  The suits also contend that the plan could have
frozen the purchase of SunTrust shares as an increasingly
imprudent investment.

"Plaintiffs do not challenge SunTrust's right or ability, as a
company, to take large risks on subprime and other, similar
loans," the amended complaint said.  "But there is a difference
between SunTrust taking large risks and the plan's fiduciaries
exposing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of participants'
retirement savings to those risks, especially when the purpose of
the plan is to help participants save for retirement."

Class attorneys -- including Corey Holzer of Atlanta, Stephen
Fearon of New York's Squitieri & Fearon, and Edward Ciolko --
eciolko@ktmc.com -- and Eric Salpeter of Pennsylvania's Kessler
Topaz Melzer & Check --could not be reached for comment.

SunTrust attorneys David Tetrick Jr. and Darren Shuler of
Atlanta's King & Spalding also could not be reached.  But in court
papers opposing class certification, the lawyers had argued that
alternatives suggested by the plaintiffs would have "caused more
harm than good" and increased retirement plan losses 3-15 times by
accelerating the bank stock's decline.


TAKATA CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Rollover Crash Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
jury returned a defense verdict for seat belt manufacturer Takata
Corp. and tire maker Michelin North America Inc. after attorneys
for two disabled victims injured in a rollover crash asked for $80
million in damages.

Defendants, facing off against leading Florida personal injury
firm Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, defeated
allegations that corporate negligence left at least one teenager
paralyzed and with permanent brain injuries.

The venue could have worked against the defense, with the case
playing out about 100 miles north of the South Florida courtroom
where Takata faces a class action lawsuit over faulty air bags
following one of the largest automotive parts recall in history.

"In almost every case I have, I'm representing a client who is an
unsympathetic corporate defendant against a plaintiff who's a
sympathetic individual," Takata's lead trial counsel, Thomas
Branigan -- tom.branigan@bowmanandbrooke.com -- of Bowman and
Brooke in Detroit, said on Aug. 25.  "We win these cases by
strongly emphasizing the legal obligation jurors have to put
sympathy aside."

It was an important argument in a case involving one plaintiff
confined to a wheelchair and unable to speak, and a second who
suffered a traumatic brain injury during the crash.

The personal injury suit came from plaintiff Stevette Dukes,
plenary guardian for her incapacitated adult daughter, Kiara
Shanise Dukes, who was traveling on Interstate 95 near Fort Pierce
with co-plaintiffs Latoya Dukes and Brandon Ellis in 2009 before a
tire malfunction caused their vehicle to careen and flip multiple
times.

A tread-belt separation in a back tire caused the plaintiffs' 2005
Chevrolet TrailBlazer to spin counterclockwise until it came to
the center median, then roll more than three times, ejecting Ellis
and Kiara Dukes from the backseat.

Defense attorneys say the passengers failed to wear seat belts,
but the plaintiffs claim the belts were faulty and became
unlatched.

The suit named Michelin North America Inc., Michelin Americas
Research Co., Takata Corp., TK Holdings Inc., Takata Seat Belts
Inc., TK-Taito Inc., Bob Steele Chevrolet Inc. and One Stop Tire
Shop as defendants.

The ongoing and widely publicized multidistrict litigation against
Takata featured prominently in the early days of the seat belt
case.  Jury selection lasted about four days as attorneys tried to
weed out potential bias after more than 28 million Takata air bag
inflators were recalled and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration announced plans in May to support the recall of at
least 35 million more.

During trial, the defense put part of the blame on driver Latoya
Dukes, claiming she overreacted to the tire malfunction, steered
left and caused the accident.  It also pointed to the used, eight-
year-old tire to rebut claims of a manufacturing defect.

The jury cleared Michelin of liability toward all three
plaintiffs, and found that neither Kiara Dukes nor Ellis wore a
seat belt at the time of the accident.  It rejected a plaintiffs'
request for about $80 million in damages.

Christian Searcy -- CDS@searcylaw.com -- Michael Kugler --
mhk@searcylaw.com -- and Darryl Lewis -- DLL@searcylaw.com -- of
Searcy Denney in West Palm Beach teamed with Orlando attorneys
Henry Didier and Mitchell Chubb to represent the plaintiffs.  They
did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.

The two-month trial took place before St. Lucie Circuit Court
Judge Janet Carney Croom.


TANDI PRODUCTIONS: Sia Responds to Israel Concert Controversy
-------------------------------------------------------------
The West Australian reports that Australian singing sensation Sia
Furler is in hot water over her unorthodox performance style.

According to The Jerusalem Post, a group of concertgoers have
launched a class action lawsuit against Tandi Productions, the
promoter of a recent Yarkon Park gig in Israel, after a
"lacklustre" and "impersonal" Furler played for just 65 minutes
while standing at the back of the stage.

However, the promoter insisted he had not received notice of a
lawsuit.

On Aug. 19, the songstress -- who is infamous for covering her
face while performing -- broke her silence surrounding the
controversy with a tweet thanking her fans.

"This euro tour has been amazing," she wrote.

"Thank you all for singing at the top of your lungs and for
welcoming me with such open hearts.  I put everything I have into
my show -- it's abstract for sure, but I'm singing my heart out
live and every moment is purely intentional."


TOPPS: Faces Class Action by Baseball Card Collector
----------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
collector of rare baseball cards claims in a class action in
Hillsboro, Mo. that he paid top dollar for a misprinted card and
Topps pulled a bait and switch and sold him a normal card through
its website.

Topps, founded in 1938, scored its first big hit with Bazooka
bubblegum, sold a piece at a time packaged with a tiny comic
strip. In 1952 it began selling flat pieces of gum inside packs of
baseball cards, with color photos of players on the front and
statistics on the back. The cards became wildly popular, and an
icon of the 1950s. It had an effective monopoly until 1981 when
Fleer entered the market. Fleer had won an antitrust case against
Topps in the mid 1960s, but sold out to it.

Topps was preceded in the baseball card market by Morris Shorin's
American Leaf Tobacco, which sold cards featuring the first
generation of baseball heroes, such as Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner.
When Shorin's sons took over, they reorganized and renamed the
company Topps.

A 1948 American Leaf card of Honus Wagner -- taking a chew of
tobacco -- was for sale through collectors' websites on August 31,
morning for $89,000. A Topps 1968 Rookie Card of Nolan Ryan had an
asking price of $1.4 million.

Paul Lesko, who sued The Topps Co. on Aug. 26 in Jefferson County
Court, specializes in error cards. Rather than trading on the
playground, in the traditional manner, Lesko buys cards online.

When the 2016 season began, Topps offered a new, online service
called "Topps Now," which sells specific cards, rather than random
collections, as in traditional packs.

Lesko says he bought Card No. 264 on July 20, a Pittsburgh Pirates
John Harrison card. He bought it because it's a misprint -- the
Pirates' second baseman is named Josh. It was the first misprint
in the Topps Now series, which makes it especially valuable, Lesko
says in the lengthy complaint.  He does not reveal how much he
paid for it, but he says Topps sent him a corrected Josh Harrison
card.  That's not what he wanted, and it's not what Topps offered,
Lesko said, so he sued.

Lesko's attorney Brandon Wise said in an interview that Topps'
customer service department told his client it would not send him
a John Harrison card. Lesko -- also an attorney -- tried but
failed to work it out with Topps' legal department.

"It's kind of sad that it's gotten to the point where we had to
file a lawsuit," Wise told Courthouse News. "But if you think
about it, it's kind of a bait and switch, where Topps offered to
sell one thing and then delivered another."

Wise said there's no way to know how much the error card is worth.
He said Topps reported on its website that it has sold 319 of the
Harrison cards,

"Being a Cardinals fan, if Card No. 264 was not an error card, he
would not have purchased it," Lesko and Wise say in the lawsuit.

The complaint states that contrary to its own policy, Topps
replaced the John Harrison image with the Josh Harrison card image
after the John Harrison card was on sale for about four hours.

Seeing this, Lesko immediately tweeted and emailed Topps to tell
it his intent was to buy the John Harrison card.

"Upon information and belief, to this day, Topps has not addressed
this issue with the purchasers of the Topps Now card No. 264," the
complaint states.

Aside from error cards being more valuable, Lesko says supply and
demand drives the John Harrison card value even higher, as only
319 were sold.

"It logically follows that an error card in such limited
quantities (or even less considering Topps offered the 'John'
Harrison card for sale for less than four hours) would be
extremely valuable on the secondary market and to collectors,
especially where Topps is doing everything it can to not release
the card," the lawsuit states.

Lesko claims that Topps changed its disclaimer a month after the
John Harrison sale, "in an apparent admission of liability," to
read: "ALL SALES ARE FINAL. PRINT RUNS REVEALED AFTER 24 HOUR
WINDOW. SHIPS IN 3-5 BUSINESS DAYS. ART SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NOT
RESPONSIBLE FOR TYPOGRAPHIC/PRINTER ERRORS."

Lesko says the disclaimer had not been published when he bought
the John Harrison card and that it was placed in response to his
contact with Topps. He says he reasonably relied on the image when
he bought the John Harrison card.

"It is unreasonable to expect consumers to disregard the image of
the card when purchasing said card," the complaint states.

Topps did not respond to a voicemail seeking comment.

Lesko seeks certification of a nationwide and a Missouri class:
excluded from both classes are Topps, its subsidiaries and
affiliates, Topps employee family members and government entities.


"Some companies will create error cards just to inflate the
value," Wise said in the interview.

"We don't know what happened here, but we do know that the website
did reflect the John Harrison card when my client bought it."

Lesko seeks damages not to exceed $4,999,999, and attorney's fees.


TRAFIGURA: Ivory Coast Toxic Waste Victims Await Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
AFP reports that ten years after an international oil-trader
dumped 500 tonnes of toxic waste in Ivory Coast, killing 17 people
and harming 100,000, the stench remains, though the compensation
is unpaid.

A decade on, Ivorians "still complain of the smell from the waste
when it rains heavily, as well as headaches, skin problems and
respiratory issues", a panel of United Nations experts said in a
statement.

"Many victims have not received an adequate remedy for the harms .
. . and report they have not been able to afford medical
treatment," they added.

On the Aug. 19 anniversary of the Probo Koala cargo ship scandal,
victims and the UN experts urged the trader, the Ivorian
government and the international community to ramp up efforts to
settle the longterm health and environmental effects.

"We demand the total and absolute decontamination of the water
table polluted by toxic mud," said Claude Gohourou, who heads a
group of victims of the August 19, 2006 incident.

That day the Probo Koala dumped a dozen containers worth of
caustic soda and petroleum residue owned by Anglo-Dutch commodity
trader Trafigura in some 18 locations around Abidjan.

Other dumpsites remain unknown to this day and the UN experts
warned that it remained unclear whether the waste had entered the
water supply or food chain.

The waste originally was to have been dumped in the Netherlands,
but the costs of disposal there were deemed too high so the cargo
a month later discharged it in west Africa instead.

In a lengthy legal battle slowed by a period of civil conflict in
Ivory Coast, Trafigura agreed to inform and decontaminate, but
Gohourou said the multinational trader had failed to stick to the
deal.

And the head of another victims' group, Denis Yao Pipira, deplored
on Aug. 19 that the commodity trader had never been forced into
court to face charges.

'Abandoned, vulnerable'

Trafigura, which denies any link between the waste and the deaths,
in 2007 agreed a settlement with the Ivorian government for 152
million euros ($172 million based on today's exchange rate).

Only some 60 percent of registered victims are estimated to have
received compensation, however.

A second out-of-court settlement was agreed in 2009 for 33 million
euros involving 30,000 people to be paid in Britain.  But funds
for 6,000 of them were misappropriated before payout.

In London this year, the thousands due the payouts won an English
High Court claim against their lawyers, London-based legal firm
Leigh Day.

They were found negligent for using an Ivorian bank account to
park the lump sum, leaving it open to embezzlement.

Leigh Day "should have known before they sent the money that Ivory
Coast was quite unstable, it was divided between two warring
factions . . . and by their own admission, they saw signs of
rampant corruption," the claimants' lawyer Kalilou Fadiga told
AFP.

Meanwhile, thousands of claimants this year also launched a class
action suit in the Netherlands against Trafigura.

Warning that many victims had been left "feeling abandoned and
vulnerable", the UN experts expressed concern they could be
exploited by the many associations being set up in Abidjan.

"The government must . . .  ensure that people do not become
victims twice over -- of both the dumping and unscrupulous
actors."


TRANS UNION: Seeks Review From Verdict in "Larson" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Trans Union LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Brian Larson v. Trans Union LLC, Case No. 3:12-
cv-05726-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 25,
2016, District Judge William H. Orrick granted the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.  The complaint alleges that the
Plaintiff received an incomplete and inaccurate credit disclosure
from Trans Union in violation of the Federal Credit Reporting Act
and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Brian Larson v. Trans Union
LLC, Case No. 16-80111, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Respondent BRIAN DOUGLAS LARSON, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Carol McLean Brewer, Esq.
          Andrew J. Ogilvie, Esq.
          ANDERSON, OGILVIE & BREWER, LLP
          235 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 651-1953
          E-mail: carol@aoblawyers.com
                  andy@aiblawyers.com

               - and -

          Gregory J. Gorski, Esq.
          David A. Searles, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS AND MAILMAN PC
          100 S. Broad St.
          Land Title Building
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          E-mail: ggorski@consumerlawfirm.com
                  dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

Defendant-Petitioner TRANS UNION LLC is represented by:

          Stephen J. Newman, Esq.
          Brian C. Frontino, Esq.
          Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5982
          Facsimile: (310) 556-5959
          E-mail: snewman@stroock.com
                  bfrontino@stroock.com
                  jstrickland@stroock.com

               - and -

          Jason Yoo, Esq.
          YU MOHANDESI LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 377-5504
          Facsimile: (213) 377-5501
          E-mail: jasonyoo@yumollp.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trial in "Low" Case to Begin in Late November
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Donald Trump wants to call his own selection of former Trump
University students to testify in a looming trial in San Diego
Federal Court, and says a motion to bar him from doing so is
"unprincipled."

Trump filed a 22-page memorandum late on August 26, in support of
being able to call former Trump University students as witnesses
in Low v. Trump University, the older of two federal class-action
cases against the Republican presidential nominee and his now-
defunct real estate school.

The six-year-old case is scheduled to go to trial in late November
following the presidential election.

Low and the other plaintiffs claim Trump scammed Trump University
students out of thousands of dollars based off the claim they
would learn his insider real estate secrets from instructors and
mentors "handpicked" by Trump himself. But the "insider secrets"
they doled out thousands for turned out to be nothing more than
infomercial-quality advice, the students claim.

In his latest court filing, Trump claims a motion in limine filed
by the plaintiffs seeking a blanket order from U.S. District Judge
Gonzalo Curiel excluding Trump from calling any former Trump
University students as witnesses, except for class representatives
in the lawsuit, "unprincipled and unsupported."

Trump said he is "aware of no authority supporting such a
position" and claims testimony from absent class members is
routinely allowed in class trials.

The memo speaks directly to a point Trump's attorneys have alluded
to in court filings and hearings in the months leading up to the
trial: he wants former lead plaintiff Tarla Makaeff to take the
witness stand.

Curiel allowed Makaeff to withdraw as lead plaintiff in March,
leaving another class member, Sonny Low, to take over. Makaeff
remains an absent class member in the Low case, as well as the
other class action out of San Diego Federal Court, Cohen v. Trump.
Makaeff moved to withdraw because of the "personal and
professional toll" the case took on her.

Curiel is also considering a motion by Trump to decertify the
class based on Makaeff's withdrawal and other changes Trump claims
prejudice the defense.

Trump's attorneys argued dismissing Makaeff would undermine their
discovery strategy and claimed if she were absent from testifying
during the trial, it would "cripple defendant's ability to defend
the case."  They now want to be able to call her to the witness
stand.

"Contrary to plaintiffs' rhetoric, the court's order certifying
the class and appointing Sonny Low and two others as typical
representatives does not make other student testimony
'immaterial,' nor does it restrict the manner and method of proof
available to defendants to defend themselves in this case.
Plaintiffs misconstrue the law, and their request, if granted,
would convert a search for the truth into an unfair, one-sided and
indefensible process," Trump's attorney Daniel Petrocelli wrote.

Being able to call their own witnesses to testify about what they
heard and saw before enrolling at Trump University and live events
is vital for being able to disprove the "uniform representations"
at the center of the case, the defense says.

At issue is how heavily students relied upon advertisements for
Trump University which stated instructors were "handpicked" by
Trump. The "university" title is also a representation the
plaintiffs claim led them to believe Trump University was
accredited.

Trump wants to disprove those representations were relied on
"across the board" by all students who paid upwards of $35,000 to
learn Trump's real estate secrets.

Trump claims his constitutional rights to dispute the plaintiffs'
claims will be trampled if Curiel does not allow the jury to
"consider critical testimony related to germane disputed issues."

He points to a federal rule which declares "all relevant evidence
is admissible" and notes the class-certification order "does not
relieve plaintiffs of their burden of proof on contested fact
issues."

A lengthy list in Trump's filing noted multiple class action cases
where absent class members or "opt outs" were allowed to testify
as witnesses despite one party moving to exclude that testimony.

Trump does not tread lightly about the importance of former
students' testimony to defending his case: proving "materiality,"
or the degree to which people relied on the alleged
misrepresentations in Trump University's advertising and live
events, will be achieved through former students' testimony.

He even gave a sneak peak of some of the witnesses he wants his
attorneys to call during the trial.

One former student, Marla Rains Colic, is expected to testify
about this comment she's made: "You have to be pretty thick-
skulled to think TU was a university. For goodness sakes. I mean,
a university is a four-year degree. I knew it was a business
seminar," according to Trump.

Two other Trump University students, Mette Nielsen and Paul Canup,
would reportedly testify they didn't believe the words "handpicked
instructors" meant Trump was "personally meeting with and
interviewing" instructors.

Trump also claims the student witnesses he plans to call will
disprove the representations made were "uniform," including one
student who said during their deposition they were never told
Trump University was accredited and found out about the school
through a pop-up advertisement online.

Students understand Trump University was using marketing to
promote and sell products, Trump claims, and understood the use of
the word "university" did not position Trump University among the
top accredited business schools such as Wharton or UCLA.

The presidential hopeful says testimony by former students will
also rebut a class-wide reliance assumption, because depositions
taken of some former students has shown not all Trump University
students relied on the same advertising claims in deciding to
invest in a Trump University education.

But while Trump and the plaintiffs suing him can anticipate what
witnesses will say during the trial, there is no way to know for
certain until the time comes.

"Nobody -- not defendants, not plaintiffs, not the court -- can
speculate what the actual evidence will be. This uncertainty alone
requires the court to defer exclusion of this evidence until its
relevance can be more readily determined," the filing states.

A hearing on all motions in limine is scheduled for Nov. 10.

The case is captioned, SONNY LOW et al., on Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRUMP
UNIVERSITY, LLC et al., Defendants., Case No. 10-CV-0940-
GPC(WVG)(S.D. Cal.).


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Court Ruled on Bids to Bar Experts
----------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in San Diego, heard arguments on August 26, from
attorneys on both sides of a class action claiming Trump
University tricked students into paying for bogus real estate
tips, as the lawyers tried to convince the judge that a host of
experts should be excluded from testifying.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel issued a tentative order on
August 25, granting in part and denying in part motions from lead
class-action plaintiff Art Cohen and Republican presidential
nominee Donald Trump asking to bar witnesses retained for the
3-year-old case.

Cohen and the other plaintiffs sued Trump in 2013 under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, Act,
claiming he knowingly defrauded students out of thousands of
dollars when they paid for Trump University seminars based on the
claim that they would learn insider real estate secrets from
instructors "handpicked" by Trump himself.

The experts at issue at Friday's hearing were retained to
determine the educational value of a Trump University education.

Cohen's expert Paul Habibi found that a real estate education from
Trump University was worth nothing, while Trump's expert Alan
Wallace found a Trump University education did, in fact, have
value.

Both sides requested Curiel bar the other's expert from
testifying.

Also at issue were surveys created by Cohen's expert Michael
Kamins and economics expert DeForest McDuff, who is retained by
Trump.

Cohen attorney Jay Alvarez argued McDuff brought a new affirmative
economic analysis of damages that he called "untimely." Alvarez
said the plaintiffs have not retained an expert who can rebut the
"charts upon charts and graphs upon graphs" filed in relation to
McDuff's expert opinion on Trump University.

He asked Curiel to allow the plaintiffs to retain an economics
expert with the same education and background as McDuff to
challenge the methodology he used.

"This is something out of left field. [McDuff] is examining all
these different documents and surveys Mr. Habibi did not," Alvarez
said.

Trump's attorney David Kirman countered Alvarez's characterization
of McDuff's testimony and expertise, saying he is being used as a
"classic rebuttal" to Habibi finding a Trump University education
had zero value.

"If Mr. Habibi does not testify, neither will Dr. McDuff because
there will be nothing for him to rebut," Kirman pointed out.

Kirman also said Trump's experts -- Wallace and McDuff -- served
"completely different functions," as Wallace was not "equipped" to
prove the value of a Trump University education.

"Plaintiffs have only themselves to blame based on the quality of
the opinion they're giving," Kirman said.

Cohen attorney Daniel Pfefferbaum addressed Trump's motion to
exclude a survey conducted by Kamins, which he noted was being
used to support a finding of misrepresentation as to the
importance of Trump's celebrity in getting many of his "number one
fans" to attend and pay for Trump University.

Kirman claimed the survey goes beyond the class certification,
which was based on the alleged misrepresentation made through the
"university" title as well as the misrepresentation Trump
"handpicked" the seminar's real estate experts and mentors.

"We believe the court should exercise protecting the jury from
getting this 'junk science,'" Kirman said about the survey at
issue.

Pfefferbaum said Trump had an issue with a control group not being
used in the survey since Kamins only allowed those people
interested in attending Trump University participate. But that was
done on purpose, Pfefferbaum said, since Trump University spent $6
million a year on their marketing department and arguably directed
most of their efforts at getting Trump's fans to invest in the
real estate seminar.

"Defendants haven't identified any 'noise' that needed to be
controlled for. They don't have a concern about this study other
than they found case law excluding experts in other surveys who
didn't use a control," Pfefferbaum said.

Kirman countered that the plaintiffs' survey would be a "gross
expansion" of the terms of the class certification and would
require more trial time, which Curiel did not dispute.

"In a RICO case, you look at the scheme which relied on mail or
wire fraud. It seems it would become sterile if you excluded some
of the context, but I do think there is a line to be drawn between
context and backing up a dump truck of evidence in the case. My
question is: isn't that a proper outgrowth of the case
certification?" Curiel said.

Kirman disagreed and further reiterated he thought the "new facts
injected into the case" by plaintiffs' experts' testimony would
open Pandora's box.

Curiel said he would likely issue a written order on the matter on
August 29 or August 30.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trump Allowed to Call Expert Witnesses
--------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Donald Trump can call expert witnesses to testify in a class
action in San Diego that students who attended his now-defunct
real estate school Trump University did indeed receive a valuable
education.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel ruled on August 30, that Trump
will be able to call experts who, after analyzing Trump University
materials, found the school provided a worthwhile investment to
students who paid upwards of $35,000 to learn insider real estate
secrets from experts and mentors "handpicked" by Trump.

The ruling was signed on August 22 but not made publicly available
until August 23.

The plaintiffs in Cohen v. Trump, a three-year-old class action
filed in San Diego, moved to exclude some of the expert witnesses
Trump plans to call if the case goes to trial. The experts include
Dr. DeForest McDuff, an economics expert who has analyzed the
value of a Trump University education.

Lead plaintiff Art Cohen and others sued Trump for violations of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act -- commonly
called RICO -- claiming he knowingly defrauded students out of
thousands of dollars when they paid for Trump University seminars
based on the claim that they would learn insider secrets from
Trump's "handpicked" experts.

Curiel heard from Cohen and Trump's attorneys at a hearing on the
motions to exclude expert testimony this past week. The experts at
issue were retained to determine the educational value of a Trump
University education.

Of major dispute was a survey developed by Cohen expert Michael
Kamins, a professor at Stony Brook University who has conducted
over 500 consumer surveys focused on how consumers interpret
advertising.

Kamins found that Trump University's advertising and promotional
campaign focused almost entirely on Trump and targeted his biggest
fans. He also found the marketing and sales strategy encouraged
prospective customers to make emotional rather than rational
decisions and that a "98 percent" approval rating touted by Trump
University "is not the product of reliable questions or
methodology."

The survey by Kamins purports to demonstrate the materiality of
Trump University's representations that students would learn from
instructors "handpicked" by Trump, according to Curiel's summary
of the facts.

Kamins surveyed 126 individuals using an online survey distributed
through marketing research firm Spectrum Associates Market
Research. The respondents had to be at least 21 years old and not
have attended a Trump University live seminar or mentorship
program in the past 10 years.

Kamins found 87 percent of respondents said the opportunity to
learn Trump's "real estate secrets" positively impacted their
decision to purchase a Trump University live event, and 83 percent
reported an offer of being taught by Trump's handpicked
instructors also positively impacted their purchase decision,
according to Curiel's summary.

Trump argued that Kamins' survey was flawed because there was no
control group and it took statements out of context, among other
reasons. Trump also argued the Kamins survey constitutes a
"distortion of market conditions" because it did not parallel the
actual Trump University experience closely enough.

Curiel disagreed, finding that "by showing respondents
representative TU print advertisements, as well as the 2-minute
'main promotional video' played at the beginning of the 90-minute
free preview, the Kamins survey did present advertising that is
substantially similar to that which would have been encountered by
prospective TU customers."

The judge found that "any deficiencies in Kamins' methodology are
the proper subject of cross-examination and expert testimony by
the defense."

Most of Kamins' opinions will be allowed at trial, but Curiel said
that he will consider the relevance of some of the professor's
opinions as to the emotional decision-making aspect at trial.

Curiel also denied Trump's bid to exclude the testimony of Paul
Habibi, a UCLA real estate lecturer retained by the plaintiffs who
compared Trump University's live events with those offered by
leading schools in real estate education such as the Wharton
School at the University of Pennsylvania and the Stern School of
Business at New York University.

Habibi said that Trump University did not provide students with
the analytical tools to make sound real estate decisions;
sometimes promoted illegal, unethical and/or risky investment
strategies; and did not provide strategies or techniques unique to
Trump. He also reviewed the resumes of 27 Trump University
instructors and found they had experience primarily in sales and
motivational speaking, not real estate investment or education,
according to Curiel's summary.

Curiel noted that Trump's argument that Trump University could not
be compared with top business schools because they "differed
dramatically" was actually invited by Trump and the 90-minute free
preview where he stated, "We're going to teach you about business,
we're going to teach you better than the business schools are
going to teach you and I went to the best business school."

The judge wrote in denying the request to exclude Habibi's
testimony: "Many components of TU's marketing scheme and live
events were designed to reinforce this comparison between TU and
leading academic institutions."

Trump's rebuttal experts McDuff, Alan Wallace and Joel Steckel
offer various critiques of Habibi, and Kamins and his survey.
Curiel found most of their testimony is proper, given that they
"speak to the same subject matter the initial experts addressed
and do not introduce novel arguments."

Curiel did find, however, that McDuff's analysis of economic
damages is excludable. He also found the testimony by Trump's
three rebuttal experts has a "degree of overlap" and that if their
testimony becomes cumulative at trial, notes it will be excluded.

There no additional hearing dates in the Cohen case currently
scheduled through 2016.

The case is captioned, ART COHEN, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant., Case No.: 3:13-cv-2519-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.).


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Denies Trump's Request to Decertify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Donald Trump learned on August 30, that he won't be able to stop a
post-election class-action trial against his defunct real estate
school Trump University, when a federal judge in San Diego denied
his request to decertify the class.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel denied Trump's motion for leave
to file a renewed motion for decertification, as well as the
plaintiffs of Low v. Trump University's request to modify the
scheduling order so they could file a motion to clarify or amend
the court's class-certification orders. Curiel also ruled on a
number of motions to exclude expert testimony.

The order was signed by Curiel on August 29 but was not made
publicly available until August 30 morning.

Trump moved to decertify the Low class this spring when Curiel
allowed former lead plaintiff Tarla Makaeff to withdraw from the
class, leaving Sonny Low to take over the post. Trump claimed
Makaeff's withdrawal and other motions and changes sought by the
plaintiffs, including their motion to clarify the scope of a
previously agreed upon class-certification order, prejudiced him.

He recently filed a motion asking Curiel to allow him to call
additional Trump University students, other than the class
representatives, as witnesses, as Trump contends the former
students will disprove the alleged misrepresentations at the
center of the case.

Low and the other plaintiffs sued Trump in 2010 over claims they
were tricked into paying upwards of $30,000 based on the promise
they would learn insider real-estate secrets from instructors and
mentors "handpicked" by Trump himself. They also claim the
"university" title led them to believe Trump University was a
legitimate, accredited business school and not the "infomercial-
like" instruction they received.

In his order, Curiel wrote that Trump's arguments for
decertification -- including his assertion the plaintiffs were not
uniformly exposed to the alleged misrepresentations and individual
issues of reliance, causation and materiality -- were not
persuasive.

As to the issue of exposure to the alleged misrepresentations of
the "handpicked" instructors and the "accredited university," and
individual students' reliance on these claims in choosing to
attend Trump University, Curiel said those issues were already
argued and decided when he made his original class-certification
order.

In asking for a renewed motion for decertification, Trump
contended when they deposed Low a second time following the
withdrawal of Makaeff as lead plaintiff, Low revealed he did not
actually rely on the alleged misrepresentations as to the
"handpicked" and "university" claims.

But Curiel called Trump's argument a "selective interpretation of
Low's new testimony," noting that while Low may have "not even
considered" whether Trump University was accredited, he did
testify to believing Trump "took all the steps necessary to set up
a proper institution that he could call a university."

"Low's testimony demonstrates that, even if Low was unfamiliar
with the technical term 'accredited,' Low understood TU to have
undergone the same 'processes ... to be called a legitimate
university' involving 'standards and qualifications' as other
accredited universities, such as the University of Pennsylvania
and the University of California," Curiel wrote. "Moreover, Low's
testimony demonstrates that this understanding was an important
factor to Low in purchasing in TU programs."

Curiel also found while Low may not have believed the Trump
University instructors spoke directly to Trump, he did believe
they were "handpicked" by Trump, as was advertised.

"Low both seems to have a commonsense understanding of what the
term 'handpicked' means, and to have relied upon defendants'
representation that defendant Trump 'handpicked' TU instructors in
deciding to purchase TU programs," the order states.

As to the plaintiffs' motion to clarify or amend the scope of the
"university" claim certified in 2014, Curiel found their request
"untimely" and noted the plaintiffs were "not explicit on how
exactly they wish the class certification order to be clarified."

The core representations certified by the court which will be
considered during the trial include: that Trump University was an
accredited university; students would be taught by real estate
experts, professors and mentors hand-selected by Trump; and
students would receive one year of expert support and mentoring.

The Low case is scheduled to begin trial on Nov. 28.

The case is captioned, SONNY LOW, J.R. EVERETT and JOHN BROWN, on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, a New York Limited Liability
Company, and DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants.,
Case No.: 3:10-cv-0940-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.).


TRUMP NAT'L: Trial Ends in Jupiter Club Membership Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a $5
million trial against a Donald Trump-owned golf club ended on Aug.
16 with the West Palm Beach federal judge asking the parties for
proposed judgments by Sept. 16.

Members of the former Ritz-Carlton Golf Club & Spa in Jupiter sued
the club after Trump bought it in 2012.  The plaintiffs had placed
themselves on a "resignation list" at the club, entitling them to
refunds of their deposits if their memberships were revoked, they
said.

The two-day trial focused on whether Trump National Golf Club
Jupiter recalled the memberships of the 65 class members when the
2016 Republican presidential nominee told them, "If you choose to
remain on the resignation list, you're out."

A video deposition of Trump was shown at trial before U.S.
District Judge Kenneth Marra.

Under Ritz ownership, members on the resignation list retained
club privileges until their stakes were sold, according to the
plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs class is represented by Mark Fistos --
mark@pathtojustice.com -- Seth Lehrman -- seth@pathtojustice.com -
- and Brad Edwards of Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos &
Lehrman in Fort Lauderdale.

The golf club is represented by Herman Russomanno --
hrussomanno@russomanno.com -- Robert Borrello and Herman
Russomanno III of Russomanno & Borrello in Miami.


TWITTER: Misappropriate People's Identities, Class Action Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal class action accuses Twitter of colluding with an
app-maker to misappropriate people's identities so game-players
could collect and trade profiles "of real-life people as if they
were baseball cards."

Lead plaintiff Jason Parker on August 24, sued Twitter and Hey
Inc., maker of the app "Famous: The Celebrity Twitter," claiming
both companies violate Alabama's Right of Publicity Act.

He sued in San Francisco for a class of Alabama residents because
both tech companies are based in California. He seeks statutory
damages of $5,000 for each misappropriation of identity,
destruction of the names, photos and profiles, disgorgement of
unjust profits, and punitive damages.

Twitter agreed in June 2015 to give Hey unfettered access to
import its users' profile data into its gaming app, including
names and photos. Originally called "Stolen," the game "encouraged
players to 'buy,' 'own' and even steal' real-life people by using
virtual currency. But this version of the app received intense
public scrutiny," Parker says in the complaint.

The app disappeared in January this year after Massachusetts
Congresswoman Katherine Clark sent a letter to Twitter's CEO
urging him to suspend Hey's access until nonconsenting profiles
were removed and safeguards were put in place.

Less than a month later, the app re-emerged as "Famous." Rather
than urging players to buy and sell profiles, "Famous" had users
"invest in" people's profiles with "hearts," instead of virtual
currency.

"Aside from giving it a new name, the nature of the app and core
functionality remain exactly the same as before: the app still
displays real life Twitter users, including their full names and
photographs, without their consent, and players still collect
these real life people from the app's marketplace using virtual
currency," Parker says in the complaint.

The game gives each player a limited number of virtual credits for
free, allowing them to buy additional currency, or hearts, with
real money.

Parker says the app has imported profiles of tens of thousands of
people without their consent and exploits their identities for
profit.

The mobile game's developer, Siqi Chen, created another game in
2007 called "Friends for Sale," which allowed Facebook users to
buy and sell their friends' Facebook profiles.

"The pernicious nature of ownership was a reflection of Chen's
vision for the game," Parker says in the 17-page lawsuit.

In 2009, Chen sold "Friends for Sale" to the gaming company Zynga
for an undisclosed sum before launching his new Twitter-based
profile-collecting game in 2015.

Parker cites a January 2016 review of the app from the technology
news website, The Next Web, or TNW, written by Lauren Hockenson.
The article reports that the game "commoditizes users without
their knowledge" and "crafts a potential opening for harassment"
because people who "own" others' profiles can rename them.

Parker cites an interview with the app's founder, Chen, in which
he "admits the game wouldn't work if he had to obtain consent from
each user."

When asked if it would make more sense to feature people in the
game only with their permission, Chen allegedly said: "It doesn't
really work if we can't show you the people that you actually
follow and care about on Twitter."

Parker says he joined Twitter in May 2008 and discovered in July
this year that his profile, name and photo were uploaded to the
app and displayed for players to collect with virtual currency.

He seeks class certification for all Alabama residents whose
profiles have appeared in the app without their consent, an
injunction, and damages as noted above. He also wants Twitter
ordered to revoke Hey's access to its application programming
interface.

He is represented by Stewart Pollack with Edelson PC in San
Francisco.

Twitter did not respond on August 25 to an email request for
comment.

Hey founder and CEO Chen did not return a phone call seeking
comment.


UNITED NATIONS: Haiti Cholera Epidemic Class Actions Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The Courier reports that the Ebola epidemic killed 11,300 people
in West Africa, creating a panic last year in the United States
and Europe.

Ebola may not be eradicated, but the World Health Organization
announced in February transmission had ceased.

Meanwhile, an epidemic in Haiti has failed to make any headlines
despite taking more than 10,000 lives since fall 2010 and causing
another 800,000 to become acutely ill without an end in sight.

Unlike Ebola or the Zika virus, it is not some mysterious and rare
tropical disease.

It is a cholera catastrophe -- the unintended byproduct of a U.N.
peacekeeping mission gone terribly awry, followed by years of
denial of responsibility and relative inaction by U.N. officials.

In January 2010, a 7.0 earthquake struck Haiti in the Caribbean.
As many as 316,000 people perished, and 1.5 million were left
homeless.  The world responded with $13.3 billion in aid,
including $4 billion from the U.S. government.

In mid-October 2010, the U.N. brought in 454 peacekeepers from
Nepal, which was in the midst of a cholera outbreak.  They were
housed at a base where their waste leaked into the feces-infested
Meille River. Residents nearby became violently ill, with
dehydration caused by severe diarrhea or vomiting.  They began
dying in droves.

At the behest of the Haitian government, which became concerned
about an epidemic, Doctors Without Borders researchers found
deaths had increased threefold, "suggesting a substantially higher
cholera mortality rate than previously reported."

Evidence regarding the role of the peacekeepers became
irrefutable, but the U.N. resisted lawsuits seeking reparations,
claiming absolute immunity, and did little to improve sanitary
conditions.

That may change, although not soon enough for the Haitians.

Earlier in August, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon received a
special report by New York University law professor
Philip Alston, who advises the organization on human rights
issues, blaming the U.N. for the epidemic.

Mr. Alston wrote it "would not have broken out but for the actions
of the United Nations," that its Haitian cholera policy "is
morally unconscionable, legally indefensible and politically self-
defeating" and "entirely unnecessary."

Mr. Alston scolded the U.N., stating its refusal to provide
reparations "upholds a double standard according to which the U.N.
insists that member states respect human rights while rejecting
any such responsibility for itself."

He added, "It provides highly combustible fuel for those who claim
that U.N. peacekeeping operations trample on the rights of those
being protected, and it undermines both the U.N.'s overall
credibility and the integrity of the Office of the Secretary-
General."

The U.N. ignored a similar 2014 report from Gustavo Gallon, a
special envoy for human rights in Haiti, who criticized it for
failing to take responsibility for how the disease had spread.  He
wanted the U.N. "to enable damages to be recorded, corresponding
benefits or compensation to be paid, the persons responsible to be
identified, the epidemic to be stopped and other measures to be
implemented."

The New York Times has reported infection rates have been rising
every year since 2014.  No sanitary systems in Haiti have been
built.  Two experimental wastewater-processing plants were closed
because funds were lacking.

The U.N. estimates $2.27 billion is needed to eradicate the
disease, but it has raised only $38 million from member nations
for water purification tablets.  Less than two-thirds of Haiti's
population has access to clean water.

Three class-action lawsuits brought by 5,000 Haitian families are
pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.  The
families are seeking $40 billion -- more than five times the U.N.
peacekeeping budget.

"The figure of $40 billion should stand as a warning of the
consequences that could follow if national courts become convinced
that the abdication policy is not just unconscionable but also
legally unjustified," Mr. Alston wrote.  "The best way to avoid
that happening is for the United Nations to offer an appropriate
remedy."

Following Mr. Alston's report, the U.N. may take action.

Farhan Haq, deputy spokesman for the secretary general, told the
New York Times, "the U.N. has become convinced that it needs to do
much more regarding its own involvement in the initial outbreak
and the suffering of those affected by cholera."

Its response, he said, may be up for discussion in two months.

While the diplomats dither, an estimated 600,000 Haitians will be
at risk of coming down with cholera during the rainy season,
November through March.  The U.N. needs to pick up the pace.

Relocating the opening of the U.N. General Assembly in September
from New York City to the banks of the Meille River would enable
the delegates to see firsthand what the U.N. has wrought and most
assuredly would hasten an immediate and compassionate response.


UNITED STATES: Child Immigrant Legal Rights Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fernanda Santos, writing for New York Times, reports that after a
long, scary trek through three countries to escape the gang
violence in El Salvador, a 15-year-old boy found himself scared
again a few months ago, this time in a federal immigration court.

There was an immigration judge in front of him and a federal
prosecutor to his right, but there was no one helping him
understand the charges against him.

"I was afraid I was going to make a mistake," the boy said in
Spanish from his uncle's living room, in a modest cinder-block
house on the south side of Tucson, Arizona.  "When the judge asked
me questions, I just shook my head yes and no. I didn't want to
say the wrong thing."

'Out-of-step system'

Every week in immigration courts around the country, thousands of
children act as their own lawyers, pleading for asylum or other
type of relief in a legal system they do not understand.

Suspected killers, kidnappers and others facing federal felony
charges, no matter their ages, are entitled to court-appointed
lawyers if they cannot afford them.

But children accused of violating immigration laws, a civil
offense, do not have the same right.

In immigration court, people face charges from the government, but
the government has no obligation to provide lawyers for poor
children and adults, as it does in criminal cases, legal experts
say.

Having a lawyer makes a difference. Between October 2004 and June
of this year, more than half the children who did not have lawyers
were deported.

Only one in 10 children who had legal representation were sent
back, according to federal data compiled by the Transactional
Records Access Clearinghouse, a research group connected to
Syracuse University.

"We have looked for any legal system in the United States where
children are required to represent themselves against a government
lawyer -- child welfare proceedings, juvenile delinquency
proceedings.   We have not yet found one, and the government
hasn't found one either," Stephen Kang, a lawyer for the American
Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Right Project, said in an
interview.

"What we have in immigration court is an out-of-step system,"
Mr. Kang said.  "Children face federal prosecutors at adversarial
court hearings that can have life-or-death consequences for the
children involved."

'Moral obligation'

A class action filed by the ACLU and other civil rights
organizations is trying to change that.

In a brief filed in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where
the federal government is contesting the court's authority to hear
the case, Justice Department lawyers insisted that "aliens in
civil administrative removal proceedings have the privilege of
being represented by retained counsel, but do not possess either a
constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel at taxpayer
expense."

Yet the government has also spent millions of dollars paying for
lawyers to represent unaccompanied children in immigration courts
-- from modest programs in Baltimore and Tennessee to a $55
million effort by the Department of Health and Human Services in
cities throughout the United States.

In remarks to the Hispanic National Bar Association in 2014, then-
Attorney General Eric Holder said, "Though these children may not
have a constitutional right to a lawyer, we have policy reasons
and a moral obligation to ensure the presence of counsel."

Three class-action lawsuits brought by 5,000 Haitian families are
pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.  The
families are seeking $40 billion -- more than five times the U.N.


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Faces Class Action Over Retirement Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Meier, writing for Los Angeles Business Journal, reports
that federal class action filed on Aug. 17 against USC claims the
university breached its fiduciary duty to faculty and staff who
participate in retirement fund programs through the school.

The lawsuit claims more than 28,000 employees have been swindled
out of millions because USC overpaid for fees and services
associated with outside financial advisers who administered the
plans.  The university's two main retirement vehicles were worth
nearly $4.5 billion as of Dec. 31, 2014, according to the
complaint filed in Los Angeles federal court.

"The inefficient and costly structure maintained by Defendants has
caused Plan participants to pay and continue to pay duplicative,
excessive, and unreasonable fees for recordkeeping and
administrative services," the complaint reads.

The suit was filed by Jerome Schlichter of St. Louis-based
Schlichter, Bogard & Denton.  Mr. Schlichter has spent a decade
going after 401(k) retirement funds on behalf of corporate
employees.  It appears, however, Mr. Schlichter has turned his eye
toward academia.  His firm filed class actions against Yale
University, New York University, and the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology alleging similar malfeasance at those schools.

"The university takes its responsibilities to help our plan
participants secure a strong retirement very seriously."
Carol Mauch Amir, USC's general counsel said in a statement.  "We
will vigorously defend the university against this lawsuit."

The backbone of the suit deals with the number of investment
options available to participants as well the number of outside
institutions, such as TIAA-CREF, who run these options.  The
complaint alleges that instead of using a single outside
institution, known in the industry as a "recordkeeper," and a
streamlined number of investment options, USC employed four
recordkeepers until March (it has since slimmed down to three) and
had more than 340 plan options.

This led to a massive increase in fees for participants, according
to the suit.

"Each Plan paid up to $130 per participant per year from 2010 to
2014, which is well over 300% higher than a reasonable fee for
these services, resulting in millions of dollars in excessive
recordkeeping fees each year," the complaint reads.

The suit is currently seeking unspecified damages to be proven at
trial.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Replaces CFO Amid Class Actions, Probes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Valeant Pharmaceuticals replaced
Robert Rosiello as chief financial officer as the embattled
company attempts to normalize operations amid a host of
investigations and class action lawsuits.

The Canadian company named Paul Herendeen, former Zoetis chief
financial officer, to fill the post immediately on Aug. 22.

Valeant has been under fire for its strategy of buying smaller
drug companies, then hiking the prices of the drugs that those
companies make.

Earlier this year, the company ousted Michael Pearson, the CEO who
engineered the Valeant's acquisition strategy, replacing him with
Joseph Papa.

Valeant is the target of at least 11 investigations in the U.S.
and Canada, and a number of class action suits.  The company's
income has been declining drastically for more than a year.  In
the most recent quarter, revenue tumbled 11.4 percent and losses
widened.

It is one of several pharmaceuticals that have come under the
spotlight as skyrocketing drug prices become a national talking
point ahead of the nation's presidential election.

Former CEO Michael Pearson was summoned before Congress to explain
how Valeant, after acquiring other drug companies, jacked up
prices of old, off-patent drugs with little competition as much as
five times what they had cost for years.  Several other companies
have done the same, most notably privately held Turing
Pharmaceuticals -- whose former CEO, Martin Shkreli, gave the
pharmaceutical industry a black eye by hiking the price of a life-
saving drug called Daraprim by 5,000 percent, to $750 per pill.

Those price hikes do not appear to be abating, however.

The maker of the EpiPen, a device used largely by children to ward
off potentially fatal allergic reactions, has surged in recent
years, particularly after the recall of its only competitor.

When the autoinjector was acquired by Mylan in 2007, a two-dose
package cost less than $60.  To the alarm of many parents, schools
and doctors, that cost is now closer to $400.

A two-dose package has recently been selling for more than $365,
according to data from Elsevier Clinical Solutions' Gold Standard
Drug Database.

The backlash against Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc.
has cost its shareholders, however.  The stock plunged with the
company's business model in doubt.  Shares which hit an all-time
high of close to $264 just over a year ago, have since plunged to
less than $30.

Prior to Zoetis, Herendeen., the new CFO, logged a combined 16
years in the same position at MedPointe, and then Warner Chilcott.


VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Paid $39.7MM for Judgments in 9 Engle Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that through June 30, 2016,
Liggett paid $39,773,000, including interest and attorneys' fees,
to satisfy the judgments in the following Engle progeny cases:
Lukacs, Campbell, Douglas, Clay, Tullo, Ward, Rizzuto, Lambert and
Buchanan.

In May 1994, Engle was filed against Liggett and others in Miami-
Dade County, Florida. The class consisted of all Florida residents
who, by November 21, 1996, "have suffered, presently suffer or
have died from diseases and medical conditions caused by their
addiction to cigarette smoking." In July 1999, after the
conclusion of Phase I of the trial, the jury returned a verdict
against Liggett and other cigarette manufacturers on certain
issues determined by the trial court to be "common" to the causes
of action of the plaintiff class. The jury made several findings
adverse to the defendants including that defendants' conduct "rose
to a level that would permit a potential award or entitlement to
punitive damages."

Phase II of the trial was a causation and damages trial for three
of the class plaintiffs and a punitive damages trial on a class-
wide basis before the same jury that returned the verdict in Phase
I. In April 2000, the jury awarded compensatory damages of
$12,704,000 to the three class plaintiffs, to be reduced in
proportion to the respective plaintiff's fault. In July 2000, the
jury awarded approximately $145,000,000,000 in punitive damages,
including $790,000,000 against Liggett.

In May 2003, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal reversed the
trial court and remanded the case with instructions to decertify
the class. The judgment in favor of one of the three class
plaintiffs, in the amount of $5,831,000, was overturned as time
barred and the court found that Liggett was not liable to the
other two class plaintiffs.

In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the decision
vacating the punitive damages award and held that the class should
be decertified prospectively, but determined that the following
Phase I findings are entitled to res judicata effect in Engle
progeny cases: (i) that smoking causes lung cancer, among other
diseases; (ii) that nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii)
that defendants placed cigarettes on the market that were
defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) that defendants
concealed material information knowing that the information was
false or misleading or failed to disclose a material fact
concerning the health effects or addictive nature of smoking; (v)
that defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding
the health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with
the intention that smokers would rely on the information to their
detriment; (vi) that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that
were defective; and (vii) that defendants were negligent. The
Florida Supreme Court decision also allowed former class members
to proceed to trial on individual liability issues (using the
above findings) and compensatory and punitive damage issues,
provided they filed their individual lawsuits by January 2008.

In December 2006, the Florida Supreme Court added the finding that
defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the time of sale
or supply, did not conform to the representations made by
defendants. In October 2007, the United States Supreme Court
denied defendants' petition for writ of certiorari.

Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court's July 2006 ruling in Engle,
which decertified the class on a prospective basis, and affirmed
the appellate court's reversal of the punitive damages award,
former class members had until January 2008 in which to file
individual lawsuits. As a result, Liggett and the Company, and
other cigarette manufacturers, were sued in thousands of Engle
progeny cases in both federal and state courts in Florida.
Although the Company was not named as a defendant in the Engle
case, it was named as a defendant in substantially all of the
Engle progeny cases where Liggett was named as a defendant.

                     Engle Progeny Settlement

In October 2013, the Company entered into a settlement with
approximately 4,900 Engle progeny plaintiffs and their counsel.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Liggett agreed to pay a
total of approximately $110,000,000, with approximately
$61,600,000 paid in a lump sum and the balance to be paid in
installments over 14 years, starting in February 2015.

In exchange, the claims of over 4,900 plaintiffs, including the
claims of all plaintiffs with cases pending in federal court, were
dismissed with prejudice against the Company and Liggett. Due to
the settlement, in 2013 the Company recorded a charge of
$86,213,000, of which $25,213,000 is related to certain payments
discounted to their present value using an 11% annual discount
rate. The installment payments total approximately $48,000,000 on
an undiscounted basis. The Company's future payments will be
approximately $3,400,000 per annum through 2028, with a cost of
living increase beginning in 2021.

Notwithstanding the comprehensive nature of the Engle Progeny
Settlement, approximately 245 plaintiffs' claims remain pending in
state court. Therefore, the Company and Liggett may still be
subject to periodic adverse judgments which could have a material
adverse affect on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.

The Company's current potential range of loss in the remaining
cases on appeal is between $0 and $4,838,000 in the aggregate,
plus interest and attorneys' fees, however, this is only an
estimate and final damages in any case might increase as a result
of pending appeals.


VECTOR GROUP: 3 Class Actions Pending as of June 30
---------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that as of June 30, 2016,
three actions were pending for which either a class had been
certified or plaintiffs were seeking class certification where
Liggett is a named defendant. Other cigarette manufacturers are
also named in these actions.

Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in class action cases are
based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross
negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design
defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied
warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action,
violation of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection
statutes and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering
statutes. Plaintiffs in the class actions seek various forms of
relief, including compensatory and punitive damages,
treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties,
creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds,
disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief.

Defenses raised in these cases include, among others, lack of
proximate cause, individual issues predominate, assumption of the
risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statute of
limitations and federal preemption.

In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported
personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff
and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not
themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed to
secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the
defendants, including Liggett, and suffered injury as a result of
that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified
amount of compensatory and punitive damages. No class
certification hearing has been held. In 2013, plaintiffs' filed a
motion to stay the case and that motion was granted.

In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a purported class
action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia residents who
allegedly have personal injury claims arising from exposure to
cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers. The complaint seeks to
recover $1,000 in compensatory and punitive damages individually
and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the class.
The case is stayed due to the December 2000 bankruptcy of three of
the defendants.

Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a West Virginia state court
consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were
pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain "common" issues.
Liggett was severed from trial of the consolidated action. After
two mistrials, in May 2013, the jury rejected all but one of the
plaintiffs' claims, finding in favor of plaintiffs on the claim
that ventilated filter cigarettes between 1964 and July 1, 1969
should have included instructions on how to use them. The issue of
damages was reserved for further proceedings. The court entered
judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims except the
ventilated filter claim. The judgment was affirmed on appeal and
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

In April 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which subsequently
declined review. In July 2015, the trial court ruled on the scope
of the ventilated filter claim and determined that only 30
plaintiffs have potentially viable claims against the non-Liggett
defendants, which may be pursued in a second phase of the trial.

The court intends to try the claims of these plaintiffs in six
consolidated trials, each with five plaintiffs. The trial court
set the first date for the consolidated trials for January 9,
2017. With respect to Liggett, the trial court requested that
Liggett and plaintiffs brief whether any claims against Liggett
survive given the outcome of the first phase of the trial. On May
23, 2016, the trial court ruled that the case may proceed against
Liggett. Liggett intends to seek appellate review of this
decision. It is estimated that Liggett could be a defendant in
approximately 25 of the remaining individual cases.


VICTIM SERVICES: Appeals From Ruling in "Breazeale" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Victim Services, Inc., National Corrective Group, Inc.,
and Mats Jonsson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Kevin Breazeale, et al. v. Victim Services, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-05266-VC, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as Kevin Breazeale, et al. v.
Victim Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-16495, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case
arose out of the Defendants' alleged unfair, fraudulent and
unlawful practices in collecting debts.

The Defendants own and operate a private debt-collection agency.

The Appeals Court set this schedule:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by September 23, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on October 24, 2016;

   -- Appellants' opening brief is due on December 2, 2016;

   -- Appellees' answering brief is due on January 03, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees Kevin Breazeale, Karen Solberg, Kevin Hiep
Vu, Nancy Morin and Narisha Bonakdar, on their own behalf and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Paul Arons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PAUL ARONS
          685 Spring Street, Suite 04
          Friday Harbor, WA 98250
          Telephone: (360) 378-6496
          Facsimile: (360) 378-6498
          E-mail: lopa@rockisland.com

               - and -

          Blythe H. Chandler, Esq.
          Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
          E-mail: bchandler@terrellmarshall.com
                  bterrell@tmdwlaw.com

               - and -

          Deepak Gupta, Esq.
          GUPTA BECK PLLC
          1735 20th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 888-1741
          Facsimile: (202) 888-7792
          E-mail: deepak@guptabeck.com

               - and -

          Karl Olson, Esq.
          Michael Francis Ram, Esq.
          RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
          101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          E-mail: kolson@rocklawcal.com
                  mram@rocklawcal.com

Defendants-Appellants VICTIM SERVICES, INC., DBA
CorrectiveSolutions; NATIONAL CORRECTIVE GROUP, INC., DBA
CorrectiveSolutions; and MATS JONSSON are represented by:

          Sean Hardy, Esq.
          Michael A. Taitelman, Esq.
          FREEDMAN AND TAITELMAN, LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6001
          Telephone: (310) 201-0005
          E-mail: smhardy@ftllp.com
                  mtaitelman@ftllp.com


VIVINT SOLAR: Sept. 30 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Superior Court of
the State of California in and for the County of San Diego will
hold a final hearing on September 30, 2016, to approve a $1.7
million class action settlement.

In September 2014, two former installation technicians of the
Company, on behalf of themselves and a purported class, filed a
complaint for damages, injunctive relief and restitution in the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
San Diego against the Company and unnamed John Doe defendants. The
complaint alleges certain violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code based on, among
other things, alleged improper classification of installer
technicians, installer helpers, electrician technicians and
electrician helpers, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure
to provide wages on termination.

In December 2014, the original plaintiffs and three additional
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with essentially the same
allegations. On November 5, 2015, the parties agreed to
preliminary terms of a settlement of all claims related to
allegations in the complaint in return for the Company's payment
of $1.7 million to be paid out to the purported class members. The
settlement agreement has received preliminary approval from the
Court, with final approval hearing set for September 30, 2016.

As of June 30, 2016, a $1.7 million reserve was recorded related
to this proceeding in the Company's condensed consolidated
financial statements.


VIVINT SOLAR: 2nd Cir. Appeal Over Case Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiffs' appeal
from the dismissal of their securities lawsuit remains pending.

In November and December 2014, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering of common stock alleging violation of securities laws and
seeking unspecified damages. In January 2015, the Court ordered
these cases to be consolidated into the earlier filed case, Hyatt
v. Vivint Solar, Inc. et al., 14-cv-9283 (KBF). The plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint in February 2015.

On May 6, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and on December 10, 2015, the Court issued an Opinion
and Order dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

On January 5, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company is unable to estimate
a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an
adverse final decision. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in
this case, it is possible that the impact could be material to the
Company's results of operations in the period(s) in which any such
outcome becomes probable and estimable.

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


VIVINT SOLAR: Appeal on Arbitration Order Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Plaintiffs' appeal of
the Court's order granting the Company's motion to compel
arbitration remains pending.

On September 9, 2015, two of the Company's customers, on behalf of
themselves and a purported class, named the Company in a putative
class action, Case No. BCV-15-100925(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
County), alleging violation of California Business and
Professional Code Section 17200 and requesting relief pursuant to
Section 1689 of the California Civil Code. The complaint seeks:
(1) rescission of their power purchase agreements along with
restitution to the plaintiffs individually and (2) declaratory and
injunctive relief.

On October 16, 2015, the Company moved to compel arbitration of
the plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the provisions set forth in the
power purchase agreements, which the Court granted and dismissed
the class claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed the
Court's order. It is not possible to estimate the amount or range
of potential loss, if any, at this time.

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


VOLKSWAGEN: 210,000 Owners Registered to Settle with Company
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that about 210,000 owners of
Volkswagens with 2-liter diesel engines that cheat on emissions
tests have registered to settle with the company under the terms
of a June court agreement.  The figure was revealed in a federal
court motion in Detroit by class action attorneys seeking final
approval of the settlement involving 475,000 owners. It says only
235 have asked to stay out of the settlement and pursue legal
action on their own. Another 110 objections to the settlement were
filed.

U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer has given the $15 billion
settlement preliminary approval, with a final decision expected
Oct. 18.  Terms call for the German carmaker to spend
up to $10 billion buying back or repairing Volkswagen and Audi
2-liter vehicles and paying owners another $5,100 to $10,000 each.

The motion was filed late on August 26, by Elizabeth Cabraser, the
lead attorney in the class-action settlement. It says the number
of owners who signed up for settlements, about 44 percent, was "a
noteworthy level of participation in a program whose claims
deadline does not occur until September 2018."

Owners have until Sept. 16 of this year to opt out of the
settlement.

The Federal Trade Commission, which sued Volkswagen along with the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Justice Department, came
out in support of the settlement on August 26. The agency, which
had contended that VW deceived buyers through false advertising,
says the settlement is fair because it gives owners the value of
their cars before the scandal became public last Sept. 18. Owners
also are compensated for other expenses, the agency says.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Faces Class Action Over Bottled Water Sales Tax
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a man
who claims Walgreens wrongly charged him a 5 cent sales tax on
drinks he purchased at their stores has brought a class action
lawsuit against the nation's largest chain of drug stores,
claiming the retailer likely similarly overcharged potentially
thousands of other people and should be made to pay under Illinois
law.

On Aug. 15, Destin McIntosh, identified only as a resident of Cook
County, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Deerfield-
based Walgreens Boots Alliance.

He is represented in the action by attorney Joseph Siprut --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- of Siprut P.C., of Chicago.

The lawsuit focuses on a special tax placed on bottled water in
the city of Chicago.  The tax, in place since 2008, charges 5
cents per bottle of water sold at retail.  The tax excluded
carbonated beverages, such as seltzer water, sparkling waters,
sold under such brands as Perrier or La Croix, or soft drinks;
flavored water, which would include such brands as Sobe Life Water
or Vitamin Water; and mineral water or water sold by "delivery
services in a container not sold with the water."

However, the lawsuit said news reports, published by "several
Chicago news outlets," including online news site DNAInfo.com,
revealed Walgreens was wrongly charging the bottled water tax on
sparkling water beverages.

In the lawsuit, Mr. McIntosh claimed to have purchased sparkling
water drinks from Walgreens stores in Chicago "on multiple
occasions in 2015, asserting he shopped at Walgreens stores in the
Loop, the South Loop, Rogers Park and Lakeview, near his home, his
job and friends' homes.

The lawsuit noted Mr. McIntosh did not keep his receipts from the
purchases, but believes "Walgreens' records should demonstrate
that (he) was in fact charged and paid the Bottled Water Tax."

While a spokesman for Walgreens asserted in published reports the
company had corrected the taxation problem, McIntosh's lawsuit
alleged the company should have sought to refund the allegedly
improper charges to its customers, but did not.

Mr. McIntosh's lawsuit alleged Walgreens' actions concerning the
collection of the tax violated Illinois' consumer fraud law.

Mr. McIntosh's lawsuit said his attorneys don't know how many
people allegedly may have been similarly overcharged.  But they
are asking the judge to allow them to examine Walgreens' "books
and records" to uncover that number.

For now, the lawsuit asked the court to approve a class of
additional plaintiffs including everyone who "purchased
carbonated, flavored or mineral water from a Walgreens store
located in Chicago" and may have been charged the 5 cent tax.

The lawsuit asked the court to award unspecified "actual and
statutory damages," plus attorney fees.


WAYFAIR INC: "Carson" Plaintiffs Withdraw Action
------------------------------------------------
Wayfair Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a putative class action
complaint was filed on February 2, 2016, against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Carson, et al., v. Wayfair Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00716) by two
individuals on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals (collectively, the "Carson
Plaintiffs"). The complaint alleged that Wayfair engaged in a
deceptive marketing campaign in which the Company advertised
certain "original" or "regular" retail prices, which the Carson
Plaintiffs alleged were false. In May 2016, the Carson Plaintiffs
voluntarily withdrew this action without prejudice.

Wayfair has built one of the largest online selections of
furniture, decor, decorative accents, housewares, seasonal decor
and other home goods.


WEBSENSE INC: November 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
LABORERS' LOCAL #231 PENSION FUND,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,

vs.

WEBSENSE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 37-2013-00050879-CU-BT-CTL
CLASS ACTION
JUDGE: Honorable Joan M. Lewis
DEPT: C-65
DATE ACTION FILED: 05/30/13

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL HOLDERS OF WEBSENSE, INC. ("WEBSENSE") COMMON STOCK WHO
RECEIVED CONSIDERATION FOR THEIR SHARES IN THE ACQUISITION OF
WEBSENSE BY VISTA EQUITY PARTNERS ("VEP") (TOGETHER WITH TOMAHAWK
ACQUISITIONS, LLC AND TOMAHAWK MERGER SUB, INC., "VISTA") AT THE
PRICE OF $24.75 PER SHARE, FIRST ANNOUNCED ON MAY 20, 2013

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

I. WHY SHOULD I READ THIS NOTICE?
This Notice is given pursuant to an order issued by the Superior
Court of California, County of San Diego (the "Court"). This
Notice serves to inform you of the proposed settlement of the
class action lawsuit (the "Settlement") and the hearing (the
"Settlement Fairness Hearing") to be held by the Court to
consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
Settlement, as set forth in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement
dated July 14, 2016 (the "Amended Stipulation"), entered into by
and among the following: Plaintiff Laborers' Local #231 Pension
Fund ("Plaintiff"), Defendants John McCormack, John B.
Carrington, Charles Boesenberg, Bruce T. Coleman, John F.
Schaefer, Mark S. St. Clare, Gary E. Sutton, and Peter C. Waller
(collectively, "Defendants"), and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith, Inc. ("Merrill Lynch," and collectively with Defendants,
the "Released Signatory Parties").  Upon and subject to the terms
and conditions hereof, Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the
Class (as defined in the Amended Stipulation and herein), on the
one hand, and each of the Released Signatory Parties on the other
hand (collectively, the "Parties"), intend this Settlement to be a
final and complete resolution of all disputes between Plaintiff
and the Released Defendant Parties (as defined herein) with
respect to the action (the "Action") as well as the Pending
Delaware Action. This Notice is not an expression of any opinion
by the Court as to the merits of the claims or defenses asserted
in any lawsuit.

II. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE CASE?

On May 20, 2013, Websense announced that it had entered into a
definitive merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement") with Vista,
under which Vista agreed to acquire Websense through a tender
offer for $24.75 per share in cash (the "Tender Offer"). On May
28, 2013, Vista commenced the Tender Offer.

On May 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint
on behalf of Websense common stockholders in this Court alleging,
among other things, that the members of Websense's Board of
Directors ("Board" or "Defendants") breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with Vista's acquisition of Websense (the
"Acquisition"), and that Websense and Vista aided and abetted
those breaches.

On June 25, 2013, the Tender Offer closed and Vista completed the
Acquisition.

On or around August 22, 2014, the Court overruled demurrers filed
by Defendants and sustained the demurrers filed by Websense and
Vista.  By order entered December 2, 2014, the Court dismissed
Websense and Vista with prejudice from the Action.

On or around May 1, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification and entered an order defining the Class as:
"All holders of Websense, Inc. ('Websense') common stock who
received consideration for their shares in the acquisition of
Websense by Vista Equity Partners ('VEP') (together with
Tomahawk Acquisitions, LLC and Tomahawk Merger Sub, Inc., 'Vista')
at the price of $24.75 per share, first announced on
May 20, 2013.  Excluded from the Class are defendants and any
person, firm, trust, corporation or other entity related to or
affiliated with any defendant (the 'Class')."

From the spring of 2014 through April 2016, Plaintiff and
Defendants conducted extensive adversarial discovery, whereby
Plaintiff and Defendants, former parties, and subpoenaed non-
parties combined to produce approximately 144,623 pages of
documents.  Plaintiff and Defendants additionally
propounded, and responded to, interrogatories, request for
admission, and document requests.
During this same period, Plaintiff also took the depositions of 10
fact witnesses, located across the country.  The fact witnesses
deposed included all but two members of the Websense Board, a
representative of Merrill Lynch, several former Websense
executives and employees, and several nonparties.

On December 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a
fourth amended complaint (the "Fourth Amended Complaint," filed as
Exhibit A to the Zachariah Declaration in Support of Defendants'
Motion to Seal, Docket No. 211) in order to add Merrill Lynch as a
defendant.

Between March 25, 2016 and April 22, 2016, Plaintiff and
Defendants identified their experts and exchanged expert reports.

On or around April 27, 2016, while Plaintiff and Defendants were
engaged in summary judgment briefing (with the hearing on the
Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled to take place on June 24,
2016 and trial to begin July 29, 2016), Plaintiff and Defendants
entered into a settlement term sheet to resolve the claims against
Defendants in this Action (the "Initial Settlement") with
substantial assistance of mediator Robert A. Meyer, Esq.

On May 11, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement regarding the Initial Settlement.

On May 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint under seal in the
Pending Delaware Action against Merrill Lynch, alleging aiding and
abetting Defendants' purported breaches of fiduciary duties in
connection with the Acquisition.

On June 3, 2016, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the Initial Settlement.

On June 6, 2016, Merrill Lynch filed a motion to intervene and a
motion to enforce the protective order in this Action.

On June 8, 2016, Merrill Lynch filed an opening brief in support
of its motion to dismiss, stay, or strike the complaint in the
Pending Delaware Action.

On June 20, 2016, after an exchange of letters between counsel,
Merrill Lynch filed an amended opening brief in support of its
motion to dismiss, stay, or strike the complaint in the Pending
Delaware Action.

Settlement negotiations continued between Plaintiff and Merrill
Lynch, and an agreement in principle was reached on June 22, 2016
to settle Plaintiff's and the Class' claims against Merrill Lynch
as part of an amended stipulation of settlement in this Action.

On June 23, 2016, the Parties appeared before this Court to advise
it of the agreement in principle between Plaintiff and Merrill
Lynch and to ask the Court to vacate the current deadlines in
connection with the Initial Settlement so that the Parties could
negotiate an amended stipulation of settlement to include Merrill
Lynch.  This Court vacated its prior preliminary settlement
approval order in connection with the Initial Settlement, and
scheduled a preliminary approval hearing on the anticipated
unified settlement for August 5, 2016 (which hearing would follow
briefing).

On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff advised the court presiding over the
Pending Delaware Action of the agreement in principle between
Plaintiff and Merrill Lynch to resolve Plaintiff's and the Class'
claim against Merrill Lynch as part of a proposed, unified
settlement to be presented to the Court for approval, and that,
pending approval, the parties in the Pending Delaware Action have
agreed to defer all further proceedings in the Pending Delaware
Action.

On July 14, 2016, the Parties entered into the Amended
Stipulation, which sets forth the complete terms of the
Settlement.

THE COURT HAS NOT RULED AS TO WHETHER THE RELEASED SIGNATORY
PARTIES ARE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF OR TO THE CLASS. THIS NOTICE IS
NOT INTENDED TO BE AN EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION BY THE COURT WITH
RESPECT TO THE TRUTH OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN ANY LAWSUIT OR THE
MERITS OF THE CLAIMS OR DEFENSES ASSERTED. THIS NOTICE IS SOLELY
TO ADVISE YOU OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT THEREOF AND YOUR RIGHTS
IN CONNECTION WITH THAT SETTLEMENT.

III. WHAT IS THE MONETARY VALUE OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT?

The Settlement, if approved, will result in the creation of a cash
settlement fund of $40,000,000 (the "Settlement Amount"). The
Settlement Amount, plus accrued interest (the "Settlement Fund")
and minus the costs of this Notice and all costs associated with
the administration of the Settlement, as well as
attorneys' fees and expenses, as approved by the Court (the "Net
Settlement Amount"), will be distributed to Class Members (as
defined herein) who submit valid and timely Proof of Claim and
Release ("Proof of Claim") forms (the "Settlement Payment
Recipients") pursuant to the Plan of Allocation that is described
in the next section of this Notice.

IV. WHAT IS THE PROPOSED PLAN OF ALLOCATION?

Your share of the Net Settlement Amount will depend on how many
shares of Websense common stock you held at the time of the
closing of the Acquisition and the number of valid Proofs of Claim
that Class Members send in.

Distributions will be made to the Settlement Payment Recipients
after all claims have been processed and after the Court has
finally approved the Settlement.  The Net Settlement Amount will
be disbursed by the Claims Administrator to the Settlement Payment
Recipients and will be allocated on a pershare basis amongst the
Settlement Payment Recipients.  Any distribution will require a
$10.00 minimum.

If there is any balance remaining in the Net Settlement Amount
after six months from the date of distribution of the Net
Settlement Amount (whether by reason of tax refunds, uncashed
checks, or otherwise), such funds shall be used: (a) first, to pay
any amounts mistakenly omitted from the initial disbursement; (b)
second, to pay any additional settlement administration fees,
costs, and expenses, including those of Lead Counsel as may be
approved by the Court; and (c) finally, to make a second
distribution to claimants who cashed their checks from the initial
distribution and who would receive at least
$10.00, after payment of the estimated costs, expenses, or fees to
be incurred in administering the Net Settlement Amount and in
making this second distribution, if such second distribution is
economically feasible.  These redistributions shall be repeated,
if economically feasible, until the balance remaining in the
Net Settlement Amount is de minimis and such remaining balance
shall then be distributed to the Children's Rights Litigation
Committee of the ABA Litigation Section.

Class Members who do not submit acceptable Proofs of Claim will
not share in the Settlement proceeds.  The Settlement and the
final Judgment releasing the Released Defendant Parties and
dismissing this Action will nevertheless bind all Class Members.

Please contact the Claims Administrator if you disagree with any
determinations made by the Claims Administrator regarding your
Proof of Claim.  If you are unsatisfied with the determinations,
you may ask the Court, which retains jurisdiction over all Class
Members and the claims administration process, to decide the issue
by submitting a written request.

The Released Signatory Parties and their counsel will have no
responsibility or liability whatsoever for the investment of the
Settlement Fund, the distribution of the Net Settlement Amount,
the Plan of Allocation, or the payment of any claim. Plaintiff and
Lead Counsel, likewise, will have no liability for their
reasonable efforts to execute, administer, and distribute the
Settlement.

V. DO I NEED TO CONTACT LEAD COUNSEL IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN
DISTRIBUTION OF THE SETTLEMENT FUND?

No. If you have received this Notice and timely submit your Proof
of Claim to the designated address, you need not contact Lead
Counsel.  If you did not receive this Notice but believe you
should have, or if your address changes, please contact the Claims
Administrator at:

         Websense Shareholder Litigation
         Claims Administrator
         c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
         P.O. Box 40007
         College Station, TX 77842-4007
         Phone: 1-844-833-3853
         www.websenseshareholderlitigation.com

VI. THERE WILL BE NO PAYMENTS IF THE AMENDED STIPULATION IS
TERMINATED
The Amended Stipulation may be terminated under several
circumstances outlined in it.  If the Amended Stipulation is
terminated, the Action and the Pending Delaware Action will
proceed as if the Amended Stipulation had not been entered into.

VII. WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR SETTLEMENT?

The Court has not reached any final decisions in connection with
Plaintiff's claims.  Instead, the Parties have agreed to this
Settlement, and in doing so, the Parties have avoided the cost,
delay, and uncertainty of further litigation.

As in any litigation, Plaintiff and the Class would face an
uncertain outcome if they did not agree to the Settlement.  The
Parties expected that if Plaintiff succeeded, the Released
Signatory Parties would file appeals that would postpone final
resolution of the case.  Continuation of the case could result in
a judgment greater than this Settlement.  Conversely, continuing
the case could result in no recovery at all or a recovery that is
less than the amount of the Settlement.

Plaintiff and Lead Counsel believe that this Settlement is fair
and reasonable to the members of the Class.  They have reached
this conclusion for several reasons.  Specifically, if the
Settlement is approved, the Class will receive a significant
monetary recovery.  Additionally, Lead Counsel believe that the
significant and immediate benefits of the Settlement, when weighed
against the significant risk, delay, and
uncertainty of continued litigation, are an excellent result for
the Class.

The Released Signatory Parties deny that they are liable to the
Plaintiff and the Class and deny that the Plaintiff or the Class
have suffered any recoverable damages in the Action or the Pending
Delaware Action.

VIII. WHO REPRESENTS THE CLASS?

The Court appointed the law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP to represent you and other Class Members. These lawyers are
called Lead Counsel.  These lawyers will apply to the Court for
payment of attorneys' fees and expenses from the Settlement Fund;
you will not be otherwise charged for their work. If you want to
be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own
expense.

IX. HOW WILL THE PLAINTIFF'S LAWYERS BE PAID?

Lead Counsel will file a motion for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses that will be considered by the Court at the
Settlement Fairness Hearing.  Lead Counsel will apply for an award
of up to 27% of the Settlement Fund, or up to $10,800,000, plus
payment of expenses incurred in connection with the Action
and the Pending Delaware Action in an amount not to exceed
$375,000.00, to be paid from the Settlement Fund.  Class Members
are not personally liable for any such fees or expenses.
The attorneys' fees and expenses requested will be the only
payment to Lead Counsel for their efforts in achieving this
Settlement and for their risk in undertaking this representation
on a wholly contingent basis.  Lead Counsel have committed
significant time and expenses in litigating this case for the
benefit of the Class.  To date, Lead Counsel have not been paid
for their services in conducting this Action or the Pending
Delaware Action on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Class, or for
their expenses.  The fees requested will compensate Lead Counsel
for their work in achieving the Settlement.  The Court will decide
what constitutes a reasonable fee award and may award less than
the amount requested by Lead Counsel.

X. CAN I OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE REQUESTED ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION?

Yes. If you are a Class Member, you may object to the terms of the
Settlement.  Whether or not you object to the terms of the
Settlement, you may also object to the requested attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses, and/or the Plan of Allocation.  Any person
wanting to object may do so in writing and/or by
appearing at the Settlement Fairness Hearing.  A Class Member who
appears at the Settlement Fairness Hearing need not file a written
objection for the Court to consider his, her, or its objection.
To the extent you want to object in writing, you must file such
objections and any supporting papers, accompanied by
proof of Class membership, with the Court, and send to Lead
Counsel and counsel for the Released Signatory Parties by
October 21, 2016.  The Court's address is Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, 330 West Broadway, San Diego, CA
92101.  Lead Counsel's address is Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, c/o
David Knotts.  Defendants' counsel's address is Cooley LLP, 4401
Eastgate Mall, San Diego, CA 92121, c/o Peter Adams. Merrill
Lynch's counsel's address is O'Melveny & Myers LLP, 400 South Hope
Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071, c/o Matthew W. Close.  If you hire
an attorney to represent you for the purposes of making a written
objection, the attorney must both effect service of a notice of
appearance on counsel and file it with the
Court by no later than October 21, 2016.

XI. HOW CAN I GET A PAYMENT?

In order to qualify for a payment, you must timely submit a Proof
of Claim. A Proof of Claim is enclosed with this Notice or it may
be downloaded at www.websenseshareholderlitigation.com.  Read the
instructions carefully, fill out the Proof of Claim, include all
the documents the form asks for, sign it, and mail or submit it
online so that it is postmarked (if mailed) or received (if filed
electronically) no later than November 10, 2016.  The claim form
may be submitted online at www.websenseshareholderlitigation.com.
If you do not submit a valid Proof of Claim with all of the
required information, you will not receive a payment from the Net
Settlement Amount; however, you will still be bound in all other
respects by the Settlement, the Judgment, and the releases
contained in them.


XII. WHAT CLAIMS WILL BE RELEASED BY THE SETTLEMENT?

If the Settlement is approved, you cannot sue, continue to sue, or
be part of any other lawsuit against the Released Defendant
Parties about the same issues in this case or about issues that
could have been asserted in this case.  It also means that all of
the Court's orders will apply to you and legally bind you and you
will release your Released Plaintiff's Claims in this case against
the Released Defendant Parties.

"Class" means all holders of Websense common stock who received
consideration for their shares in the acquisition of Websense by
Vista at the price of $24.75 per share, first announced on
May 20, 2013.  Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and any
Person, firm, trust, corporation or other entity related
to or affiliated with any Defendant.  Also excluded from the Class
are those Persons or entities who timely and properly requested
exclusion from the Class in response to the Notice of Pendency of
Class Action sent to Class Members on or about January 26, 2016.

"Class Member" means a person who falls within the definition of
the Class as set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph.

"Released Defendant Parties" means Defendants, Websense, Vista,
Merrill Lynch, and/or any of their families, parent entities,
controlling or managing persons or entities, associates,
investors, affiliates or subsidiaries and each and all of their
past, present, or future officers, directors, stockholders,
employees, attorneys, insurers, excess insurers and reinsurers,
consultants, accountants, commercial bankers, engineers, advisors
or agents, heirs, executors, trustees, general or limited partners
or partnerships, personal representatives, estates,
administrators, and each of their respective heirs, predecessors,
successors, and assigns, and investment funds related to Websense
stock that any of the Released Defendant Parties managed or
advised and such funds' respective affiliates, agents, employees,
directors, predecessors, and successors.

"Released Defendant Parties' Claims" means all claims (including
Unknown Claims as defined herein), demands, losses, rights, and
causes of action of any nature whatsoever that have been or could
have been asserted in the Action, the Related Actions, or the
Delaware Litigation, or in any court, tribunal, forum or
proceeding, by any Released Defendant Party against any of the
Released Plaintiff Parties, which arise out of or relate in any
way to the institution, prosecution or settlement of the Action,
the Related Actions, or the Delaware Litigation; provided,
however, that the Released Defendant Parties' Claims shall
not include claims to enforce the Amended Stipulation.
"Released Plaintiff Parties" means Plaintiff, all Class Members,
Lead Counsel, and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel.

"Released Plaintiff's Claims" means any and all manner of claims,
demands, losses, rights, causes of action (including Unknown
Claims), liabilities, damages, obligations, judgments, suits,
disputes, fees, expenses, costs, matters and issues of any kind or
nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, contingent or
absolute, suspected or unsuspected, disclosed or undisclosed,
matured or unmatured, that have been or could have been asserted
in the Action, the Related Actions, or the Delaware Litigation, or
in any court, tribunal, forum or proceeding (including, but not
limited to, any claims arising under federal, state or foreign
law, common law, statute, rule, or regulation relating to alleged
fraud, breach of any duty, negligence, violations of the federal
securities laws, or otherwise, and including all claims within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts), by Plaintiff and
any Class Member in his, her, or its capacity as
a stockholder of Websense, against any of the Released Defendant
Parties and that arise out of, relate to, concern, or are based
upon the allegations, conduct, facts, events, transactions, acts,
occurrences, statements, representations, misrepresentations,
omissions, or any other matter, thing or cause whatsoever, or any
series thereof embraced, involved, or set forth or otherwise
related, directly or indirectly, to: (i) the Merger Agreement
(including, but not limited to, any deliberations or negotiations
in connection with the Merger Agreement); (ii) the Acquisition
(including, but not limited to, the consideration received by
Class Members in connection with the Acquisition); (iii) any
fiduciary or contractual obligations of any of the
Released Signatory Parties or Released Defendant Parties in
connection with the Acquisition; (iv) the negotiations in
connection with the Acquisition, including any deal-protection
devices; (v) the disclosures or disclosure obligations of any of
the Defendants or Released Defendant Parties in connection with
the Acquisition; (vi) any alleged improper personal benefit or
conflict of interest in connection with the Acquisition; and (vii)
Merrill Lynch's advice or actions in connection with the
Acquisition; provided, however, that the Released Plaintiff's
Claims shall not include a claim to enforce the Amended
Stipulation.

"Unknown Claims" means:

(a) any and all Released Plaintiff's Claims which Plaintiff or any
other Class Member
does not know or suspect to exist in his, her, or its favor at the
time of the release of the Released Plaintiff's
Claims against the Released Defendant Parties, including (without
limitation) claims which if known by him,
her, or it, might have affected his, her, or its decision(s) with
respect to the Settlement; and

(b) any and all Released Defendant Parties' Claims which any
Released Signatory Party or any other Released Defendant Party
does not know or suspect to exist in his, her, or its favor at the
time of the release of the Released Defendant Parties' Claims
against the Released Plaintiff Parties, including (without
limitation) claims which if known by him, her, or it might have
affected his, her, or its decision(s) with respect to the
Settlement.

XIII. WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE PENDING DELAWARE ACTION IN LIGHT OF
THE SETTLEMENT?

The Amended Stipulation provides that if the Judgment is entered,
Plaintiff shall file a voluntary dismissal of the Pending Delaware
Action within one court day of entry of the Judgment. The Released
Plaintiff's Claims, include the claim asserted by Plaintiff
against Merrill Lynch in the
Pending Delaware Action.

XIV. THE SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING

The Court will hold a Settlement Fairness Hearing on November 4,
2016, at 8:30 a.m., before the Honorable Joan M. Lewis at the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Department C-
65, 330 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, for the purpose of
determining whether: (1) the Settlement of the Action for
$40,000,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) to approve an award of Lead
Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund;
and (3) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court.
The Court may adjourn or continue the Settlement
Fairness Hearing without further notice to members of the Class.
Any Class Member may appear at the Settlement Fairness Hearing
whether or not the Class Member submits a prior written objection.
To the extent you want to object in writing, you must file such
objections and any supporting papers, accompanied by proof of
Class membership, with the Court no later than
October 21, 2016, and showing proof of service on the following
counsel:

         David Knotts
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101

         Peter Adams
         COOLEY LLP
         4401 Eastgate Mall
         San Diego, CA 92121

         Matthew W. Close
         O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
         400 South Hope Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90071

Unless otherwise directed by the Court, any Class Member who does
not make his, her, or its objection in the manner provided shall
be deemed to have waived all objections to this Settlement and
shall be foreclosed from raising (in this proceeding or on any
appeal) any objection to the Settlement, and any untimely
objection shall be barred.

XV. HOW DO I OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION?

This Notice contains only a summary of the terms of the proposed
Settlement.  The records in this Action may be examined and copied
at any time during regular office hours, and subject to customary
copying fees, at the Clerk of the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego.  In addition, all of the
Settlement documents, including the Amended Stipulation, this
Notice, the Proof of Claim, and proposed Judgment may be obtained
by contacting the Claims Administrator at:

         Websense Shareholder Litigation
         Claims Administrator
         c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
         P.O. Box 40007
         College Station, TX 77842-4007
         Phone: 1-844-833-3853
         www.websenseshareholderlitigation.com

In addition, you may contact Rick Nelson, Shareholder Relations,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
San Diego, California 92101, 1-800-449-4900, if you have any
questions about the Action or the Settlement.

DO NOT WRITE TO OR TELEPHONE THE COURT FOR INFORMATION
SPECIAL NOTICE TO BANKS, BROKERS, AND OTHER NOMINEES
If you held any Websense common stock at the closing of the
Acquisition, as a nominee for a beneficial owner, then, within ten
(10) days after you receive this Notice, you must either: (1) send
a copy of this Notice by First-Class Mail to all such Persons; or
(2) provide a list of the names and addresses of such
Persons to the Claims Administrator:

          Websense Shareholder Litigation
          Claims Administrator
          c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
          P.O. Box 40007
          College Station, TX 77842-4007

If you choose to mail the Notice and Proof of Claim yourself, you
may obtain from the Claims Administrator (without cost to you) as
many additional copies of these documents as you will need to
complete the mailing.

Regardless of whether you choose to complete the mailing yourself
or elect to have the mailing performed for you, you may obtain
reimbursement for or advancement of reasonable administrative
costs actually incurred or expected to be incurred in connection
with forwarding the Notice and which would not have been incurred
but for the obligation to forward the Notice, upon submission of
appropriate documentation to the Claims Administrator.

DATED: August 5, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
HONORABLE JOAN M. LEWIS


WELLS FARGO: Seeks Arbitration of Overdraft Fee Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
new turn in the multidistrict litigation on overdraft fees charged
by Wells Fargo Bank N.A. and defunct Wachovia could force about 1
million potential plaintiffs into individual arbitration.
Five named plaintiffs won class certification to bring suit
against the financial institutions, but the banks want to draw a
distinction between the nearly 7-year-old claims by class
representatives and new ones that would emerge from class members.

If the banks win, individual class members would have to arbitrate
on their own to recoup each overdraft fee of $25 to $35, raising
questions about whether their claims started at the onset of the
litigation or at class certification.

"There is no dispute that their contracts with the bank require
them to arbitrate," bank spokesman Kristopher Dahl said.
The plaintiffs allege the banks boosted revenue by manipulating
sequencing to process large debit card transactions first to
maximize the number of overdrafts on customers' accounts.  Their
Florida litigation started about seven years ago, but has not
proceeded to discovery. Plaintiffs attorneys estimate the class
could consist of more than 1 million members looking to
potentially recoup hundreds of millions of dollars in fees charged
over four years.  They say arbitration would likely result in
small individual claims likely to fizzle over disproportionate
costs.

"The case is meaningless unless there's a class," lead plaintiffs
attorney Bruce Rogow said.

The suit is before Senior U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King.
It pits named plaintiffs Dolores Gutierrez, Marc Martinez and Alex
Zankich against Wells Fargo, and Melanie Garcia and Celia Spears-
Haymond against Wachovia, which Wells Fargo acquired in 2008.
Judge King placed the Wells Fargo and Wachovia cases on the same
track, which means a decision in one will apply to the other.

Wells Fargo attorneys argue the class claims didn't come into play
until after certification this year, and each new member's dispute
would be governed by contracts signed at the start of the banking
relationships years earlier.

Plaintiffs lawyers have successfully argued Wells Fargo waived its
rights to arbitrate with the named plaintiffs when it answered
their lawsuit instead of moving for dismissal and alternative
dispute resolution.  Now they say that decision applies to all
other members.

"It's a novel issue.  What they're saying is these people didn't
exist until the class was certified," Mr. Rogow said.  "Our
position is when you waived it against the class representatives,
you knew this was a class action."

The good news for the banks is that the U.S. Supreme Court
overturned an earlier King ruling, finding arbitration provisions
in customer service agreements are enforceable under the Federal
Arbitration Act.  Meanwhile, the federal Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau proposes a ban on arbitration clauses that
prohibit class actions.

Along with Mr. Rogow, Robert Gilbert -- gilbert@kolawyers.com --
of Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert in Coral Gables,
Roger Heller of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in San
Francisco and Franklin Lemond of Webb Klase & Lemond in Atlanta
represent the plaintiffs.

Sonya Winner -- swinner@cov.com -- of Covington & Burling in San
Francisco teamed with Miami attorneys Barry Davidson and Jamie
Isani of Hunton & Williams for Wells Fargo and Wachovia.

The case follows litigation in Georgia and California, where
customers won a $203 million verdict against Wells Fargo.  Similar
litigation against 32 banks resulted in 29 settlements in Miami,
King said at an Aug. 9 hearing on Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss
the unnamed class members.  A similar suit against Tupelo,
Mississippi-based BancorpSouth Inc. went through final pretrial
motions and two rounds of mediation before settling for $24
million in the Northern District of Florida.  A suit against RBC
Bank N.A. is still pending before King, along with the Wells Fargo
and Wachovia cases.


WHIRLPOOL: Lawyers Want Settlement Objector Disqualified
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that a
California attorney whose prolific filings on behalf of objectors
has made him a well-known figure in class action settlements
should be referred to bar authorities for failing to disclose that
he is suspended from practicing law, according to lawyers in a
case over Whirlpool dishwasher fires this month.

J. Darrell Palmer, a solo practitioner in Carlsbad, California,
has represented objectors in some of the country's most prominent
class action settlements, including those over the BP oil spill
and the BarBri bar review course.  Some of his objections,
including those before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, have been successful in overturning settlements.

But on June 17, the bar suspended Palmer from practicing law in
California for 90 days after he failed to disclose in three cases
a prior conviction for failing to pay taxes on two businesses in
Colorado.

And on Aug. 22, plaintiffs lawyers in the Whirlpool case, who
convinced a federal judge in Los Angeles earlier this month to
disqualify Mr. Palmer from representing two objectors, asked to
refer him to the bar once again -- this time for failing to tell
the court about his suspension.

The matter was expected to be taken up at a hearing on Aug. 25 on
final approval of the settlement.

"In sum, Mr. Palmer is practicing law without a license and has
demonstrated that he has no intention of learning from his past
transgressions," plaintiffs attorney Charles Fax -- cfax@rlls.com
-- a partner at Rifkin Weiner Livingston in Bethesda, Maryland,
wrote in the original motion to disqualify Mr. Palmer.  "This
court should put a stop to Mr. Palmer now before he further
undermines the integrity of the practice of law."

Another plaintiffs attorney, Steven Schwartz --
SteveSchwartz@chimicles.com -- a partner at Chimicles & Tikellis
in Haverford, Pennsylvania, declined to comment.

Mr. Palmer did not respond to a call seeking comment.

A graduate of California Western School of Law in San Diego,
Palmer was admitted to practice in California in 1986 and was
later admitted in Arizona and Colorado, according to the websites
of the respective state bars.

In 2002, Mr. Palmer was convicted of failing to report about
$4,000 in sales tax on his Colorado businesses and was suspended
from practicing law for 30 days in Colorado, according to a Jan. 6
order of California's State Bar Court.  Both California and
Arizona suspended him as a result.

His recent suspension comes after he swore in affidavits in three
cases that he had no history of discipline.  In its January
decision, California's State Bar Court found Mr. Palmer's actions
constituted more than just negligence, citing his "lack of
attention" that was "below the ethical standard of care required
of attorneys."

The U.S. district courts for the Central District of California
and the Northern District of California each ordered last month
that Palmer be suspended from practicing in those courts, and on
Aug. 1 the Ninth Circuit, where Mr. Palmer represented objectors
in at least two pending cases, issued a similar order.

On June 22, plaintiffs lawyers in the Whirlpool case filed a
motion to disqualify Palmer, who had objected on behalf of two
class members to rebates and $15 million in attorney fees in the
settlement.  They noted that Mr. Palmer did not notify the court
of his suspension until July 7.  They also asked U.S. District
Judge Fernando Olguin to refer Mr. Palmer to the bar for his
"flagrant violation," noting a string of other cases in which
judges had questioned Palmer's objections.  Judge Olguin
disqualified Palmer on Aug. 12 but made no mention of the bar
referral.

In their most recent filing, plaintiffs lawyers renewed their
request to refer Palmer to the state bar.  They also sought to
sanction other alleged "professional objectors" and their lawyers
in the case.


ZARA: Faces $5MM Deceptive Pricing Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Fashion Law reports that Zara has been hit with a massive
lawsuit alleging that it is engaged in the widespread practice of
deceiving American consumers through a classic bait and switch
scheme in connection with its pricing.  The $5 million-plus
proposed class action lawsuit, which was filed by Devin Rose in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, a federal court in Los Angeles, alleges that Rose (and
other Zara shoppers) "has been damaged in that Zara's deceptive
pricing practices caused him to overpay for the garments he
purchased."

According to Mr. Rose's complaint, which sets forth claims of
negligence, unfair business practices, unjust enrichment, and
fraud, Zara "has been engaged in fraudulent pricing practices
across the United States.  On average, consumers are being charged
$5 to $50 more than the lowest tag price in euros.  In the
aggregate, the shopping experiences of ordinary consumers like Mr.
Rose, have resulted in Defendant Zara being unjustly enriched to
the tune of billions of dollars."

Mr. Rose alleges that "behind its faáade of attainable elegance,
Zara is engaged in a widespread practice of deceiving American
consumers through a classic bait and switch."  Specifically, the
complaint states that "an investigation into Zara's unlawful
pricing practices demonstrates that Zara perpetrates its deception
in two ways."

a. Clothing Tagged Only in Euros ("Bait-and- Switch Pricing"):
Many of Zara's products are tagged only with a euro price.  This
alone is confusing to many consumers and lures them to the
register.  Compounding matters, not only is the same product sold
for a substantially higher amount in dollars, but the product is
always sold well in excess of the true converted amount if the
euro price on the tag were properly converted to dollars.

Mr. Rose's complaint elaborates, noting: Zara marks the price tags
on many of its products with only a euro price.  Since the euro is
a larger unit of currency than the American dollar, these euro
prices lead shoppers in the United States to believe that Zara's
products are less expensive than they actually are.  Thus, Zara
customers are lured in by the brand's seemingly low prices, and it
is only upon bringing the items they intend to purchase to the
register that these customers discover their true costs.  To make
matters worse, however, the prices that consumers are ultimately
quoted --  prices that are only revealed when the items have been
already been scanned and the consumer is asked for payment -- are
not accurate American dollar equivalents to the euro prices on the
tags, but rather arbitrarily inflated amounts that are
substantially higher.

b. Euro Price Covered with Dollar Sticker ("Cover Up Pricing"): In
those instances where Zara includes a price in dollars, the dollar
amount is almost always applied in the form a pricing label
affixed over the euro price actually printed on the tag.  In this
context, the dollar amount similarly is far in excess of the true
converted amount if the euro price printed on the tag were
properly converted to dollars.

Mr. Rose specifically filed suit after purchasing three Zara
shirts from a Sherman Oaks, California Zara retail store on May
17, 2016.  He claims that at the time that he made his purchases,
"the actual euro-dollar exchange rate would have resulted in his
EUR9.95 shirts costing approximately $11.26 each.  Instead,
however, Zara charged Mr. Rose $17.90 per garment, a markup of
nearly 60%."  In connection therewith, Rose claims that as a
result of the aforementioned pricing practices, "millions of
consumers who have purchased clothing at Zara stores have been
gulled into paying prices well in excess of the tag prices."
Moreover, the suit claims that "in both cases, Zara violates State
and Federal law by luring consumers to the register with perceived
lower prices using a foreign currency and surreptitiously imposing
an arbitrary markup without making an appropriate, or any,
disclosure to the consumer."

While the complaint states that "it is obvious that prices for
goods will differ when expressed in different international
currencies, companies that make a legitimate conversion can do so
at the time that the original price is assigned, and then place
the differing international prices side by side as shown below.
This is not Zara's practice."

Speaking exclusively to TFL, one of Mr. Rose's attorneys,
Ben Meiselas of Los Angeles-based firm, Geragos & Geragos, said:
"We are hopeful this class action will compel Zara to stop its
unlawful pricing practices of charging substantially in excess of
the tagged prices on its clothes which, on average has caused
consumers to pay $5 to $50 more per item, and billions of dollars
in the aggregate."

If Mr. Rose's proposed class action lawsuit is certified by the
court, "similarly situated" individuals (aka individuals who made
purchases from Zara in the U.S. around the time Mr. Rose did)
will be able to join in case at hand against the fast fashion
giant and share in the settlement amount.  In order for a proposed
class action lawsuit -- one that gathers many individual claims
together into a single lawsuit -- to be certified, the named
plaintiffs must show that all of the potential class members have
claims that raise common legal and factual issues, making it most
efficient to deal with all of the claims together. In short: all
of the plaintiffs must be "similarly-situated."

In a statement made to TFL by a spokesperson for Zara USA, "Zara
USA vehemently denies any allegations that the company engages in
deceptive pricing practices in the United States.  While we have
not yet been served the complaint containing these baseless
claims, we pride ourselves in our fundamental commitment to
transparency and honest, ethical conduct with our valued
customers.  We remain focused on providing excellent customer
service and high-quality fashion products at great value for our
customers.  We look forward to presenting our full defense in due
course through the legal process."

According to another statement from Mr. Rose's counsel: "Zara's
response so far has been beyond bizarre and desperate.  Their
unlawful conduct is not up for debate, as anyone who goes into a
Zara store in the United States can see with their own two eyes
that Zara is pricing clothing in euros and charging consumers
drastically above the lowest tag price in dollars which is
illegal.  U.S. laws require that a retailer charge the consumer
the lowest tag price -- not grossly inflated amounts using fake
conversion rates.  If Zara wants to double down on its duplicity,
instead of acting like a responsible corporate citizen and fixing
the mess of its own making, they should be prepared to face the
wrath of the American consumer and the full force of the law."


* Americans Want to Take Their Banks to Court, Pew Survey Shows
---------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Leonhardt, writing for Time, reports that nine out of 10
Americans want the right to sue their bank in court, and to be
able to do it as part of a class action lawsuit.  And yet, 70% of
the biggest banks in the U.S. have clauses hidden in the fine
print of customer contracts that prevent just that.

Support for increased access to legal options to settle banking
disputes cut across all demographics -- age, gender, race, income,
and education -- and political persuasions, according to a new
survey of over 1,000 people conducted by Pew Charitable Trusts.

Yet when Pew analyzed the policies and practices at the biggest 50
retail banks -- including Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo and
PNC -- the research showed a rise in the use of "gotcha" mandatory
agreements that force consumers into using alternative dispute
resolution forums to settle issues.  Between 2013 and 2016, the
percentage of banks that imposed mandatory arbitration provisions
on clients rose from 59% to 72%, among the 29 banks consistently
tracked by Pew.  And about 73% of the banks evaluated this year
restricted customers from participating in class-action lawsuits.

Limiting the ability of bank customers to sue as a group has a
wider impact than forced arbitration agreement because it is cost
prohibitive to file individual suits over small amounts, says
Thaddeus King, an officer for Pew's consumer banking project.  In
fact, only 23% of consumers surveyed by Pew said they'd be willing
to take legal action against their banks on an individual basis,
with the cost and time being the biggest barriers.

In many cases, customers' problems with the bank revolve around a
small dollar amount.  For example, if one of the banks with these
class-action waivers in place consistently overcharged its
customers on overdraft fees, each affected customer would have to
file a lawsuit over a $30 charge to have their day in court.

"People generally do not act on their own," Mr. King says.  "Banks
will continue to get away with harming consumers because the harm
only occurs in small amounts."

To address the issue, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
recently proposed a ban on credit card and lending contracts that
bar users from participating in class actions.  If approved, a
rule could take effect as soon as next year, eventually letting
millions more people take disputes to court.

The deadline to submit comments on the agency's rule ended on
Monday, Aug. 22, 2016.


* Banks' Contracts Prevent Customers From Joining Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Globe reports that some of the fine print on bank account,
credit card, and loan forms may soon get a rewrite that restores
legal rights millions of Americans unknowingly waive when they
swipe a piece of plastic or borrow money.  Aug. 22 was the
deadline for public comment on a federal Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau proposal to curb so-called "forced arbitration"
clauses -- dense language buried deep in the contracts that govern
consumer financial products and services.  If this sounds awfully
arcane, well, it is -- but the bureau's planned change could save
consumers money and aggravation by eliminating an unfair advantage
companies hold over anyone who dares to challenge a late fee or
early-termination penalty.

The arbitration clauses are designed to prevent customers from
taking legal recourse against a business.  Specifically, they keep
them from joining a class action lawsuit.  Instead, individual
complaints must go to a private arbitrator who often is selected
by the company that's been accused of wrongdoing.  Findings
typically are binding, and appeals are nearly impossible.  Even
the very notion of arbitration is enough to discourage most
wronged consumers from taking on a bank or corporation over an
unwarranted charge -- it's usually not worth the time and effort.
A New York Times investigation last year found that between 2010
and 2014, just 505 people opted for arbitration in disputes
involving $2,500 or less, which is most of them.

It's no shocker that banks and other financial institutions have
been campaigning against the reinstatement of consumers' ability
to participate in class action suits.  A new report from The Pew
Charitable Trusts found that of the 50 biggest retail banks in the
country, about three-quarters have contracts that prohibit
customers from signing on to a class action proceeding, and 91
percent "bar consumers from having their disputes heard by a jury
rather than a judge." Some companies claim, unconvincingly, that
many people prefer the simplicity and relative speed of
arbitration over the slow-paced legal labyrinth of the court
system.  The US Chamber of Commerce says the rule change would
amount to "the biggest gift to plaintiffs' lawyers in a half
century."

While it's true that plaintiffs probably can't expect to buy more
than a sandwich with the cash they collect from a class action
settlement, the cases can bring about systemic changes for the
better.  There's power in a collective effort that an individual
case rarely generates.  In an August 11 letter to the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, Massachusetts Attorney General
Maura Healey and 17 other state attorneys general said class
action settlements "act as a deterrent to the specific defendant
as well as to the industry, and lead to the reform of otherwise
unchecked unlawful, unfair, or deceptive business practices."
Nearly 100 members of Congress in August also urged the bureau to
do away with class action waivers.  The rule change, which could
take effect in 2017, provides reasonable recourse for dissatisfied
consumers who have exhausted all other options.  It's something
any business seeking to attract and keep customers should support.


* Banks Face ADA Class Actions Over Inaccessible Web sites
----------------------------------------------------------
J. Colin Knisely, Esq. -- CKnisely@duanemorris.com -- of Duane
Morris LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that banks that wish
to protect themselves from potentially complicated and costly
litigation should consider taking the necessary steps to ensure
they have an accessible website.

In the past year, Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter LLP,
which was responsible for filing hundreds of Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) ATM class action lawsuits nationwide, has
filed dozens of ADA website lawsuits in federal district court in
Pittsburgh and sent out hundreds of demand letters to retailers
and other types of businesses.  The lawsuits filed in federal
district court in Pittsburgh all contend that "[b]lind and
visually impaired consumers must use screen reading software or
other assistive technologies in order to access website content"
and that the defendants' websites contain "digital barriers which
limit the ability of blind and visually impaired consumers to
access the site."  Each lawsuit then describes the specific access
barriers that the visually impaired plaintiffs allegedly
encountered.  The demand letters make essentially the same claims
as the lawsuits, but offer the business an opportunity to avoid
litigation by engaging in settlement discussions prior to suit.  A
draft proposed-settlement agreement is usually included with the
demand letter, and typically, the demand letters also include a
report prepared by a third-party "expert" vendor, which provides
specific, technical examples of the alleged inaccessible areas of
the business website.

Until very recently, Duane Morris LLP had not seen or heard of
many -- if any -- banks being the targets of these demand letters
or lawsuits.  However, recently, the law firm has been made aware
of a number of demand letters directed to banks.  This may be just
the start of a new wave of demand letters directed at banks and
financial institutions.

Currently, no specific ADA website standards exist, and the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) has now delayed issuing regulations on
website accessibility until 2018.  Despite the absence of
standards, however, the DOJ has emphasized that businesses should
make websites accessible to the disabled, and it has been
aggressive in enforcing website accessibility.  While no specific
ADA guidelines exist yet, the DOJ has relied on a set of
guidelines, known as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), which were developed by a private industry group.

At this point, banks that wish to protect themselves from
potentially complicated and costly litigation should consider
taking the necessary steps to ensure they have an accessible
website. It may be prudent to start this process before a demand
letter is received or a lawsuit is filed.


* CFPB Closes Comment Period on Arbitration Rule
------------------------------------------------
David Hirschmann and Lisa A. Rickard, writing for The Hill, report
that on Aug. 22, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau closed
the comment period on its proposed rule to enrich trial lawyers at
the expense of consumers.  The Bureau misleadingly styles its
proposal as one to regulate arbitration agreements.  The truth is
that the proposal is very intentionally designed for the singular
goal of promoting class action lawsuits -- the number one policy
priority of the trial bar.  The Bureau's next step will be to
finalize the misguided rule and extinguish consumers' ability to
resolve simple financial services disputes outside the broken
class action system.

Some context is needed to understand the Bureau's attempted
regulatory sleight-of-hand.  The Dodd-Frank Act required the
Bureau to study arbitration agreements in financial services
contracts and report its findings to Congress.  So why is over
half of the Bureau's "arbitration" study devoted to justifying
class action lawsuits?

Around the time the Bureau began operations, the Supreme Court
issued an opinion, consistent with over 80 years of precedent,
confirming the principles of the Federal Arbitration Act,
upholding the legality of pre-dispute arbitration clauses, and
concluding that the consumers in the case before it would do
better in arbitration than in a class action.

Trial lawyers saw this ruling as a huge threat to their business
model and redoubled their decades-long effort to replace
arbitration with class action lawsuits.  They saw opportunity in
the Bureau's nascent work on arbitration.

The Bureau tried, valiantly, to show the comparative benefits of
class actions over arbitration, but the facts got in the way.  Its
study ultimately concluded that in the few class actions that
proceed, trial lawyers make $1 million per case, and only about 4
percent of consumers ever take the steps necessary to claim class
action awards (which average about $32).

The study also showed that almost 90 percent of cases filed as
class actions result in no class recovery whatsoever, and that
consumers do about 170 times better in arbitration than they do in
class actions.

In short, the Bureau's study showed exactly what we already knew -
- that class actions are a broken system that primarily benefits
lawyers, not consumers.

Undeterred by its own research, the Bureau put out its proposal to
"regulate arbitration agreements."  Nowhere in the hundreds of
pages is there a single suggestion to change how arbitration
works.  The Bureau's singular focus is reviving class actions.

But throwing open the doors to class action lawsuits would have
the practical effect of eliminating arbitration as an option for
consumers because no rational company, forced by the Bureau to pay
massive costs endemic in the class action litigation system, is
likely also to continue to subsidize a consumer arbitration
system.

And while the Bureau focuses on the supposed promise of class
action lawsuits for consumers, the reality is that very few
consumer claims can qualify for class treatment, because of the
unique facts and circumstances of most consumer disputes.
Consumers also can't sue in court on their own: individual
litigation is time-consuming and will in many cases cost more in
attorneys' fees than the amount of the consumer's dispute. That is
why consumers need user-friendly, less expensive arbitration.

The Bureau pitches its proposal as giving consumers a choice
between suing and arbitration, but in reality, the Bureau's class
action proposal would leave consumers with no economically
sensible outlet for relief -- no arbitration, no class action, and
no economically viable individual litigation.  Congress, which
required the Bureau to conduct the study and gave it some
rulemaking authority, should be alarmed by this regulatory bait-
and-switch.

By using slogans rather than substance, the Bureau has attempted
to muddy the debate waters and obscure its regulatory overreach.
For example, the Bureau frequently supports its effort to expand
class actions by saying consumers need their "day in court."
Unfortunately for the Bureau, facts are sticky things: the
Bureau's own arbitration study showed that zero of the class
actions it studied went to trial.  What day in court is the Bureau
talking about?  This is all about the trial lawyers' ability to
coerce settlements with large attorneys' fees, and nothing about
class actions decided on their underlying merits.

The Bureau also repeats, as if true, that more class actions would
yield a greater deterrent effect in the market, but ignores the
deterrence resulting from its own supervisory and enforcement
programs.  These specious one-liners, unsupported by any data,
simply aren't convincing.

Details aside, the story here is pretty straightforward.  In the
final analysis, the Bureau will choose either to protect consumers
by preserving the availability of arbitration or to enrich trial
lawyers.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should live up to its
name and not finalize a rule that pads the wallets of rich trial
lawyers at consumers' expense.

David Hirschmann is President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce's Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness and
Lisa A. Rickard is President of the U.S. Chamber Institute for
Legal Reform


* Credit Unions Seek Exemption from CFPB Arbitration Rule
---------------------------------------------------------
David Baumann, writing for Credit Union Times, reports that credit
unions should be exempt from CFPB regulations governing
arbitration agreements because of the unique relationship they
have with their members, credit union trade groups told the agency
on Aug. 19.

In May, the CFPB released proposed rules governing mandatory
arbitration clauses found in many contracts.  The agency said such
clauses in contracts prevent consumers -- including credit union
members -- from joining together in a suit to accuse financial
institutions of wrongdoing.

The proposal does not prohibit arbitration clauses, but it
specifies the language that may be used in clauses and emphasizes
the fact that consumers can join a class-action suit.

"Rules that might seem appropriate for the largest financial
institutions, who have very different relationships with their
customers, are not appropriate for different and much smaller
neighborhood financial service providers such as credit unions,"
Leah Dempsey, CUNA's senior director of advocacy and counsel told
the CFPB.

She added, "Overall, the most substantial concern credit unions
have with this proposal is that it encourages members, against
their best interest, to engage in litigation against the
institution of which they are a member-owner."

NAFCU took a similar position in its comments.

"Credit unions should be excluded from the final arbitration rule
because they are not responsible for even a small fraction of the
deceit and destructive behavior in the financial industry that the
CFPB cites as motivation for this rule," Ann Kossachev, the
organization's regulatory affairs counsel wrote the CFPB.

She went on to write, "NAFCU continues to believe that voluntary
arbitration agreements provide a useful means of dispute
resolution for many credit unions and their members."

The CFPB already has rejected the idea that credit unions should
be exempt from the agency's regulations.

The comments on the proposed rules are due Monday, Aug. 22.

The two credit union groups said that the CFPB relied on an
inadequate agency study as the justification for the proposal.
NAFCU said that the study relied on too few credit unions and did
not gauge the impact it would have on small financial
institutions.

In her statement, Ms. Kossachev wrote the agency ignored its own
Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act Panel, which found that the
rule would increase costs to consumers, reduce incentives for
innovation, provide windfalls to named plaintiffs and class
members and have a negative impact on informal dispute resolution
mechanisms.

Dempsey said that credit unions are hiring more compliance
officers than loan officers and are being forced to devote
additional resources to compliance.  She pointed out that 329
members of the House and 70 senators have urged the CFPB to exempt
credit unions from burdensome regulations.


* H.R. 1927 Bill Threatens to Neuter Class Action Process
---------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Zummallen, writing for Car and Driver, reports that last
January, just weeks after a federal judge in Florida denied
Honda's request to dismiss a class-action lawsuit against the
automaker for its role in the Takata airbag scandal, the U.S.
House of Representatives passed H.R. 1927.  The bill's timing was
merely coincidental, but the two issues are deftly intertwined. In
the name of more business-friendly practices, and with impassioned
backing from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Fairness in Class
Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act
of 2016, which still needs Senate approval and a presidential
signature to become law, tinkers with the rules that govern class-
action lawsuits.  Specifically, it intends to break up large
groups of consumers who come together to file claims against
corporations.

Class-action lawsuits and the automotive industry have a rich
shared history, one fraught with bitter negotiations and high-
stakes settlements.  Since, by definition, they are designed to
pool plaintiffs together (the "class"), class actions are often
the only recourse that individuals have against the well-funded
legal teams of large automakers.  Lately, consumers have had
reasons aplenty to go the class-action route.  In the past year
alone, three of the largest automotive scandals in history --
Volkswagen's not-so-Clean Diesels, General Motors' faulty ignition
switches, and Takata's defective airbags -- have spurred class-
action lawsuits as plaintiffs seek compensation. And in one recent
case, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
received more than 100 complaints about EcoBoost engines in Ford
vehicles failing but launched an investigation only after a small
group of owners in Ohio came together and filed a class action.
Ford avoided a recall by ordering dealerships to fix the problem.

"One side asserts that class actions are basically legalized
blackmail," said Nicholas M. Pace, a staff social scientist for
the nonpartisan Rand Institute for Civil Justice, a research think
tank that focuses on the civil justice system.  "The other side
is: Look at all the things that class actions have done to protect
consumers when the government isn't even paying attention." He
pointed to the EPA and its inability to keep up with manufacturer
claims for fuel efficiency as an example.  "[The government] is
doing nothing. At least we're punishing the defendants somehow.
We're getting them to change their behavior," said Mr. Pace,
illustrating the view of those who oppose H.R. 1927.

If passed into law, H.R. 1927 threatens to neuter the class-action
process by forcing class members to splinter into groups by their
specific injury.  In the Honda and Takata case, for example,
people who suffered broken noses due to a faulty airbag would be
required to file one suit, while people who suffered eye injuries
due to the same defect would file separately.  The American Bar
Association asserts that forcing plaintiffs into separate groups
will diminish their legal spending power while also overloading
the already strained court system, encouraging quiet settlements
rather than public trials.

H.R. 1927 derives much of its appeal from our class-action
system's high-profile imperfections.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
argues that class actions are too broad and powerful, that they
encourage abuse of the system and leave business owners vulnerable
to overeager litigators.  As Rand's Pace said when referring to
those who support the bill, "You take all these small claims that
shouldn't even be claims at all and you aggregate them, [equaling]
tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, you're committing
extortion."  Even the bill's official name -- the Fairness in
Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency
Act of 2016 -- implies that it corrects an unjust system.
Tellingly, though, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization
vehemently opposes H.R. 1927 because of its restrictions on legal
recourse for asbestos victims.

One aspect of the Chamber's argument for H.R. 1927 that may sway
support to its side is that attorneys collect an unreasonably
large portion of the payouts from class-action settlements.  More
than $200 million of the $1.2 billion payout in the Toyota
unintended-acceleration case went to attorneys, while most Toyota
owners received vouchers of less than $125 each.  In the famous
Ford/Firestone tire-blowout case, members of the largest class won
the right to apply for a $500 voucher--toward the purchase of a
new Explorer.  Estimates peg the total haul in billions of
dollars, collectively, for the flock of firms that have filed
class actions against Volkswagen over its diesels.

But while owners of defective cars often receive relatively small
vouchers or buyback offers, victims of injury or families of
victims who were killed receive much larger sums.  And although
H.R. 1927 claims to fight against overblown attorney payouts, it's
not exactly clear how it will accomplish that.  The whole bill is
barely 100 words long.  If it reduces the plaintiffs' power while
ensuring the attorneys keep their outsize share of any settlement,
not only does it fail to fix a system seen by some as flawed, it
may further erode that system.

Most analysts believe that, when it comes to a vote later this
year or in early 2017, H.R. 1927 has a slim chance of moving
forward, especially if the Senate swings Democratic in the
election. (The bill passed the Republican-controlled House with
the vote almost completely following party lines.) And according
to a statement issued by the Office of Management and Budget,
President Obama's senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill
if it makes it to his desk.

Even a veto may not preserve class actions, though.  Pace said he
sees other existential threats to the system, namely 2011's AT&T
v. Concepcion.  In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially
overruled a California law that prevented phone companies from
inserting language in customers' contracts that waived their
future right to file class-action lawsuits, leaving private
arbitration as the only option.  "If, for example, the next time
you buy a car, Volkswagen requires you to sign that arbitration
agreement in your contract, then all the rest of this means
nothing," said Pace.

The big question is whether the threat of huge payouts and damning
headlines encourages automakers and other large corporations to be
forthright and accountable when they make mistakes.  Because if
their influence continues to erode, class-action lawsuits may not
serve that purpose much longer.

Current Open Class-Action Cases
Brewer v. Ford Motor Co.: The two-piece spark plugs in some 2004-
2008 Ford and Lincoln vehicles with the 5.4-liter V-8 reportedly
were prone to breaking during removal, adding time and significant
cost to routine maintenance.  This suit alleges that Ford should
have known.  Ford disagreed, but reached a $2.2 million settlement
with owners anyway.  Claims are currently being processed.

Yaeger, et al. v. Subaru of America, Inc., et al.: Subaru agreed
to reimburse owners for their repair costs and extend the length
of their warranties after a defective piston ring caused some
2011-2015 vehicles to burn excessive oil.  The suit alleges that
Subaru knew about the problem but neglected to tell owners. A
preliminary settlement has been approved, and owners can file
claims through October.

Wall, et al. v. FCA US LLC: Owners of some Chrysler, Jeep, and
Maserati vehicles claim their gearshift mechanism doesn't
intuitively shift into park.  FCA and NHTSA have initiated several
recalls for a total of 1.1 million vehicles and issued a software
update to dealerships. The suit alleges the issue has caused 212
crashes and 41 injuries, as well as the death of Star Trek actor
Anton Yelchin.

Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation: Several automakers
are embroiled in the Takata airbag scandal that has caused at
least 10 deaths, but Honda is the supplier's biggest customer.
Honda also says it took nearly three years to report thousands of
injury and death claims because of data-entry errors and
misinterpretation of federal defect-reporting laws.


* Recent Court Rulings May Boost Confidence of Gig Employers
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Meneghello, Esq. -- rmeneghello@fisherphillips.com -- of
Fisher Phillips, in an article for JDSupra, reports that a federal
court recently upheld the validity of an employer's class action
waiver, forcing a disgruntled worker into arbitrating his case
individually instead of using the court system to launch a large-
scale class action. Typically, this kind of decision would not be
particularly significant; after all, many businesses employ class
waivers, and the overwhelming number of federal courts examining
them have approved their use.  But this case is noteworthy for two
reasons: it was the first time a federal court published an
opinion on class waivers since the 7th Circuit became the first
court to reject them, and the decision boosts the burgeoning gig
economy (Bekele v. Lyft, Inc.).

Background: Class Waivers Are Popular
Agreements requiring employees to submit workplace claims to an
arbitrator instead of a judge have become increasingly commonplace
in today's workplaces.  These agreements are a favored tactic of
the modern employer, lowering the cost of litigation and
introducing some much-welcomed efficiency to the resolution of
workplace disputes. Due to a recent series of victories at the
Supreme Court over the past five years heralding the "liberal
federal policy favoring arbitration agreements," the use of
mandatory arbitration agreements has become safer and less apt to
be challenged in court.

But mandatory arbitration agreements in and of themselves do not
protect employers from their biggest fear -- a class or collective
action.  Consequently, rather than simply requiring employees to
bring workplace claims through arbitration instead of court,
employers have regularly incorporated into their agreements class
and collective action waivers.  Pursuant to these waivers,
employees agree not to pursue claims against their employer on a
class or collective basis.

The result of a mandatory arbitration agreement with a
class/collective action waiver is that a worker's only avenue for
redress is limited to single-plaintiff arbitration hearings.

Recent "Epic Failure" Concerned Employers
Despite the overwhelming acceptance of class waivers, a federal
appeals court dealt a serious blow to these agreements in the case
of Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp.  On May 26, 2016, the 7th Circuit
Court of Appeals held that class waivers violate Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because, as the court
concluded, they interfere with workers' rights to engage in
concerted activity (in this case, class action litigation) for
their mutual benefit and protection.

The court opined that there is nothing quite so "concerted" as a
piece of class action litigation, where employees band together to
collectively assert a legal challenge to a workplace practice. The
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has consistently taken this
position since its decision in D.R. Horton, but no federal appeals
courts followed the NLRB's lead until the 7th Circuit went out on
a limb with its May 2016 decision.

While the decision itself only directly impacted employers in
Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, there was concern that the
court's reasoning could be adopted by other circuits or perhaps by
the U.S. Supreme Court, causing, even more, headaches for
employers around the country.  Employers waited with baited breath
to see whether the Epic Systems case was merely an outlier, or the
first of a series of dominoes falling against them.

Massachusetts Federal Court Gives Employers A Lyft
The case itself is fairly simple.  Plaintiff Yilkal Bekele has
worked as a Lyft driver since 2014, and in 2015 he filed a class
action lawsuit in Massachusetts federal court against the ride-
sharing company.  He alleged that its "misclassification" of
drivers as independent contractors led to an inappropriate
requirement that drivers pay for their own vehicles, maintenance,
gas, and insurance.

Lyft's defense was also very simple.  Before even getting to the
main issue of whether Mr. Bekele and the other drivers were
classified properly, the ride-sharing company said that court was
an inappropriate forum for the case because Mr. Bekele agreed to a
binding arbitration agreement, and that class action was similarly
inappropriate as a legal tactic because Mr. Bekele also agreed to
a class waiver.

Before agreeing to drive for the company, Mr. Bekele clicked "I
accept" to a Terms of Service arbitration agreement that clearly
said:

You and we agree that any claim, action, or proceeding arising out
of or related to the Agreement must be brought in your individual
capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported
class, collective, or representative proceeding. The arbitrator
may not consolidate more than one person's claims, and may not
otherwise preside over any form of a representative, collective,
or class proceeding. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU AND LYFT
ARE EACH WAIVING THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY OR TO PARTICIPATE AS
A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER IN ANY PURPORTED CLASS ACTION OR
REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING.

Mr. Bekele argued that this restriction should not apply to him
because he didn't remember reading it, because the terms were too
small to be read on his smartphone, and because the agreement was
unconscionable.  The court rejected each of these arguments
applying state law principles.  Mr. Bekele also argued, citing the
recent Epic Systems decision out of the 7th Circuit, that the
class waiver should be barred under the NLRA.  The court also
rejected this position for the reasons described below.

Here are three things you need to know about the Lyft decision.

1. The Decision Completely Rebukes The Epic Failure
The court could not have been more critical of the 7th Circuit's
decision in Epic Systems.  It first noted the near-unanimity of
courts that rejected the NLRA illegality argument, pointing out
that the 7th Circuit (covering Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin)
stood alone against all other federal circuit court decisions.

Indeed, the 2nd Circuit (covering Connecticut, New York, and
Vermont), the 5th Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) the
8th Circuit (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North
Dakota, and South Dakota), the 9th Circuit (California, Oregon,
Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska),
and the 11th Circuit (Georgia, Florida, and Alabama) have all
upheld class/collective action waivers in similar contexts.

The Massachusetts court concluded that the class action waiver was
valid and enforceable because, it said, bringing a class action
lawsuit was not a substantive right protected by NLRA Section 7's
"concerted activities" provision.  Instead, the ability to bring
class action litigation was a procedural vehicle by which an
employee could seek to enforce a substantive right. Therefore,
denying an employee the chance to bring a class action lawsuit was
not blocking him from engaging in NLRA-protected concerted
activities.

2. Employers Not Out Of The Woods Yet
This decision is certainly a positive development, but it needs to
put into context.  TIt was issued by a federal district court
judge, and will almost certainly be appealed to the 1st Circuit
Court of Appeals.  In other words, the decision itself only
impacts employers in Massachusetts, and does not even yet extend
to the other states in the same federal circuit (Maine, New
Hampshire, and Rhode Island).

For now, although the 7th Circuit stands alone in contradicting
the other circuit courts, there is a split in authority across the
country.  Until another 7th Circuit panel overturns the Epic
Systems decision, or until the Supreme Court resolves the split in
favor of upholding the class waivers, there will still be
uncertainty for a portion of the nation's employers.

3. Gig Employers Can Feel Good About Decision
Finally, it is worth noting that this important decision directly
involves an employer in the burgeoning gig economy. Sometimes
known as the "sharing economy" or the "app economy," the gig
economy includes businesses that harness a large number of
contingent workers using a digital platform (usually a consumer's
smartphone).  Most people are familiar with car-sharing services
like Lyft or Uber, but the gig economy is far bigger than just
those two companies, including some 800,000 workers.

These companies are often fragile in their infancy, and rely on
cost-saving techniques like arbitration agreements and class
waivers to avoid getting entangled in expensive and distracting
court battles.  This recent decision, specifically involving one
of the two foremost gig companies in the country, should give
confidence to gig employers using class waivers.  If you are in
this boat, you would do well to specifically examine the method
and manner in which Lyft implemented the class waiver, taking into
account state and local legal requirements, and mimic its same
policies.


* Retailers See 25% Spike in Chargebacks Amid EMV Migration
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angel Abcede, writing for CSP Daily News, reports that retailers
in the first half of 2016 saw a 25% spike in bank chargebacks in
the wake of EMV migration in the United States, according to a new
study.

Boston-based Aite Group estimated that retailers will experience
$5.8 billion in chargeback volume this year, although it
represents only 0.02% of total payment volume.  Of those
chargebacks, 60% to 70% are the result of fraud, with the balance
being service and support disputes.

Despite the increase in chargebacks (or when banks or card issuers
place the responsibility of fraudulent credit- and debit-card
purchases back on the retailer), the recently released report said
those volumes will "gradually ease" as more merchants upgrade to
EMV-capable terminals.

In the meantime, the report cited how several grocery stores
banded together in a class-action lawsuit against the card brands,
as well as a number of large issuers, alleging that bottlenecks in
the certification process prevented them from upgrading to EMV by
the Oct. 1, 2015, deadline.  As a result, the stores are now
absorbing 20 times more chargeback expenses than they were prior
to the liability shift, the report said.

The report also outlined a six-step process by which issuers
charge fraudulent EMV (Europay MasterCard Visa) purchases back to
retailers.



                            *********

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  * * *