---

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

            Tuesday, November 8, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 223




                            Headlines

AIR SERV: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, "Harun" Suit Alleges
ALTRIA GROUP: 5 Smoking and Health Class Actions Pending
AMGEN INC: Approved Final Settlement in Securities Litigation
AMGEN INC: Nov. 21 Hearing to Approve ERISA Case Settlement
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: "Simon" Suit Alleges Bait-and-Switch Scheme

APPLE INC: Denies Knowledge of Spying by Path App
APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Calif. Court Dismissed Securities Action
BARRETT BUSINESS: Reached $12MM Settlement of Pension Fund Suit
BLUENRGY GROUP: Securities Class Suit Filed in Texas
BOOT BARN: Class Suit by 2 Former Employees Still Pending

BP: Deepwater Horizon Class Action Attorneys Get $555.2MM in Fees
BPI SPORTS: Faces False Advertising Class Action in California
BUFFALO WILD WINGS: Vegetarians File Class Action in N.Y.
CANADA: RCMP Male Employees Mull Harassment Class Action
CANADA: Ex-RCMP Officer Says Calgary Report "Tip of the Iceberg"

CAREER POINT: Ex-Students Join Class Action Over School System
CARMAX AUTO: Faces Calif. Suit Over Labor Laws Violation
CELGENE CORP: August 2017 Completion of Discovery in IUB Suit
CLAUDIO & JOHNSON: "Cisson" Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
CMS ENERGY: Still Defends Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation

COGNOSANTE LLC: "Gullage" Action Alleges Unpaid Overtime Pay
CONAGRA FOODS: 9th Circuit to Decide on Dietary Supplements Case
COOK COUNTY, IL: Advocates Seek Bail Reform Amid Class Action
CORESITE REALTY: Expects Settlement Approval Hearing in Q1 2017
DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Ongoing in Royal Park Suit

DIVERSIFIED CONCRETE: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Leon" Suit
DOW CHEMICAL: April 28 Fairness Hearing on Rocky Flats Settlement
DYNCORP: D.C. Judge Rules for Plaintiffs in Toxic Spray Suit
E.I. DUPONT: Employees' FLSA Class Action Can Proceed
EASTMAN CHEMICALS: Settles 2014 Water Crisis Class Action

ELI LILLY: Actos(R) Product Liability Litigation in Canada Pending
ELI LILLY: Faces 510 Byetta(R) Product Liability Cases
ELI LILLY: Settlement Framework Reached in Cymbalta(R) Cases
ELI LILLY: Says 200 Prozac(R) Product Liability Claims Pending
EQUIFAX INC: Balks at Bid to Amend Complaint to Add Plaintiffs

ERIE INDEMNITY: Motions to Dismiss Beltz II Suit Remains Pending
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Defending MERS-Related Litigation
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Claims Administration Ongoing in "Vathana"
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: "West" Suit, Certification Order Tossed
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Claims Administration Ongoing in "Wilson"

FACEBOOK INC: Biometric Privacy Class Action Enters Phase Two
FEDERAL NATIONAL: Burke Seeks Certification of Consumers Class
FEDEX GROUND: Judge Okays $15.4MM Class Action Settlement
FIRSTCREDIT INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Espinal Says
FLOW INT'L: Jan. 20 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

GENERAL MILLS: "Nuez" Class Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to D. Minn.
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: December Trial Date Continued Sine Die
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Appeal on Nichols Case Dismissal Pending
HORMEL: Faces Class Action Over "100 Percent Natural" Labeling
HUB GROUP: 93% of California Drivers Accept "Robles" Settlement

HUB GROUP: San Bernardino Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
HUB GROUP: Lubinski Parties Agree to Stay Illinois & Tenn. Cases
IBJ BOOK: Seeks Damages Against Class Action Attorneys
IC SYSTEM: Wise's Bid to Certify Class to Be Heard December 20
INDIANA: Class Action Against DCS Over Caseload Can Proceed

INFINITY ENERGY: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
INTELIUS: Faces Class Action Over Publicity Rights Law Violation
INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
J.B. HUNT: 9th Cir. Appeal Remains Pending
JB MEDICAL: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Schwanke" Suit

JENNINGS, MO: November 24 Deadline Set for Settlement Claims
JOS CONCEPT: "Cruz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA
KOCH FOODS: Don Chavas Files Suit Over "Price Fixing" of Broilers
LABORATORY CORP: Appeal in "Jansky" Suit Underway
LABORATORY CORP: Sandusky Wellness v. MEDTOX Remains Pending

LABORATORY CORP: "Davis" Class Suit in Florida Underway
LABORATORY CORP: "Bloomquist" Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
MASSACHUSETTS: Class Action Challenges Voter Deadline
MCDONALD'S CORP: Ruling in Payroll Card Class Action Upheld
MCKESSON CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to Stay Suit Pending Appeal

MONTREAL MAINE: Driver, Train Owner Added in Lac-Megantic Case
MURRAY GOULBURN: Faces Milk Price Probe Amid Class Actions
MYLAN INC: Lanier Law Firm Files EpiPen Injectors Class Action
NATIONWIDE INSURANCE: Motion for Rehearing of Class Actions Nixed
NEW YORK, NY: Accused by Disabled in Action of Violating ADA

NEW YORK CITY, NY: Asks Court to Redefine Class in "Pfeffer" Suit
NEWS CORP: $244MM Settlement Granted Final Court Approval
OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Underwriters' Motion to Dismiss Underway
OPUS BANK: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
PHILLIP KNOWLES: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Unpaid Wages

PICTURE PERFECT: Dang Suit to Recover Overtime, Missed Breaks
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Court Dismissed ERISA Action
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: 10 Class Actions Filed Over Broiler Chickens
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: 2 Class Actions Filed by Investors in Minn.
POOH-BAH ENTERPRISES: Marino Wants to Notify VIP's Exotic Dancers

POOL CORPORATION: Says Antitrust Class Suits Concluded
PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal Over Trojan Class Suit Dismissal Ongoing
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: To Settle ERISA Class Action for $352 Mil.
PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Faces "Kafatos" Class Suit in California
QBE: Court Orders "Common Fund" in Shareholder Class Action

QUALITY SYSTEMS: Oral Argument in Appeal Set for Dec. 5
REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Plaintiffs Await Ruling on Bid to Amend Suit
RENOVATE AMERICA: Borrowers File Class Suit over Eco Loans
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Spates Wants to Certify Drivers Class
S.C. JOHNSON: Glade Air Freshener Burns Dashboard, Suit Says

SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL: $107MM Class Action Settlement Approved
SAMSUNG: Failed to Recall Other Exploding Devices, Suit Claims
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Note 7 Phones
SANMEDICA INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Still Defends Suit by Deka Investment

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Consolidated Parmelee Suit Underway
SEQUENOM INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suits Underway
SERVICE CORPORATION: Samborsky Claims Sent to Arbitration
SERVICE CORPORATION: "Vasquez" Claims Ordered to Arbitration
SERVICE CORPORATION: "Moulton" Suit to Continue Against Unit

STARBUCKS CORP: Baristas' "Phantom Wage" Class Action Remanded
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Abdeljalil" TCPA Suit
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Kincaid Re-Filed Lawsuit in Ohio
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
TESSERA TECH: Shareholders Challenge $850MM DTS Acquisition

TIMEWARNER: Peng Chan Files New Suit Over MySpace Sale
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: 3 Class Suits Pending Over ET Plus
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: "Isolde" Shareholder Action Pending in Texas
U.S. AIRWAYS: Must Defend Against Price-Fixing Suit
U.S. ENGINEERING: Settles Asbestos Class Action for $80 Million

UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Bid to Certify in "Hill" Suit Denied
UNUM GROUP: Class Action Settlement Approved on Final Basis
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Suit Over Female Libido Drug Sale
VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA: Faces Legal Issues Over Water System
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Judge Approves Dieselgate Class Action Settlement

W.W. GRAINGER: Summary Judgment Bids in "Davies" Pending
WAL-MART STORES: Nikmanesh Seeks Certification of Three Classes
WELLS FARGO: Feb. 7 TCPA Case Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WEST VIRGINIA: Kanawha Valley Water Crisis Trial Moved
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces Cullars Family Class Suit in S.D. Georgia

WOODY'S WATERSIDE: Accused by "Quinn" Suit of Violating FLSA
XCEL ENERGY: Hearing on Summary Judgment Motion in Dec. 2016

* Japan Enacts First Class Actions Legislation
* Device Makers Face Legal Threat Over Internet of Things Attack
* FCC Privacy Proposal Seeks to Limit Forced Arbitration
* White House Calls for Crackdown on Non-Compete Clauses


                            *********


AIR SERV: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, "Harun" Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yusuf Harun and Naiem Mohammed, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Air Serv Corporation, jointly and severally,
and Thomas Marano, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:16-cv-05952
(E.D.N.Y., October 26, 2016), is brought over alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Air Serv Corporation, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, provides
cargo, cleaning, ground transportation, passenger, and security
services to aviation industry.  The Company offers transportation
services, including remote parking lot shuttle, crew transport,
employee shuttle, and fixed route services; cabin cleaning and
janitorial services; and passenger services, such as skycap,
baggage handling, document verification, wheelchair, unaccompanied
minor, and electric cart driver services.  The Company's security
services include aviation and commercial security, and pre
departure and cargo screening.  The Company serves airlines and
freight companies at airports in the United States and the United
Kingdom.


ALTRIA GROUP: 5 Smoking and Health Class Actions Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that as of October 24,
2016, there are 5 "Smoking and Health Class Actions and Aggregated
Claims Litigation" pending in the United States.

This includes as one case the 600 civil actions (of which 344 were
actions against Philip Morris USA Inc.) that were to be tried in a
single proceeding in West Virginia (In re: Tobacco Litigation).
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that the United
States Constitution did not preclude a trial in two phases in this
case. Issues related to defendants' conduct and whether punitive
damages are permissible were tried in the first phase.

Trial in the first phase of this case began in April 2013. In May
2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants on the
claims for design defect, negligence, failure to warn, breach of
warranty, and concealment and declined to find that the
defendants' conduct warranted punitive damages. Plaintiffs
prevailed on their claim that ventilated filter cigarettes should
have included use instructions for the period 1964 - 1969.

The second phase will consist of trials to determine liability and
compensatory damages. In November 2014, the West Virginia Supreme
Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment.

In July 2015, the trial court entered an order that will result in
the entry of final judgment in favor of defendants and against all
but 30 plaintiffs who potentially have a claim against one or more
defendants that may be pursued in a second phase of trial. The
court intends to try the claims of these 30 plaintiffs in six
consolidated trials, each with a group of five plaintiffs. The
first trial is currently scheduled to begin May 1, 2018. Dates for
the five remaining consolidated trials have not been scheduled.


AMGEN INC: Approved Final Settlement in Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that on October 25, 2016, the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the
California Central District Court) issued an order approving the
final settlement of the case In re Amgen Inc. Securities
Litigation.

The case is, IN RE AMGEN INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. CV
07-2536 PSG (PLAx)(C.D. Cal.).

The Settlement provides for a total payment of $95,000,000 in cash
for the benefit of the Class that, if approved, will resolve all
claims in the Action against Defendants and grant the releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, dated July 20, 2016.

The class is defined as, " ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED
AMGEN INC. PUBLICLY TRADED SECURITIES DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL
22, 2004 THROUGH MAY 10, 2007, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND
WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "CLASS")".

Class Counsel:

          Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
          Christopher J. McDonald, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          www.labaton.com
          settlementquestions@labaton.com
          (888) 219-6877

Amgen markets therapeutics for oncology/hematology, inflammation,
nephrology, bone health and cardiovascular disease.


AMGEN INC: Nov. 21 Hearing to Approve ERISA Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, the California Central District
Court scheduled a November 21, 2016, hearing for preliminary
approval of the settlement agreed to by the parties in this
Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action
case.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter, Amgen said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that
the parties in the ERISA litigation on June 27, 2016, reached an
agreement in principle to settle this case for an immaterial
amount.

Amgen markets therapeutics for oncology/hematology, inflammation,
nephrology, bone health and cardiovascular disease.


ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: "Simon" Suit Alleges Bait-and-Switch Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Chown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a class action in Santa Monica, California accuses Anthem Blue
Cross of planning a bait-and-switch scheme to begin on Jan. 1, by
terminating its Preferred Provider Organization health plans and
switching to Exclusive Provider Organization, limiting choice and
violating the federal health care law.

Los Angeles resident Paul Simon, 42, sued Blue Cross of California
dba Anthem Blue Cross on October 31, in Superior Court, for breach
of contract, breach of faith and business-code violations.

Exclusive Provider Organization plans, or EPOs, unlike PPOs,
provide no out-of-network coverage, limiting the choice of
physicians and care.

Simon has a medical condition that requires him to use several
out-of-network providers to which he would lose access, as well as
one in-network doctor that he sees, his attorney Laura Antonini
said in an interview.

"This really affects his personal coverage," said Antonini, who is
with Consumer Watchdog in Santa Monica.

Antonini said the bait-and-switch mentioned in the lawsuit is the
method Anthem uses to renew its coverage.

"In an effort to retain its market share, Anthem is failing to
adequately inform its members that they are losing out-of-network
benefits for 2017," she said.

According to the complaint, Anthem lost a lot of customers the
last time it canceled its plans and replaced them with less
comprehensive coverage. So this time, in September, it sent out a
misleading renewal packet that said that, though the plans will
"change" on Jan. 1, customers will be automatically re-enrolled in
similar coverage.

Premiums will increase by 33 percent.

"This change leaves customers potentially facing thousands of
dollars or more in medical bills that would have been covered
under their existing plan," the complaint states. "Anthem knows
that if consumers were informed that coverage is being withdrawn
from the market and replaced with entirely different coverage as
the law requires, consumers would take a closer look at their
options, including health plans offered by other companies."

Anthem's renewal packet did not fulfill numerous federal and state
legal requirements, the complaint states.

For example, if Anthem wants to make a change in the type of plan
it offers, it must "discontinue the coverage and issue a new
product." This requires one form notifying customers of the
discontinuation and a different form of notice when a plan is
renewed. Since this was not done correctly, and federal and state
laws require 90-day notice, Anthem must renew the original plans,
according to the complaint.

Open enrollment for health coverage began Nov. 1 and consumers who
renew their Anthem coverage by that date will be locked in for
another year, the lawsuit states.

Simon seeks class certification and an order enjoining Anthem to
renew the PPO plans through 2017, plus punitive damages and costs
of suit.

"We believe that Anthem is trying to take advantage of consumers
during the open enrollment period," said Travis Corby, another of
Simon's attorneys. "They are selling 2017 Affordable Care Act
health plans as being the same as their 2016 products. ...
Existing customers are being completely misled."

Anthem Blue Cross spokesman Darrel Ng said the company is
committed to providing access to high-quality, affordable health
care and is making the changes so it can keep monthly premiums
affordable.

"The benefit package being offered in 2017 was approved by the
Department of Managed Health Care and Covered California, and is
consistent with federal guidance," Ng said. "Affected members have
been mailed written notice of this change so they can make an
informed decision on their health care needs during the open
enrollment period for the coming year. We believe plaintiff's case
is without merit."

Attorney Corby -- tcorby@shernoff.com -- is with Shernoff Bidart
Echeverria in Claremont.


APPLE INC: Denies Knowledge of Spying by Path App
-------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Apple had no actual knowledge that the social networking app Path
was secretly accessing user contacts without permission, an Apple
attorney told a federal judge in San Francisco, November 3.

"There is nothing in this record to reasonably support a
conclusion of actual knowledge and there is explicit, specific
testimony to the contrary," Apple attorney Robert Hawk --
robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells, told U.S.
District Judge Jon Tigar at a hearing on Apple's motion for
summary judgment.

The consolidated class action led by Marc Opperman claims Apple
distributed "invasive versions" of the Path app, which downloaded
details from users' contact lists without their knowledge or
consent.

Tigar in July certified a class of 480,000 Apple device users
whose contact data was downloaded by Path between Nov. 9, 2011 and
Feb. 7, 2012.

Hawk said that simply making the app available and promoting it in
its app store, as Apple does for "tens of thousands" of other
apps, does not rise to the level of substantial assistance the
class claims apple gave to Path.

He said it was disingenuous for the class to claim that Apple
aided and abetted the very conduct it contractually prohibited in
its program licensing agreement with Path -- an agreement the
class cited in its case against the app developer.

"I think it's illogical and unfair to let the plaintiffs come in
and on one side try to say that these contractual prohibitions
were explicit and that they bound the app developers and they were
consciously violating them, while saying on the other side of
their mouth that the contracts were only purported requirements or
that they were boilerplate," Hawk said.

"How can you be giving substantial assistance to something you
were binding app developers not to do? There's just no explanation
for that."

Class attorney Frank Busch said the extent of Apple's knowledge is
not yet known, but that Apple did know something was wrong when it
tested and reviewed the Path app.

"This case is about what Apple knew and what Apple did, and we
don't know yet exactly that, but we have plenty of evidence for
this motion," Busch said.

Busch said Apple expressed outrage at the data theft only after
the scandal broke in Feb. 7, 2012, leading to a congressional
investigation of Apple's privacy practices.

"Their brand is built on the promise that if you download an app
from the app store, that app is safe," Busch told Tigar. "They
know the apps have the ability to do it, that the apps are doing
it, and they stick their heads in the sand."Tigar replied: "It
isn't hyperbole on Mr. Hawk's part to say there were tens of
thousands of apps. Many, many apps have been accepted and some
have been singled out for promotion. If that's all there is, it
would be a stretch for me to find that enough. Wouldn't that make
Apple liable for every tort committed by every app in its store?"

Busch responded: "If you know if what the app is going to be used
for is wrong, that would be substantial assistance. No user would
have a single contact harvested from Path if not for Apple's
assistance."

Tigar took the arguments under submission.

The consolidated case is Opperman et al. v. Path Inc. et al., Case
No. 3:13-cv-00453 (N.D. Cal.).


APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Calif. Court Dismissed Securities Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. (Nasdaq: ARCI), a
provider of appliance retailing and recycling services, said on
Oct. 27 that the United States District Court for the Central
District of California has dismissed with prejudice all claims
asserted by the lead plaintiffs in a securities class action
lawsuit against Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc.
("ARCA" or the "Company") and certain current and former officers
of the Company.

As previously announced by the Company, on November 24, 2015 the
Court granted the motion of ARCA and its officers to dismiss the
lawsuit commenced against them on March 6, 2015, by Jason Feola,
individually and as a putative representative of a class
consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 15, 2012 and February 11, 2015. That dismissal of the First
Amended Complaint was without prejudice, and the lead plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 15, 2015. The Company
and its officers moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint,
and on August 25, 2016, the Court again dismissed all claims
asserted in the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice. The
lead plaintiffs did not pursue a further amendment, and the Court
entered final judgment, dismissing all claims with prejudice, on
October 21, 2016. No payment or any other consideration was paid
by ARCA or its officers in connection with the lawsuit's
dismissal.

Plaintiffs have the right to appeal the Court's dismissal within
30 days of the final judgment. Based on the Court's rulings, the
Company intends to seek the dismissal of a shareholder derivative
action in Minnesota that was filed after the putative class action
and was temporarily stayed by agreement of the parties pending the
outcome of the dismissal motions in the putative class action
lawsuit. The Company and the other named defendants are
represented by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

"We are pleased with the Court's dismissal of the action," said
Tony Isaac, Chief Executive Officer of ARCA. "We believe the
ruling supports our position that the lawsuit was frivolous and
without merit. We will continue to focus our efforts on paving the
way for a brighter future, working to serve our clients and to
offer the highest quality service levels."

About ARCA

ARCA's three business components are uniquely positioned in the
industry to work together to provide a full array of appliance-
related services. ARCA Advanced Processing, LLC employs advanced
technology to refine traditional appliance recycling techniques to
achieve optimal revenue-generating and environmental benefits.
ARCA -- http://www.ARCAInc.com-- is also the exclusive North
American distributor for UNTHA Recycling Technology (URT), one of
the world's leading manufacturers of technologically advanced
refrigerator recycling systems and recycling facilities for
electrical household appliances and electronic scrap. ARCA's
regional centers process appliances at end of life to remove
environmentally damaging substances and produce material
byproducts for recycling for utilities in the U.S. and Canada.
Eighteen company-owned stores under the name ApplianceSmart,
Inc.(R) -- http://www.ApplianceSmart.com-- sell new appliances
directly to consumers and provide affordable ENERGY STAR(R)
options for energy efficiency appliance replacement programs.


BARRETT BUSINESS: Reached $12MM Settlement of Pension Fund Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barrett Business Services, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016,
that the Company has entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated as of October 26, 2016 (the "Settlement"), to
settle the action (the "Action") brought against the Company,
Michael L. Elich, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and James
D. Miller, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington (the "Court") in 2014.

The Action, entitled In re Barrett Business Services Securities
Litigation, purports to be a class action brought on behalf of all
stockholders of the Company based on alleged violations of the
federal securities laws.

The Settlement was executed on behalf of Lead Plaintiff Painters &
Allied Trades District Council No. 35 Pension and Annuity Funds
and named plaintiff Bakers Local No. 433 Pension Fund, on behalf
of themselves and the settlement class. The settlement class
includes all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Company common stock in the period beginning February 12,
2013, through March 9, 2016, and were damaged thereby, with
certain exclusions.

The Settlement is intended to fully, finally and forever
compromise, settle, release, resolve, and dismiss with prejudice
the Action and all claims asserted in the Action against the named
defendants. In the Settlement, the defendants have denied all
allegations of wrongdoing and the plaintiffs have not conceded any
infirmities in their positions.

The Settlement calls for the payment in cash of $12.0 million (the
"Settlement Fund") into escrow within 15 business days after the
Court enters an order preliminarily approving the Settlement. Of
this amount, approximately $8.7 million will be paid by the
Company's insurance carriers and approximately $3.3 million will
be paid by the Company. The fees of counsel for the plaintiffs
will be paid out of the Settlement Fund following approval by the
Court.

In connection with the proposed settlement, the Company expects to
record a pre-tax charge of approximately $3.3 million in the third
quarter of 2016. The Company will pay its portion of the
settlement with available resources, which it expects to occur in
the fourth quarter of 2016.

The Settlement is subject to approval by the Court and to other
customary terms and conditions, including the right of the Company
to terminate the Settlement under specified circumstances.
Following preliminary approval by the Court, all potential class
members will be notified of the Settlement. A hearing will then be
held to consider final approval of the Settlement. If the
Settlement is not approved by the Court, or is otherwise
terminated before it is finalized, the Company is unable to
predict the final outcome of the Action or to estimate its effect
on the Company, which may be material and adverse.

Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Settlement Class:

     Timothy A. DeLange, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
     12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
     San Diego, CA 92130
     Tel:  (858) 793-0070

Counsel for Named Plaintiff Bakers Local No. 433 Pension Fund:

     Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel:  (212) 545-4600

Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Painters & Allied Trades
District Council No. 35 Pension and Annuity Funds:

     Bradley S. Keller, Esq.
     Byrnes Keller Cromwell llp
     1000 SECOND AVENUE, 38TH FLOOR
     SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
     TELEPHONE: (206) 622-2000
     FACSIMILE: (206) 622-2522

Attorneys for Defendant Barrett Business Services, Inc.:

     Thomas C. Sand, Esq.
     MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN LLP
     111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400
     Portland, OR 97204
     Tel:  (503) 224-5858

Attorneys for Defendant Michael L. Elich:

     W. Douglas Sprague, Esq.
     COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
     One Front Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111-5356
     Tel:  (415) 591-7097

          - and -

     Marisa M. Bavand, Esq.
     GROFF MURPHY PLLC
     300 E. Pine Street
     Seattle, WA 98122-2029
     Tel:  (206) 628-9500

Attorneys for Defendant James D. Miller:

     Janet Lee Hoffman, Esq.
     JANET HOFFMAN & ASSOCIATES LLC
     1000 S.W. Broadway, Suite 1500
     Portland, OR 97205
     Tel:  (503) 222-1125

          - and -

     Eric D. Lansverk, Esq.
     HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S.
     999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Tel:  (206) 623-1745


BLUENRGY GROUP: Securities Class Suit Filed in Texas
----------------------------------------------------
BlueNRGY Group Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is facing a
class action securities suit in a federal court in the Eastern
District of Texas.

The Company said, "In December 2014, a class action securities
suit, the First Texas Lawsuit, was filed in a federal court in the
Eastern District of Texas against the Company and various current
and past officers and directors, namely Mr. William Morro, Mr.
Carlo Botto, Mr. Richard Pillinger, Mr. Todd Barlow, Mr. Gerard
McGowan and Mr. James Greer, as well as various third parties. The
lawsuit makes claims related to alleged misstatements in the
Company's securities filings prior to our entry into VA in
November 2014. The lawsuit was subsequently amended to include as
a defendant CBD Energy USA Limited, one of our U.S. subsidiaries."

"Mr. Morro, formerly a non-executive independent director
currently serves as Chairman of the Company's Board and its
Managing Director (the Australian entity equivalent of a CEO); Mr.
Botto continues as a non-executive member of the Board; and Mr.
Pillinger is the Company's CFO. The other individuals named as
parties to the lawsuit are no longer associated with the Company.
This lawsuit is still pending with respect to the former officers
and directors and our U.S. subsidiary and we believe that those
parties intend to defend themselves vigorously. The DOCA had the
effect of extinguishing the direct claims against the Company in
this action, however, the possibility remains that the plaintiffs
will endeavor to press their claims in jurisdictions outside
Australia. It is impossible to estimate the outcome or the costs
to us of such an action if it were to occur.

"In December 2014, a different lawsuit was filed in New York State
Supreme Court by one of the holders of Series B Preferred Shares
against the Company and Messrs. Morro, Botto, and McGowan. This
action was withdrawn without prejudice in April 2015, but prior
thereto Mr. Morro and Mr. Botto entered into a settlement with
respect only to themselves in their capacity as directors that
precludes the plaintiff reasserting the suit against them except
in the case that plaintiff is itself sued in connection with
losses suffered on the investment. The suit can be reasserted
again at any time against Mr. McGowan or other competent officers
or directors or against us. Although the DOCA had the effect of
extinguishing the claims against us in this action, the
possibility remains that the plaintiffs could endeavor to press
their claims in jurisdictions outside Australia. It is impossible
to estimate the outcome or cost to us of such an action were it to
occur.

"In October 2016, a second class action securities suit, the
Second Texas Lawsuit, was filed in a federal court in the Eastern
District of Texas on behalf of a different plaintiff from that
bringing the First Texas Lawsuit, alleging violations of different
provisions of the securities laws, but related to the same alleged
misstatements of the Company shortly prior to our entry into VA in
November 2014.

"The Second Texas Lawsuit has been brought against the Company and
its subsidiary CBD Energy USA Limited, and various current and
past officers and directors, namely Mr. William Morro, Mr. Carlo
Botto, Mr. Richard Pillinger, Mr. Todd Barlow and Mr. James Greer,
as well as various third parties. This lawsuit is still pending
with respect to the former officers and directors and our U.S.
subsidiary and we believe that those parties intend to defend
themselves vigorously. The DOCA had the effect of extinguishing
the direct claims against the Company in this action, however, the
possibility remains that the plaintiffs will endeavor to press
their claims against the Company in jurisdictions outside
Australia. It is impossible to estimate the outcome or the costs
to us of such an action if it were to occur."


BOOT BARN: Class Suit by 2 Former Employees Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 24, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend against a class action lawsuit by two former
employees.

On April 28, 2016, two employees, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated employees, filed a wage-and-hour class
action, which includes claims for penalties under California's
Private Attorney General Act, in the Fresno County Superior Court,
Case No. 16 CE CG 01330, alleging violations of California's wage
and hour, overtime, meal break and statement of wages rules and
regulations among other things. The complaint seeks an unspecified
amount of damages and penalties.

The Company intends to defend this claim vigorously. At present,
the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss that may arise
from this matter, but has recorded as of September 24, 2016 an
amount for the estimated probable loss, which is not material to
the condensed consolidated financial statements. Depending on the
actual outcome of pending litigation, charges in excess of such
recorded amount could be recorded in the future, which may have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position,
results of operations or liquidity.

The Company operates specialty retail stores that sell western and
work boots and related apparel and accessories. The Company
operates retail locations throughout the U.S. and sells its
merchandise via the internet. The Company operated a total of 212
stores in 29 states as of September 24, 2016 and 208 stores in 29
states as of March 26, 2016. As of September 24, 2016, all stores
operate under the Boot Barn name, with the exception of two stores
which operate under the "American Worker" name.


BP: Deepwater Horizon Class Action Attorneys Get $555.2MM in Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schleifstein, writing for NOLA.com, reports that a federal
judge has ordered that attorneys representing private individuals
and companies who entered into economic and medical claims
settlements with BP stemming from the Deepwater Horizon disaster
are entitled to be paid $555.2 million to cover their legal fees
and remaining court costs.

The award equals about 4.3 percent of the estimated $13 billion
that BP is expected to pay under the ongoing settlements,
significantly lower than the average 9.92 percent of awards paid
as fees and court costs in 21 similar "super-mega-fund"
settlements totaling more than $1 billion, said U.S. District
Judge Carl Barbier in an order issued Oct. 25.

In weighing the award against local billing rates, Judge Barbier
said it would be the equivalent to an average $450 per hour legal
fee, after being weighted for the intensity of effort involved in
the case.  That compares to average nationwide rates of $604 for
partners and $370 for associates in 2014, and to the $600 per hour
paid by the state of Louisiana to its attorney in the BP case,
Judge Barbier said.

Judge Barbier's order does not say how the money will be split
among the attorneys.  That will be determined at a later date. The
order also doesn't say how many attorneys are to split the award.
However, the motion requesting the award lists more than 90
attorneys as either members of the Plaintiff Steering Committee or
as "common benefit attorneys" working on the settlements.

The fee and costs money is not being deducted from claims. Rather,
as part of the economic and medical settlements, BP agreed to set
aside up to $600 million for plaintiff legal fees and expenses.

Judge Barbier has already awarded $37.6 million of BP's $600
million in shared expenses to attorneys and other service
providers, and another $7.2 million in what is called "held
expenses," that will be determined later by a court-appointed
accountant and fee committee.

The plaintiff attorneys also have requested $124.9 million in fees
and expenses that Halliburton and Transocean already agreed to pay
as part of separate settlements totaling $1.9 billion over those
two companies' involvement in the BP accident and spill. Judge
Barbier said that request would be considered as part of the final
approval of those settlements.  A hearing on the settlement is
scheduled for Nov. 10.

In explaining the reasons for the high amount of the fee award in
the BP cases, Judge Barbier cited the five-year timeline of the
complex legal battle that led to the private claims settlement,
and the two federal court trials over liability issues and public
claims, which the attorneys also participated in.

"Petitioning attorneys have performed an immense amount of work in
this MDL (Multi-District Litigation)," Judge Barbier said in his
order.  "Counsel expended over 527,000 hours on common benefit
work.  Counsel took hundreds of depositions and analyzed over 90
million pages of documents.

"Furthermore, they did something that rarely happens in class
actions: they went to trial," he said.  "Counsel engaged in a
massive, two-phase trial effort in pursuit of the claims assigned
to the class by BP and expressly reserved claims of individual
members."

"Both settlements provided significant and beneficial grants to
help the entire region rebound economically from the spill and to
help build infrastructure for the better delivery of healthcare to
affected communities," Judge Barbier added, pointing to money set
aside for community healthcare programs and for a program
supporting seafood marketing, as well as the establishment of an
online library of oil spill research.

He said that not only did the time and effort mean attorneys
working on the case couldn't work on other cases, "it required
many common benefit attorneys to move to New Orleans and devote
their entire practice to this MDL for years.  These lawyers spent
days and weeks away from their homes and family."

The result of their work, he said, was full compensation for the
losses -- plus punitive damages and a factor for future risks --
for 101,000 individuals and businesses representing 133,000
economic claims; and payments for specified physical conditions
for almost 13,000 medical claimants as of July 1.

Judge Barbier pointed out that soon after the April 20, 2010,
Macondo well blowout, the class action attorneys "started to
coordinate with one another and to take actions, not only for the
protection of their own individual clients, but with a eye towards
the advancement and protection of the common and collective
interests of others who were likely to become litigants at some
point in time."

The team of attorneys, led by New Orleans attorneys Steve Herman
and Jim Roy, who were appointed co-liason counsel by Judge Barbier
in August 2010, created a documentary depository/"war room",
arranged for internet services and hired fulltime personnel to
handle the complex case.

In October 2010, Barbier created a plaintiffs steering committee
to oversee the private claims prosecution, which set up 45
different work groups to handle administration; legal research;
written discovery; science, environmental and damages issues;
deposition and trial preparations; punitive damages; insurance
issues; and issues involving the short-lived, BP-created Gulf
Coast Claims Facility.

Those teams had to tackle a variety of issues involving "vessel of
opportunity, oyster, real property and other claims.

At its height, the depository took up an entire floor in an office
building near the U.S. District Courthouse, with its 15,500 square
fet including conference rooms, individual offices and more than
70 computer work stations staffed on a full time basis, Judge
Barbier said.

The team created a "short form joinder" that sped the process of
filing claims, which was used by about 130,000 individuals,
businesses and local government entities.

In advance of the two court trials, the team produced more than 90
million pages of documents, which involved more than 70 document
reviewers and analysts.  The team of attorneys also collected and
indexed more than 10,000 scientific and legal articles used during
the trial.

The team also scheduled and conducted more than 400 depositions,
"reaching a climax in the summer of 2011, with seven depositions
conducted, on two continents, in one day," Judge Barbier said.

Judge Barbier pointed out that while the Gulf Coast Claims
Facility was handling claims, before the settlement, he had agreed
to allow part of the claims issued by the facilities to be held
back to pay part of the attorneys' costs. But those hold-backs
were later released, meaning no fees were deducted from claims.

Judge Barbier dismissed objections to the awarding of fees and
costs by four members of the class action class, who contended
that the attorneys didn't convince BP to increase the amount of
money it had already agreed to pay claimants.

Judge Barbier said the class action attorneys had shown that the
Gulf Coast Claims Facility had already paid out 92 percent of the
money that the company believed should have been awarded to
claimants, and the settlements actually increased that amount
significantly.

He also said he had "serious doubts" whether those objecting to
the fees and costs had standing to object, since the award does
not reduce the amount any claimant will receive under the
settlement, "and the court long ago found that the settlements
were fair, reasonable and adequate to the classes."


BPI SPORTS: Faces False Advertising Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California consumer is suing an herbal supplement distributor,
alleging breach of warranties and false advertising.

Nicholas Jaber of Alameda, California, filed a class action
complaint Oct. 19 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California against BPI Sports LLC, Image Sports LLC, and Be
Powerful LLC, alleging violations of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and False Advertising Law.

According to the complaint, Mr. Jaber has suffered economic injury
for purchasing the defendants' Ultra Concentrated Garcinia due to
the defendants' claim the product will help him lose weight and
suppress or control his appetite.

The plaintiff alleges the defendants distributed, marketed, and
sold Ultra Concentrated Garcinia and falsely said it supports
appetite control and weight loss and has failed to implement
remedial measures.

Mr. Jaber seeks trial by jury and orders declaring this a proper
class action; appointing plaintiff and his counsel as class
representatives; compelling defendants to conduct a corrective
advertising campaign; requiring defendants to pay restitution; and
any further relief the court deems necessary.  He is represented
by attorney Paul K. Joseph of The Law Office of Paul K. Joseph PC
in San Diego.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 4:16-cv-05355


BUFFALO WILD WINGS: Vegetarians File Class Action in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that vegetarians brought a
federal class action in Manhattan against Buffalo Wild Wings,
saying the restaurant chain has a duty to disclose that its fries,
salads and other vegetarian items are cooked in beef tallow.


CANADA: RCMP Male Employees Mull Harassment Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Alison Crawford, writing for CBC News, reports that the RCMP will
soon face another class-action harassment lawsuit -- this time on
behalf of male Mounties and civilian employees of the force.

Earlier in October, the federal government and the RCMP set aside
$100 million to settle an estimated 1,000 cases of female
employees being harassed and bullied at work.

CBC News has learned that one of the law firms that represented
those women is preparing to bring another suit for men -- which
could potentially be much bigger given that men make up roughly 80
per cent of the RCMP's workforce.

"We've spoken with hundreds of members, and we're contacted by new
members every day," said lawyer Megan  McPhee of Kim Orr
Barristers in Toronto, who has been working on the case for years.
"The stories are very consistent.  We're told that there is a
culture of bullying and harassment within the force, and one of
the regular issues that we hear is a fear of speaking out, a fear
of reprisals."

Cpl. Michael Mansoor, who's due to be medically discharged in
January, says he was diagnosed with PTSD after what he alleges was
years of harassment at the hands of his colleagues and superiors.

He says it started in 2001, when he was posted to his hometown of
Richmond, B.C., where his brother was in conflict with the law. It
wasn't long before Cpl. Mansoor said he found his duties
restricted.

"I was banned from any work section in the detachment except for
general duty and traffic because they acknowledged that there
might be a conflict," said Cpl. Mansoor.

Wrongly accused of sexual assault

Despite pleas for a transfer, he says his superiors stuck to the
local convention that a member must serve five years in the
detachment before being moved.

Documents obtained under the Access to Information Act suggest
officers were suspicious of his family ties.  Eventually,
Cpl. Mansoor found himself suspended with pay and under
investigation for what he alleges are two trumped-up internal
disciplinary charges.

Furthermore, due to a clerical error, Cpl. Mansoor was also
initially accused of sexual assault.

"There was a minor glitch with [Mansoor's] security suspension
document service this morning," reads an internal email about
Mansoor's disciplinary charges.  "There is a reference to a
'sexual assault' . . . . It was our conclusion that HQ Ottawa had
screwed up the paperwork.  Seems likely that they took a previous
form letter, re-tooled it for [Mansoor's] case and did not remove
a phrase that did not apply in this case."

As for the two other allegations, they later proved unfounded.

Whisper campaign

Over time, Cpl. Mansoor says the ongoing whisper campaign and
harassment made him ill.

"There comes actually a point where you start to look at yourself
and go, 'Am I bringing this on myself? Because surely it's not
this widespread in an organization,'" Cpl. Mansoor said.

Retired sergeant Hugo Desrochers says he knows exactly how that
feels.

He left the force last year after 26 years in a job he says, for
the most part, he loved.  He was making his way up the ranks and
working towards another promotion, he says, but that came to a
halt near the end of his career when management changed at the
RCMP detachment in Cornwall, Ont.

"[I] started covering my back. Started taking notes to make sure I
was not going to be hung out to dry," Mr. Desrochers said.

Years of meticulous notes document allegations of being
micromanaged, stripped of his responsibilities, belittled in front
of colleagues for taking initiative and denied opportunities to
further develop his career.

The worst incident, according to Mr. Desrochers, was when the
inspector refused to sign off on his application to serve in
Kosovo due to shortcomings with his performance.  Yet
Mr. Desrochers says all his boss managed to come up with, after
repeated requests for specifics, was a late overtime claim.


"It takes a toll on you because you start questioning yourself . .
. and then you're not good," an emotional Desrochers told CBC
News.

Mr. Desrochers welcomes the lawsuit.

"If nobody comes forward to say there's a problem, how are they
going to know there's a problem.  Is it just me sitting here? No."

Belittled, physically intimidated

It's not just men in uniform who allege they've been harassed.

Garth Caron worked as a public servant from 2005 to 2015, doing
administrative work in detachments in Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Caron says his first experience with harassment was when a few
Mounties took issue with him being gay and subjected him to a
number of pranks.

"I came in one morning to my workstation and I noticed a number of
female items on my desk -- boxes of tampons and things like that -
- and it kind of struck me as odd as to why they would have been
left there," he said.

At another detachment, Mr. Caron said a sergeant questioned his
MÇtis status, belittled him in front of colleagues and tried to
physically intimidate him.  The union got involved and Caron says
he agreed, while under a great deal of duress, to retire before he
was ready to leave the workforce.

It's no secret the RCMP has a bullying problem.  Commissioner
Bob Paulson has said so himself.  In a 2012 interview with CBC
News, Mr. Paulson conceded that he too had been harassed at work.

"I think in the day, if you weren't sort of in line with your
officer's expectations or consistent with his or her vision of
where the organization was going, then you were pushed aside," he
said.  "And it's a very uncomfortable feeling and a very
destructive feeling, and it doesn't speak to a transparent,
ethical, organization."


CANADA: Ex-RCMP Officer Says Calgary Report "Tip of the Iceberg"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yolande Cole, writing for Postmedia Network, reports that a former
Mountie behind a class-action lawsuit alleging discrimination and
harassment within the RCMP says claims detailed in a recently
released internal workplace review of the Calgary Police Service
could be the "tip of the iceberg."

"Fix it now," said Linda Gillis Davidson.  "Don't let it fester
and become something that's huge.  And I'd bet that it's a lot
bigger than 65 people."

The lawsuit brought forward by Ms. Davidson in Ontario was settled
earlier in October, pending approval by a federal court.

Ms. Davidson's lawyer, Megan McPhee, said while she can't speak to
issues within other police forces, she has spoken to a large
number of both male and female RCMP officers across the country
who have experienced harassment.

She said some of the claims outlined in the Calgary police review
are reminiscent of experiences described by women within the RCMP.
The fear of coming forward with complaints that was expressed by
officers interviewed as part of the review is also something that
she heard "very frequently," Ms. McPhee said.

"Current members are afraid to speak out and share their
experience, because they've described it as career suicide," she
said.

Ms. Davidson said she experienced that sense of fear as an RCMP
commander.

"It happened to me, when I was jumped in an elevator by a senior
officer," she said.  "I came back to my office and I sat there
completely stunned . . . I'm a police officer with many years of
training, a commander, and I'm sitting there stunned and not
knowing what to do."

While she knew the steps she needed to do to report the incident,
questions began to run through her mind.

"This is going to kill my career, will I be removed from command,
will this cause a splash in the media, how are the people under my
command going to take it," she said.

At the time, it was easier for her to "let it go," she recalls.

"And that's the way that I had been trained throughout my whole
career," she said.

In the end, Ms. Davidson came forward with the lawsuit with the
hope of inciting change.

"It's got to stop," she said.  "There has to be significant
change."

Former RCMP Const. Janet Merlo, who led a class-action lawsuit in
B.C. that was also settled in October, said the allegations
contained in the Calgary police report reflect "the same type of
behaviour and culture as in the RCMP."

"As I was reading, I was thinking that's so similar to what I've
heard multiple times from all the women that have reached out
across the country," she said.  "It's not just an RCMP problem,
it's definitely a police, military problem."

She said both career paths have traditionally been male-dominated
fields that women have been trying to fit into "for a long time."

Ms. Davidson is now advising officers with concerns to step
forward.  She also wants to see police forces with similar issues
overhaul their recruitment and training practices.

"Teach your managers to be accountable and to be responsible," she
said.  "And zero tolerance."

Supt. Nina Vaughan with the Calgary Police Service said the force
has tried to embed its respectful workplace and unconscious bias
training throughout all of its leadership training programs.

"There's a number of those for people at different levels of the
service, from people who are newly promoted to people who are in
acting supervisor positions, to people on promotion boards and
competition boards and our recruiters, so we've really tried to
embed all that every place we could, in all of our training,"
Vaughan said.

She said since January, the new co-ordinator for the force's
revamped respectful workplace program has been "very busy."

"I've seen cases where people have come forward, and people have
come forward as witnesses where I've never seen that before,"
Vaughan said.

"So, to me, that's encouraging at the very least that some people
feel safe enough to come forward.  It doesn't mean we're where we
should be if we still have people who don't feel safe, and I
understand all the reasons why people don't come forward.  But . .
. if people don't come forward, we can't investigate specific
allegations of misconduct against a person."


CAREER POINT: Ex-Students Join Class Action Over School System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Ko, writing for KENS5, reports that hundreds more of former
Career Point College students have joined in a class action
lawsuit against the school system.

The initial lawsuit was filed.  Aric Garza, the attorney
representing the students, said since then, more than 300 students
have been added and the numbers continue to climb.

Another group of former students have also jumpstarted an online
petition.

They're asking for permission from the Texas Board of Nursing to
approve a teach-out program for students to finish training.

Among the comments, one student shared her personal experience.

"I have invested a year of my life in this program.  I have lost
my home three times, lost jobs, slept in my car and went without
eating to finish this program. Please help us to finish,"
Kari Reagan said.

Career Point College's website was down for more than 24 hours but
is now back up again.  Larry Earle, president and CEO of the
school system, has yet to respond to her requests for an
interview.

As for the class action lawsuit, a hearing is set for Nov. 1.
Ms. Garza said he anticipates hundreds of former students to
attend.


CARMAX AUTO: Faces Calif. Suit Over Labor Laws Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Carmax Auto Superstores
California stiffs workers for overtime and violates other labor
laws, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.


CELGENE CORP: August 2017 Completion of Discovery in IUB Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the completion of
fact discovery and expert discovery in the class action lawsuit by
the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers
Local 1 Health Fund (IUB) is scheduled for August 1, 2017 and
December 15, 2017.

The Company said, "On November 7, 2014, the International Union of
Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB)
filed a putative class action lawsuit against us in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that
we violated various state antitrust, consumer protection, and
unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive
supply contract with Seratec S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories
(Barr) allegedly could not secure its own supply of thalidomide
active pharmaceutical ingredient; (b) allegedly refusing to sell
samples of our THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Lannett Company, and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories so
that those companies can conduct the bioequivalence testing
necessary for ANDAs to be submitted to the FDA for approval to
market generic versions of these products; and (c) allegedly
bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits against Barr and
Natco Pharma Limited in order to allegedly delay those companies
from obtaining approval for proposed generic versions of
THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R). IUB, on behalf of itself and a
putative class of third party payers, is seeking injunctive relief
and damages."

"On February 3, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint. On March 3, 2015, the City of Providence ("Providence")
filed a similar putative class action making similar allegations.
Both IUB and Providence, on behalf of themselves and a putative
class of third party payers, are seeking injunctive relief and
damages. Providence agreed that the decision in the motion to
dismiss IUB's complaint would apply to the identical claims in
Providence's complaint. A supplemental motion to dismiss
Providence's state law claims was filed on April 20, 2015. On
October 30, 2015, the court denied our motion to dismiss on all
grounds.

Celgene filed its Answer to the IUB and Providence complaints on
January 11, 2016. The completion of fact discovery and expert
discovery is scheduled for August 1, 2017 and December 15, 2017,
respectively. No trial date has been set.

"We intend to vigorously defend against IUB's claims," the Company
said.

Celgene Corporation is an integrated global biopharmaceutical
company engaged primarily in the discovery, development and
commercialization of innovative therapies for the treatment of
cancer and inflammatory diseases through next-generation solutions
in protein homeostasis, immuno-oncology, epigenetics, immunology
and neuro-inflammation. Celgene Corporation was incorporated in
the State of Delaware in 1986.


CLAUDIO & JOHNSON: "Cisson" Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Donald Cisson v. Claudio & Johnson, LLC, Case
No. 16-2016-CA-004708, was removed from the Duval County Circuit
Court to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida (Jacksonville).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:16-cv-01353-HES-PDB to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max H. Story, Esq.
          MAX HUNTER STORY, PA
          328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
          Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
          Telephone: (904) 372-4109
          Facsimile: (904) 758-5333
          E-mail: max@storylawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joan Carlos Wizel, Esq.
          Onier Llopiz, Esq.
          LYDECKER DIAZ
          1221 Brickell Ave., 19th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 416-3180
          Facsimile: (305) 416-3190
          E-mail: jcw@lydeckerdiaz.com
                  ol@lydeckerdiaz.com

               - and -

          Troy Beecher, Esq.
          LYDECKER DIAZ
          390 N Orange Ave., Suite 1295
          Orlando, FL 32801-1684
          Telephone: (407) 255-2070
          Facsimile: (407) 985-4545
          E-mail: tb@lydeckerdiaz.com


CMS ENERGY: Still Defends Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corporation and Consumers Energy Company said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that Other CMS Energy entities remain as defendants in all
four remaining class action lawsuits in the Gas Index Price
Reporting Litigation.

CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading
Company, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and
Cantera Gas Company, have been named as defendants in four class
action lawsuits and one individual lawsuit arising as a result of
alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications
that report trade information. Allegations include price-fixing
conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of
natural gas retail prices in Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin.
Plaintiffs are making claims for the following: treble damages,
full consideration damages, exemplary damages, costs, interest,
and/or attorneys' fees.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict
litigation process. In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS
Energy defendants were dismissed by the district court based on
FERC preemption. Plaintiffs filed appeals in all of the cases. The
issues on appeal were whether the district court erred in
dismissing the cases based on FERC preemption and denying the
plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints to add a
federal Sherman Act antitrust claim.

In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the district court decision. The appellate court found that FERC
preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases. The
appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of leave to
amend to add federal antitrust claims. The matter was appealed to
the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2015 upheld the Ninth Circuit's
decision. The cases were remanded back to the federal district
court.

In May 2016, the federal district court granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment in the individual lawsuit based on a
release in a prior settlement involving similar allegations and
reinstated CMS Energy as a defendant in one of the class action
lawsuits. Other CMS Energy entities remain as defendants in all
four remaining class action lawsuits.

These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly
situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple
jurisdictions. Presently, any estimate of liability would be
highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's reasonably possible
loss would be based on widely varying models previously untested
in this context. If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable,
these cases could negatively affect CMS Energy's liquidity,
financial condition, and results of operations.


COGNOSANTE LLC: "Gullage" Action Alleges Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniya Gullage, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cognosante, LLC, Defendant., Case No.
3:16-cv-02816 (M.D. Tenn., October 31, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and overtime, liquidated damages, penalties, fees and
costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and any other remedies
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a Delaware LLC that provides healthcare consulting,
technology solutions, and business process outsourcing services to
clients located throughout the 48 states.

Gullage worked for the Defendants as a case analyst. She claims to
have been denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
      David H. Grounds, Esq.
      Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
      Saint Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Fax: (612) 436-1801
      Email: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
             dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com
             mnephew@johnsonbecker.com

             - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Jesse Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com
             jyoung@sommerspc.com


CONAGRA FOODS: 9th Circuit to Decide on Dietary Supplements Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle de Leon, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is on the
verge of providing a concrete resolution to the contrasting
opinions of district courts regarding certification and
classification of dietary supplements and the lawsuits related to
them.

Three cases are awaiting decisions from the Ninth Circuit Court
following differing decisions from federal courts on matters of
approximately the same nature.  The appellate court is set to
determine how stringent the guidelines would be especially in
light of the several legal battles in California linked to dietary
supplements.  The three cases are Briseno v. ConAgra Foods Inc;
Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc; and Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods
LLC.

In September, the appellate court began hearing the oral arguments
for Briseno v. ConAgra Foods Inc. and Brazil v. Dole Packaged
Foods LLC. Both cases carry striking similarities.

In the two cases, the plaintiffs filed for putative class action
lawsuits alleging that the defendants breached a number of
statutory and common-law causes of action.  To be specific, the
petitioners claimed that they bought products marketed by the
defendants as "All Natural" or "100% Natural."

According to the plaintiffs of the case against Dole, these labels
are misleading since the items contained ascorbic acid or Vitamin
C, as well as citric acid. However, the company pointed out that
both additives are natural byproducts of juices.

Meanwhile, the claims of Briseno attacked the "100% Natural" label
of ConAgra Foods Inc.  In their court documents, the plaintiffs
alleged that the tag was misleading, since genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) are found in the Wesson Oil sold by the company.

In their decisions, the Ninth Circuit Court is expected to focus
on two concrete concerns.  The first one would be
"ascertainability" or defining an appropriate class of plaintiffs.
The second concern would be the propriety related to the awarding
of damages to all members of the class in the class-action cases.

Of the states in the nation, California has been identified as one
of those that pay greater attention to consumer rights.  The state
also has become a hotpot for class-action lawsuits filed by
consumers against suppliers.  Most of the time, these cases are
based on the labels and claims attached to the dietary supplements
sold and released in the California market.

One of the most widely argued upon concern in these lawsuits is
the "ascertainability" factor.  In determining who could be
qualified as members of a certain class, it is required that a
piece of evidence or proof must be presented before the courts.
However, most consumers no longer hold on to the receipts of their
purchases, especially those that did not cost too much.

Since some plaintiffs often fail to produce any proof of purchase,
it becomes tricky for the courts to determine whether or not they
are parts of a certain class.  In response, these consumers argue
that keeping all receipts under lock and key is not a realistic
situation for people.  Moreover, this requirement would mean that
class action lawsuits for low-priced or inexpensive products or
purchases become almost impossible to win.

However, consumers are concerned that this would signify
potentially significant fees to the companies.  If no proof of
purchase of any kind would be required from the plaintiffs, then
the defendants would be in danger of facing massive class action
lawsuits.  With fewer requirements for these kinds of class
actions cases to push through, companies could fall victims to
immediate bankruptcy courtesy of court fees and damages.

The Ninth Circuit Court panel reviewing these cases includes
judges William A. Fletcher, Morgan Christen and Michelle Taryn
Friedland.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Advocates Seek Bail Reform Amid Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ellyn Fortino, writing for Progress Illinois, reports that
advocates pushing for reforms to Cook County's cash bail system
spoke out on Oct. 25 to "demand alternatives to monetary bond."

Gathering at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, local
attorneys and community group members also discussed the class-
action lawsuit filed on October 14 against Cook County.  The
lawsuit alleges that "excessive" bail amounts set by circuit court
judges violate the rights of poor jail detainees.

"The bail bond system in Illinois has to be fixed," stressed the
Rev. Charles Straight with The People's Lobby.  "Far too many
people are locked up simply because they cannot pay even small
amounts of money."

Two jail detainees who are facing theft charges and cannot afford
to pay bail are named as plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit.
They are suing five circuit court judges and Cook County Sheriff
Tom Dart.

The plaintiffs are being represented by attorneys from the
Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center at Northwestern's
law school as well as Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd. and
the Civil Rights Corps.

"This is wealth discrimination with respect to the most critical
right that all of us share in common: the right to be free,"
MacArthur Justice Center Executive Director Locke Bowman said of
the Cook County bail system's impact on poor detainees.  "It is a
violation of the United States Constitution.  We have filed a
lawsuit that aims to stop this practice.  We are seeking a
declaration that it's wrong, that it's unconstitutional and that
it must be ended."

"The remedy that we seek is that no person shall be confined in
the Cook County Jail simply because he cannot pay his bond,"
Mr. Bowman added.  "The bond must be set in an amount reasonable
to ensure the individual's ability to pay and his appearance in
court."

Cara Smith, the Cook County sheriff's chief policy officer,
responded to the lawsuit in an interview with Progress Illinois.

"We were not surprised by the filing of the lawsuit.  However, we
were very surprised to be named as a defendant, given that Sheriff
Dart has aggressively combated the injustices of our bail system
for years in a number of ways in the county," she said.

The sheriff's office has asked to be dropped as a defendant in the
lawsuit.

"We certainly feel we are much more valuable to the plaintiffs and
their clients advocating alongside them than being a defendant,"
Ms. Smith said.  "We expect we'd be dismissed, but we've requested
that they do so voluntarily."

Individuals who say they were needlessly kept in Cook County Jail
pending trial because they couldn't make bail addressed the media
at the Oct. 25 press conference.

Lavette Mayes, 46, said she was detained for 14 months in Cook
County Jail because she was unable to pay her $9,500 bail while
awaiting trial.  While she was detained after being arrested in
March 2015, Ms. Mayes lost her job and missed school graduations
for her two children, ages six and 15.

"It was devastating on my family and hard," she said.

Ms. Mayes later received assistance from the Chicago Community
Bond Fund to post bail.  Ms. Mayes, a resident of Chicago's South
Shore community, eventually pleaded guilty to the aggravated
battery charge she faced.  The length of time she spent in
pretrial detainment and electronic home monitoring exceeded her
prison sentence by four months.

As of Oct. 24, there were 298 people detained in Cook County Jail
who needed $1,000 or less to bond out, Ms. Smith said.  Sheriff
Dart has called for a change in Illinois law so that his office
can request bail reductions for poor, non-violent detainees.

"Our bail statute in Illinois requires that bail not be
oppressive," Ms. Smith said.  "When we have just under 300 people
who are in jail just because they don't have a relatively small
amount of money, we think that's sort of the definition of
oppressive."

Straight with The People's Lobby said his organization is working
with state Rep. Christian Mitchell (D-Chicago) and other Illinois
lawmakers on crafting legislation to reform bail policies.
Straight said the bill's introduction is expected in a few months.

"Our bill requires that courts release people on their own
recognizance in most situations and replace pretrial incarceration
with commonsense measures," he said.

Such measure, Straight said, include reminder phone calls for
people when they're due in court, increased home monitoring and
bus passes for low-income people to help them get to court.

The bail-reform supporters addressed the media one day after Cook
County Board President Toni Preckwinkle and county commissioners
announced an upcoming public hearing on the issue of pretrial
detention and bond court practices.

Sharlyn Grace with the Chicago Community Bond Fund said the public
hearing, scheduled for November 17, is a positive development.

"We're excited that the county is taking steps to get more
information out there, to examine the impact of the problem and
some realistic alternatives, and to think about evidence-based
policies and practices," she said.

Asked about the planned hearing, Ms. Smith said, "I don't really
understand the goal."

"The disgraces and the injustices of our bail system are very well
known," she explained.  "I think it's a matter of bringing people
together to address those problems."

For his part, Circuit Court Chief Judge Timothy Evans released a
lengthy statement on Oct. 24 after Cook County officials announced
the hearing.  He discussed the circuit court's procedures and its
use of a "scientifically validated assessment tool" that was
implemented last year and has "assisted the court in releasing
more people pretrial."

The assessment tool, called the Public Safety Assessment (PSA),
"analyzes objective data related to a defendant's criminal history
and current charge to generate a risk-assessment score that
reliably predicts whether a defendant will commit another crime,
commit a violent crime, or fail to appear in court if he or she is
released before trial," Judge Evans said.

He added: "The process, administered by the court's pretrial
services division, includes conducting the PSA risk assessment, an
interview, and an exit interview in which the defendants are
provided instructions about their responsibilities to comply with
potential release conditions and are informed of the importance of
contacting their pretrial officer and appearing at their next
court date."

Implementation of the assessment program has led to an increase in
I-bonds and electronic monitoring and a decrease in monetary
bonds, Judge Evans said, adding that "many of the lowest-risk
inmates are being released before trial."

"For the first half of 2016, the overall pretrial-release rate for
the lowest-risk defendants in non-violent, non-weapons cases was
94 percent," his statement reads.  "That means that more than 9
out of every 10 of the lowest-risk defendants are not held in jail
before their case is resolved, by trial or otherwise."


CORESITE REALTY: Expects Settlement Approval Hearing in Q1 2017
---------------------------------------------------------------
CoreSite Realty Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company anticipates that a hearing for Superior Court approval of
the settlement will occur during the first quarter of 2017.

The Company said, "On July 9, 2015, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, against us, alleging various
employment law violations related to overtime, meal and break
periods, minimum wage, timely payment of wages, wage statements,
payroll records and business expenses."

"On March 15, 2016, we filed a responsive pleading generally
denying the allegations. On July 27, 2016, the parties entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding, pursuant to which the parties
agreed to settle the lawsuit. The settlement, which remains
subject to Superior Court approval, resolves the matter on a
class-wide basis, on behalf of all non-exempt employees in
California, as well a related class action lawsuit filed on July
22, 2016, alleging similar claims, in exchange for a $600,000
payment to be made by us.

"We anticipate that a hearing for Superior Court approval of the
settlement will occur during the first quarter of 2017. There can
be no assurance that the settlement will be finally approved by
the Superior Court."

"We intend to vigorously defend both of these legal proceedings.
While it is not feasible to predict or determine the outcome of
these legal proceedings, as of September 30, 2016, we estimate
that the ultimate resolution of these litigation matters and other
disputes could result in a loss that is reasonably possible
between $0.6 million and $3.1 million in the aggregate, of which
$2.9 million has been accrued in accounts payable and accrued
expenses in our consolidated balance sheet as of September 30,
2016."

CoreSite is engaged in the business of ownership, acquisition,
construction and operation of strategically located data centers
in eight of the largest and fastest growing data center markets in
the United States, including the Northern Virginia (including
Washington D.C.), New York and San Francisco Bay areas, Chicago,
Los Angeles, Boston, Miami and Denver.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Ongoing in Royal Park Suit
---------------------------------------------------
GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2012-GCJ7 said in its Form 10-D
ASSET-BACKED ISSUER DISTRIBUTION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR
15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 for the monthly
distribution period from: September 13, 2016 to October 13, 2016,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2016, that discovery is ongoing in the class action by Royal Park
Investments SA/NV.

On June 18, 2014, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a class and
derivative action complaint on behalf of investors in ten RMBS
trusts against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") and
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
asserting claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust
Indenture Act of 1939 ("TIA"), breach of contract and breach of
trust based on DBNTC's alleged failure to perform its duties as
trustee for the trusts. Royal Park's complaint alleges that the
total realized losses of the ten trusts amount to over U.S. $3.1
billion, but does not allege damages in a sum certain.

On February 3, 2016, the court granted in part and dismissed in
part plaintiffs' claims: the court dismissed plaintiff's TIA claim
and its derivative theory and denied DBNTC's motion to dismiss the
breach of contract and breach of trust claims. On March 18, 2016
DBNTC filed and answer to the complaint. On May 26, 2016, Royal
Park filed a motion for class certification. Discovery is ongoing.


DIVERSIFIED CONCRETE: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Leon" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carl J. Barbier granted Plaintiff Pedro Leon's motion for
class certification filed in the lawsuit entitled PEDRO LEON, ET
AL. v. DIVERSIFIED CONCRETE, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:15-cv-06301-
CJB-MBN (E.D. La.).

The class will consist of all current and former employees of the
Defendants, from 2011 to present, who have had amounts deducted
from their wages by the Defendants for payment of the Defendants'
workers' compensation insurance premiums.

Pedro Leon brought the collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act against his former employer Diversified Concrete,
LLC, and Diversified's members, Ryan Rogers and Bradly Rogers,
alleging that he and other laborers were not paid overtime wages.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p85AnG0Y


DOW CHEMICAL: April 28 Fairness Hearing on Rocky Flats Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Colorado
District Court has set a fairness hearing on the settlement of the
class action lawsuit related to Rocky Flats for April 28, 2017.

The Company and Rockwell International Corporation ("Rockwell")
(collectively, the "defendants") were defendants in a class action
lawsuit filed in 1990 on behalf of property owners ("plaintiffs")
in Rocky Flats, Colorado, who asserted claims for nuisance and
trespass based on alleged property damage caused by plutonium
releases from a nuclear weapons facility owned by the U.S.
Department of Energy ("DOE") (the "facility"). Dow and Rockwell
were both DOE contractors that operated the facility -- Dow from
1952 to 1975 and Rockwell from 1975 to 1989. The facility was
permanently shut down in 1989.

In 1993, the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado ("District Court") certified the class of property
owners. The plaintiffs tried their case as a public liability
action under the Price Anderson Act ("PAA"). In 2005, the jury
returned a damages verdict of $926 million. Dow and Rockwell
appealed the jury award to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
("Court of Appeals") which concluded the PAA had its own injury
requirements, on which the jury had not been instructed, and also
vacated the District Court's class certification ruling, reversed
and remanded the case, and vacated the District Court's judgment
(Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 618 F.3d 1127, 1133 (10th Cir.
2010)). The plaintiffs argued on remand to the District Court that
they were entitled to reinstate the judgment as a state law
nuisance claim, independent of the PAA. The District Court
rejected that argument and entered judgment in favor of the
defendants (Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp, 13 F. Supp. 3d 1153 (D.
Colo. 2014)). The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals,
which reversed the District Court's ruling, holding that the PAA
did not preempt the plaintiffs' nuisance claim under Colorado law
and that the plaintiffs could seek reinstatement of the prior
nuisance verdict under Colorado law, and remanded for additional
proceedings, including consideration of whether the District Court
could recertify the class (Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 790 F.3d
1088 (10th Cir. 2015)).

Dow and Rockwell continued to litigate this matter in the District
Court and in the United States Supreme Court. On May 18, 2016,
Dow, Rockwell and the plaintiffs entered into a settlement
agreement for $375 million, of which $131 million will be paid by
Dow and $244 million will be paid by Rockwell. The DOE authorized
the settlement pursuant to the PAA and the nuclear hazards
indemnity provisions contained in Dow and Rockwell's contracts. As
a result, the Company expects to be fully indemnified by the DOE
for the settlement amount.

The District Court granted preliminary approval to the class
settlement on August 5, 2016, and set a fairness hearing on the
settlement for April 28, 2017.

At September 30, 2016, the Company had a liability of $130 million
related to this matter (having already paid $1 million towards
class notice costs), included in "Accrued and other current
liabilities" in the consolidated balance sheets and expects to
make the settlement payment to the plaintiffs no later than July
28, 2017. The Company also recorded a receivable of $131 million
related to this matter, included in "Noncurrent receivables" in
the consolidated balance sheets, and expects to receive its
indemnification payment in 2017.


DYNCORP: D.C. Judge Rules for Plaintiffs in Toxic Spray Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Britain Eakin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in Washington on November 3, ruled in favor of 19
Ecuadoreans who claim that a U.S. company sprayed a toxic
herbicide on them as part of a campaign to combat Colombian drug
cartels.

The 19 Ecuadorean "test" plaintiffs in the case say that DynCorp,
which contracted with the U.S. State Department to carry out "Plan
Colombia," sprayed them with glyphosate as part of an effort to
eradicate cocaine and heroin poppy drug farms in Colombia.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle said the record shows that
DynCorp engaged in "a consistent pattern of reckless behavior."

"Defendants were repeatedly informed that their pilots were
spraying chemicals on communities in Ecuador -- at the latest, by
September 2001 -- yet continued to carry out spray operations in a
manner that deeply troubled Ecuadorian population centers, the
United States government, and employees within DynCorp itself,"
the 26-page ruling states.

Huvelle also found DynCorp's actions outrageous.

"The fact that plaintiffs include impoverished farmers who rely on
their land to survive and defenseless children make defendants'
recklessness all the more outrageous," the judge wrote.

Huvelle said the spraying could amount to battery, which does not
require "purposeful intent," but only "knowledge that harmful or
offensive contact to somebody will occur with substantially
certain probability."

"In short, there is ample evidence to suggest that DynCorp and its
pilots simply ignored (and sometimes mocked) the fact that
plaintiffs from specific areas of Ecuador were complaining about
the company's sloppy spraying flights. They were repeatedly
informed of systemic problems with the Plan Colombia missions and
dangerous incidents, yet consciously chose to not meaningfully
address them, despite the clear and obvious risks to people and
property on the ground," the ruling states.

Some of the glyphosate drifted across the border from Colombia,
but lead plaintiffs Venancio Aguasanta Arias and Nestor Ermogenes
Arroyo Quinteros say planes also crossed the border into Ecuador
and sprayed them directly.

"DynCorp themselves have admitted to seven specific missions that
released spray in Ecuador between 2001 and 2004, despite the fact
that DynCorp had no contractual authorization or permission from
the U.S. government to spray in Ecuador," Huvelle wrote.

DynCorp insisted wind patterns were to blame for drift of the
toxin, but Huvelle disagreed.

"There are two problems with this argument. First, DynCorp
employees and pilots appear to have consciously and routinely
ignored the operational parameters set specifically so that spray
would not drift outside spray zones [redacted]. In sum, the court
finds sufficient evidence to support the contention that DynCorp
understood the troubling consequences of its spray operations in
Ecuador," the judge said.

The consolidated class action has been winding its way through the
courts since 2001.   At its peak, it had more than 3,000
plaintiffs, but in 2013, a federal judge ruled in favor of
DynCorp. An appeals court partially affirmed the ruling, but
remanded the case back to the lower court on battery, nuisance and
emotional distress claims.

Because of the massive nature of the case, the court decided to
litigate the claims of 20 test plaintiffs, one of which has since
died, to later facilitate a resolution for the roughly 2,000
remaining plaintiffs.

DynCorp, however, argued that the non-test plaintiffs should be
bound by the court's ruling on the test claims, an argument
Huvelle rejected.

"Even if such an extraordinary arrangement did not already strike
the court as implausible and unfair, if not unconstitutional, the
court also cannot find any evidence of its existence in the
record," the ruling states.

Huvelle also rejected DynCorp's argument that the claims should be
time-barred, but dismissed battery claims for 11 of the test
plaintiffs because only nine of them testified that glyphosate had
touched their bodies.

Huvelle allowed five test claims of severe emotional distress to
survive, but tossed out all of the nuisance claims, agreeing with
DynCorp that "the alleged sprayings were too sporadic and isolated
in time to constitute a nuisance, which generally must be
continuous and permanent in character."

The case is captioned, Venancio Aguasanta Arias, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. DynCorp, et al., Defendants., Case No. l:Olcv01908
(ESH), Nestor Ermogenes Arroyo Quinteros, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. DynCorp, et al., Defendants., Case No. 1:07cv01042 (ESH)(D.C.).


E.I. DUPONT: Employees' FLSA Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------
Dawn Geske, writing for PennRecord, reports that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has overturned a lower court's
ruling, allowing a class action lawsuit brought by employees
against DuPont to proceed.

The suit, Smiley v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company, examines
whether paid lunch and break times can offset time spent putting
uniforms on and taking them off that is unpaid and required by the
employer as well as other activities that take place outside set
working hours.

According to the suit, the employees have spent approximately 30
to 60 minutes getting ready for their shift each day and were not
paid for this time.  DuPont did pay for the time spent during
lunches and breaks -- approximately 1.5 hours in total, and
counted this toward overtime pay.  In total, the employees were
paid for 12 hours a day.

DuPont maintained that the time employees spent getting ready for
their shift was offset by the paid time for breaks and lunches.
When brought before the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, DuPont pointed out this offset, and the
court agreed with DuPont and dismissed the case.

On the appeal by the plaintiffs in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, the District Court ruling was overturned on
Oct. 7, finding that the FLSA had a "broad remedial purpose" and
that paying for breaks was a flexibility provided to the employer
under the act.  In the instances that the FLSA did allow for
offsets, DuPont's argument did not fall under the requirements.

"In this case, DuPont did something that while on its face seems
to make sense, the FLSA did not specifically say that it is legal
and that it is permissible," Adam R. Long, attorney at McNees
Wallace & Nurick LLC, told the Pennsylvania Record.

"I think that's why the court ended up where it did and ruled in
favor of the plaintiffs."

While the case will be remanded to the District Court for further
proceedings, employers should take this as a sign that it may be
necessary to review their pay policies under the FLSA, which can
prove to be tricky to understand and comply with.

"The FLSA is a very difficult law in that I believe that it exists
to protect employees and not employers," said Long.

"There is a lot of technical fine points to the law in terms of
how employees are paid. I don't believe that DuPont did anything
egregious or something that would be surprising or shocking.

"I think a lot of employers are in similar situations, where if
someone took a very close scrutiny of their pay practice they
would be able to identify certain areas that present risk under
the FLSA."

As this case shows, paid meal times and breaks may not count as
offset time and could open employers up to litigation for not
complying with the FLSA.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that DuPont
violated the FLSA and what it considered an offset of the time
spent getting ready by employees was really out of its own
generosity.


EASTMAN CHEMICALS: Settles 2014 Water Crisis Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
WCHS/WVAH and The Associated Press' Kyle Gibson and Mamie Buoy
report that attorneys say a settlement was reached on Oct. 26
between plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit and Eastman Chemicals
in relation to the 2014 West Virginia water crisis.

The lawsuit claimed Eastman did not test its chemical properly,
warn about potential impacts to human health or the type of tanks
used to store it.

The chemical MCHM spilled into the Elk River and polluted the
drinking water for about 300,000 people in West Virginia.

According to court officials, attorneys for Eastman Chemical and
Charleston-area residents and businesses proposed the settlement.
Eastman is a producer of a coal-cleaning agent that spilled.

It is subject to approval by U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver.
Its terms are sealed.

West Virginia American Water, which was also named in the suit,
did not reach a settlement.  The trial for West Virginia American
Water was expected to start Oct. 27.


ELI LILLY: Actos(R) Product Liability Litigation in Canada Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly And Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company and
Takeda are prepared to defend against Actos(R) Product Liability
Litigation in Canada vigorously.

The Company said, "We have been named along with Takeda Chemical
Industries, Ltd., and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as
a defendant in approximately 6,500 product liability cases in the
U.S. related to the diabetes medication Actos, which we co-
promoted with Takeda in the U.S. from 1999 until 2006. In general,
plaintiffs in these actions allege that Actos caused or
contributed to their bladder cancer. Almost all of the active
cases have been consolidated in federal multi-district litigation
(MDL) in the Western District of Louisiana or are pending in a
coordinated state court proceeding in California or a coordinated
state court proceeding in Illinois."

"In April 2015, Takeda announced they would pay approximately $2.4
billion to resolve the vast majority of the U.S. product liability
lawsuits involving Actos, including the case of Allen, et al. v.
Takeda Pharmaceuticals, et al., no. 6:12-md-00064, in which a
judgment of approximately $28 million was entered against Takeda
and a judgment of approximately $9 million was entered against us.

"In September 2015, Takeda announced that more than 96 percent of
eligible claimants had opted into the resolution program that was
announced in April 2015. As a result of the resolution program,
the Allen case has been fully resolved. Accordingly, the appeals
filed by Allen, Takeda, and us in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit have been dismissed with prejudice.

"Although most U.S. product liability lawsuits involving Actos are
included in the resolution program, there may be additional cases
pending against Takeda and us following its completion. Our
agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and indemnify us
against our losses and expenses with respect to the U.S.
litigation arising out of the manufacture, use, or sale of Actos
and other related expenses in accordance with the terms of the
agreement. We believe we are entitled to full indemnification of
our losses and expenses in these cases; however, there can be no
guarantee we will ultimately be successful in obtaining full
indemnification.

"We are also named along with Takeda as a defendant in four
purported product liability class actions in Canada related to
Actos, including two in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al. and Carrier et al. v.
Eli Lilly et al.), one in Quebec (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et
al.), and one in Alberta (Epp v. Takeda Canada et al.). We
promoted Actos in Canada until 2009.

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we and Takeda
are prepared to defend against them vigorously."


ELI LILLY: Faces 510 Byetta(R) Product Liability Cases
------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly And Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
remains a defendant in 510 Byetta(R) Product Liability cases.

The Company said, "We are named as a defendant in approximately
510 Byetta product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving
approximately 860 plaintiffs. Approximately 85 of these lawsuits,
covering about 435 plaintiffs, are filed in California state court
and coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court."

"Approximately 420 lawsuits, covering about 425 plaintiffs, are
filed in federal court, the majority of which are coordinated in
an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California. The remaining approximately five lawsuits,
representing about five plaintiffs, are in various state courts.

"Approximately 470 of the lawsuits, involving approximately 710
plaintiffs, contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed
to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid
cancer); most others allege Byetta caused or contributed to
pancreatitis. The federal and state trial courts granted summary
judgment in favor of us and co-defendants on the claims alleging
pancreatic cancer; those rulings are being appealed by the
plaintiffs.

"We are aware of approximately 10 additional claimants who have
not yet filed suit. These additional claims allege damages for
pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer. We believe these lawsuits and
claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them
vigorously."


ELI LILLY: Settlement Framework Reached in Cymbalta(R) Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly And Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company has
reached a settlement framework in the Cymbalta(R) Product
Liability Litigation.

The Company said, "In October 2012, we were named as a defendant
in a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Saavedra et al v. Eli Lilly
and Company) involving Cymbalta. The plaintiffs, purporting to
represent a class of all persons within the U.S. who purchased
and/or paid for Cymbalta, asserted claims under the consumer
protection statutes of four states, California, Massachusetts,
Missouri, and New York, and sought declaratory, injunctive, and
monetary relief for various alleged economic injuries arising from
discontinuing treatment with Cymbalta."

"In December 2014, the district court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. Plaintiffs filed a petition with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting
permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the denial of class
certification, which was denied. Plaintiffs filed a second motion
for certification under the consumer protection acts of New York
and Massachusetts.

"The district court denied that motion for class certification in
July 2015. The district court dismissed the suit and plaintiffs
are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oral argument is expected in late 2017.

"We have been named in approximately 140 lawsuits involving
approximately 1,470 plaintiffs filed in various federal and state
courts alleging injuries arising from discontinuation of treatment
with Cymbalta. Counsel for plaintiffs in the federal court
proceedings filed a petition seeking to have then-filed cases and
an unspecified number of future cases coordinated into a federal
MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

"In December 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) denied the plaintiffs' petition for creation of an MDL.
Plaintiffs' counsel subsequently filed a second petition seeking
MDL consolidation, which petition was denied by the JPML in
October 2015.

"Additionally, there have been approximately 40 individual and
multi-plaintiff cases filed in California state court.  Most of
those cases have been centralized in a California Judicial Counsel
Coordination Proceeding pending in Los Angeles. The first
individual product liability cases were tried in August 2015 and
resulted in defense verdicts against four plaintiffs.

"We have reached a settlement framework which provides for a
comprehensive resolution of nearly all of these personal injury
claims, filed or unfiled, alleging injuries from discontinuing
treatment with Cymbalta. There can be no assurances, however, that
a final settlement will be reached.

"We continue to believe these lawsuits and claims are without
merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.


ELI LILLY: Says 200 Prozac(R) Product Liability Claims Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly And Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is
aware of approximately 200 claims related to allegations that the
antidepressant Prozac caused or contributed to birth defects in
the children of women who ingested the drug during pregnancy.
These claims have not yet been filed.

The Company said, "We believe these claims are without merit and
are prepared to defend against them vigorously."


EQUIFAX INC: Balks at Bid to Amend Complaint to Add Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that defendants are
opposing plaintiffs' motion to amend a class action lawsuit to add
additional plaintiffs and additional subclasses.

In consolidated actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned Terri N. White, et al.
v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Jose Hernandez v. Equifax
Information Services LLC, Kathryn L. Pike v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, and Jose L. Acosta, Jr., et al. v. Trans Union LLC,
et al. , plaintiffs asserted that Equifax violated federal and
state law (the FCRA, the California Credit Reporting Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law) by failing to follow reasonable
procedures to determine whether credit accounts are discharged in
bankruptcy, including the method for updating the status of an
account following a bankruptcy discharge.

On August 20, 2008, the District Court approved a Settlement
Agreement and Release providing for certain changes in the
procedures used by defendants to record discharges in bankruptcy
on consumer credit files. That settlement resolved claims for
injunctive relief, but not plaintiffs' claims for damages.

On May 7, 2009, the District Court issued an order preliminarily
approving an agreement to settle remaining class claims. The
District Court subsequently deferred final approval of the
settlement and required the settling parties to send a
supplemental notice to those class members who filed a claim and
objected to the settlement or opted out, with the cost for the re-
notice to be deducted from the plaintiffs' counsel fee award.

Mailing of the supplemental notice was completed on February 15,
2011. The deadline for this group of settling plaintiffs to
provide additional documentation to support their damage claims or
to opt-out of the settlement was March 31, 2011.

On July 15, 2011, following another approval hearing, the District
Court approved the settlement. Several objecting plaintiffs
subsequently filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, which, on April 22, 2013, issued an order
remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

On January 21, 2014, the District Court denied the objecting
plaintiffs' motion to disqualify counsel for the settling
plaintiffs and granted the motion of counsel for the settling
plaintiffs to be appointed as interim lead class counsel.

On May 1, 2014, the District Court granted the objecting
plaintiffs motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal from
the January 21, 2014 Order and the objectors filed a petition for
permission to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. On July 9, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the petition for permission to appeal.

On March 28, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the District Court's lead counsel appointment and
remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.
The Objectors filed a Petition of Writ of Certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court on August 3, 2016. That Petition remains
pending.

The parties have re-engaged in settlement discussions, including
participation in mediation in August 2016. On September 19, 2016,
the settling plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the Complaint to
add additional plaintiffs and additional subclasses. The
defendants are opposing that motion.

Equifax collects, organizes and manages various types of
financial, demographic, employment and marketing information.


ERIE INDEMNITY: Motions to Dismiss Beltz II Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erie Indemnity Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Indemnity and the
directors' motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit remain pending.

On February 6, 2013, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, captioned
Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated association, by members
Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan and Anita Sullivan, and
Patricia R. Beltz, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situate v. Richard L. Stover; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W.
Cavanaugh; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Susan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen;
C. Scott Hartz; Claude C. Lilly, III; Lucian L. Morrison; Thomas
W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Elizabeth H. Vorsheck; and Robert
C. Wilburn (the "Beltz" lawsuit), by alleged policyholders of
Exchange who are also the plaintiffs in the Sullivan lawsuit. The
individuals named as defendants in the Beltz lawsuit were the
then-current Directors of Indemnity.

As subsequently amended, the Beltz lawsuit asserts many of the
same allegations and claims for monetary relief as in the Sullivan
lawsuit. Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of all policyholders
of Exchange, or, alternatively, on behalf of Exchange itself.
Indemnity filed a motion to intervene as a Party Defendant in the
Beltz lawsuit in July 2013, and the Directors filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit in August 2013. On February 10, 2014, the
court entered an order granting Indemnity's motion to intervene
and permitting Indemnity to join the Directors' motion to dismiss;
granting in part the Directors' motion to dismiss; referring the
matter to the Department to decide any and all issues within its
jurisdiction; denying all other relief sought in the Directors'
motion as moot; and dismissing the case without prejudice. To
avoid duplicative proceedings and expedite the Department's
review, the Parties stipulated that only the Sullivan action would
proceed before the Department and any final and non-appealable
determinations made by the Department in the Sullivan action will
be applied to the Beltz action.

On March 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Indemnity
filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on March 26, 2014. On
November 17, 2014, the Third Circuit deferred ruling on
Indemnity's motion to dismiss the appeal and instructed the
parties to address that motion, as well as the merits of
Plaintiffs' appeal, in the parties' briefing. Briefing was
completed on April 2, 2015. In light of the Department's April 29,
2015 decision in Sullivan, the Parties then jointly requested that
the Beltz appeal be voluntarily dismissed as moot on June 5, 2015.
The Third Circuit did not rule on the Parties' request for
dismissal and instead held oral argument as scheduled on June 8,
2015. On July 16, 2015, the Third Circuit issued an opinion and
judgment dismissing the appeal. The Third Circuit found that it
lacked appellate jurisdiction over the appeal, because the
District Court's February 10, 2014 order referring the matter to
the Department was not a final, appealable order.

On July 8, 2016, the Beltz plaintiffs filed a new action labeled
as a "Verified Derivative And Class Action Complaint" in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania. The action is captioned Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S.
Sullivan, and Anita Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of Nominal
Defendant Erie Insurance Exchange v. Erie Indemnity Company; Kaj
Ahlmann; John T. Baily; Samuel P. Black, III; J. Ralph Borneman,
Jr.; Terrence W. Cavanaugh; Wilson C. Cooney; LuAnn Datesh;
Patricia A. Goldman; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen; C.
Scott Hartz; Samuel P. Katz; Gwendolyn King; Claude C. Lilly, III;
Martin J. Lippert; George R. Lucore; Jeffrey A. Ludrof; Edmund J.
Mehl; Henry N. Nassau; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Seth
E. Schofield; Richard L. Stover; Jan R. Van Gorder; Elizabeth A.
Hirt Vorsheck; Harry H. Weil; and Robert C. Wilburn (the "Beltz
II" lawsuit). The individual defendants are all present or former
Directors of Indemnity (the "Directors").

The allegations of the Beltz II lawsuit arise from the same
fundamental, underlying claims as the Sullivan and prior Beltz
litigation, i.e., that Indemnity improperly retained Service
Charges and Added Service Charges. The Beltz II lawsuit alleges
that the retention of the Service Charges and Added Service
Charges was improper because, for among other reasons, that
retention constituted a breach of the Subscriber's Agreement and
an Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing by Indemnity,
breaches of fiduciary duty by Indemnity and the other defendants,
conversion by Indemnity, and unjust enrichment by defendants
Jonathan Hirt Hagen, Thomas B. Hagen, Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck,
and Samuel P. Black, III, at the expense of Exchange. The Beltz II
lawsuit requests, among other things, that a judgment be entered
against the Defendants certifying the action as a class action
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
declaring Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and
Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class; declaring the
conduct alleged as unlawful, including, but not limited to,
Defendants' retention of the Service Charges and Added Service
Charges; enjoining Defendants from continuing to retain the
Service Charges and Added Service Charges; and awarding
compensatory and punitive damages and interest.

On September 23, 2016, Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the
Beltz II lawsuit. On September 30, 2016, the Directors filed their
own motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit. The motions to
dismiss remain pending.

Indemnity believes it has meritorious legal and factual defenses
and intends to vigorously defend against all allegations and
requests for relief in the Beltz II lawsuit. The Directors have
advised Indemnity that they intend to vigorously defend against
the claims in the Beltz II lawsuit and have sought indemnification
and advancement of expenses from the Company in connection with
the Beltz II lawsuit.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Defending MERS-Related Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Mortgage
Electronic Registration Services (MERS), EverHome Mortgage
Company, EverBank and other lenders and servicers that have held
mortgages through MERS are parties to the following material and
class action lawsuits where the plaintiffs allege improper
mortgage assignment and, in some instances, the failure to pay
recording fees in violation of state recording statutes: (1) State
of Ohio, ex. rel. David P. Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney General of
Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc., et al., filed in October
2011 in the Court of Common Pleas for Geauga County, Ohio; and (2)
Delaware County, PA, Recorder of Deeds v. MERSCORP, Inc., et al.,
filed in November 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware
County, Pennsylvania.

The Company said, "In these material and class action lawsuits,
the plaintiffs in each case generally seek judgment from the
courts compelling the defendants to record all assignments,
restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, and appropriate
attorneys' fees and costs. We believe that the plaintiffs' claims
are without merit and contest all such claims vigorously."

EverBank Financial Corp (the Company) is a savings and loan
holding company with two direct operating subsidiaries, EverBank
(EB) and EverBank Funding, LLC (EBF). EB is a federally chartered
thrift institution with its home office located in Jacksonville,
Florida. EB's direct banking services are offered nationwide. In
addition, EB operates financial centers in Florida and commercial
and consumer lending centers across the United States. EB (a)
accepts deposits from the general public; (b) originates,
purchases, services, sells and securitizes residential real estate
mortgage loans, home equity loans, commercial real estate loans
and commercial loans and leases; and (c) offers full-service
securities brokerage and investment advisory services.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Claims Administration Ongoing in "Vathana"
--------------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that claims
administration is ongoing in the Vathana Class Action.

In April 2009, a putative class action entitled Vathana v.
EverBank was filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County,
California, against EverBank on behalf of all persons who invested
in certain EverBank foreign currency certificates of deposit
between April 24, 2005 and April 24, 2009, whose certificates of
deposit were closed by EverBank and who were allegedly improperly
paid the value of the account.

In May 2009, EverBank removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that EverBank breached its
contract with its customers by invoking the force majeure
provision when closing certain foreign currency certificates of
deposit, and that at the time of account closing, utilizing an
improper conversion rate.

On October 9, 2015, the parties agreed to a settlement in
principle and the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on March 18, 2016. On March 29, 2016, EverBank paid
$750,000 to the settlement fund pursuant to the settlement.

On July 7, 2016, the court granted final approval of the
settlement. On July 20, 2016, the court entered the final judgment
and order of dismissal with prejudice. Claims administration is
ongoing.

EverBank Financial Corp (the Company) is a savings and loan
holding company with two direct operating subsidiaries, EverBank
(EB) and EverBank Funding, LLC (EBF). EB is a federally chartered
thrift institution with its home office located in Jacksonville,
Florida. EB's direct banking services are offered nationwide. In
addition, EB operates financial centers in Florida and commercial
and consumer lending centers across the United States. EB (a)
accepts deposits from the general public; (b) originates,
purchases, services, sells and securitizes residential real estate
mortgage loans, home equity loans, commercial real estate loans
and commercial loans and leases; and (c) offers full-service
securities brokerage and investment advisory services.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: "West" Suit, Certification Order Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a Texas court
has entered an order granting the joint motion to dismiss the West
Collective Action and vacating the order granting conditional
certification, thereby dismissing the case with prejudice.

The Company is a party to a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) entitled Anthony West and all others
similarly situated under 29 USC 216(B) v. EverBank Financial Corp
filed on May 19, 2015 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The plaintiff in this
collective action suit alleges that plaintiff and the class were
(1) improperly classified as exempt under the FLSA (2) entitled to
and not paid overtime and (3) not paid federally mandated minimum
wage. The suit seeks (1) unpaid back wages, (2) liquidated damages
equal to the back pay and (3) costs of the suit incurred by
plaintiff. EverBank filed an answer to the complaint denying the
claims.

On March 22, 2016 the parties entered into a tentative settlement
agreement to resolve the claims of the 19 individual opt-in
plaintiffs and finalized the settlement agreements in May of 2016.
The court entered an order granting the joint motion to dismiss
and vacating the order granting conditional certification on June
8, 2016, thereby dismissing the case with prejudice.

EverBank Financial Corp (the Company) is a savings and loan
holding company with two direct operating subsidiaries, EverBank
(EB) and EverBank Funding, LLC (EBF). EB is a federally chartered
thrift institution with its home office located in Jacksonville,
Florida. EB's direct banking services are offered nationwide. In
addition, EB operates financial centers in Florida and commercial
and consumer lending centers across the United States. EB (a)
accepts deposits from the general public; (b) originates,
purchases, services, sells and securitizes residential real estate
mortgage loans, home equity loans, commercial real estate loans
and commercial loans and leases; and (c) offers full-service
securities brokerage and investment advisory services.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Claims Administration Ongoing in "Wilson"
-------------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that claims
administration is ongoing in the Wilson Class Action.

On June 18, 2014, a punitive class action entitled Dwight Wilson,
Jesus A. Avelar-Lemus, Jessie Cross, and Mattie Cross on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. EverBank, N.A.,
Everhome Mortgage, Assurant, Inc., Standard Guaranty Insurance
Company, and American Security Insurance Company was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
In this class action case, the plaintiffs seek damages for
overpayment of lender placed insurance premiums, injunctive
relief, declaratory relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 17, 2015, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
that was approved by the court on January 20, 2016. On February 8,
2016, the Court entered final judgment in the matter.

On March 1, 2016, an objector, filed a civil appeal statement. On
March 2, 2016, EverBank paid $2.0 million for its portion of the
attorney fee award into an interest bearing account pursuant to
the settlement agreement.

On August 9, 2016, the Court granted the Jabranis unopposed motion
to dismiss appeal with prejudice. Claims administration is
ongoing.

EverBank Financial Corp (the Company) is a savings and loan
holding company with two direct operating subsidiaries, EverBank
(EB) and EverBank Funding, LLC (EBF). EB is a federally chartered
thrift institution with its home office located in Jacksonville,
Florida. EB's direct banking services are offered nationwide. In
addition, EB operates financial centers in Florida and commercial
and consumer lending centers across the United States. EB (a)
accepts deposits from the general public; (b) originates,
purchases, services, sells and securitizes residential real estate
mortgage loans, home equity loans, commercial real estate loans
and commercial loans and leases; and (c) offers full-service
securities brokerage and investment advisory services.


FACEBOOK INC: Biometric Privacy Class Action Enters Phase Two
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quartz's Ananya Bhattacharya, citing Bloomberg, reports that on
Oct. 27, a class-action lawsuit alleging that the world's largest
social network is violating its users' privacy will enter phase
two.  Specifically, a San Francisco court will assess whether
Facebook is breaking the law by using its facial-recognition tool,
to identify faces in photographs uploaded by users, or by
collecting those photographs into a central database.

In use since 2010, Facebook claims its facial-recognition tool is
now 97.35% accurate, which is great news if you're trying to tag
overcrowded party pictures, but less so if you're worried about
privacy.  Plaintiffs in the case are concerned on a number of
fronts: Facebook could be selling identifying information to
retailers or other third parties.  More importantly, they worry
that biometric data is just as susceptible to theft, hacking, and
the long and invasive arm of law enforcement as other types of
data.

"Unique and unchangeable biometric identifiers are proprietary to
individuals," the complaint reads (paywall).  It also alleges that
Facebook failed to acquire consent before collecting "faceprints."

The class-action suit hinges on a unique Illinois law passed in
2008, called the Biometric Information Privacy Act.  It states
that if companies fail to get consent from users before storing
biometric information, they can be subject to a $5,000 fine, plus
$1,000 in damages if the violation shows negligence. That's per
violation.  For a company with 7 million users in Illinois, that
could mean fines as high as $35 million.

There is some precedent here.  In April, photo-sharing website
Shutterfly reached a settlement over its facial-recognition
technology.  Snapchat faced a similar suit over the summer, but
has denied storing any biometric information (the company says it
uses "object recognition," not facial recognition).  Alphabet's
cloud-based Google Photos service also uses similar technology,
and Google is facing privacy lawsuits of its own.

A Google spokesperson declined to comment on pending litigation.
So far, Facebook and Google have insisted that gathering data on
what you look like isn't against the law, even if it's done
without your explicit permission.  Facebook says the current
class-action lawsuit should be dismissed because there is no proof
of actual damage, such as someone losing their job or a
relationship being harmed because of embarrassing or compromising
photos getting out.  Still, a judge in May allowed the case to
proceed.

If the court sides with Facebook, it could save the social network
millions of dollars, and establish an important precedent.  The
alternative? Facebook has to compensate millions of people who
uploaded photos while living in Illinois, update its privacy
policies, prepare for the possibility of more lawsuits, and maybe
even face new or stricter laws regarding biometric data.  For
proof, look no further than Europe, where photo-tagging no longer
uses facial-recognition technology.


FEDERAL NATIONAL: Burke Seeks Certification of Consumers Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ASHLEY BURKE v. FEDERAL
NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Case No. 3:16-cv-00153-HEH-DJN
(E.D. Va.), seeks certification of this class:

     All natural persons: (a) whose consumer reports were
     obtained by Fannie Mae after March 11, 2011, (b) for an
     account review purpose; and (c) where the account
     relationship had terminated because: (i) the debt on the
     account had been discharged in bankruptcy; (ii) the account
     was closed with a zero balance; (iii) the account had been
     sold or transferred to a third party; or (iv) Fannie Mae had
     foreclosed or sold the property through a short sale or deed
     in lieu of foreclosure.

The proposed class action is brought against Fannie Mae for
violating Section 1681b of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which
limits the access and use of consumer reports to a specific set of
enumerated purposes and no other, Ms. Burke argues in her
memorandum in support of the Motion.  She points out that the
central allegation in the case is that Fannie Mae systematically
both obtains and uses consumer credit reports from Equifax
Information Services, LLC, in violation of Section 1681b(f) of the
FCRA.

The putative class consists of hundreds of thousands of consumers
whose private financial information was unlawfully obtained and
used by Fannie Mae, Ms. Burke asserts.  She contends that Fannie
Mae's illegal conduct was not only uniform, unvaried, and the same
for each class member, but Fannie Mae's defense is uniform as
well.

                       Fannie Mae Opposes

In its opposition to the Motion, Fannie Mae contends that the
Plaintiff's Motion ignores the myriad questions a fact-finder
would need to answer about each putative class member's loan,
including the circumstances of any default, liquidation, or
bankruptcy, necessary to determine: 1) who is a class member, 2)
whether Fannie Mae had a "permissible purpose" under the FCRA, for
obtaining each class member's consumer report, and 3) whether
Fannie Mae's conduct was "willful," a predicate showing for the
only remedy plaintiff seeks.

Not only would dozens of factual variations impact the viability
of absent borrowers' claims, the foreclosure laws of all 50
states, including anti-deficiency and rescission rules, would be
relevant to assessing the permissibility and objective
reasonableness of its obtaining consumer reports, Fannie Mae
argues.  Fannie Mae adds, among other things, that the FCRA
permits owners of mortgage loans to obtain consumer reports for
various permissible purposes, and that members of the Plaintiff's
proposed class are not ascertainable because determining whether
an account has been "terminated" would require borrower-specific
mini-trials.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC
          4084 University Drive, Suite 202A
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                  aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          Land Title Building, 19th Floor
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elizabeth L. McKeen, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor
          Newport Beach, CA 92660-6429
          Telephone: (949) 823-6900
          Facsimile: (949) 823-6994
          E-mail: emckeen@omm.com

               - and -

          Michael B. Miller, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019-9601
          Telephone: (212) 468-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 468-7900
          E-mail: mbmiller@mofo.com

               - and -

          Angela E. Kleine, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: akleine@mofo.com

               - and -

          Joshua A. Hartman, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-188
          Telephone: (202) 887-1500
          Facsimile: (202) 887-0763
          E-mail: JHartman@mofo.com

               - and -

          John Alexander Trocki, III, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          1650 Tysons Blvd., Suite 400
          McLean, VA 22102
          Telephone: (703) 760-7700
          Facsimile: (703) 760-7777
          E-mail: jtrocki@mofo.com


FEDEX GROUND: Judge Okays $15.4MM Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard J. Reibstein, Esq. -- reibsteinr@pepperlaw.com -- of
Pepper Hamilton LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that
FedEx's costs due to IC misclassification are approaching $500
million over the past year as a result of its inability to draft
in a valid manner its IC agreement and internal policies governing
Ground Division drivers.  On Oct. 21, an Oregon federal judge
approved a $15.4 million class action settlement between FedEx and
around 400 Ground Division drivers who were found as a matter of
law to have been improperly classified as ICs.  The settlement
comes a little more than two years after the Ninth Circuit issued
its blockbuster decision finding that the drivers had been
misclassified as ICs by FedEx as a matter of law based on the very
documents FedEx had drafted.

How could a Fortune 100 company with top in-house and outside
counsel create such enormous exposure for itself?  And how can
companies both large and small avoid the types of mistakes made by
FedEx?  To answer those questions, one needs to look first at the
background of FedEx's IC misclassification experience.

The background of the FedEx IC misclassification saga

As most readers of this legal blog know, FedEx Ground has been at
the epicenter of the crackdown on IC misclassification by
government regulators, state legislators, and plaintiffs' class
action lawyers since 2007.  That is when a California appellate
court found single-route FedEx Ground delivery drivers to have
been misclassified as independent contractors instead of
employees.  But in 2009 and 2010, FedEx Ground won significant
court decisions involving the IC status of its Ground Division
drivers, including a December 2010 decision by a federal district
court judge presiding over dozens of IC misclassification cases in
a "multi-district litigation."  That decision, issued nearly six
years ago, had granted summary judgment in favor of FedEx Ground
in 42 IC misclassification lawsuits brought by drivers in 27
states, including California and Oregon.

In August 2014, however, the IC misclassification landscape for
FedEx Ground reverted to its 2007 state.  At that time, two
decisions were issued by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.  That highly regarded federal appellate court
reversed the December 2010 decision by the federal district court
judge in the multi-district litigation where 42 cases had been
decided in FedEx Ground's favor.

The two Ninth Circuit decisions covered lawsuits filed by FedEx
Ground drivers in California and Oregon under the laws of those
states.  Both of those cases had been decided in FedEx Ground's
favor by the federal court judge in the multi-district litigation.

The California case, Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package System,
Inc., No. 12-17458 and 12-17509, was a class action involving
approximately 2,300 individuals who provided delivery services to
FedEx Ground on a full-time basis in California.  The Oregon case,
Slayman v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., No. 12-35525 and 12-
35559, was a smaller class action involving approximately 400
individuals who were full-time delivery drivers for FedEx Ground
in Oregon.

The Court first examined the FedEx Ground contract (called the
Operating Agreement) that the company entered into with each of
the drivers, as well as its written policies and procedures.  It
concluded that by virtue of the FedEx standard agreement and its
policies and procedures, the drivers were employees and not
independent contractors under both California and Oregon law.
Specifically, in the California case, the Court found that, by
virtue of language in the Operating Agreement and its policies and
procedures:

FedEx reserved the right to control and by its policies controlled
the appearance of its drivers, including their clothing, from
their hats down to their shoes and socks, as well as their hair
and hygiene.  Managers had the right to prevent the drivers from
working if they were not properly groomed and dressed.

FedEx reserved the right to control its drivers' vehicles,
including the color of the paint that their vehicles must be and
the requirement that they display the distinctive FedEx logo.
FedEx also required that the vehicles be "clean and presentable
[and] free of body damage and extraneous markings" -- requirements
that "go well beyond those imposed by federal regulations."  In
addition, FedEx dictated the vehicles' dimensions, including the
dimensions of their "package shelves" and the materials from which
the shelves are made.  Managers also had the right to prevent
drivers from working if their vehicles did not meet
specifications.

FedEx can and does control the times its drivers can work, even
though the Operating Agreement specifies that FedEx has no right
to set specific working hours.  The court held that it was clear
from the Operating Agreement that FedEx has a great deal of
control over drivers' hours, structuring their workloads so that
they have to work 9.5 to 11 hours every working day.  Further,
FedEx managers had the right to adjust drivers' workloads to
ensure that they never had more or less work than can be done in
9.5 to 11 hours.  In addition, drivers were not supposed to leave
their terminals in the morning until all of their packages are
available, and they had to return to the terminals no later than a
specified time.  If drivers wanted their vehicles loaded, they had
to leave them at the terminal overnight.  In the Court's view,
"[t]he combined effect of these requirements is substantially to
define and constrain the hours that FedEx's drivers can work."

FedEx can and does control aspects of how and when drivers deliver
their packages.  It assigned each driver a specific service area,
which it "may, in its sole discretion, reconfigure."  It told
drivers what packages they must deliver and when by negotiating
the delivery window for packages directly with its customers."

FedEx required drivers to "conduct all business activities with .
. . proper decorum at all times" and comply with "standards of
service," including requirements to "[f]oster the professional
image and good reputation of FedEx".

In response to FedEx's argument that it lacked control over some
parts of its drivers' jobs, the Court concluded that such lack of
control over certain parts of the drivers' roles is not sufficient
to "counteract the extensive control it does exercise."

While FedEx pointed out that the FedEx Operating Agreement
permitted a driver to delegate to other drivers, take on
additional routes, or sell his route to a third party, the Court
noted that FedEx had the right to refuse to let a driver take on
additional routes or sell his route to a third party, and FedEx's
senior managers have the authority to reject proposed replacement
drivers based on failure to meet FedEx standards such as grooming
requirements.

As a result of the Ninth Circuit decision, in June 2015 FedEx
settled the California case for $228 million.

Meanwhile, in July 2015, FedEx lost yet another major battle, this
time before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
That Midwest circuit adopted the decision of the Kansas Supreme
Court, which (like the Ninth Circuit) held that FedEx Ground
drivers, as a matter of law, were employees and not independent
contractors under the Kansas wage payment law.

Both the Seventh and Ninth Circuit decisions relied on the
independent contractor agreement, which FedEx itself drafted and
used with all its Ground Division drivers, as the principal
evidence finding misclassification.  The Kansas Supreme Court
decision, which was effectively adopted by the Seventh Circuit,
was highly critical of the drafting of the contract, noting that
it agreed with a California appellate court that FedEx's
independent contractor agreement is a "'brilliantly drafted
contract creating the constraints of an employment relationship
with [the drivers] in the guise of an independent contractor
model--because FedEx not only has the right to control, but has
close to absolute actual control over [the drivers] based upon
interpretation and obfuscation.'"

With two major federal appellate courts now disfavoring FedEx, the
company chose in June 2016 to settle most of the other IC
misclassification cases.  The cost: $240 million to settle 20 of
the remaining class action lawsuits, excluding the Oregon case.

On Oct. 21, as noted above, FedEx settled the Oregon case for
$15.4 million.  When this amount is added to the other settlements
in the past two calendar years, the total cost to FedEx in those
years alone is now approaching $500 million.

How could a company as sophisticated as FedEx let this happen?

Reading the wording of the FedEx Operating Agreement and its
policies and procedures, one gets the impression that FedEx knew
what it was supposed to write but could not help itself in
"over-lawyering" the agreement.  When those documents were closely
examined by the appellate courts, which had been educated in the
nuances of IC misclassification law by knowledgeable plaintiffs'
class action lawyers, they found one IC compliance deficit after
another buried well within the agreement and policies --
sufficient in degree to lead the courts to rule against FedEx.

The FedEx IC agreements and their policies and procedures read
like well-drafted legal documents, but they simply don't cut it in
the world of IC compliance.  They were drafted in a manner that
more closely resembled the manner in which good corporate and
employment agreements are drafted -- and that type of drafting can
be a company's worst enemy.  Dotting one's i's and crossing your
t's is absolutely essential, but the problem for most companies is
that the locations of the i's and t's are counterintuitive in the
realm of IC compliance -- as FedEx and its lawyers found out the
hard way.

FedEx is not alone.  The type of wording that the courts found to
be non-IC compliant within the FedEx IC agreements and policies is
rather commonplace.  For that reason, IC agreements and policies
created by many companies will continue to be thrown back in their
faces by class action lawyers and may lead to considerable IC
misclassification liability, which is oftentimes avoidable.

What can large and small companies do to avoid the FedEx
experience?

Just because a company has drafted IC agreements does not mean
they cannot or should not be enhanced.  Evidently, though, FedEx
did not undertake a thoughtful self-critical examination of its
own documentation.  Instead, it appeared to double down on all or
most of its non-IC compliant terms and conditions.

While re-documentation of the IC relationship is not a simple
task, it is readily attainable.  The terms and conditions must be
articulated within an agreement containing state-of-the-art
provisions that are designed expressly for the particular
business.  Empty recitals, qualifications, and misstatements of
how the relationship will be implemented should be avoided.
Reservations should be crafted in an IC-compliant manner.  Form
agreements tend to be ill-fitting for most companies and, while
they look and sound like good legal writing, are all too often
turned around and used against the company by class action lawyers
who specialize in this area of the law and know what to look for.

Merely re-documenting the agreement, however, is not enough.
Companies should also examine closely the manner in which they
implement the IC relationship, ensuring that it is carried out in
a manner consistent with the IC agreement -- and not at
cross-purposes.  This is one of the fallacies noted by the Ninth
Circuit when it relied not only on the inartfully drafted IC
agreement but also policies and procedures that apply to all ICs
and undermined the independent nature of the independent
contractor relationship.

How can this type of re-documentation and re-implementation be
accomplished in an IC-compliant manner? Some businesses have
chosen to use IC Diagnostics(TM), which creates thorough,
practical, and sustainable documentation, customized to the
particular business and at all times maintaining the key
components of the company's business model using state-of-the-art
provisions that enhance, rather than detract from, IC compliance.


FIRSTCREDIT INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Espinal Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ricky Espinal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FirstCredit, Inc., Case No. 0:16-cv-62539-WJZ (S.D.
Fla., October 27, 2016), alleges violations of the Federal Debt
Collection Practices Act.

FirstCredit Incorporated (FCI) specializes in healthcare services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Daniel Weisberg, Esq.
          WEISBERG & MEYERS LLC
          5722 S Flamingo Road, Suite 656
          Cooper City, FL 33330
          Telephone: (954) 212-2184
          Facsimile: (866) 577-0963
          E-mail: aweisberg@attorneysforconsumers.com


FLOW INT'L: Jan. 20 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Flow International Corporation Shareholder
Litigation:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING
COUNTY

ROBERT ENGLEHART, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHARLES M. BROWN, PATRICK J. BYRNE, JERRY L. CALHOUN, RICHARD P.
FOX, ROBERT S. JAFFE, LARRY A. KRING, LORENZO C. LAMADRID, BRADLEY
D. TILDEN, FLOW INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a Washington
corporation, AIP/FIC MERGER SUB, INC., a Washington corporation,
and AIP WATERJET HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-2-33726-6 KNT

CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE



TO:      ALL HOLDERS OF COMMON STOCK OF FLOW INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION ("FLOW") AT ANY TIME FROM SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 THROUGH
AND INCLUDING JANUARY 31, 2014

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT.  IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.  PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on
January 20, 2017, at 8:30 a.m., before the Honorable Veronica A.
Galvan at the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King
County, Department 21, 401 Fourth Avenue North, Kent, WA 98032
(the "Settlement Fairness Hearing") to determine whether: (1) the
proposed Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement
dated September 7, 2016 (the "Stipulation")1 to settle Plaintiffs'
and the Class' claims in connection with the above-captioned
action (the "Litigation") for $12,750,000 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) to
award Class Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the
Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and
Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice"), which is discussed
below); and (3) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the
Court, as fair, reasonable and adequate.  The Court may adjourn or
continue the Settlement Fairness Hearing without further notice to
the Class.

If you held Flow common stock at any time from September 25, 2013
through and including January 31, 2014, your rights may be
affected by the Settlement of this Litigation.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by writing
to Flow Shareholder Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi
& Co. LLC, P.O. Box 30243, College Station, TX 77842-3243, or you
can download a copy at www.flowshareholderlitigation.com.

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by
submitting a Proof of Claim by mail (postmarked no later than
January 18, 2017) or electronically no later than January 18,
2017.  Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by January 18,
2017 will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your
receiving any of the recovery in connection with the settlement of
the Litigation.  You will be bound by the Settlement and any
judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not
limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of
Claim.

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN
DECEMBER 15, 2016 IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE
REFERRED TO ABOVE.  ALL CLASS MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED
EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT ENTERED
IN THE LITIGATION EVEN IF THEY DO NOT FILE A TIMELY PROOF OF
CLAIM.

Inquiries regarding the Settlement or the Litigation should be
made to a representative of Class Counsel:

         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         Shareholder Relations
         Rick Nelson
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 800-449-4900

Please do not contact Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the
Court.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND/OR THE REQUEST BY CLASS
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES.  ANY
OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO CLASS COUNSEL
AND COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS BY DECEMBER 15, 2016 IN THE MANNER AND
FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

DATED:  SEPTEMBER 29, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE COURT

STATE OF WASHINGTON

KING COUNTY
1 The Stipulation and its exhibits can be downloaded at
www.flowshareholderlitigation.com.


GENERAL MILLS: "Nuez" Class Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to D. Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Yesenia Nuez v. General Mills, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-04731, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota.  The Minnesota District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-03639-SRN-FLN to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from fraud-related claims.

Based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, General Mills, Inc., manufactures
and markets branded and packaged consumer foods worldwide.  The
Company also supplies branded and unbranded food products to the
foodservice and commercial baking industries.


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: December Trial Date Continued Sine Die
-----------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the district court
has issued an order continuing the December 2016 trial date in a
class action lawsuit and a new trial date will be set at a later
date.

The Company said, "In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed
against us in federal court alleging violations of the federal
securities laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
initiated an investigation in connection with our change in
accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and
related disclosures. In the weeks that followed, approximately
twenty similar class actions were filed against us. Several of
those lawsuits also named as defendants several of our present or
former officers and directors. The class action cases were later
consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint,
styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was
filed and served upon us in April 2003. As a result of a
substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case was styled Archdiocese
of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al.
AMSF has changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the Fund).
We settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004."

"In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by
the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and
disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of our 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc., including that we failed to timely disclose the
resulting asbestos liability exposure.

"In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
the Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that we file our motion to
dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August
2005. In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it
granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior
to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other
claims while permitting the Fund to re-plead some of those claims
to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint.

"In April 2006, the Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated
complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the
complaint that had been re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion
in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the
claims against all individual defendants other than our Chief
Executive Officer (CEO). The court ordered that the case proceed
against our CEO and us.

"In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class
certification, and our response was filed in November 2007. The
district court issued an order in November 2008 denying the motion
for class certification. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the district court's order denying class certification.
In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Fifth
Circuit ruling that the Fund needed to prove loss causation in
order to obtain class certification and the case was returned to
the lower courts for further consideration.

"In January 2012, the district court issued an order certifying
the class. In April 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued an order
affirming the district court's order.

"In June 2014, the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and
held that we are entitled to rebut that presumption of class
member reliance by presenting evidence that there was no impact on
our stock price from the alleged misrepresentations. The Supreme
Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded for
further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court decision.

"In December 2014, the district court held a hearing to consider
whether there was an impact on our stock price from the alleged
misrepresentations. On July 27, 2015, the district court denied
certification for the plaintiff class with respect to five of the
six dates upon which the plaintiffs claimed that disclosures
correcting previously misleading statements had been made that
resulted in an impact to the stock price. However, the district
court certified the class with respect to a disclosure made on
December 7, 2001 regarding an adverse jury verdict in an asbestos
case that plaintiffs alleged was corrective. The ruling was based
on the district court's conclusion that the court was required to
assume at class certification that a disclosure was actually
corrective.

"We appealed the ruling to the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit
heard oral argument on the appeal on August 31, 2016. We are
currently awaiting a decision from the Fifth Circuit.

"On October 19, 2016, the district court issued an order
continuing the December 2016 trial date. A new trial date will be
set at a later date. We cannot predict the outcome or consequences
of this case, which we intend to vigorously defend."

Halliburton is a provider of services and products to the energy
industry.


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Appeal on Nichols Case Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Supreme
Court of Alabama has not yet scheduled a hearing on the
plaintiffs' appealed of the dismissal of their class action case.

The Company said, "We have been named as a defendant in a lawsuit
filed March 28, 2003 by several individual stockholders in the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v.
HealthSouth Corp. The plaintiffs allege that we, some of our
former officers, and our former investment bank engaged in a
scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial
position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages. This case was stayed in the Circuit Court on August 8,
2005. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9,
2010 to which we responded with a motion to dismiss filed on
December 22, 2010."

"During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel
indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against us.
Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint
to include additional securities fraud claims against HealthSouth
and add several former officers to the lawsuit.

"On September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs further amended their
complaint to request certification as a class action. One of those
named officers has repeatedly attempted to remove the case to
federal district court, most recently on December 11, 2012.

"We filed our latest motion to remand the case back to state court
on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal court
remanded the case back to state court. On November 25, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed another amended complaint to assert new
allegations relating to the time period of 1997 to 2002.

"On December 10, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds
the plaintiffs lack standing because their claims are derivative
in nature, and the claims are time-barred by the statute of
limitations. On May 26, 2016, the court granted our motion to
dismiss. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the case to the
Supreme Court of Alabama on June 28, 2016. The Supreme Court has
not yet scheduled a hearing on the appeal."


HORMEL: Faces Class Action Over "100 Percent Natural" Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dee Thompson, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Hormel says
a class action lawsuit alleging its products aren't "100 percent
natural" is wrong.

Benjamin Phelps recently sued Hormel Foods in a class action that
alleges Hormel meats and bacon products labeled "all natural" are
not 100 percent natural but contain preservatives and processed
ingredients, contrary to U.S. Food and Drug Administration
guidelines.

A Hormel spokesperson said "The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection
service (FSIS) has specifically reviewed and approved the labels
for Hormel Natural Choice branded products, including scrutinizing
and approving the 'natural- (and) preservative'-related language."

The complaint also states "According to the FDA, [sodium acid
pyrophosphate] does not belong in products making '100 percent
natural' claims, because SAPP is a synthetic substance," Phelps
said.

A 2011 letter to Alexia Foods from the FDA, the plaintiff asserts,
warns that any product containing ingredients which are synthetic
can't be labeled "all natural."

The lawsuit also says, "Over time, Hormel has cultivated and
reinforced a corporate image that has catered to this '100 percent
natural' theme and has boldly placed this claim on its products,
despite the fact Hormel uses synthetic ingredients and
preservatives."

Hormel denies the allegations, stating, "Hormel(R) Natural
Choice(R) products are produced, labeled, and marketed in
conformance with all applicable laws and regulations."

Hormel also asserts the plaintiff's allegations are false.

"We stand behind Hormel Natural Choice products 100 percent,"
Hormel said.  "Hormel Natural Choice deli meats are minimally
processed and contain no artificial ingredients or preservatives,
in accordance with USDA requirements, and that's clearly stated on
the package.  We are confident that this lawsuit is without
merit."

Phelps alleges Hormel violated USDA policy by using ingredients
such as cultured celery powder and lactic acid starter culture.
The complaint alleges "The 100 percent natural claims are false
because the Hormel products contain ingredients that are synthetic
and so heavily processed that they are no longer chemically the
same as the raw ingredients."

The packaging of the meats is deceptive, Phelps says in his
complaint.

"As a consequence of the defendant's unfair and deceptive
practices, the plaintiff and members of the class purchased the
Hormel products under the false impression that, by purchasing
defendant's products, they would be receiving products that were
in fact '100 percent natural' with 'no preservatives,' or products
completely void of synthetic ingredients, preservatives and
genetically modified ingredients," the lawsuit alleges.


HUB GROUP: 93% of California Drivers Accept "Robles" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hub Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that as of September
30, 2016, 93% of the California drivers have accepted the
settlement offers.

On January 25, 2013, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento Division)
by Salvador Robles against our subsidiary, Comtrak Logistics,
Inc., now known as Hub Group Trucking, Inc.  Mr. Robles drove a
truck for Hub Group Trucking in California, first as an
independent contractor and then as an employee.  The action was
brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former
California-based truck drivers for Hub Group Trucking who were
classified as independent contractors, from January 2009 to August
2014.  The complaint alleges Hub Group Trucking has misclassified
such drivers as independent contractors and that such drivers were
employees.  The complaint asserts various violations of the
California Labor Code and claims that Hub Group Trucking has
engaged in unfair competition practices.  The complaint seeks,
among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief,
compensatory damages and attorney's fees.

In May 2013, the complaint was amended to add similar claims based
on Mr. Robles' status as an employed company driver.  These
additional claims are only on behalf of Mr. Robles and not a
putative class.

The Company believes that the California independent contractor
truck drivers were properly classified as independent contractors
at all times.  Nevertheless, because lawsuits are expensive, time-
consuming and could interrupt our business operations, Hub Group
Trucking decided to make settlement offers to individual drivers
with respect to the claims alleged in this lawsuit, without
admitting liability.

As of September 30, 2016, 93% of the California drivers have
accepted the settlement offers.

In late 2014, Hub Group Trucking decided to convert its model from
independent contractors to employee drivers in California.  In
early 2016, Hub Group Trucking closed its operations in Southern
California.

On April 3, 2015, the Robles case was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western
Division) in Memphis.  In May 2015, the plaintiffs in the Robles
case filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") which names 334
current and former Hub Group Trucking drivers as "interested
putative class members."

In addition to reasserting their existing claims, the SAC includes
claims post-conversion, added two new plaintiffs and seeks a
judicial declaration that the settlement agreements are
unenforceable.  In June 2015, Hub Group Trucking filed a motion to
dismiss the SAC and on July 19, 2016, Hub Group Trucking's motion
to dismiss was granted in part, and denied in part, by the
District Court.  The motion to dismiss was granted for the claims
of all purported class members who have signed settlement
agreements and on plaintiffs' claims based on quantum merit and it
was denied with respect to federal preemption and choice of law.

On August 11, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to clarify whether
the Court's dismissal of the claims of all purported class members
who signed settlement agreements was with or without prejudice
and, if the dismissal was with prejudice, Plaintiffs moved the
Court to revise and reconsider the order.


HUB GROUP: San Bernardino Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------
Hub Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the state court in
San Bernardino County, California, has issued an oral tentative
ruling denying Defendants' motion to dismiss based on choice of
forum and asked for supplemental briefing regarding individual
liability under the Private Attorneys General Act.

On August 5, 2015, the Plaintiffs' law firm in the Robles case
filed a lawsuit in state court in San Bernardino County,
California on behalf of 63 named Plaintiffs against Hub Group
Trucking and five Company employees.  The lawsuit alleges claims
similar to those being made in the Robles class action and seeks
monetary penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act.  Of
the 63 named Plaintiffs, at least 58 of them previously accepted
the settlement offers.

On October 29, 2015, Defendants filed a notice of removal to
remove the case from state court in San Bernardino to federal
court in the Central District of California. On November 19, 2015,
Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to federal court in
Memphis, Tennessee and also filed a motion to dismiss the case
pursuant to a clause in the independent contractor agreement
stating that Tennessee law applies.

Also on November 19, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
case back to state court, claiming that the federal court lacks
jurisdiction over the case.

The court granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand to the state court
in San Bernardino County on April 7, 2016, mooting Defendants'
motions to transfer and dismiss.

On July 11, 2016, Defendants filed several motions in state court,
asking the court to dismiss and/or stay the Plaintiffs' suit for
various reasons.  At a hearing on October 5, 2016, the judge
issued an oral tentative ruling denying Defendants' motion to
dismiss based on choice of forum and asked for supplemental
briefing regarding individual liability under PAGA.


HUB GROUP: Lubinski Parties Agree to Stay Illinois & Tenn. Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hub Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in the
Lubinski class action have agreed to stay all proceedings in
Illinois and Tennessee state court until the federal court
jurisdiction question is decided.

On September 12, 2014, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) by
Christian Lubinski against Hub Group Trucking.  The action was
brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former
owner-operators providing delivery services in Illinois for Hub
Group Trucking.  The complaint alleged Hub Group Trucking
misclassified such drivers as independent contractors and that
such drivers were employees.  The complaint also alleged that Hub
Group Trucking made illegal deductions from the drivers' pay and
failed to properly compensate the drivers for all hours worked,
reimburse business expenses, pay employment taxes, and provide
workers' compensation and other employment benefits.  The
complaint asserted various violations of the Illinois Wage Payment
and Collections Act and claimed that Hub Group Trucking was
unjustly enriched.  The complaint sought, among other things,
monetary damages for the relevant statutory period and attorneys'
fees.

On October 24, 2014, the Lubinski case was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western
Division), in Memphis.  On September 22, 2015, the court granted
Hub Group Trucking's motion to dismiss Lubinski's Illinois law
claims with prejudice based on the contractual choice of law
provision, which provided that Tennessee law governed.  The court
denied as moot Hub Group Trucking's motion to dismiss based on
federal preemption.  On October 2, 2015, Lubinski appealed this
order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
in Cincinnati.

On December 17, 2015, Lubinski filed his brief in support of his
appeal of the motion to dismiss, asserting for the first time that
the federal court did not have jurisdiction over the case due to a
lack of diversity of citizenship.  Hub Group Trucking filed its
response brief on January 19, 2016, in part arguing that Lubinski
had himself alleged diversity of citizenship in his complaint.
Lubinski filed his reply brief on February 5, 2016.  On April 1,
2016, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case to the district court --
without ruling on the merits -- for the district court "to
consider the argument and admit the evidence necessary to
determine the question of federal subject-matter jurisdiction."

On July 11, 2016, with his federal district court case still
pending, Lubinski filed an additional putative class action
Complaint, with the same claims, in Illinois state court.  On the
same day, Hub Group Trucking filed a declaratory judgment
complaint in Tennessee state court, seeking a declaration that
Lubinski's claims must be heard in Tennessee (based on the
contractual choice-of-forum provision) and that the claims must be
dismissed because Tennessee law controls and Lubinski's claims are
preempted by federal law.  The parties agreed to stay all
proceedings in Illinois and Tennessee state court until the
federal court jurisdiction question is decided.


IBJ BOOK: Seeks Damages Against Class Action Attorneys
------------------------------------------------------
Emily Maher, writing for WLKY News, reports that the book that
sparked an investigation into a sex scandal involving the
University of Louisville men's basketball program is now at the
center of a federal lawsuit.

The attorneys representing the book's publisher IBJ Book
Publishing, LLC and co-author Dick Cady are suing two attorneys,
claiming more than $150,000 in damages.

IBJ Book Publishing and Cady, are asking a federal court to award
them compensatory damages they feel are owed to them by attorneys
Nader Shunnarah and John White as a result of a class action
lawsuit.

The federal lawsuit, filed by Aaron Silletto in the United States
District Court Western District of Kentucky, claims the attorneys
abused the judicial process and implemented a wrongful use of
civil proceedings.

Last fall, several University of Louisville students, represented
by Messrs. Shunnarah and White, sued IBJ Book Publishing and co-
authors Katina Powell and Dick Cady, claiming the book "Breaking
Cardinal Rules" lessened the value of their degrees from the
University of Louisville.

Later that year, several women named in the book joined the class
action lawsuit, claiming their reputations had been damaged by the
information published in the book.

According to the federal lawsuit, in April of this year, the
Jefferson Circuit Court "recognized that the students' claims
would 'drastically expand the avenues of civil liability and
recovery in the Commonwealth of Kentucky,' and that their
'putative claim has heretofore not been recognized by Kentucky
courts,'" and dismissed the students claims.

In the federal lawsuit, the publisher's attorneys claim
Messrs. Shunnarah and White were "motivated by the desire to
extort a monetary settlement and gain notoriety for their clients
and themselves," when filing the class action lawsuit.

They go on to claim the students and their attorneys "did not
reasonably believe the facts they alleged in support of the
students' claims."

A summons was issued for Mesrs. Shunnarah and White on Oct. 20.

They have 21 days to respond.

According to the summons, should Messrs. Shunnarah and White fail
to respond, "judgment by default will be entered against (them)
for the relief demanded in the complaint."


IC SYSTEM: Wise's Bid to Certify Class to Be Heard December 20
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on October 26, 2016, in the case
captioned Rochelle Wise v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
09752 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable
Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Motion hearing was held on October 26, 2016; and

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and
      continued to December 20, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=G0UPmkug


INDIANA: Class Action Against DCS Over Caseload Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Covington, writing for The Indiana Lawyer, reports that
an employee of the Department of Child Services can continue in
her complaint that alleges violations of the state-mandated
caseload maximums despite a ruling that the employee has no
private right of action under Indiana Code.

Appellant Mary Price is currently an employee of the Marion County
Department of Child Services as a permanency worker, a position
that, under Indiana statute, has a caseload limited to 17
children.  However, Ms. Price's caseload has consistently exceeded
that limit for the past four years, rising as high as roughly 43
children and resulting in a work week that regularly exceeds 40
hours.

As a result, Ms. Price filed a class-action complaint in July 2015
seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and requesting that the
court enter an order mandating or enjoining DCS to take steps to
comply with the state-mandated caseload restrictions.

DCS subsequently filed a motion to dismiss and testified at a
hearing on that motion that mandate was not appropriate because
Price could remedy the situation through Indiana's Civil Service
Complaint procedure.  The Marion Superior Court granted DCS'
motion to dismiss, concluding that no private right of action
existed under Indiana Code because the protections included in the
statute are for the benefit of the general public while also
agreeing with DCS' claim that the members of the class could seek
remedy through a civil service complaint.

Ms. Price appealed, arguing that state statute did offer a private
cause of action because enforcing more management caseloads for
DCS employees would lower the risk of "burnout" among the
employees, thus offering a "clear and identifiable private benefit
on the (employees)."

However, the Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed on Oct. 25 with
that logic.  The implementation of caseload requirements was
intended to protect members of the public through consistent,
efficient and effective DCS services, the court wrote.  Thus,
there is no private cause of action through that statute.

The appellate court also held on Oct. 25 that as a member of the
general public, Ms. Price could prevail on the statute through the
public standing doctrine.  Further, even though the Civil Service
Complaint procedure exists, the court noted that Price's complaint
fell outside of the boundaries of that procedure.

Thus, the appellate court rejected DCS' argument that mandate was
inappropriate and instead decided that the statute imposes "a
clear, absolute and imperative duty on DCS to comply with maximum
caseload standards as determined by the legislature."  Thus, the
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision to dismiss
Price's complaint with respect to the mandate and instead remanded
the case for further proceedings.

Judge James Kirsch concurred with the panel's decision that
Ms. Price does not have a private right of action, but dissented
on the panel's ruling in regard to the mandate, writing in a
separate opinion that the Indiana Civil Service Complaint
Procedure was an adequate remedy that Price failed to exhaust and,
thus, the appellate court should not reach the issue of whether
there is a public right of action under the statute.

Judge Margret Robb concurred in result with the mandate ruling,
writing that the appellate court is not in a position to say
whether the Indiana Civil Service Complaint procedure was an
"adequate" remedy.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, which brought the
lawsuit against DCS on behalf of Price and other case managers,
released a statement on Oct. 25, saying it is pleased with the
ruling.

"The vital societal importance of the services provided by DCS
case managers cannot be overstated," Ken Falk, legal director of
ACLU of Indiana said.  "I am happy that we will be giving the
opportunity to demonstrate to the trial court that the caseload
standards that are essential for the case managers to perform
their jobs are not being met."

DCS spokesperson Jeannie Keating said the department would confer
with the attorney general on its next steps in the case.

The case is Mary Price, on her own behalf and on behalf of a class
of those similarly situated v. Indiana Department of Child
Services; Director, Indiana Department of Child Services, 49A05-
1602-PL-380.


INFINITY ENERGY: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that individuals have filed a class-action lawsuit against
Infinity Energy Inc., a California company, citing alleged
invasion of privacy and violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Patrick Cross filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated on Oct. 10, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California against Infinity Energy
Inc. alleging that the California company violated TCPA through
intrusive and unwanted calls.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that, on Oct.7,
Patrick Cross received a call on his cellular telephone from the
defendant, at first using an automatic telephone dialing system
(ATDS) or an artificial or prerecorded voice until he was
transferred to a live agent who offered ways to save on
electricity, which was clearly a marketing strategy, thereby
causing plaintiff and class members to suffer from invasion of
their privacy, nuisance and incurred expenses including incoming
call charges and counsel fees.

The plaintiffs hold Infinity Energy Inc. responsible because the
defendant allegedly contacted plaintiffs despite not acquiring
prior expressed consent to call and invaded upon the privacy and
peace of the plaintiffs by their persistent calls using an ATDS.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendant, injunctive relief, statutory and treble damages and
other relief the court may deem just.  They are represented by
Joshua Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- and
Kevin Lemieux of Hyde and Swigart in San Diego and Abbas
Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law Group APC in Costa Mesa.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Case
number 3:16-cv-02527


INTELIUS: Faces Class Action Over Publicity Rights Law Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the
operators of Intelius, a website offering and selling personal
information reports, faces a class action complaint alleging
Intelius' products violates Illinois' law governing who can
control that personal information.

Lake Forest resident Michael R. Siegel filed his complaint in Cook
County Circuit Court Oct. 20, targeting Inome Inc., of Bellevue,
Wash., operator of the Intelius.com website.  According to the
complaint, Intelius sells personal information to the general
public and uses people's names and likenesses for third-party
marketing purposes related to its products and services -- all
without the consent of the people whose information constitutes
each report.

In his complaint, Siegel included computer screenshots to show
what happens when conducting a Google search for his own name. The
Intelius page for "Michael Siegel in Lake Forest, IL" was the
first link, and clicking on that link brought up a list of various
people named Michael Siegel, along with "approximate age, location
and possible known relatives."

After clicking on his name, Mr. Siegel said, Intelius displayed a
page with a map containing a marker near his home, partially
redacted email addresses and phone numbers, social media network
access and alias information.  Intelius also offers what
information is available to website users who pay for detailed
reports, advertising data such as "criminal background, record of
bankruptcy proceedings, liens, court judgments, aliases, lawsuits,
marriages, divorces, status as a sex offender and other identity
information."

The site doesn't contact people to verify their information,
Mr. Siegel said, and the process to correct erroneous records is
"laborious."  The absence of content, and the practice of charging
for access to the information, and even the advertising of that
service, constitutes the privacy violation under the Illinois
Right of Publicity Act, per the complaint.

The class would include any Illinois resident whose information
Intelius used "in connection with the sale, advertising or
promotion of Intelius products and services from 2011" to the day
the matter is resolved.  A defendant class would include any
entity in Illinois that "made public use of, or held out the
identity" of any Illinoisan in connection with Intelius' activity.

Mr. Spiegel said Intelius' practice of creating profile pages for
people on its website violates the Illinois Right of Publicity Act
by depriving people of "the right to control and to choose whether
and how to use an individual's entity for commercial purposes."
He also alleged unjust enrichment against Inome and requested an
injunction or restraining order preventing Intelius from any
further violations.

In addition to class certification, Mr. Siegel seeks actual,
statutory and punitive damages as well as legal fees.

Representing Mr. Siegel and the putative class is attorney Larry
D. Drury, of Chicago.


INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, on Oct. 26 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division (Civil Action
No. 1:16-cv-02666) on behalf of all current stockholders of
Interactive Intelligence Group, Inc. in connection with the
proposed sale of the company to Genesys Telecommunications
Laboratories, Inc.

The complaint filed alleges, among other things, that Interactive
Intelligence and the members of its board of directors violated
securities laws by filing proxy solicitation materials with the
SEC that misrepresent or omit material information regarding
Genesys' proposed acquisition of Interactive Intelligence.

If you suffered a loss in Interactive Intelligence you have until
December 27, 2016 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.  The
firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience
representing investors in securities litigation, and have
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders.


J.B. HUNT: 9th Cir. Appeal Remains Pending
------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company is a defendant in certain class-action lawsuits in which
the plaintiffs are current and former California-based drivers who
allege claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, and other items.

The Company said, "During the first half of 2014, the court in the
lead class-action granted judgment in our favor with regard to all
claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals where it is currently pending. The overlapping
claims in the remaining action have been stayed pending a decision
in the lead class-action case. We cannot reasonably estimate at
this time the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may
arise from these lawsuits."


JB MEDICAL: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Schwanke" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James S. Moody, Jr., denied without prejudice the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled
LAWRENCE E. SCHWANKE v. JB MEDICAL MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC.,
MCKESSON CORPORATION, MCKESSON BUSINESS PERFORMANCE SERVICES,
MCKESSON TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, MCKESSON PROVIDER TECHNOLOGIES,
MCKESSON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-12, Case No. 5:16-cv-
00597-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla.).

On September 30, 2016, Lawrence Schwanke filed the class action
against the Defendants, alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.  The Plaintiff filed the Motion to
certify class in tandem with the complaint and well before the
deadline for filing such a motion under Local Rule 4.04(b).  The
Plaintiff's Motion noted that it was filed "to avoid an attempt by
Defendant(s) to moot Plaintiff's individual claims," and indicated
Plaintiff's intent to supplement the Motion after obtaining
discovery.

Judge Moody opines that the Motion is premature and unnecessary to
prevent the harm the Plaintiff seeks to avoid.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EPZK2o5U


JENNINGS, MO: November 24 Deadline Set for Settlement Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The St. Louis American reports that two deadlines are approaching
to apply to receive payment in class action settlements with the
City of Jennings won by ArchCity Defenders and partner firms.

October 28 was the deadline to apply for funds in a settlement
over the illegal collection of warrant fees.  Between 2009-2014,
the City of Jennings illegally charged people fees for issuing
warrants that totaled $531,500.  If you think you are one of
approximately 6,800 people who are eligible members of this class
action settlement, then visit https://goo.gl/rGc5jP to fill out a
claim form or go to ArchCity Defender's office in the second floor
of Christ Church Cathedral, 1210 Locust St. in downtown St. Louis.
The class action, Lampkin v City of Jennings, was filed on behalf
of victims by ArchCity Defenders, Saint Louis University School of
Law and the local Campbell law firm. For more information, call 1-
866-918-0079.

November 24 is the deadline to apply for funds in a settlement
over illegally jailing defendants who could not afford to pay a
fine or court costs.  Between February 8, 2010 and September 16,
2015, Jennings illegally jailed an estimated 2,000 people for this
reason.  If you think you are one of them, then apply at
goo.gl/7Roupk or visit ArchCity Defender's office at 1210 Locust
St.

The class action, Jenkins v. City of Jennings, was filed by with
ArchCity Defenders, Equal Justice Under Law and Saint Louis
University School of Law.


JOS CONCEPT: "Cruz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Agustin Davila Cruz, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Jos Concept LLC, doing business as: B Cafe,
Belgian Brasserie LLC, doing business as: B Cafe, and Skel
Islamaj, Case No. 1:16-cv-08377 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2016), is
brought over alleged denial of overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate B.Cafe with two locations East and West of
New York City's Central Park.  The restaurant serves Belgian
cuisine with an array of customary Belgian dishes and Belgian
beers.


KOCH FOODS: Don Chavas Files Suit Over "Price Fixing" of Broilers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Chavas Mexican Restaurant, Inc., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Koch Foods, Inc.,
JCG Foods of Alabama, LLC, JCG Foods of Georgia, LLC, Koch Meats
Co., Inc., Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Chicken, Inc., Tyson Breeders,
Inc., Tyson Poultry, Inc., Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, Perdue
Farms, Inc., Sanderson Farms, Inc., Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Foods
Division), Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production Division), Sanderson
Farms, Inc. (Processing Division), Wayne Farms, LLC, Mountaire
Farms, Inc., Mountaire Farms, LLC, Mountaire Farms of
Delaware, Inc., Peco Foods, Inc., Foster Farms, LLC, House of
Raeford Farms, Inc., Simmons Foods, Inc., Fieldale Farms
Corporation, George's, Inc., George's Farms, Inc., O.K. Foods,
Inc., O.K. Farms, Inc., and O.K. Industries, Inc., Defendants,
Case: 1:16-cv-09421 (N.D. Ill., September 30, 2016), was brought
for injunctive relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and for
treble damages under the antitrust laws, unfair competition laws,
consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws of the
several States. The case was brought on behalf of all persons and
entities that purchased Broilers from Defendants.

KOCH FOODS, INC. -- http://www.kochfoods.com/-- is an American
poultry processor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
     Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
     Thomas A. Doyle, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 346-2222
     E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
             eaw@wexlerwallace.com
             tad@wexlerwallace.com

        - and -

     Alyson Oliver Esq.
     OLIVER LAW GROUP P.C.
     363 West Big Beaver Drive Ste. 200
     Troy, MI 48084
     Web site: http://www.LegalActionNow.com
     Direct: 248-581-9502
     E-mail: aoliver@oliverlg.com


LABORATORY CORP: Appeal in "Jansky" Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that Yvonne Jansky's appeal from the denial of the class
certification remains pending.

On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco. The lawsuit alleges that the
Defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices, and
violated various other state laws by changing screening codes to
diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting in
customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts. The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as
well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses.

In June 2015, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was
denied. The Plaintiff has appealed the denial of class
certification, and the trial court has stayed the case pending
resolution of the appeal. The Company will vigorously defend the
lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORP: Sandusky Wellness v. MEDTOX Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the Company continues to defend the case, Sandusky
Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al.

On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that on
or about February 21, 2012, the Defendants violated the U.S.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited
facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without
the recipients' prior express invitation or permission. The
lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005
for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and
injunctive relief.

In September of 2014, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
was denied. In January of 2015, the Company's Motion for Summary
Judgment on the remaining individual claim was granted. Plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal.

On May 3, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit issued its decision and order reversing the District
Court's decision which denied class certification. The Eighth
Circuit remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Company
will vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORP: "Davis" Class Suit in Florida Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the Company was served on August 31, 2015, with a
putative class action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory
Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The
complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting
benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit
seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well
as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. The Company
will vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORP: "Bloomquist" Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the Company was served on August 3, 2016, with a
putative class action lawsuit, Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance
Inc., et al., filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
San Diego. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the
California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code
by failing to provide overtime wages, failing to provide meal and
rest periods, failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay
for all wages owed upon termination, and failing to provide
accurate itemized wage statements. The lawsuit seeks monetary
damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, as well as recovery
of attorney's fees and costs. The Company will vigorously defend
the lawsuit.


MASSACHUSETTS: Class Action Challenges Voter Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Zack Huffman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
two voter-turnout organizations and three self-proclaimed
disenfranchised voters have brought a court challenge to a
Massachusetts law that cuts off voter registration nearly three
weeks before Election Day.

The lead plaintiff in the Nov. 1 class action is the Chelsea
Collaborative, named for an economically depressed suburb of
Boston, not the daughter of Democratic presidential nominee
Hillary Clinton.

The complaint says Edma Ortiz, Wilyeliz Nazario Leon and Rafael
Sanchez all missed the Oct. 19 deadline to register to vote.

American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and Ropes & Gray
are representing the would-be voters, Chelsea Collaborative and
MassVote in the action, which is pending in Suffolk County
Superior Court.

The commonwealth's 20-day registration-cutoff law is over 20 years
old. Chelsea Collaborative says the statute has prevented
thousands of potential voters from participating in major recent
political decisions.

"Each election, the consequences for these voters are dire," the
complaint states. "In 2014, it meant missing the opportunity to
vote for a new governor who would not only lead the executive
branch but also appoint five new justices to the Supreme Judicial
Court. In the upcoming election, it would mean being unable to
vote for president and on several important ballot questions,
including charter schools, marijuana legalization and the
expansion of gambling in the commonwealth."

Voters will take to the polls on Nov. 8 to choose either Clinton
or Republican nominee Donal Trump as the nation's next president.

Hoping to participate "in this historic election," the plaintiffs
want the Massachusetts law declared unconstitutional and an
injunction blocking its enforcement.

Rahsaan Hall, director of ACLUM's Racial Justice Program, slammed
the voter-registration law as archaic in a statement.

"Especially in the electronic age, voter registrations can be
processed much faster than 20 days," Hall said in a statement. "In
fact, more than 15 states -- including half the states in New
England -- have established election-day registration. But in
Massachusetts, our nearly three-week 'Voter Cutoff Law' continues
to disenfranchise thousands of voters in every single election."

MassVOTE says the law also causes it a financial strain since it
must split its voter-registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns
into two separate operations.

"We work to promote a culture of active political participation
with an emphasis on historically disenfranchised communities,"
MassVOTE Executive Director Cheryl Clyburn Crawford said in a
statement. "It's so disappointing when citizens get engaged and
excited about civic participation and find out they cannot vote
because of the registration cutoff."

A representative for the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Office
declined to comment.

In addition to the ACLU's Hall, the plaintiffs are represented by
Kirsten Mayer -- Kirsten.Mayer@ropesgray.com -- with Ropes & Gray.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Ruling in Payroll Card Class Action Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that an appeals court has upheld a
judge's decision that the owners of 16 McDonald's restaurants in
Pennsylvania violated state law by paying hourly employees
strictly with fee-laden debit cards.

Luzerne County Judge Thomas Burke Jr. last year granted class-
action status to a 2013 lawsuit by employees who said the payroll
card they were forced to use charged fees for numerous kinds of
transactions.

The three-judge Superior Court panel agreed on Oct. 21 that a
debit card "is not 'lawful money' and is not a 'check'" as deemed
by the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.  The
franchise owners had argued that a debit card was the "functional
equivalent" of a check or lawful money.

After the suit was filed, franchise owners Albert and Carol
Mueller said they would give employees the choice of being paid by
check, direct deposit or payroll card.  A spokeswoman for the
franchise owners said they were evaluating their options.

The Superior Court noted that state lawmakers are still trying to
decide how to regulate debit cards as a form of payment for work.

"The use of a voluntary payroll debit card may be an appropriate
method of wage payment," the court said, but until lawmakers
decide otherwise, "mandatory use of payroll debit cards at issue
here, which may subject the user to fees, is not."

Attorney Michael Cefalo, who represents about 2,400 people in the
class-action suit, said his clients "won a long hard battle."

Representatives for Oak Brook, Illinois-based McDonald's Corp.
didn't immediately return a message seeking comment on Oct. 25.


MCKESSON CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to Stay Suit Pending Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Plaintiffs' motion
to stay class action proceedings until an appeal has been resolved
remains pending.

In July 2015, True Health Chiropractic and McLaughlin Chiropractic
Associates filed a motion for class certification purportedly on
behalf of all persons who were sent marketing faxes that did not
contain proper opt-out notices and from whom the Company and
McKesson Technologies Inc. did not obtain prior express permission
from June 2009 to the present in alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), as amended by
the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005.

On August 22, 2016, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California denied Plaintiffs' motion. On
September 6, 2016, Plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On September 20, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California to
stay proceedings until the appeal has been resolved. Neither court
has ruled on Plaintiffs' motions.


MONTREAL MAINE: Driver, Train Owner Added in Lac-Megantic Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Giuseppe Valiante, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
the conductor as well as the owner of the train that derailed,
exploded and killed 47 people in Lac-Megantic in 2013 have been
added as respondents in a class action lawsuit.

Thomas Harding, Montreal Maine and Atlantic Canada Co. (MMAC), and
Canadian Pacific Railway are now the three official defendants,
according to a Oct. 24 ruling by Quebec Superior Court Justice
Martin Bureau.

About 25 other companies and individuals were once accused in the
class action but they reached a deal with victims and creditors
after agreeing to contribute $450 million to a settlement fund.

Joel Rochon, a Toronto-based lawyer for victims in the suit, told
The Canadian Press that, of the three respondents, "Obviously our
big target here is Canadian Pacific for their role in this
catastrophe."

MMAC is in bankruptcy protection, has no employees and all of its
assets were sold in 2014 to help pay victims and creditors.

Harding, along with two other former MMAC employees, faces 47
charges of criminal negligence causing death in the derailment.

"MMAC has no assets so they are effectively insolvent,"
Mr. Rochon said.  "Harding obviously doesn't have the resources to
compensate the victims here."

They were added to the lawsuit so the court can receive evidence
and documents associated with their involvement in the derailment,
Mr. Rochon said.

"(These two respondents) were the last piece of the puzzle and we
believe they will provide the court with the entire perspective
that is needed," he said.

Mr. Harding's lawyer was not immediately available for comment.

The class action had been stayed pending MMAC bankruptcy
proceedings in the United States and Canada.

Mr. Rochon said the stay was recently lifted, giving him the
opportunity to add MMAC and Mr. Harding to the case, something the
defendants did not oppose.

The $450-million settlement fund was tied to the bankruptcy
protection proceedings for MMAC, which were overseen in Canada by
Andrew Adessky, the court-appointed monitor.

Mr. Addesky said all of the wrongful death claimants have received
compensation and challenges have been settled.

Distribution of economic damage payments has begun and
Mr. Adessky acknowledged some people are still people contesting
the level of funds they received for moral damages.

"I appreciate that from the claimants' point of view they would
like to see their payments made as fast as possible and we are
trying to do that," he said.

"We're cognizant of the fact people have been waiting and are
eager to put this behind them. We will continue to work as fast as
we can to get this resolved."

Aside from the class action lawsuit, Canadian Pacific is facing a
$409-million lawsuit brought forth by the Quebec government
related to the derailment.

It is also dealing with two other claims in the United States
totalling more than US$200 million.

CP maintains it had no responsibility in the disaster because it
handed off the trains to MMAC for the final leg of the journey.

Quebec's $409-million suit is back in court Nov. 8 in
Lac-Megantic, followed by the class action proceedings on Nov. 10
in Sherbrooke.


MURRAY GOULBURN: Faces Milk Price Probe Amid Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Fitzgerald, writing for ABC Rural, reports that despite
multiple inquiries and talk of two separate class actions,
Australia's largest dairy processor Murray Goulburn is yet to face
direct consequences over its actions in the milk price collapse.

But as suppliers and shareholders prepare for the Murray Goulburn
annual general meeting scheduled for Oct. 28, investigations into
the dramatic and retrospective cuts to farm gate milk prices by
Murray Goulburn and Fonterra are ongoing.

At a Senate inquiry into the state of the dairy industry on
Oct. 26, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)
told the committee it expected to deliver a finding on whether
Murray Goulburn was guilty of unconscionable conduct before the
end of the year.

Rural news in your inbox?

Subscribe to get the national headlines of the day.
The ACCC launched the investigation into the conduct of Murray
Goulburn and Fonterra on pricing immediately following cuts to
milk prices earlier this year.

But the consumer and competition watchdog is set to launch a
second, broader investigation into the dairy industry in early
November, once it receives a formal notice and terms of reference
from the Treasurer.

In a statement to ABC Rural, an ACCC spokeswoman said the
investigation into the dairy sector would include:

   -- The nature of competition between processors for the
acquisition of raw milk
   -- The nature of retail pricing arrangements for milk and dairy
products, including the impact of $1-a-litre milk
   -- Commercial relationships between producers and processors
   -- The allocation of commercial risk in the supply chain
   -- The role of collective bargaining in the dairy industry and
its effectiveness
   -- The existence of, or potential for anti-competitive conduct

The Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) is also
conducting its own investigation into dairy processor conduct.

Although ASIC could not confirm whether it was investigating
Murray Goulburn, the corporate regulator also made a submission to
the Senate dairy inquiry.

ASIC senior executive of markets enforcement Chris Savundra told
the Senate committee that ASIC was reviewing Murray Goulburn
financial reports as well as allegations of misleading and
deceptive conduct.

Class actions seek to deem practices unlawful

Victorian law firms Adley Burstyner and Hardwood Andrews are
continuing to build a class action case against Murray Goulburn
and Fonterra.

The lawyer leading the action, David Burstyner said he was
confident he had "a winnable case".

But Mr. Burstyner said he believed his efforts were being
undermined.

He said potential participants in the class action were being
discouraged by rumours warning farmers off joining the action.

"We heard that somebody from MG was telling a farmer [we are
charging] $80,000 and we're in league with [rival dairy processor]
Bega," Mr. Burstyner said.

"I can tell you in my strongest terms our work is free for
farmers, they will not pay anything up front, and we have had no
contact whatsoever with Bega."

A spokesman for Murray Goulburn denied Mr. Burstyner's claim that
any company field officer or employee had actively lied about his
class action to suppliers.

Another law firm, Slater and Gordon is also working on a potential
class action on behalf of all current and former investors in the
MG Unit Trust, which was listed on the ASX last year.

A Slater and Gordon spokeswoman confirmed "investigations into a
potential class action were ongoing."


MYLAN INC: Lanier Law Firm Files EpiPen Injectors Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lanier Law Firm on Oct. 26 disclosed that a class-action lawsuit
filed against pharmaceutical giant Mylan Inc. seeks damages for
consumers victimized by the company's cutthroat sales and
marketing tactics related to controversial price increases for
Mylan's EpiPen injectors.

The lawsuit filed by The Lanier Law Firm and Sharp Law on behalf
of consumers who have purchased EpiPen injectors charges that
Mylan began a series of aggressive price increases shortly after
it acquired the rights to sell the EpiPen in 2007.  Mylan required
consumers to purchase the EpiPen in pairs and raised the retail
price from $57 in 2007 to more than $600 today, even though
pharmaceutical industry sources estimate each injector can be
produced for less than $30.

"Mylan CEO Heather Bresch knows that good hardworking Americans
will do anything to protect loved ones from a deadly allergic
reaction that could happen at any time," said attorney
Mark Lanier, founder of The Lanier Law Firm.  "This company's
attempt to saddle consumers, insurance companies, Medicare and
Medicaid with the bill for its outrageously overpriced product is
indefensible."

For more information about the lawsuits, visit
www.lanierlawfirm.com.

Mylan closely protects its monopoly on the EpiPen, which delivers
life saving medicine to fend off allergic reactions.  The
company's pricing scheme results in excessive out-of-pocket
expenses for the uninsured and those with high-deductible health
insurance.  Mylan is currently under investigation by the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Securities and
Exchange Commission and state regulatory authorities for its
EpiPen pricing scheme.

The lawsuit, Rosetta Serrano and Shannon Clements et al. vs. Mylan
N.V., Mylan Specialty L.P., is filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas (Case No. 16-2711) on behalf of
potentially thousands of consumers who have purchased an EpiPen.

With offices in Houston, New York and Los Angeles, The Lanier Law
Firm is committed to addressing client concerns with effective and
innovative solutions in courtrooms across the country.  The firm
is composed of outstanding trial attorneys with decades of
experience handling cases involving pharmaceutical liability,
asbestos exposure, commercial litigation, product liability,
personal injuries, maritime law, and sports and entertainment law.

For more information, contact J.D. Cargill at 1.800.723.3216 or
jdc@lanierlawfirm.com


NATIONWIDE INSURANCE: Motion for Rehearing of Class Actions Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal appellate court has denied Nationwide Insurance's request
for a rehearing after deciding in September to side with
plaintiffs in two consolidated class action lawsuits brought
against the company over a 2012 data breach.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in an Oct. 12
order, denied Nationwide's motion for rehearing en banc, or a
rehearing by the full court.

"The original panel has reviewed the petition for rehearing and
concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully
considered upon the original submission and decision of the cases.
The petition then was circulated to the full court," the single-
page order states.

"No judge has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en
banc.  Therefore, the petition is denied."

In the September opinion, designated as unpublished, a majority of
the Sixth Circuit's three-judge panel said it would be
"unreasonable" to expect customers to wait for "actual misuse."

"This is not a case where Plaintiffs seek to 'manufacture standing
by incurring costs in anticipation of non-imminent harm,'" Judge
Helene White wrote for the panel majority. Judge Sheryl Lipman,
for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,
sitting by designation, joined her in the Sept. 12 decision.

"Rather, these costs are a concrete injury suffered to mitigate an
imminent harm, and satisfy the injury requirement of Article III
standing."

The plaintiffs in the cases -- which were consolidated -- appealed
to the Sixth Circuit from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.

Mohammad Galaria and Anthony Hancox brought their class actions,
in the Southern District of Ohio and the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas, respectively, after hackers breached
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company's computer network in October
2012 and stole their personal information, along with more than 1
million others.

In their complaints, the plaintiffs allege claims for invasion of
privacy, negligence, bailment and violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, or FCRA.

More specifically, they argue Nationwide failed to adopt required
procedures to protect against the wrongful dissemination of their
data.

The Ohio federal court dismissed the complaints, concluding the
plaintiffs failed to state a claim for invasion of privacy, lacked
Article III standing to bring the negligence and bailment claims,
and lacked statutory standing to bring the FCRA claims.

The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and leave to amend,
asserting the district court erred in dismissing one of their FCRA
claims.  The proposed amended complaint included a new allegation
that Mr. Galaria discovered three unauthorized attempts to open
credit cards in his name.

The district court denied reconsideration and leave to amend,
concluding the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a clear error of
law, and that the proposed amendment would not cure any
deficiencies in the FCRA claim in any event.

The majority of the Sixth Circuit panel, in its 12-page ruling,
reversed the district court's ruling, concluding the plaintiffs
have Article III standing and the district court erred in
dismissing the FCRA claims for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.  The appeals court sent the case back to the
district court for further proceedings.

The majority, pointing to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Spokeo v. Robins, said the "irreducible constitutional minimum" of
standing consists of three elements: a plaintiff must have 1)
suffered an injury in fact, 2) that is fairly traceable to the
challenged conduct of a defendant and 3) that is likely to be
redressed by a favorable judicial decision.

The nation's high court explained in its May decision that for an
injury to be particularized, it must affect the plaintiff in a
"personal and individual way."  The injury-in-fact also must be
"concrete," which means "real" and "not abstract." But "concrete"
is not necessarily synonymous with "tangible."

"Here, Plaintiffs' allegations of a substantial risk of harm,
coupled with reasonably incurred mitigation costs, are sufficient
to establish a cognizable Article III injury at the pleading stage
of the litigation," Judge White wrote for the Sixth Circuit
majority.  "Plaintiffs allege that the theft of their personal
data places them at a continuing, increased risk of fraud and
identity theft beyond the speculative allegations of 'possible
future injury' or 'objectively reasonable likelihood' of injury
that the Supreme Court has explained are insufficient.

"There is no need for speculation where Plaintiffs allege that
their data has already been stolen and is now in the hands of ill-
intentioned criminals.  Indeed, Nationwide seems to recognize the
severity of the risk, given its offer to provide credit-monitoring
and identity-theft protection for a full year."

The majority said its conclusion is "in line" with two recent
decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Circuit Judge Alice Batchelder took a different position,
dissenting from the majority.

"We need not take sides in the existing circuit split regarding
whether an increased risk of identity theft is an Article III
injury because, even assuming that it is, the plaintiffs have
failed to demonstrate the second prong of Article III standing --
causation," she explained.  "The causation element requires 'a
causal connection between the injury and the [defendant's]
conduct' -- in other words, the injury must be 'fairly traceable
to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of
the independent action of some third party not before the court.'"

Judge Batchelder argues that if Messrs. Galaria and Hancox
suffered injury, it was at the hands of criminal third-party
actors.

The judge, pointing to her dissent, would grant rehearing in the
case, according to the Sixth Circuit's most recent order.

Nationwide filed its petition for rehearing en banc on Sept. 26
-- just two weeks after the Sixth Circuit filed its opinion.

"The divided panel decision in this case conflicts with precedent
of the Supreme Court, this Court, and at least one other court of
appeals on two exceptionally important, frequently recurring
issues of constitutional law: (1) whether an alleged increased
risk of future identity theft resulting from a data breach
satisfies the 'injury-in-fact' requirement for Article III
standing, and even if so (2) whether that injury is 'fairly
traceable' to the defendant's conduct, where the injury results
from the independent actions of third parties not before the Court
-- i.e., the criminal hackers who perpetrated the data breach,"
the company argued in its 14-page motion.

Nationwide contends the legal issues raised by the case have
"serious practical implications" given the frequency with which
data breaches occur in today's increasingly electronic world.

"And although the panel designated its decision as unpublished,
plaintiffs in other jurisdictions are already attempting to use
the decision to water down Article III's standing requirements
elsewhere," the company noted.


NEW YORK, NY: Accused by Disabled in Action of Violating ADA
------------------------------------------------------------
Disabled in Action, a nonprofit organization; Brooklyn Center for
Independence of the Disabled, a nonprofit organization; and Paula
Wolff, Jean Ryan, Edith Prentiss and Dustin Jones, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. City Of New York,
New York City Police Department and James O'Neill, in his official
capacity as Commissioner of the New York City Police Department,
Case No. 1:16-cv-08354-VEC (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2016), alleges
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The City of New York is a city in the state of New York headed by
Mayor Bill de Blasio.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michelle Anne Caiola, Esq.
          Rebecca Juliet Rodgers, Esq.
          DISABILITIES RIGHT ADVOCATES
          675 Third Avenue, Suite 2216
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 644-8644
          Facsimile: (212) 644-8636
          E-mail: mcaiola@dralegal.org
                  rrodgers@dralegal.org

               - and -

          Sid Wolinsky, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          2001 Center Street, 4th floor
          Berkley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 665-8644
          Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
          E-mail: swolinsky@dralegal.org


NEW YORK CITY, NY: Asks Court to Redefine Class in "Pfeffer" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Lippin, Esq., Assistant Corporation Counsel of New York
City, sent a letter to the Honorable Raymond J. Dearie on behalf
of the New York City Department of Finance and its commissioner,
Jacques Jiha, in response to the Court's Memorandum & Order dated
September 30, 2076, which granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the lawsuit styled Clarice Pfeffer, et al. v. New
York City Department of Finance, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03547-
RJD-LB (E.D.N.Y.).

At the outset, the Defendants join the Court in its questioning of
"the necessity of seeking [class] certification" when it is clear
that DOF has been working both on its own and with the Plaintiffs'
counsel in earnest to address the Plaintiffs' concerns, Ms. Lippin
asserts.  She notes that the Court clearly noted that any changes
to DOF's policies or procedures will be applied to all applicants
and recipients of the rent freeze program ("RFP"), such that a
class is of no import.

Accordingly, DOF suggests the following modification of the
Court's proposed class definition:

     All New York City residents with disabilities, as defined by
     the Americans with Disabilities Act, who were, or could have
     been eligible for the New York City Rent Freeze Program
     since December 2017, and whose disability impacted their
     ability to timely file a renewal or other application such
     that their RFP benefits lapsed or were terminated.

A copy of the Letter is available at no charge
athttp://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5hWXKU82

The Defendants are represented by:

          Louise Lippin, Esq.
          ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL
          THE CITY OF NEW YORK, LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2178
          Facsimile: (212) 791-9714
          E-mail: llippin@law.nyc.gov


NEWS CORP: $244MM Settlement Granted Final Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in Manhattan approved a $244 million settlement in
a class-action lawsuit claiming a News Corp. subsidiary
monopolized the market for in-store promotions.

Calling the settlement "fair, reasonable, and adequate", U.S.
District Judge William Pauley granted final approval of the deal
in October 31, along with $48 million in attorneys' fees and $7.5
million in expenses.

Pauley also added incentive awards in the amount of $50,000 each
to plaintiffs Henkel Consumer Goods, formerly Dial Corporation,
Kraft Heinz Foods, Foster Poultry Farms, Smithfield Foods, HP Hood
LLC and BEF Foods.

The settlement provides that News Corp. and its subsidiaries will
pay $244 million into a common settlement fund to be distributed
on a pro-rata basis to the class members, determined by the amount
of in-store promotions purchased by each plaintiff during the
class period.

Lead plaintiff Dial Corporation filed its class-action lawsuit
against News Corp. and its subsidiaries News America, News America
Marketing FSI, and News America Marketing In-Store Services in
2012, in Eastern Michigan federal court.

Dial and the other plaintiffs accused Rupert Murdoch's news empire
of a 20-year scheme to suppress the promotion of "a massive number
of consumer goods in forty thousand retail stores, and scores of
newspapers nationwide, to acquire and maintain two unlawful
monopolies and earn large monopoly profits at the expense of its
purchasers."

In September 2013, the case was transferred to the Southern New
York, where Pauley granted class certification in June 2015.

News Corp. announced the settlement on Feb. 29 of this year,
ending a trial seeking $674.6 million in damages, which could have
ballooned to $2 billion under federal antitrust law.

The media giant said in a statement at the time that it denied any
wrongdoing by subsidiary News America Marketing.

"We are pleased to have concluded this settlement, which allows us
to avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigating this
matter," News Corp. said. "While we had full confidence in our
case, we believe this decision is in the best interests of our
company and stockholders."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs had initially sought $73.2 million in
fees, or 30 percent of the settlement fund. Pauley took umbrage at
the counsel's "bloated billing," which he says was "saturated by
excessive partner time and timekeeper rates." The judge adjusted
the attorneys' fees down to $48 million.

Pauley acknowledged in October 31, ruling that the News Corp.
defendants are "part of a multi-billion dollar conglomerate
recognized as one of the world's largest and most powerful
enterprises."

"Although they have now resolved this action through a $244
million settlement, the notion that Defendants could withstand a
judgment in the amount of Plaintiffs' damages estimate is not far-
fetched," the judge wrote in his 26-page opinion.

The settlement includes several forms of structural relief
designed to protect the class of plaintiffs against the
anticompetitive conduct alleged in their complaint.

Such relief includes preventing News Corp. and its subsidiaries,
for the next five years, from entering into any exclusive in-store
promotions contracts with a retailer for a term longer than 30
months, other than to meet competition or at the written request
of the retailer.

The settlement agreement also stipulates that the defendants
cannot prohibit retailers from disclosing the termination dates of
their in-store promotions contracts to prospective competitors.

The plaintiffs were represented in the case by R. Stephen Berry of
Berry Law PLLC in Washington, D.C.

The case is captioned, DIAL CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs,
against NEWS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants., 13cv6802
(S.D.N.Y.).


OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Underwriters' Motion to Dismiss Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a motion to
dismiss filed by the underwriter defendants is currently pending
before the Court.

On October 21, 2015, plaintiff Enrico Vaccaro, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York, on behalf of purchasers of New Source Energy Partners,
L.P. ("NSLP") 11% Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Units
("NSLP Complaint"). Plaintiff named as defendants NSLP, as well as
certain officers and directors of NSLP, and underwriters
Oppenheimer, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc., Robert W. Baird &
Co. Inc., Janney Montgomery Scott LLC, and Wunderlich Securities,
Inc. Plaintiff alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act pursuant to and/or traceable to NSLP's
prospectus supplement and accompanying prospectus, filed with the
SEC on May 7, 2015, and the base prospectus and shelf registration
statement filed with the SEC and declared effective on April 21,
2014 ("NSLP Offering Documents").

The NSLP Complaint alleged that the NSLP Offering Documents failed
to disclose certain cash flow problems facing NSLP and sought
damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On or
around November 13, 2015, the defendants removed the state court
action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("SDNY").

On or around March 30, 2016, NSLP filed with the SDNY notice of
its March 15, 2016 voluntary petition for relief under chapter 7
title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which operates as
an automatic stay of the claims as to NSLP.

On June 20, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint ("NSLP Amended Complaint"), which seeks unspecified
damages, including interest, punitive and exemplary damages, as
well as rescission. Underwriter defendants, including Oppenheimer,
believe they have meritorious defenses to the NSLP Amended
Complaint. A motion to dismiss filed by the underwriter defendants
on August 19, 2016 is currently pending before the Court.

Underwriter defendants, including Oppenheimer, believe they have
meritorious defenses to the NSLP Amended Complaint and intend to
defend themselves vigorously.

Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. ("OPY") is incorporated under the laws
of the State of Delaware. The condensed consolidated financial
statements include the accounts of OPY and its subsidiaries
(together, the "Company"). The Company engages in a broad range of
activities in the financial services industry, including retail
securities brokerage, institutional sales and trading, investment
banking (both corporate and public finance), research, market-
making, trust services, and investment advisory and asset
management services.


OPUS BANK: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on Oct. 27 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of persons and entities that acquired Opus Bank ("Opus"
or the "Company") securities between July 28, 2014, and October
17, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice, to serve
as lead plaintiff.  Please contact Lesley Portnoy at 888-773-9224
or 310-201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this
matter.

The complaint filed in this action 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: (1) that certain of the Company's loans
were of poor quality; (2) that the Company was over-representing
the quality of the loans to the public; (3) that, as such, the
Company failed to properly account for the loans in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (4) that, as a
result, the Company would be forced to recognize large charge-offs
associated with the loans; (5) that the Company lacked adequate
internal controls over accounting and financial reporting; and (6)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about Opus's business, operations, and prospects, were
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of Opus during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff.  To be a member
of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100,
Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com


PHILLIP KNOWLES: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that an employee has filed a class-action lawsuit against Phillip
Knowles, dba Ceramic & Stone Design, an employer, citing alleged
unpaid wages and violation of workers compensation acts.

Pedro Morfin-Arias filed a complaint on behalf of other similarly
situated employees on Oct. 23, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against Phillip Knowles, dba
Ceramic & Stone Design alleging that the employer failed to pay
fair compensation to the plaintiff for his work.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he worked
for more than 40 hours without being paid any overtime
compensation.  The plaintiff holds Phillip Knowles, dba Ceramic &
Stone Design responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to
pay plaintiff any overtime premium for hours worked that exceeds
40 hours per week.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory and
economic damages, liquidated damages, unpaid overtime wages,
unpaid minimum wages, interest, restitution, exemplary damages,
all legal fees and interest and any other relief as this court
deems just.  He is represented by Robert David Baker of Robert
David Baker, Inc. in San Jose.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 5:16-cv-06114


PICTURE PERFECT: Dang Suit to Recover Overtime, Missed Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dinh Dang, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Picture Perfect Installation, Inc. and Does 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC639056 (Cal. Super., October 31,
2016), seeks unpaid wages and overtime compensation, unpaid rest
and meal period compensation, penalties and other equitable
relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Orders.

Picture Perfect is a California corporation which provides
television, internet and phone installation services throughout
southern California. Dang worked as a technician for the
Defendants.

Plaintiff is represented by:

James R. Hawkins, Esq.
      Isandra Y. Fernandez, Esq.
      JAMES HAWKINS APLC
      9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Tel: (949) 387-7200
      Fax: (949) 387-6676


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Court Dismissed ERISA Action
---------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 25, 2016, that a District
Court has adopted the report and recommendations and granted the
defendants' motion dismissing an ERISA class action complaint.

The Company said, "Claims have been brought against certain
current and former directors, executive officers and employees of
the Company, the Pilgrim's Pride Administrative Committee and the
Pilgrim's Pride Pension Committee seeking unspecified damages
under section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec.1132. These claims were brought
by individual participants in the Pilgrim's Pride Retirement
Savings Plan, individually and on behalf of a putative class,
alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to plan
participants and beneficiaries or otherwise violated ERISA.
Although the Company is not a named defendant in these claims, our
bylaws require us to indemnify our current and former directors
and officers from any liabilities and expenses incurred by them in
connection with actions they took in good faith while serving as
an officer or director.

"After that motion was fully briefed and argued, on September 9,
2013, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
on grounds that the complaint failed to satisfy the pleading
standards for ERISA employer stock cases. Supplemental briefing on
the defendants' motion ensued between December 2015 and January
2016, with oral argument in January 2016.

"On August 19, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation to grant the defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings. The plaintiffs filed objections with the District Court
on September 2, 2016, and on October 4, 2016, the District Court
adopted the report and recommendations and granted the defendants'
motion dismissing the complaint with prejudice."

The Company is one of the largest chicken producers in the world,
with operations in the United States ("U.S."), Mexico and Puerto
Rico.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: 10 Class Actions Filed Over Broiler Chickens
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 25, 2016, that between
September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, ten purported class action
lawsuits have been brought against Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and
13 other producers by and on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers of broiler chickens.  The complaints, which were filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, seek, among other relief, treble damages for an alleged
conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and increase prices
of broiler chickens from the period of January 2008 to the
present.

At a status hearing on October 5, 2016, the Court held that
plaintiffs' actions were related and that defendants' responses to
the complaints would be deferred until consolidated pleadings were
filed on behalf of each class of plaintiffs.

The Company said, "We believe we have strong defenses in response
to plaintiffs' allegations and intend to contest the action
vigorously.  We cannot predict the outcome of these actions nor
when they will be resolved.  If the plaintiffs were to prevail in
any of these litigations, we could be liable for damages, which
could be material and could adversely affect our financial
condition or results of operations."

The Company is one of the largest chicken producers in the world,
with operations in the United States ("U.S."), Mexico and Puerto
Rico.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: 2 Class Actions Filed by Investors in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Industries Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that since
September 16, 2016, three investors have filed two purported class
action complaints in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota naming the Company and two of its executive
officers as defendants. The plaintiff-investors seek to represent
classes of persons who purchased or acquired Polaris securities
during the time period from February 20, 2015 through September
11, 2016 ("class period"). The complaint alleges that, during the
class period, defendants made materially false or misleading
public statements about the Company's business, operations, and
compliance policies relating to RZR products and product-recalls.
The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint. The Company intends to vigorously
defend the action.


POOH-BAH ENTERPRISES: Marino Wants to Notify VIP's Exotic Dancers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Marino moves the Court for an order allowing notice of
the action captioned JENNIFER MARINO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. POOH-BAH ENTERPRISES, INC.
d/b/a VIP'S A GENTLEMEN'S CLUB and PERRY MANDERA, Case No. 1:16-
cv-09715 (N.D. Ill.), to be sent to VIP's exotic dancers informing
them of their right to opt-in to this case under Section 216(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Marino has brought the case on behalf of exotic dancers, who
have worked for the Defendants and its owner and president, Perry
Mandera, over the last three years.  VIP's is a strip club that
employs exotic dancers to perform striptease and semi-nude dances.
The Plaintiff alleges that VIP's has misclassified these exotic
dancers as independent contractors and, thereby, has avoided
complying with the Fair Labor Standards Act, in particular by not
paying them minimum wage (or any wage) and requiring them to pay
"tip-outs" to ineligible employees, management, and the club
itself.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2jY4honA

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAL, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  apagano@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Bradley Manewith, Esq.
          Marc Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL & DOLAN LTD.
          150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 878-3210
          Facsimile: (312) 878-3211
          E-mail: bmanewith@msiegellaw.com
                  msiegel@msiegellaw.com


POOL CORPORATION: Says Antitrust Class Suits Concluded
------------------------------------------------------
Pool Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the anti-trust
class action suit is now concluded.

The Company said, "A number of purported anti-trust class action
suits were filed against us in various United States District
Courts in 2012.  The cases were transferred and consolidated
before the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation, MDL Docket
No. 2328, in the Eastern District of Louisiana.  The plaintiffs
included indirect purchaser plaintiffs, purporting to represent
indirect purchasers of swimming pool products in Arizona,
California, Florida and Missouri, and direct purchaser plaintiffs,
who are current or former customers."

"On January 27, 2016, the Court granted summary judgment in our
favor on the direct purchasers' horizontal conspiracy claim. On
April 29, 2016, the Court granted summary judgment in our favor on
the direct purchasers' and indirect purchasers' vertical
conspiracy claims.

"On July 1, 2016, the Court granted our motion for summary
judgment on the remaining claims. Other than some minor
administrative matters, this litigation is now concluded."


PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal Over Trojan Class Suit Dismissal Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
plaintiffs' appeal from an order dismissing the Trojan Investment
Recovery Class Actions to the Court of Appeals for the State of
Oregon remains pending.

In 1993, PGE closed the Trojan nuclear power plant (Trojan) and
sought full recovery of, and a rate of return on, its Trojan costs
in a general rate case filing with the OPUC. In 1995, the OPUC
issued a general rate order that granted the Company recovery of,
and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining investment in
Trojan.

Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various
state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law
to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. In
2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon
Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the
OPUC for reconsideration.

In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE
to provide refunds of $33 million, including interest, which were
completed in 2010. Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by
the Oregon Court of Appeals in February 2013 and by the Oregon
Supreme Court (OSC) in October 2014.

In 2003, in two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed in
Marion County Circuit Court (Circuit Court) against PGE on behalf
of two classes of electric service customers. The class action
lawsuits seek damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a
result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers,
of a return on its investment in Trojan.

In August 2006, the OSC issued a ruling ordering the abatement of
the class action proceedings. The OSC concluded that the OPUC had
primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy could be
offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or refunds, for
any amount of return on the Trojan investment that the Company
collected in prices.

The OSC further stated that if the OPUC determined that it could
provide a remedy to PGE's customers, then the class action
proceedings may become moot in whole or in part. The OSC added
that, if the OPUC determined that it could not provide a remedy,
the court system may have a role to play. The OSC also ruled that
the plaintiffs retained the right to return to the Circuit Court
for disposition of whatever issues remained unresolved from the
remanded OPUC proceedings. In October 2006, the Circuit Court
abated the class actions in response to the ruling of the OSC.

In June 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Circuit Court
lifted the abatement and in July 2015, the Circuit Court heard
oral argument on the Company's motion for Summary Judgment.
Following oral argument on PGE's motion for summary judgment, the
plaintiffs moved to amend the complaints.

On February 22, 2016, the Circuit Court denied the plaintiff's
motion to amend the complaint and on March 16, 2016, the Circuit
Court entered a general judgment that granted the Company's motion
for summary judgment and dismissed all claims by the plaintiffs.
On April 14, 2016, the plaintiffs appealed the Circuit Court
dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon.

PGE believes that the October 2, 2014 OSC decision and the recent
Circuit Court decisions have reduced the risk of a loss to the
Company in excess of the amounts previously recorded and discussed
above. However, because the class actions remain subject to
appeal, management believes that it is reasonably possible that
such a loss to the Company could result. As these matters involve
unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential
outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to
determine the amount of any such loss.

Portland General Electric Company is a single, vertically
integrated electric utility engaged in the generation,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
State of Oregon. The Company also participates in the wholesale
market by purchasing and selling electricity and natural gas in an
effort to obtain reasonably-priced power for its retail customers.
PGE operates as a single segment, with revenues and costs related
to its business activities maintained and analyzed on a total
electric operations basis. The Company's corporate headquarters is
located in Portland, Oregon and its approximately 4,000 square
mile, state-approved service area allocation, located entirely
within the State of Oregon, encompasses 51 incorporated cities, of
which Portland and Salem are the largest. As of September 30,
2016, PGE served approximately 863,000 retail customers with a
service area population of approximately 1.8 million, comprising
approximately 46% of the state's population.


PROVIDENCE HEALTH: To Settle ERISA Class Action for $352 Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Becker's Hospital Review's Ayla Ellison, citing Bloomberg BNA,
reports that Renton, Wash.-based Providence Health & Services will
pay nearly $352 million to resolve claims it underfunded its
pension plan, according to Bloomberg BNA.

The class-action suit accused Providence Health of improperly
classifying its pension as a "church plan" exempt from the federal
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which requires pension
plans to have adequate funding to pay their promised benefits.

Providence Health's settlement is the largest in a string of
settlements over the way religiously affiliated hospitals fund
their pension plans, according to the report.

In May, St. Francis Hospital in Hartford, Conn., agreed to pay
$107 million to resolve allegations it improperly classified and
underfunded its pension plan.  Livonia, Mich.-based Trinity Health
inked a $75 million settlement in August to settle similar
allegations.  The Trinity settlement was more than nine times
larger than the $8 million settlement reached by St. Louis-based
Ascension Health in a similar suit in 2015.


PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Faces "Kafatos" Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexios Kafatos, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Publishers Clearing House LLC and Does 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 8:16-cv-01961-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal.,
October 27, 2016), arises from fraud-related claims.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

Publishers Clearing House LLC, based in Port Washington, New York,
operates as a multi-magazine subscription agency.  The Company
offers a wide selection of magazines titles, including travel,
religion and inspiration, and automotive.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas Edward Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: twheeler@toddflaw.com




QBE: Court Orders "Common Fund" in Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Butler, writing for The Australian, reports that law firm
Maurice Blackburn has for the first time convinced a court to
order all those who stand to benefit from a shareholder class
action lawsuit to contribute to the cost of running the action,
rather than having the cost borne only by those who sign up for
the ride.

The Full Court of the Federal Court made the groundbreaking
"common fund" ruling, which will make it much easier to mount
class actions, on Oct. 25 in a $200m lawsuit brought by Maurice
Blackburn against insurer QBE over a shock writedown in December
2013.

Maurice Blackburn principal Brooke Dellavedova said the ruling was
one of the most significant in recent class action history.

"The Court has endorsed this mechanism as a means of promoting
transparency, equality and fairness for group members," she said.

"It is likely to see group members enjoy a lower funding
commission rate, and therefore higher recoveries in class
actions."

The ruling follows an unsuccessful attempt by Maurice Blackburn
last year to get approval for a similar deal in a shareholder
action against failed corporate finance house Allco.

In their ruling on Oct. 26, Judges Bernard Murphy, Jacqueline
Gleeson and Jonathan Beach said a creating a common fund in the
QBE case was "to the benefit of class members and will not cause
any material detriment to their interests".

"The effect of the orders will be to impose the burden of the
legal costs and litigation funding commission costs incurred in
the proceeding equally upon all class members who stand to benefit
from the proceeding, not just upon funded class members," the
judges said.

However, they refused to give blanket approval to funder
International Litigation Funding Partners to charge a commission
of between 32.5 per cent and 35 per cent.

Instead, the rate is to be determined by the trial judge in the
event the class action succeeds or ends in a settlement.

"We make no attempt to bind the Court hearing the relevant
application but in our view it is highly likely that the funding
commission will be approved at a rate lower than 32.5 per cent or
35 per cent," they said.

The judges said establishing a fund was "in the interests of
justice" and consistent with the aims of laws allowing class
actions.

"A common fund approach may be said to enhance access to justice
by encouraging 'open class' representative proceedings as a
practical alternative to the 'closed class' representative
proceedings which are prevalent in funded shareholder class
actions," they said.

A closed class is restricted to clients who sign up to the action,
but an open class is one that includes everyone who might have
been affected by the alleged wrongdoing.

"Further, by encouraging open class proceedings, a common fund
approach may reduce the prospect of overlapping or competing class
actions and reduce the multiplicity of actions that sometimes
occurs with class actions," the judges said.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Oral Argument in Appeal Set for Dec. 5
-------------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that oral argument in a
Securities Class Action appeal is set for December 5, 2016.

The Company said, "On November 19, 2013, a putative class action
complaint was filed on behalf of the shareholders of our Company
other than the defendants against us and certain of our officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California by one of our shareholders. After the Court
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for this action, and
recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818-CJC(JPRx), lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The amended complaint, which
is substantially similar to the litigation described above under
the caption "Hussein Litigation," generally alleges that
statements made to our shareholders regarding our financial
condition and projected future performance were false and
misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that
the individual defendants are liable for such statements because
they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and
attorneys' fees."

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20,
2014, which the Court granted on October 20, 2014, dismissing the
complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's order, which the Court denied on
January 5, 2015.

"On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, captioned In
re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-55173.
Plaintiffs filed their opening brief and we answered. Oral
argument is set for December 5, 2016.

"We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
continue to defend against them vigorously. At this time, we are
unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if
any, related to this claim."

Quality Systems, Inc., primarily through its NextGen Healthcare
subsidiary, provides technology-based solutions and services to
the ambulatory care market in the United States.


REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Plaintiffs Await Ruling on Bid to Amend Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint
remains under consideration by the Court.

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

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

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

On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. Like the prior amended complaint, the second amended
complaint asserts 1933 Act Claims and 1934 Act Claims and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages. The Defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint was filed on April 28, 2015,
the Plaintiffs' opposition was filed on June 12, 2015, and the
Defendants' reply was filed on July 13, 2015.

On March 30, 2016, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety. On May 23,
2016, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third amended
complaint. The Defendants' opposition brief was filed on June 9,
2016, and the Plaintiffs' reply was filed on June 20, 2016. The
motion for leave to amend remains under consideration by the
Court. The Company believes that the claims against it are without
merit and will continue to defend against the litigation
vigorously.

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


RENOVATE AMERICA: Borrowers File Class Suit over Eco Loans
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
California man claims in a class action that the state's
environmentally friendly HERO program inflates interest on home-
improvement loans made to low and middle-income families.

Michael Richardson claims in the 33-page class-action complaint
that defendant Renovate America "overcharges virtually every cost,
fee and amount due from borrowers in the HERO Loan program to
maximize its own profits at the expense of HERO loan borrowers."

HERO is an acronym for home energy renovation opportunity. The
program is designed to give low and middle-income homeowners the
ability to borrow money they otherwise would not have to make
energy-efficient improvements.

The program's website says it partners with local governments to
make "energy and water efficiency upgrades more affordable for
homeowners like you," with up to 25-year terms with "low, fixed
rates" on loans equal to up to 15 percent of a home's value.

Richardson says he and other class members signed up for HERO
loans through lead defendant Los Angeles County.

The homeowner alleges San Diego-based Renovate America offers HERO
loans in at least 48 California counties and could not do so
without the help of Los Angeles County, which promotes the
program.

The HERO program is "comprised of an extremely complex series of
transactions" among Renovate America, Los Angeles County and its
tax collector, investors, and borrowers, according to Richardson's
complaint, which was filed on November 1, in Los Angeles County
Superior Court.

Instead of helping homeowners, though, Richardson says Renovate
America "carries out the HERO loan program by materially false and
deceptive means," including imposing "excessive and unlawful"
closing costs, double-counting fees, imposing unlawful compound
interest and pre-payment penalties, and not crediting installment
payments until well after they are paid.

Richardson claims Renovate America has originated more than
100,000 HERO loans valued at more than $2 billion, and the loans
have "first-lien status over each borrower's pre-existing
mortgage(s)."

Renovate America charges an administrative fee of between 5
percent and more than 7 percent of the loan, which Richardson says
is shared with Los Angeles County.  He says the county and
Renovate America engage in a "pervasive pattern of false,
deceptive and otherwise unlawful practices regarding their
origination and administration of purportedly 'energy efficient'
home-improvement loans."

Compounding the problem, Richardson says, Renovate America does
not provide the state-required disclosures that warn program
participants they could lose their homes. He says one required
disclosure that is not provided reads: "You are not required to
complete this agreement merely because you received these
disclosures or have signed a loan application."

Another omitted disclosure allegedly states: "If you obtain this
loan, the lender will have a mortgage on your home. You could lose
your home and any money you have put into it, if you do not meet
your obligations under the loan."

Renovate America also did not disclose the final annual percentage
rate after determining the final principal amount of their HERO
loans, and its salespeople inflate potential costs to come as
close as possible to the maximum amount homeowners can borrow,
according to the lawsuit.

One such salesperson visited Richardson at his home and told him
he could obtain a HERO loan to cover the estimated $43,159 cost to
replace the roof, windows and stucco on his home, he says.

Richardson alleges he obtained the loan on Sept. 9, 2015, but
Renovate America recorded a note of assessment saying the loan's
principal amount was $48,777.71, not the $43,159 he agreed to
borrow.

In August, Richardson says he asked for a payoff statement, and
the amount indicated is $49,456.53, including the $2,434.01 for
administrative cost, $130 in county fees, and $3,733.52 in
interest.  To pay off the loan, Richardson claims Renovate America
and Los Angeles County demanded he pay interest through Nov. 2,
despite the payoff being valid only through Sept. 26.

"In other words, defendants demanded that plaintiff pay interest
even after his HERO loan was paid off," the complaint states.

Richardson says Renovate America and Los Angeles County "secretly
charge interest twice on the amount of accrued interest added to
the state amount of all the HERO loans from whenever the accrued
interest is calculated until the date of the borrower's first loan
payment."

"Defendants simply inflate the stated amount of each HERO loan by
the amount of accrued interest, and then re-compute interest on
that inflated amount," according to the class action.

Richardson says the "double-counted interest" is not disclosed to
HERO program borrowers or agreed to by them, and is amortized over
the life of the loans and included in pay-off amounts.  He also
says the administrative fee, likewise, is inflated by a
"complicated formula" that is differs from what borrowers are
told, rather than simply on the principal amount.

Instead of paying the stated 4.99 percent administrative fee,
Richardson says he was charged a 5.25 percent fee.

According to the lawsuit, Renovate America and Los Angeles County
credit payments only on July 1 of each year, instead of when
actual payments are made, and understate the estimated annual
percentage rate by not subtracting administrative, recording and
annual assessment fees from the annual percentage rate
calculation.

Richardson says the stated interest on his contract is 8.35
percent, and the estimated annual rate is 9.38 percent, but the
actual rate charged exceeds 10 percent.  He estimates more than
5,000 HERO loans were made to potential class members.

Richardson seeks actual, statutory and additional damages,
disgorgement of wrongfully obtained profits, and injunctive relief
for a conspiracy claim and alleged violations of the Truth in
Lending Act, Home Ownership Equity Protection Act and the
California Business and Professions Code.

Renovate America was not immediately available by phone on
November 3, morning. A contact number listed for the Los Angeles
County HERO loan program rerouted the call to Renovate America.

Richardson and the proposed class are represented by San Diego
attorneys Betsy Manifold -- manifold@whafh.com -- and Rachele
Rickert -- rickert@whafh.com -- of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz. They were also not immediately available by phone on
November 3, morning.


ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Spates Wants to Certify Drivers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sol Spates and Wesley Lewis ask the Court to certify their
proposed class in the lawsuit titled SOL SPATES and WESLEY LEWIS,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals v. ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, INC. and ADRIAN
CARRIERS, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-08723 (N.D. Ill.).  The Plaintiffs
seek certification of this class:

     All persons who have entered into an Independent Contractor
     Agreement individually or on behalf of another entity, and
     personally provided intermodal freight delivery services
     pursuant to that Agreement for Defendants in the State of
     Illinois at any time from October 2, 2005 to the present,
     and who were not classified as employees of Defendants.

The Plaintiffs, who are former intermodal freight delivery drivers
of the Defendants, allege that the Defendants misclassified the
Plaintiffs and at least one hundred more of the Defendants'
Illinois drivers as "independent contractors" and took various
deductions on the Plaintiffs' and the other drivers' pay.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NPN0drn2

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com

               - and -

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


S.C. JOHNSON: Glade Air Freshener Burns Dashboard, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Chown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in Los Angeles, accuses the makers of Glade
scented auto air freshener of selling the stuff though they knew
it can burn a hole in dashboards.

Anthony Succi sued Kraco Enterprises and S.C. Johnson & Son, which
make the Glade Auto Scented Oil Automotive Air Freshener, on
November 1.  Succi says he bought the air freshener in September
and clipped it onto his dashboard air vent, as instructed. Oil and
other substances began then leaked out and burned a hole in his
dash underneath the vent, Succi says.  He claims the manufacturers
have been aware of this defect for a long time, but concealed it
from the public, and refused to reimburse their customers for the
damages. He says the air fresheners have never been recalled and
the public has never been notified.

Kraco Enterprises is headquartered in Illinois, but its principal
place of business is in California. S.C. Johnson is based in
Wisconsin.

According to product literature, the air freshener uses vehicle
air vents to circulate a light pleasant fragrance. The product,
which sells for about $6, is no longer on Glade's online site, but
can still be found on Amazon or at Wal-Mart. According to Amazon,
the device has been available since 2007. It has 10 customer
reviews, and most are positive. One, however, gave the product a
1-star rating.

"I recently bought my daughter her first car, a new model Altima.
She went out and bought a Glade clip on to give it a sweet smell,
I suppose. On my first real car ride with her I noticed something
on her control panel, right under the vents where the radio/cd
controls are. She said, 'Yeah I don't know what that is.' I
quickly realized that what had happened was that the oil in the
plug-in had somehow gotten all over the controls and left this
very hard build up that actually ate through the shiny finish.
She'd moved it to the other vent and when I pulled it off, there
was a hard build up that's absolutely impenetrable underneath
exactly where the glass bottle was resting. I checked to see if
the bottle was cracked. Nope. I checked for leaks. Nope. I don't
know why this happened, but I've gently tried removing all of it
to no avail. I'm pissed! I'm a single mom paying for a shiny new
car and now the control panel looks awful. The glade plug-ins
ruined it. DO NOT BUY THEM. I'd give zero stars if I could."

Succi seeks class certification, restitution and punitive damages
for 11 causes of action, including consumer law violations, unfair
competition, false advertising, unfair trade, common law fraud,
breach of warranty, breach of faith and negligent
misrepresentation.

He is being represented by Richard McCune -- rdm@mccunewright.com
-- with McCune Wright in Redlands, who did not respond to emails
seeking comment. Nor did Kraco Enterprises.


SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL: $107MM Class Action Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in News
Haven, Conn., approved a $107 million class-action settlement over
claims that Saint Francis Hospital mischaracterized a pension plan
and underfunded it by millions of dollars.

The case is captioned, CAROL KEMP-DELISSER, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SAINT FRANCIS
HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL
CENTER FINANCE COMMITTEE, SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL
CENTER RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants., No.
15-cv-1113 (VAB)(D.Conn.).


SAMSUNG: Failed to Recall Other Exploding Devices, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Samsung recalled its Galaxy
Note 7 cellphone for exploding batteries, but did not recall other
similarly dangerous devices, including the S6, S6 Edge, S6 Edge+,
S6 Active, S7, S7 Edge, S7 Active and Note 5, a class action
claims in San Francisco Federal Court.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Note 7 Phones
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that three
consumers are suing Samsung, alleging breach of warranty for
selling defective phones.

John Waudby of Nevada, Robert Spuntak of Pennsylvania and Mohamad
Ibrahim of California filed a class action complaint, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Oct. 16 in U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against Samsung
Electronics America, Inc. alleging failure to provide adequate
replacement units for consumers who had to return their Note 7
phones.

According to the complaint, Waudby, Spuntak and Ibrahim suffered
monetary damages in the form of monthly device and plan charges.
The plaintiffs allege Samsung asked their users to discontinue
using their Note 7 without providing suitable replacements.

The plaintiffs seek trial by jury, actual, general, special,
incidental, statutory, punitive, and consequential damages,
interest, injunctive relief, court costs and any further relief
the court grants.  They are represented by attorneys Joseph G.
Sauder -- jgs@mccunewright.com -- Matthew D. Schelkopf --
mds@mccunewright.com -- and Joseph B. Kenney --
jbk@mccunewright.com -- of McCuneWright LLP in Berwyn,
Pennsylvania, and by Richard D. McCune -- rdm@mccunewright.com --
David Wright -- dcw@mccunewright.com -- and Emily Kirk of
McCuneWright in Redlands, California.

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey Case number
2:16-cv-07334-CCC-JBC


SANMEDICA INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California consumer is suing a Utah manufacturer, alleging false
and misleading advertising.

Paul Martin of Los Angeles County filed a class action complaint,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Oct. 19 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against Sanmedica International LLC of Salt Lake City
and Does 1 through 10, alleging violation of the Business and
Professions Code.

According to the complaint, in 2016, Mr. Martin has suffered
injury and lost money for purchasing Sandmedica's SeroVital-hgh, a
human growth hormone product.  The suit says he relied on the
defendants' claim the product would turn back time with the anti-
aging benefits.

The plaintiff alleges the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the product's ingredients and benefits,
including wrinkle reduction, decreased body fat, stronger bones,
improved mood and heightened sex drive.

Martin seeks trial by jury, an order certifying a class action,
restitution to plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial,
compensation for all damages, plus interest, attorney fees, court
costs and all other relief the court deems necessary.  He is
represented by attorneys Shireen M. Clarckson and Ryan Clarkson
-- rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com -- of Clarkson Law Firm PC in Los
Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:16-cv-07794


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Still Defends Suit by Deka Investment
---------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against the case, Deka Investment GmbH
et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-
cv-2129-K.

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, captioned Steck v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-06942 (the Deka Lawsuit).

On October 6, 2014, another purported securities class action
lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Dallas County, State of
Texas, captioned Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al.,
No. DC-14-11783, which was subsequently removed to the United
States District Court, Northern District of Texas, and re-
captioned Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No.
3:14-CV-3746 (the Kumar Lawsuit).

Both the Deka Lawsuit and the Kumar Lawsuit were brought against
the Company, certain of its current and former directors and
executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in the Company's IPO on behalf of a class consisting
of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014.

In February 2015, the Kumar Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice. In June 2015, the venue of the Deka Lawsuit was
transferred to the United States District Court, Northern District
of Texas. In September 2015, the court granted a motion to appoint
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and the Deka Lawsuit is now
captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.

The amended class action complaint in the Deka Lawsuit alleges
that the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus and
certain subsequent public disclosures contained misleading
statements concerning the Company's ability to pay dividends and
the adequacy of the Company's compliance systems and oversight.
The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and seeks damages and other relief.

On December 18, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants
moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint and on June
13, 2016, the motion to dismiss was denied.

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

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. is the holding company for
Santander Consumer USA Inc., a full-service, technology-driven
consumer finance company focused on vehicle finance and third-
party servicing.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Consolidated Parmelee Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against the consolidated case
captioned as Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.

On March 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
Texas, captioned Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.
et al., No. 3:16-cv-783 (the Parmelee Lawsuit). On April 4, 2016,
another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court, Northern District of Texas,
captioned Benson v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al.,
No. 3:16-cv-919 (the Benson Lawsuit).

Both the Parmelee Lawsuit and the Benson Lawsuit were filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and executive officers on behalf of a class consisting
of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016. The
complaints in the Parmelee Lawsuit and Benson Lawsuit allege that
the Company made false or misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts, in prior Annual and Quarterly
Reports filed under the Exchange Act and certain other public
disclosures, in connection with the Company's change in its
methodology for estimating its allowance for credit losses and
correction of such allowance for prior periods in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.
The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seek
damages and other relief.

On May 25, 2016, the Benson Lawsuit was consolidated into the
Parmelee Lawsuit, with the consolidated case captioned as Parmelee
v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783.

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. is the holding company for
Santander Consumer USA Inc., a full-service, technology-driven
consumer finance company focused on vehicle finance and third-
party servicing.


SEQUENOM INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suits Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that prior to the Company's acquisition of Sequenom, between
August 15, 2016, and August 24, 2016, six putative class-action
lawsuits were filed on behalf of purported Sequenom stockholders
(captioned Malkoff v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-
BLM, Gupta v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC,
Fruchter v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02101-WQH-KSC,
Asiatrade Development Ltd. v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-
02113-AJB-JMA, Nunes v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02128-
AJB-MDD, and Cusumano v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02134-
LAB-JMA) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California challenging the acquisition transaction.
The complaints asserted claims against Sequenom and members of its
Board of Directors (the Individual Defendants). The Nunes action
also named the Company and Savoy Acquisition Corp. (Savoy), a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, as defendants. The
complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(e),
14(d)(4) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing
to disclose certain allegedly material information. In addition,
the complaints in the Malkoff action, Asiatrade action, and
Cusumano action alleged that the Individual Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to Sequenom shareholders. The actions
sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the
merger.

On August 30, 2016, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding in each of the above-referenced actions. In
connection with the settlement, Sequenom agreed to make certain
additional disclosures to its stockholders. The settlement is
subject to the entry by the parties into a stipulation of
settlement and customary conditions, including court approval.

On September 6, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating for
all pre-trial purposes the six individual actions described above
under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead
Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, and designating the complaint from
the Malkoff action as the operative complaint for the consolidated
action.

On July 27, 2016, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings
(NYSE:LH), a healthcare diagnostics company, and Sequenom, Inc.
(NASDAQ:SQNM), a pioneer in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)
for reproductive health, announced that they have entered into a
definitive agreement and plan of merger under which LabCorp would
acquire all of the outstanding shares of Sequenom in a cash tender
offer for $2.40 per share, or an equity value of $302 million,
which represents a total enterprise value of approximately $371
million, including net indebtedness.

On September 7, 2016, Laboratory Corporation announced the
successful completion of the offering period for the cash tender
offer by its direct wholly owned subsidiary, Savoy Acquisition
Corp. (Purchaser), for all outstanding shares of common stock of
Sequenom, including the associated preferred stock purchase rights
(together with the common stock, the Shares).


SERVICE CORPORATION: Samborsky Claims Sent to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
claims in the case captioned, Charles Samborsky, et al,
individually and on behalf of those persons similarly situated, v.
SCI California Funeral Services, Inc., et al ; Case No. BC544180;
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles, Central District-Central Civil West Courthouse, have
been sent to arbitration.

This lawsuit was filed in April 2014 against an SCI subsidiary and
purports to have been brought on behalf of employees who worked as
family service counselors in California since April 2010. The
plaintiffs allege causes of action for various violations of state
laws regulating wage and hour pay. The plaintiffs seek unpaid
wages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, interest, and injunctive relief. The claims have been sent
to arbitration.

"We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this
lawsuit," the Company said.

Service Corporation is North America's largest provider of
deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral service
locations and cemeteries unequaled in geographic scale and reach.


SERVICE CORPORATION: "Vasquez" Claims Ordered to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
claims in the case captioned, Adrian Mercedes Vasquez, an
individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
California Cemetery and Funeral Services, LLC, et al; Case No.
BC58837; in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles, have been ordered to arbitration.

This lawsuit was filed in July 2015 against SCI subsidiaries and
purports to be brought on behalf of current and former non-exempt
California employees of defendants during the four years preceding
the filing of the complaint. The plaintiff alleges numerous causes
of action for alleged wage and hour pay violations. The plaintiff
seeks unpaid wages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, interest and injunctive relief.  The claims have
been ordered to arbitration, with the arbitrator to determine
whether the claims will proceed as a class or individual claims.

In addition, the plaintiff filed an unfair labor practice charge
against defendants with the National Labor Relations Board
alleging that by enforcing a mandatory arbitration provision,
defendants allegedly violated the National Labor Relations Act.

"We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this
lawsuit," the Company said.

Service Corporation is North America's largest provider of
deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral service
locations and cemeteries unequaled in geographic scale and reach.


SERVICE CORPORATION: "Moulton" Suit to Continue Against Unit
------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
case, Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service
Corporation International and others ; Case No. 2013-5636; in the
Civil District Court Parish of New Orleans, will continue against
the Company's subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former
individual directors.

The Company said, "This case was filed as a class action in June
2013 against SCI and our subsidiary in connection with SCI's
proposed acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs
allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by
Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors in negotiating the
combination of Stewart Enterprises with a subsidiary of SCI. The
plaintiffs seek damages concerning the combination. We filed
exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were granted in June
2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer be party to the
suit. The case will continue against our subsidiary Stewart
Enterprises and its former individual directors. We cannot
quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of
damages."

Service Corporation is North America's largest provider of
deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral service
locations and cemeteries unequaled in geographic scale and reach.


STARBUCKS CORP: Baristas' "Phantom Wage" Class Action Remanded
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November 3,
remanded Starbucks baristas' "phantom wage" class action in
Portland, Ore., to state court; the baristas claim Starbucks makes
up tipped wages "out of thin air" and reports it as taxable
income.

The Oregon District Court did not have the authority to grant
summary judgment based on federal tax law, the Ninth Circuit
ruled.

Three Starbucks baristas sued the company in Multnomah County
Court in December 2012, alleging violations of Oregon wage and
hour laws. The lawsuit was removed to federal court, where it was
dismissed.

Lead plaintiff Hannah Fredrickson et al. say the coffee giant
makes up tip numbers "out of thin air" and reports the phantom
wages on their pay stubs and tax forms.

"The employees never report that they have received that amount of
tips to Starbucks -- indeed, Starbucks specifically discourages
its employees from reporting their tips," the complaint states.

"Instead, Starbucks assigns a phantom amount of unreported tips to
each employee -- 50õ for each hour they worked. Starbucks calls
these phantom unreported tips 'imputed tips.' Starbucks just makes
up that phantom number out of thin air and reports that amount on
the employees' pay stubs and Box 1 of the employees' W-2 returns
as a fake amount of tips that it tells them they received and
reported."

the Ninth Circuit said on November 3, that the U.S. District Court
did not have authority to stop Starbucks from withholding state
taxes from baristas' paychecks based on the federal Tax Injunction
Act, which does not allow injunctive or declaratory relief for
state tax collection.

"Granting the declaratory and injunctive relief requested here ...
would reduce the flow of state tax revenue," Circuit Judge Paul
Watford wrote for the panel.

"If the relief were granted, Starbucks would no longer collect the
state taxes in question and would no longer remit those funds to
Oregon's treasury."

Nor did the U.S. District Court have authority to award damages
based on Starbucks withholding of federal taxes, Watford wrote.
The dispute over the tax withholding is an issue of state law and
"there is no federal interest involved in the dispute, which
Oregon's courts are better equipped to resolve."

The panel reversed and remanded.

Circuit Judge Raymond Fisher and Senior District Judge Donald
Walter from the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by
designation, joined Watford on the panel.

The baristas are represented by Jon Egan of Lake Oswego, Starbucks
by Pratik Shah with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.

The case is captioned, HANNAH FREDRICKSON; ASHLEY KRENING;
MAURIALEE BRACKE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
a Washington corporation, Defendant-Appellee., No. 13-36067 (9th
Cir.).


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Abdeljalil" TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the case captioned
as, Abdeljalil et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank, remains pending.

The Bank or the Company is or has been a defendant in a number of
putative class actions alleging claims under the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") as a result of phone calls made
by the Bank. The complaints generally have alleged that the Bank
or the Company placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone
dialing system or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice
without their consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation,
without specifying an aggregate amount.

There is presently only one case outstanding, Abdeljalil et al. v.
GE Capital Retail Bank, which was filed on August 22, 2012 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. In
Abdeljalil, the plaintiffs assert that they received calls on
their cellular telephones relating to accounts not belonging to
them.

On March 26, 2015, the Court entered an order granting class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) (for
damages) and denying class certification under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) (for injunctive relief).

In the first quarter of 2016, the Bank entered an agreement to
resolve the Abdeljalil action on a class basis. Pursuant to the
agreement, a related case (Hofer et al. v. Synchrony Bank, which
was filed on November 4, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri), was dismissed on February 11, 2016.

On June 16, 2016, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.

In addition to the Abdeljalil and Hofer matters discussed, the
Bank has resolved ten other putative class actions that made
similar claims under the TCPA on an individual basis with the
class representative.

Travaglio et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank and Allied Interstate
LLC was filed on January 17, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida and dismissed on October 9, 2014.

Fitzhenry v. Lowe's Companies Inc. and GE Capital Retail Bank was
filed on May 29, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina and dismissed on October 20, 2014.

Cowan v. GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on May 14, 2014 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and dismissed
on July 8, 2015.

Pittman et al. v. GE Capital d/b/a GE Capital Retail Bank was
filed on July 29, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama and dismissed on August 20, 2015.

Dubanoski et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for which the Bank
indemnified the defendant, was filed on February 27, 2015 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
and dismissed on September 1, 2015.

Mintz et al v. Synchrony Bank was filed on December 28, 2015 in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and
dismissed on May 11, 2016.

Deutsche et al. v. Synchrony Bank et al. was filed on March 27,
2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and
dismissed on June 27, 2016.

Ciotti et al. v. Synchrony Financial et al. was filed on April 27,
2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California and dismissed on June 2, 2016.

Johnson et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Synchrony Financial
was filed on April 22, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California and dismissed on September 8, 2016.

Anand v. Synchrony Bank and Synchrony Financial was filed on June
22, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois and dismissed on September 15, 2016.

Synchrony Financial (the "Company") provides a range of credit
products through programs it has established with a diverse group
of national and regional retailers, local merchants,
manufacturers, buying groups, industry associations and healthcare
service providers. We offer private label and co-branded Dual Card
credit cards, promotional financing and installment lending,
loyalty programs and FDIC-insured savings products through
Synchrony Bank (the "Bank"). In November 2015, Synchrony Financial
became a stand-alone savings and loan holding company following
the completion of General Electric Company's ("GE") exchange
offer, in which GE exchanged shares of GE common stock for all of
the shares of our common stock it owned (the "Separation").


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Kincaid Re-Filed Lawsuit in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in addition to the
TCPA class action lawsuits related to phone calls, the Company is
a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit alleging claims
under the TCPA relating to facsimiles. In Michael W. Kincaid, DDS
et al. v. Synchrony Financial, plaintiff alleges that the Company
violated the TCPA by sending fax advertisements without consent
and without required notices, and seeks up to $1,500 for each
violation. The amount of damages sought in the aggregate is
unspecified. The original complaint was filed in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on January 20, 2016.
On August 11, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss based on the lack of personal jurisdiction. On August 15,
2016, the plaintiff re-filed the case in the Southern District of
Ohio.

Synchrony Financial (the "Company") provides a range of credit
products through programs it has established with a diverse group
of national and regional retailers, local merchants,
manufacturers, buying groups, industry associations and healthcare
service providers. We offer private label and co-branded Dual Card
credit cards, promotional financing and installment lending,
loyalty programs and FDIC-insured savings products through
Synchrony Bank (the "Bank"). In November 2015, Synchrony Financial
became a stand-alone savings and loan holding company following
the completion of General Electric Company's ("GE") exchange
offer, in which GE exchanged shares of GE common stock for all of
the shares of our common stock it owned (the "Separation").


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 25
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. securities from
July 3, 2014 through September 9, 2016, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period").

To join the Taro Pharmaceutical class action, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-971.htmlor call
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information
on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) since 2014 Taro Pharmaceutical has colluded with other
pharmaceutical companies to keep the price of generic products
artificially high; (2) the foregoing conduct violated federal
antitrust laws; (3) in turn, Taro Pharmaceutical's revenues during
the Class Period were the result of illegal conduct; and (4) as a
result, Taro Pharmaceutical's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 9, 2016,
Taro Pharmaceutical revealed that its subsidiary and two senior
officers received grand jury subpoenas from the United States
Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, seeking documents
regarding the sale of generic pharmaceutical products.  On this
news, shares of Taro Pharmaceutical fell $4.94 per share or almost
4% to close at $119.42 per share on
September 23, 2016.  On October 17, 2016, NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust
Fund filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against Taro
Pharmaceutical and several other pharmaceutical companies alleging
that they engaged in the price-fixing of Clobetasol since 2014 in
violation of the U.S. antitrust laws.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
December 26, 2016.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to the
firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-971.htmlor to
discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


TESSERA TECH: Shareholders Challenge $850MM DTS Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that shareholders of Tessera
Technologies Inc. brought a class action in Wilmington, Del., to
challenge the semiconductor company's acquisition of DTS Inc., a
Calabasas maker of audio technology, for about $850 million in
cash.


TIMEWARNER: Peng Chan Files New Suit Over MySpace Sale
------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that old claims that tech firms conspired to rig bids and sell
MySpace on the cheap gained new life with a lawsuit that cites
documents uncovered in a separate antitrust case.

Lead plaintiff Peng Chan sued TimeWarner, Google's parent company
Alphabet and News Corp., which acquired MySpace in 2005, in a
federal class action on Oct. 30. He also sued six executives and
employees of various tech and media firms, alleging a conspiracy
to deflate MySpace's value before its acquisition.

Founded in 2003, MySpace was a popular social networking site
until Facebook eclipsed it in users and internet traffic in 2008.

Before it was acquired by News Corp. in July 2005, Chan says,
directors sitting on the boards of companies with conflicts of
interests allowed MySpace's search engine contract with Yahoo! to
expire without seeking new bids.

Chan claims the companies entered into a web of secret pacts to
ensure Google and another search engine company, AskJeeves, would
not bid on the contract until after MySpace was acquired.

Had Google won that contract before the acquisition, Chan says,
MySpace would have sold for much more than $580 million and that
investors in its parent company, Intermix Media, would be $32
billion richer today.

Chan says "critical new evidence" shedding light on the alleged
conspiracy was disclosed for the first time in an antitrust class
action in 2013 and 2014.

That lawsuit, overseen by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San
Jose, claimed that Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe and other tech
firms struck secret deals not to recruit each others' workers. The
case was settled for $435 million last year, including a prior $20
million settlement.

Chan says he and fellow investors in MySpace's parent company had
no idea News Corp. also struck secret, anticompetitive deals until
it was revealed in Koh's July 2014 ruling.

He says the statute of limitations should not apply to his claims
because the defendants concealed their collusive behavior and
continued the scheme by reaffirming their secret, anticompetitive
pacts.

The hefty, 216-page complaint claims Chan and other shareholders
were "victims of a conspiracy led by Google," and coordinated with
AskJeeves' directors, who used their positions on the boards of
MySpace and its parent company to "block any new commercial search
engine contract" until after the acquisition.

Chan also claims that directors of TimeWarner/AOL also used their
positions to ensure that AOL did not bid for MySpace or to take
over search engine services for the social networking site before
it was sold News Corp.

Additionally, Chan says News Corp.'s board of directors used their
power to make sure Google won the exclusive search engine contract
for MySpace after its acquisition.


"Facilitating the scheme was the fact that Google, TimeWarner/AOL,
and News Corporation all shared directors that were partners in
venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield, which is the
largest shareholder in Google," the complaint states.

Chan says News Corp. acknowledged in the 2009 book, "Stealing
MySpace," by former Wall Street Journal reporter Julia Angwin,
that it was "customary in its dealings with Google to make
agreements to suppress competition binding but not written."

He says the complex arrangement was worth tens of billions of
dollars to Google because it allowed the company to take over 50
percent of the U.S. internet search market by 2007.

"Controlling over 50 percent market share allowed Google to begin
charging 2X or higher per click versus all its competitors, and
Google has used this advantage to dominate the paid search
industry ever since," the complaint states.

Chan seeks class certification for all those who invested in
MySpace's parent company, Intermix Media, from October 2003 to
September 2005.  He also seeks restitution, disgorgement, treble
damages and costs of suit.  He is represented by Jared Peterson of
Oceanside, Calif.

Emails seeking comment from Google, TimeWarner and News Corp. went
unanswered on November 2, night.

Last year, a federal judge tossed a similar suit filed by Brad
Greenspan, the former CEO of MySpace's parent company, Intermix
Media, for failure to prosecute.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: 3 Class Suits Pending Over ET Plus
------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is
aware of three class action lawsuits involving claims pertaining
to the ET Plus.

The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 26, 2014,
titled Hamilton County, Illinois and Macon County, Illinois,
Individually and on behalf of all Other Counties in the State of
Illinois vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway
Products, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-1320 (Southern District of
Illinois). This complaint was later amended to substitute St.
Clair County, Illinois for Hamilton County as a lead plaintiff and
to expand the proposed class. The case is being brought by
plaintiffs for and on behalf of themselves and the other 101
counties of the State of Illinois and on behalf of cities,
villages, incorporated towns, and township governments of the
State of Illinois. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and
Trinity Highway Products made a series of un-tested modifications
to the ET Plus and falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was
acceptable for use on the nation's highways based on federal
testing standards and approval for federal-aid reimbursement. The
plaintiffs also allege breach of implied warranties, violation of
the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust
enrichment, for which plaintiffs seek actual damages related to
purchases of the ET Plus, compensatory damages for establishing a
common fund for class members, punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, and injunctive relief.

The Company has also been served in a lawsuit filed February 11,
2015, titled The Corporation of the City of Stratford and Trinity
Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity
Industries Canada, Inc., Case No. 15-2622 CP, pending in Ontario
Superior Court of Justice. The alleged class in this matter has
been identified as persons in Canada who purchased and/or used an
ET Plus guardrail end terminal. The plaintiff alleges that Trinity
Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity
Industries Canada, Inc., failed to warn of dangers associated with
undisclosed modifications to the ET Plus guardrail end terminals,
breached an implied warranty, breached a duty of care, and were
negligent. The plaintiff is seeking $400 million in compensatory
damages and $100 million in punitive damages. Alternatively, the
plaintiff claims the right to an accounting or other restitution
remedy for disgorgement of the revenues generated by the sale of
the modified ET Plus in Canada.

The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 5, 2015,
titled Jackson County, Missouri, individually and on behalf of a
class of others similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc.
and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 1516-CV23684 (Circuit
Court of Jackson County, Missouri). The case is being brought by
plaintiff for and on behalf of itself and all Missouri counties
with a population of 10,000 or more persons, including the City of
St. Louis, and the State of Missouri's transportation authority.
The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity Highway
Products did not disclose design changes to the ET Plus and these
allegedly undisclosed design changes made the ET Plus allegedly
defective, unsafe, and unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiff
alleges product liability negligence, product liability strict
liability, and negligently supplying dangerous instrumentality for
supplier's business purposes. The plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and in the
alternative plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the ET
Plus is defective, the Company's conduct was unlawful, and class-
wide costs and expenses associated with removing and replacing the
ET Plus throughout Missouri.

The Company believes each of these county and municipal class
action lawsuits is without merit and intends to vigorously defend
all allegations. While the financial impacts of these three county
and municipal class action lawsuits are currently unknown, they
could be material.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: "Isolde" Shareholder Action Pending in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Isolde
shareholder class action.

On January 11, 2016, the previously reported cases styled Thomas
Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated
v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E.
Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) ("Nemky") and Richard J. Isolde,
Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v.
Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry,
Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) ("Isolde"), were consolidated in the
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, with all future
filings to be filed in the Isolde case.

On March 9, 2016, the Court appointed the Department of the
Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment
and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and United
Association Local Union Officers & Employees' Pension Fund as co-
lead plaintiffs ("Lead Plaintiffs).

On May 11, 2016, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated
Complaint alleging defendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R.
Wallace, James E. Perry, and Gregory B. Mitchell violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and defendants Mr. Wallace and Mr. Perry
violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making materially false and misleading statements and/or by
failing to disclose material facts about Trinity's ET Plus and the
FCA case styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of
America, Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.).

On August 18, 2016, Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr.
Mitchell filed motions to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs Consolidated
Complaint.

Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Mitchell deny and intend
to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Isolde case.

"Based on the information available to the Company, we currently
do not believe that a loss is probable with respect to this
shareholder class action," the Company said.


U.S. AIRWAYS: Must Defend Against Price-Fixing Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Daniel W. Staples, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the four largest U.S. airlines lost a bid to dismiss
antitrust claims brought by passengers who say they were victims
of a price-fixing conspiracy that began as early as 2009.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly rejected the airlines'
motion to dismiss the class-action lawsuit in Washington, which
includes 105 consolidated cased from passengers who accused the
airlines of conspiring to raise fares by keeping seating capacity
artificially low.

In a decision released Oct. 28, Kollar-Kotelly said she could
"reasonably infer the existence of a conspiracy" among American
Airlines Group, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines and United
Airlines to fix prices.

In the 41-page decision, the judge pointed to statements made by
airline executives who routinely made public statements calling
for the need for "capacity discipline" to firm up prices and
restore profits.

"Starting in 2009, the industry experienced limited capacity
growth," the judge wrote. "Notably, as defendants' executives
acknowledged, this restriction on growing capacity was a marked
change within the industry. The court is satisfied that at this
stage, plaintiffs sufficiently pled parallel conduct."

In addition to the four named defendants, the passengers allege
that U.S. Airways -- prior to its merger with American, Air
Canada, and the International Air Transport Association -- also
willingly conspired to unlawfully restrain trade.

The lawsuit, filed last year, alleges that millions of customers
purchased tickets for domestic travel directly from airlines or
through websites such as Travelocity.com, Orbitz.com,
Priceline.com, Expedia.com, and Flyfar.ca, at inflated prices.

Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice began its own probe into
a possible conspiracy among the airlines, which, according to
government data, command a roughly 69-percent domestic market
share.

The plaintiffs claim that the airlines posted a record $21.7
billion combined profit in 2015 due to controlled capacity, low
fuel, higher fees for checked bags and others services.

Kollar-Kotelly's ruling notes that the passengers claim that some
of the airlines' executives participate in "'Conquistadores del
Cielo,' a 'secret club' of top aviation executives that meets,
according to plaintiffs, twice a year on an 'off the record'
basis."

Although the plaintiffs did not point to "specifics about this
conduct, they aver that '[t]hese venues provide abundant
opportunities for the defendants' executives to meet face to face
and conspire on capacity reduction and pricing,'" Kollar-Kotelly
wrote.

The airlines, meanwhile, argue that "'[m]ere membership in
associations is not enough to establish participation in a
conspiracy with other members of those associations,'" according
to court records.

Kollar-Kotelly said this was true even for Southwest, though its
use of a single aircraft type and other factors gave it a "limited
ability" to reduce capacity.

Michael Hausfeld, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, called
the decision a "substantial victory."

"We look forward to moving forward aggressively to secure the
relief the public deserves," Hausfeld said in an interview with
Reuters.

Airlines are under pressure as the U.S. Department of
Transportation said that it will require airlines to refund
baggage fees if luggage is "substantially delayed." In addition to
the refund, the White House also wants all airlines to disclose
their on-time performance record.

Requests for comment from the airlines were not immediately
returned on November 3.


U.S. ENGINEERING: Settles Asbestos Class Action for $80 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Margolies, writing for KCUR, reports that up to 7,500 people
who worked in the Jackson County Courthouse after a retrofit
dispersed asbestos throughout the building will be eligible for
medical monitoring under an $80 million settlement reached on Oct.
25.

The settlement was agreed to after a jury was chosen but before
the class-action case was scheduled to go to trial on Oct. 26 at
the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.

The $80 million will be used to test people who worked in the
courthouse for mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases
over the next 30 years.

The money will be paid by insurers for the principal defendant,
U.S. Engineering, and will not involve taxpayer dollars.  Jackson
County was also a defendant in the case, but an agreement was
reached to dismiss it in the event a settlement was reached with
U.S. Engineering.

"It's a good day for the folks that are in the class," said
Louis Accurso, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs.  "On the
other hand, it's a somber day as we're all reminded that this all
began with the tragedy involving Nancy Lopez.  The only thing she
was guilty of was showing up for work every day for decades at the
courthouse."

Ms. Lopez was an administrative assistant to a Jackson County
judge.  She died of mesothelioma in 2010 at age 56.  Her family
filed a wrongful death action against U.S. Engineering and settled
the case in 2011 for $10.4 million.

The class-action case was filed in 2010 by two now-former
courthouse workers and alleged that U.S. Engineering and Jackson
County negligently failed to prevent the spread of asbestos dust
in the courthouse.

U.S. Engineering had contracted with the county to renovate and
repair the Depression-era building's air-handling units and pipes,
which were wrapped with insulation containing asbestos. The
plaintiffs claimed the air handling units were not turned off
during the project, which took place in 1983 and 1984, resulting
in thick layers of asbestos dust being deposited throughout the
landmark structure.

The case was dealt a blow when a trial judge declined to certify
it as a class action, finding that individual issues predominated
over common ones.  But last year, the Missouri Court of Appeals
overturned that decision, ruling that the judge had misinterpreted
the law.  That set the stage for the trial that was averted by the
Oct. 25 settlement.

Members of the class consist of people who worked in the building
during and after the retrofit and people who spent 80 or more
hours a year in the building.  Once the settlement is made final,
would-be class members who prove they satisfy those conditions
will be eligible for medical monitoring for asbestos-related
diseases over the next 30 years.

The medical monitoring will be performed by the University of
Kansas Medical Center.

In a statement on Oct. 26, Tyler Nottberg, CEO of U.S.
Engineering, said that the case related to a project performed
nearly 35 years ago.

"At that time, as always, we complied with relevant industry and
regulatory safety standards in the performance of our work,"
Nottberg said.

The Jackson County Executive's office also released a statement,
saying it was pleased with the lawsuit's resolution.  It said that
air quality testing conducted in 2010 and afterward confirmed that
the courthouse's air quality is now safe and meets regulatory
guidelines.


UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Bid to Certify in "Hill" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David O. Carter denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit entitled JENEE
HILL, et al. v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:15-
cv-00526-DOC-RNB (C.D. Cal.).

Judge Carter opined that Rules 23(a)(3) and 23(a)(4) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not satisfied in the Motion.
Accordingly, the Court cannot grant class certification.

The lawsuit is a putative class action brought by Jenee Hill
against UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company.  The Plaintiff alleges
injury as a result of UHIC's policy of denying requests for lumbar
artificial disc replacement surgery because it classifies the
surgery as "unproven."  The Plaintiff was a member of a group
health insurance policy issued by UHIC to a private employer.

The Plaintiff has sought certification this class:

     All persons covered under UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company
     health insurance policies issued to private employers or
     self-funded plans administered by UnitedHealthcare Insurance
     Company whose requests for lumbar artificial disc
     replacement surgery were denied at any time within the
     applicable statute of limitations, or whose requests for
     that surgery will be denied in the future, on the ground
     that lumbar artificial disc replacement is unproven

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DeSY9Rsk


UNUM GROUP: Class Action Settlement Approved on Final Basis
-----------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the court has issued a final
order approving the settlement and dismissing a class action
complaint.

In May 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  The
plaintiff sought to represent a class of California insureds who
were issued long-term care policies containing an inflation
protection feature.  The plaintiff alleged we incorrectly
administered the inflation protection feature, resulting in an
underpayment of benefits.  The complaint made allegations against
us for breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, violation of Business
and Professions Code 17200, and injunctive relief.

The Company said, "We removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, and
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of a nationwide
class of insureds who were issued long-term care policies
containing an inflation protection feature. After we answered the
complaint, the court permitted the plaintiff to file another
amended complaint entitled Michael Don, Executor of The Estate of
Ruben Don, Leroy Little, by and through his Guardian ad Litem
Tamara Pelham, and Carolyn Little v. Unum Group, and Unum Life
Insurance Company of America containing similar allegations."

"In April 2015, we again answered the complaint. The plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking certification of five subclasses, and we
filed our opposition.

"In February 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of settlement for a class of certain insureds issued
long-term care policies containing an inflation protection feature
as well as certain insureds who requested copies of their long-
term care policies.

"In July 2016, the court issued a final order approving the
settlement and dismissing the case. We adjusted our previously
accrued estimated loss contingency as a result of the final
settlement, the amount of which was immaterial to our consolidated
financial position and results of operations."

Unum Group is the largest provider of disability insurance
products in the United States and the United Kingdom.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Suit Over Female Libido Drug Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Kelly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
former shareholders claim in a class action in Wilmington, Del.,
that Valeant Pharmaceuticals botched the launch of its female
libido drug after projecting it would bring in billions of
dollars.

Valeant paid $1 billion for Sprout Pharmaceuticals last year, with
agreements to pay royalties on Addyi, a daily pill approved by the
FDA for treatment of low sexual desire for pre-menopausal women.

The deal required Valeant to pay Sprout shareholders "40 percent
of the future global product margin for Addyi," if sales top $1
billion, according to the complaint in Delaware Chancery Court.

But the shareholders say that Valeant "abdicated its duty to use
diligent efforts to develop and commercialize Addyi," and that
projected sales this year top out at $10 million.

"Simply put, Addyi is languishing because of Valeant's operational
ineptitude and breach of its obligations under the merger
agreement," the complaint states.

Lead plaintiff Shareholder Representative Services also claims
that Valeant executives failed to disclose possible fraudulent
conduct related to its business with Philidor Rx Services, its
former mail-order pharmacy distributor.  The shareholders say
Valeant failed to disclose during merger discussions that it had
an option to buy Philidor or that Philidor was engaging in illegal
billing practices by hiking drug prices for Valeant drugs.

According to the complaint, independent investigations by the
Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation and Citron Research
revealed a "massive fraud" perpetrated by Valeant and Philidor,
which included manipulating the insurance reimbursement system and
a scheme to deceive auditors by creating false invoices that
booked revenue for unsold Valeant products.

Valeant then terminated its relationship with Philidor, which
closed down. More reporting by The Wall Street Journal and
Bloomberg found that Valeant paid Philidor $100 million for an
option to acquire the company and paid the drug distributor
millions of dollars in bonuses when it met Valeant's sales goals,
according to the complaint.

It claims the investigations showed that "Valeant's employees
worked in Philidor's offices using fictitious names to hide their
identities," and that "Philidor steered customers towards high-
priced, Valeant-owned drugs, and then attempted to negotiate
reimbursement with insurers."

Bloomberg news service reported that both companies are being
investigated by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of New York.

"Valeant's criminal conduct with Philidor prevented it from
meeting its obligations under the merger agreement," the
shareholders say in the complaint.

They also complain that Valeant violated the terms of the buyout
by failing to fully invest in marketing Addyi and by overcharging
for the pill.

Market researchers for Sprout found that a $400 price for a
month's supply of Addyi was optimal because it was "a price point
similar to that at which male erectile dysfunction drugs were
covered by most insurance companies," complaint states.

But Valeant decided to increase the price to $800 per month
without doing any market research, merely asking participants at a
meeting to "write on a sticky pad the price at which they thought
Addyi should be priced," according to the complaint.

It claims that former Sprout CEO Cindy Whitehead said at the
meeting that "the $800 price was going to 'kill' Addyi," to which
a Sprout executive responded that Sprout was "lucky we didn't
triple the price."

At $800, "managed care plans and their pharmacy benefit managers
refused to cover Addyi, although they would have done so at $400
per month," the complaint states.

Just before the projected launch of Addyi, Pearson told Sprout
executives, including Whitehead, that "Valeant would not be
following Sprout's painstakingly prepared commercial launch plan."
And though Valeant had no launch plan of its own, it "jettisoned
all of Sprouts' preparatory work, and soon ended its relationship
with Sprout's CEO, Cindy Whitehead, and the entire Sprout
leadership team," the complaint states.

Then "Valeant terminated the entire 140-person Addyi sales force
that Sprout had put together," as "part of a 're-launch' of the
brand," according to the complaint.

Neither the relaunch nor the promise to spend at least $200
million to promote Addyi has materialized, the shareholders say.

They ask the court to order Valeant to use the "diligent efforts"
required under the merger agreement to develop and commercialize
Addyi.  They are represented by Rudolf Koch -- koch@rlf.com --
with Richards Layton in Wilmington, and by Jonathan Schiller --
jschiller@bsfllp.com -- with Boies Schiller in New York City.


VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA: Faces Legal Issues Over Water System
----------------------------------------------------------
Julia Lurie, writing for Mother Jones, reports that this summer,
81,000 homes in Pittsburgh received a worrisome letter about their
water.  The local utility "has found elevated levels of lead in
tap water samples in some homes," it said.  Seventeen percent of
samples had high levels of the metal, which can cause "serious
health problems."

The situation was bad enough to attract the attention of Marc
Edwards, the Virginia Tech professor who helped expose the water
crisis in Flint, Michigan.  "The levels in Pittsburgh are
comparable to those reported in Flint," he said in an interview
with local TV station WPXI.

This was surprising because until this year, Pittsburgh's lead
levels had always been normal.  So what happened?

First, a bit of background: In 2012, the city faced a dilemma.
Though it had clean water, its century-old water system
desperately needed repair.  And its utility, Pittsburgh Water and
Sewer Authority, was plagued by administrative problems. Residents
complained of bad customer service and unfair fees. After a series
of poor financial decisions in the 2000s, PWSA was hundreds of
millions of dollars in debt.

Pittsburgh isn't alone: Public utilities around the country are
trying to make ends meet with dwindling public funding and
increasingly outdated infrastructure.  Many, like Pittsburgh, turn
to private management companies to help out.

Pittsburgh's utility called in Veolia, a Paris-based company that
consults with utilities, promising "customized, cost-effective
solutions that reflect best practices, environmental protection
and a better quality of life."  Veolia consults or manages water,
waste, and energy systems in 530 cities in North America, with
recent contracts in New York City, New Orleans, and Washington,
DC.  Last year, the company, which operates in 68 countries,
brought in about $27 billion in revenue.

Pittsburgh hired Veolia to manage day-to-day operations and
provide an interim executive team, helping the utility run more
efficiently and save precious public dollars.  Under the terms of
the contract, Veolia would keep roughly half of every dollar the
utility saved under its guidance.

Under the leadership of Jim Good, a Veolia executive serving as
interim director, PWSA began making sweeping changes--and they
seemed to be working: Within a year, call waiting times for
concerned customers dropped by 50 percent.  Thanks to new fees for
commercial buildings, new customers, and other assorted changes,
the utility saved $2 million.

According to a 2013 article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Veolia
changed PWSA's culture, too: Instead of traditional top-heavy
management, Good checked in with employees over pizza and burgers
every week.  At a staff barbecue in 2012, "I told them that we
were there to work with the employees as their partners," he later
told the Post-Gazette.  "I provided assurances that there wouldn't
be any layoffs and that together we could achieve anything."

But by the end of 2015, the utility had laid off or fired 23
people -- including the safety and water quality managers, and the
heads of finance and engineering, according to documents obtained
through a Right-to-Know request.  The PWSA laboratory staff, which
was responsible for testing water quality throughout the 100,000-
customer system, was cut in half.  Stanley States, a water quality
director with 36 years of experience at the utility (employees
referred to him as "Dr. Water") was transferred to an office-based
job in the research department.  Frustrated with the move, he
retired.

Good maintains that not all staffing decisions were made by
Veolia, which was in a consulting rather than management role when
the layoffs occurred.  Any suggested staffing changes had to be
approved by the board, he said.

As the lab staff shrank, PWSA made major changes to its water
treatment system.  For decades, the city had been adding soda ash
-- a chemical similar to baking soda -- to its water to prevent
the pipes, many of which are lead, from corroding and leaching
into the water. (Lack of corrosion controls caused lead to leach
into the water in Flint.) In 2014, PWSA hastily replaced soda ash
with another cheaper corrosion control treatment, caustic soda.
Such a change typically requires a lengthy testing and
authorization process with the state's Department of Environmental
Protection, but the DEP was never informed of the change.  Nearly
two years later, as news spread about the disaster in Flint, the
utility switched back to soda ash.

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto puts the blame for the treatment
change squarely on Veolia, saying the company never informed the
utility's board or the city.  Veolia denies responsibility for the
change, saying it "did not and would not prioritize cost savings
ahead of effective corrosion control methods or water quality."

What is certain is that this spring, the state's DEP cited the
utility for breaking state law and ordered immediate lead testing.

Tests this summer -- the first since 2013 -- found that the city's
lead levels had crept up and, for the first time on record, exceed
federal standards.  Seventeen percent of homes had levels above
the Environmental Protection Agency's action level of 15 parts per
billion.

Many suspect that the change in water treatment chemicals led to
the jump in lead levels; the city is currently conducting an
internal investigation into the matter.

Stanley States, the former water quality director, believes the
staff cuts almost certainly played a role.  Lead levels first
crept up in 2013 because of a previous change in treatment
chemicals, though they didn't exceed federal standards.  But
without a fully staffed lab, says States, the matter wasn't
addressed.  "They cut our laboratory in half," he said.  "We would
have been researching like crazy this lead corrosion problem to
see how to correct it."

But Pittsburgh citizens' complaints about Pittsburgh's water goes
beyond quality -- it's also extraordinarily expensive.  In 2013, a
year after Veolia was hired, the water board approved a 20 percent
rate increase over four years; by 2017, the average residential
water bill will be $50 per month--triple the average Midwest cost,
according to the Guardian.

Soon after, customers began complaining that their bills were
coming erratically and appeared to charge for water residents
hadn't used.  One vacant property owner was charged for using
132,000 gallons of water in one month -- that's about how much a
family of four uses in a year.  "You don't know if it's going to
come in, whether it's late or not, how much it will be, a
Pittsburgh retiree told Truthout.  "Then you get it and there's a
late charge."

In May of 2015, a group of Pittsburgh customers filed a class-
action lawsuit against the utility, Veolia North America Water,
and the accounting company keeping track of PWSA bills, alleging
that new water meter readers installed in 2013 "catastrophically
failed and customers have received grossly inaccurate and at times
outrageously high bills" -- including increases of nearly 600
percent.  "PWSA is acutely aware that the billings are wrong but
do not hesitate for a moment to issue 'shut off' notices and then
arbitrarily turn off water service," read the complaint.  PWSA and
Veolia declined to respond to the allegations.

Last December, facing the class-action lawsuit, a state citation
for changing corrosion controls, and mounting debt, Pittsburgh
terminated its contract with Veolia.  All told, PWSA had paid
Veolia $11 million over the course of the contract.

Earlier in October, the utility announced it was suing the
company.  According to a press release, Veolia "grossly mismanaged
PWSA's operations, abused its positions of special trust and
confidence, and misled and deceived PWSA as part of its efforts to
maximize profits for itself to the unfair detriment of PWSA and
its customers."

Pittsburgh isn't the first municipality to sue Veolia this year.
In April, Massachusetts officials sued Veolia, which was managing
Plymouth's sewage treatment facility, for allowing 10 million
gallons of untreated sewage to spill in and around the town's
harbor last winter.

Two months later, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette charged
Veolia with fraud and negligence for failing to discover Flint's
enduring lead contamination problem after the city hired the
company in 2015 to consult on water quality.

"Veolia stated that the water, quote, was safe," Mr. Schuette told
NPR.  "Veolia also callously and fraudulently dismissed medical
and health concerns by stating that, quote, some people may be
sensitive to any water."

In many cases, critics point to a pattern of Veolia saving
utilities money through quick fixes -- while ignoring bigger
problems.  In a phone interview, Kevin Acklin, the chief of staff
for Pittsburgh's Mayor Bill Peduto, pointed out that Veolia's
earnings are directly tied to the utility's short-term savings.
"They had the incentive under the contract to not make capital
investments in property, planning, and equipment -- to basically
not fix the pipes when needed, to pass off those costs to other
agencies, including the city and private homes," he alleged.
"Ultimately they were fiduciaries for the public authority, but
they also served the business needs of a large multinational
corporation."

Veolia denies responsibility in both Plymouth and Flint, saying
the leak in Plymouth came from a pipe failure that was out of its
control, and that the contract in Flint was limited to looking at
another chemical called TTHM.

In the case of Pittsburgh, Veolia maintains that PWSA's board of
directors retained control over the authority over the course of
the three-year contract.  "Veolia met its obligations and
fulfilled the requirements of our contract in a fully transparent
manner," wrote a Veolia North America spokeswoman in an email. "We
stand behind the work performed on behalf of PWSA."

Yet Pittsburgh leaders can't help but notice that the city's
utility is arguably even worse off than it was when it hired
Veolia four years ago, with a depleted bank account--half of all
earnings are directed to serving debt--and pipes that are still a
century old.  "The authority is in a pretty precarious financial
situation right now, and I can't sit here and point to anything
tangible to show the positive legacy of the contract we had with
Veolia," says Mr. Acklin.

A former PWSA employee was more blunt about it.  When asked how to
advise utilities considering contracting with Veolia, he warned,
"They will come in, rape your water company, and leave with money
bags."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Judge Approves Dieselgate Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Stern, writing for Torque News, reports that Oct. 25 was a
major milestone in the Dieselgate class-action suit settlement as
Judge Charles Breyer okayed the deal allowing owners to begin the
process of obtaining payments for their turbodiesels.

Turning back attempts to change the final terms of the Dieselgate
class-action suit settlement, Judge Charles Breyer on Oct. 25 gave
thumbs up to the final agreement. The decision clears away the
last obstacles keeping owners of Volkswagen turbodiesel vehicles,
caught up in the automaker's self-inflicted emissions cheating
scandal, from having their vehicles repurchased as early as this
month -- November -- by the automaker.  In total, VW will pay up
to $16.5 billion in connection with the scandal.  The funds
include payments to dealers, states and attorneys for owners.

'Immediate Settlement Preferable'

Judge Breyer said, in his opinion granting the approval, "given
the risks of prolonged litigation, the immediate settlement of
this matter is far preferable."  He told the court that the
agreement, as negotiated, "adequately and fairly" pays owners. The
agreement is the largest civil settlement reached with an
automaker accused of misconduct.

This means that beginning now Volkswagen turbodiesel owners can
start the process of obtaining their settlements.  Owners of
eligible vehicles can either submit a paper-based claim form or
they can an online portal, www.vwcourtsettlement.com.  The paper
form is available for printout from the same website.  Owners can
also call 844-98-CLAIM to obtain the paper form.
Owners will be able to choose the buyback or lease termination.
Or, they may opt to have their vehicle repaired "if and when it (a
repair plan) becomes available," the automaker said on Oct 25.
Once a customer's claim is approved, the customer can then
schedule an appointment with a settlement specialist, located at
VW dealerships.  They will take care of walking the customer
through obtaining payment.  VW has promised cash payouts to
current and former owners and lessees of turbodiesels.

To handle the expected influx of owners, VW has hired 900 people.
They will be stationed at all Volkswagen dealerships.
Jeannine Ginivan, a spokesman for the automaker, said the
automaker expects to begin buybacks in mid-November.  About
340,000 VW owners have signed up for the settlement plan.  Only
3,500 have opted out.

Two Years To Pay Up
Under the settlement, Volkswagen has to fix, or buy back, 85
percent of the 475,000 2.0-liter four-cylinder turbodiesel
vehicles that are eligible for the program within two years or the
automaker will face additional costs.

In a statement, Hinrich J. Woebcken, VW chief executive, said
"Final approval of the 2.0-liter TDI (turbodiesel) is an important
milestone in our journey to making things right in the United
States . . . Volkswagen is committed to ensuring that the program
is now carried out as seamlessly as possible for our affected
customers" devoting "significant resources and personnel in making
their experience a positive one."


W.W. GRAINGER: Summary Judgment Bids in "Davies" Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
W.W. Grainger, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that cross-motions for
summary judgment filed by parties in the David Davies class action
lawsuit are pending.

On April 5, 2013 David Davies filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on behalf of
all those who received faxes in connection with a 2009 marketing
campaign. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"), by
sending fax advertisements that either were unsolicited and/or did
not contain a valid opt-out notice. The TCPA provides for
penalties of $500 to $1,500 for each non-compliant individual fax.

On May 13, 2013, the Company removed the case to the Federal
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the
"District Court"). On June 27, 2014, the District Court found that
Davies was not an adequate class representative. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied Davies' petition
for immediate review of the ruling. Davies subsequently moved the
District Court for reconsideration of its ruling and his motion
was denied on September 28, 2016. The parties filed cross-motions
for summary judgment, which are pending.

The Company believes it has strong legal and factual defenses and
intends to continue defending itself vigorously in the pending
lawsuit. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of
this proceeding, the Company believes that the ultimate outcome of
this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations.

Grainger is a broad-line distributor of maintenance, repair and
operating (MRO) supplies, and other related products and services
used by businesses and institutions. Grainger's operations are
primarily in the United States and Canada, with a presence in
Europe, Asia and Latin America. Grainger uses a combination of
multichannel and single channel business models to provide
customers with a range of options for finding and purchasing
products utilizing sales representatives, catalogs, direct
marketing materials and eCommerce. Grainger serves approximately 3
million customers worldwide through a network of highly integrated
branches, distribution centers and websites.


WAL-MART STORES: Nikmanesh Seeks Certification of Three Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned AFROUZ NIKMANESH, ELVIS
ATENCIO, ANNA NGUYEN, AND EFFIE SPENTZOS, on behalf of themselves,
the general public, and all others similarly situated v. WAL-MART
STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and WAL-MART ASSOCIATES,
INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 8:15-cv-00202-AG-JCG (C.D. Cal.), move the Court for
class certification of these classes:

   a. All current and former non-exempt employees, employed by
      Defendants as Pharmacists in the State of California, who
      did not take a 10-minute rest break during the first 4
      hours of their shift, or a second 10-minute rest break for
      all shifts of 6-10 hours, when they were scheduled to be
      the only Pharmacist on duty at any time during their shift,
      within four years before the filing of the original
      complaint until the date of judgment (the "Rest Break
      Class").

   b. All current and former non-exempt employees, employed by
      Defendants as Pharmacists within the State of California,
      who are members of the Rest Break Class, and as a result of
      the rest break claims alleged in the Second Amended
      Complaint, were not provided with accurate, itemized wage
      statements as required by California Labor Code Section
      226, within one year before the filing of the original
      Complaint until the date of judgment ("Wage Statement
      Class").

   c. All former non-exempt employees, employed by Defendants as
      Pharmacists in the State of California, who are not members
      of the Training Course Class, but are members of the Rest
      Break Class, and as a result of the rest break claims
      alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, were not paid all
      wages due and owing at the time of their separation as
      required by California Labor Code Sections 201-203, within
      three years from the filing of the original Complaint until
      the date of judgment ("Waiting Time Class").

Afrouz Nikmanesh, Elvis Atencio, Anna Nguyen and Effie Spentzos
also seek to certify a class under California's Unfair Competition
Law.  They also ask to be named class representatives and for the
appointment of their counsel as Class Counsel.  They further ask
the Court for authority to send notice to certified class members
advising them of the action.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Uve4i0v7

The Court will commence a hearing on November 28, 2016, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric M. Epstein, Esq.
          ERIC M. EPSTEIN, APC
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, #1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6002
          Telephone: (310) 552-5366
          E-mail: emepstein@aol.com

               - and -

          Dayton B. Parcells, III, Esq.
          PARCELLS LAW FIRM
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, #1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9882
          E-mail: dbparcells@parcellslaw.com

               - and -

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          E-mail: Mark@Thiermanbuck.com
                  Josh@Thiermanbuck.com


WELLS FARGO: Feb. 7 TCPA Case Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

IF YOU RECEIVED A CALL OR TEXT FROM WELLS FARGO ON YOUR CELLULAR
TELEPHONE IN CONNECTION WITH AN OVERDRAFT OF A DEPOSIT ACCOUNT BY
MEANS OF AN AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE DIALING SYSTEM AND/OR AN
ARTIFICIAL OR PRERECORDED VOICE, YOU COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM
A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.

A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.

Plaintiff brought a lawsuit alleging that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
("Wells Fargo") violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq. by using an automatic
telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice
to place calls or send texts to cell phones ("Automatic
Calls") in connection with overdrafts of deposit accounts, and
that these Automatic Calls were made without the prior express
consent of Class Members.  Wells Fargo denies the allegations.

A settlement has been reached in this case and affects individuals
who received an Automatic Call regarding a
Wells Fargo deposit account between April 21, 2011 and
December 19, 2015.

The Settlement, if approved, would provide $30,446,022.75 to pay
valid and timely claims of those persons who received any of the
above-described Automatic Calls from Wells Fargo, as well as to
pay Plaintiff's attorneys' fees, a service award to the class
representative, and administrative costs of the settlement; avoid
the further cost and risk associated with continuing the lawsuit;
and release Wells Fargo from further liability.

Your legal rights are affected whether you act or don't act. Read
this notice carefully.

On the website, www.CrossWellsFargoTCPA.com, there is a complete
notice of the settlement in Spanish. En el sitio web,
www.CrossWellsFargoTCPA.com, hay una notificacion completa del
acuerdo en Espanol. Para un operador telefonico de habla espanol,
llame al 1-866-565-7718.


YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT

Submit a Claim Form

This is the only way to get a payment.  You can submit a valid and
timely claim form online at www.CrossWellsFargoTCPA.com, or by
mail to Cross Wells Fargo TCPA Settlement, c/o GCG, P.O. Box
10302, Dublin, OH 43017-5902, or by calling the toll-free number,
1-866-565-7718.  If you fail to do so, you will not receive a
settlement payment.

Do Nothing

Get no payment.  Give up any rights to sue Wells Fargo separately
regarding the legal claims in this case.

Exclude Yourself OR "Opt Out" of the Settlement

If you ask to be excluded, you will get no payment.  You will also
not waive any rights you may have against Wells Fargo with respect
to the legal claims in this case.  Object Write to the Court about
why you believe the Settlement is unfair.

Go to a Hearing

Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement.

These rights and options -- and the deadlines to exercise them --
are explained in this notice.

The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to
approve the Settlement.  Payments will be made on valid and timely
claims if the Court approves the Settlement and after any appeals
are resolved.  Please be patient.

BASIC INFORMATION

1. Why is there a notice?
A Court authorized this Notice because you have a right to know
about a proposed Settlement of this class action lawsuit, and
about all of your options, before the Court decides whether to
approve the Settlement.  If the Court approves the Settlement and
after any objections or appeals are resolved, an administrator
appointed by the Court will make the payments that the Settlement
allows.  Because your rights will be affected by this Settlement,
it is important that you read this Notice carefully.

If you received a Notice in the mail, it is because, according to
Wells Fargo's records, you may have received one or more Automatic
Calls from Wells Fargo in connection with an overdraft of a Wells
Fargo deposit account between April 21, 2011 and December 19,
2015.

The Court in charge of the case is the United District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, and the case is known as Cross
v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-01270 (N.D. Ga.).  The
proposed Settlement would resolve all claims in this case.  The
person who sued is called the Plaintiff, and the company sued,
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is called the Defendant and is referred to
in this Notice as "Wells Fargo."

2. What are these class action lawsuits about?
A class action is a lawsuit in which the claims and rights of many
people are decided in a single court proceeding. Representative
plaintiffs, also known as "class representatives," assert claims
on behalf of the entire class.

The Representative Plaintiff filed this case alleging that Wells
Fargo violated the TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing
system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice to call or text
cell phones without the prior express consent of the recipients.

Wells Fargo denies that it did anything wrong, or that this case
is appropriate for treatment as a class action.

3. Why is there a Settlement?
The Court did not decide in favor of the Plaintiff or Defendant.
Both sides agreed to a settlement instead of going to trial.  That
way, they avoid the cost of a trial, and the people affected will
get compensation.  The Representative Plaintiff and her attorneys
think the Settlement is best for all Class Members.

WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT?
4. How do I know if I am part of the Settlement?
The Settlement provides relief for all Class Members, who are
described as all users or subscribers to a wireless or cellular
service within the United States who used or subscribed to a phone
number to which Wells Fargo made or initiated one or more Calls
during the Class Period, in connection with overdrafts of deposit
accounts, using any automated dialing technology or artificial or
prerecorded voice technology, according to Wells Fargo's available
records.

Excluded from the Class are Defendant; its parent companies,
affiliates or subsidiaries, or any employees thereof, and any
entities in which any of such companies has a controlling
interest; the judge or magistrate judge to whom the Action is
assigned; and, any member of the judges' staffs and immediate
families.

If you have questions about whether you are a Class Member, or are
still not sure whether you are included, you can call
1-866-565-7718 or visit www.CrossWellsFargoTCPA.com for more
information.

THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS - WHAT YOU GET
5. What does the Settlement provide?
Wells Fargo has agreed to pay a total settlement amount of
$30,446,022.75 which will be used to create a Settlement Fund to
pay Settlement Awards to Class Members who submit a valid and
timely claim, pay Plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs, pay a
service award to the Representative Plaintiff, and pay costs and
expenses of settlement administration.

Any remaining monies from uncashed Settlement Awards may be
redistributed in a second distribution to Class Members who
submitted a valid and timely claim.  However, if a second
distribution would result in less than $1 per qualifying claimant,
the remaining monies will instead be donated to the Samuelson Law
Clinic.

HOW YOU GET A PAYMENT

6. How and when can I get a payment?
Each Class Member who submits a valid and timely Claim Form will
receive a Settlement Award.  A Settlement Award is a cash payment.
The final cash payment amount will depend on the total number of
valid and timely claims filed by all Class Members. Class Counsel
estimates that the amount of the cash award (while dependent upon
the number of claims) may be within the range of $25 to $70.
Eligible Class Members may make one claim.

Claims may be submitted by no later than January 16, 2017,
electronically at info@CrossWellsFargoTCPA.com, or by calling the
toll-free number 1-(866)-565-7718, or by mail to:

          Cross Wells Fargo TCPA Settlement
          c/o GCG
          P.O. Box 10302
          Dublin, OH 43017-5902

The Court will hold a hearing on February 7, 2017 at 9:30a.m. to
decide whether to approve the Settlement.  If the Settlement is
approved, appeals may still follow. It is always uncertain whether
these appeals can be resolved, and resolving them can take time,
perhaps more than a year. Please be patient.

7. What am I giving up to get a payment or stay in the Class?
If you are a Class Member, unless you exclude yourself, you can't
sue, continue to sue, or be part of any other lawsuit against
Wells Fargo about the legal issues in this case and all of the
decisions and judgments by the Court will bind you.

For calls or text messages made using an automatic telephone
dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded
voice without the prior express consent of the called party, the
TCPA provides for damages of $500 per violation,
or up to $1,500 for willful violations, plus an injunction
limiting future conduct.  However, Wells Fargo has
denied that it made any illegal calls or sent any illegal texts to
anyone, and in any future lawsuit it will have a full
range of potential defenses, including that it had prior express
consent to make the calls.  In addition, please note
that the TCPA does not provide for attorneys' fees to prevailing
individual plaintiffs.  This settlement permits class members the
opportunity to obtain a smaller amount of money, risk-free.

If you file a Claim Form for benefits or do nothing at all, you
will be unable to file your own lawsuit regarding the claims
described in this Notice, and you will release Wells Fargo from
any liability for the Released Claims defined below and in the
Settlement.

Remaining in the Class means that you, as well as your respective
assigns, executors, administrators, successors and agents, will
release, resolve, relinquish and discharge each and all of the
Released Parties from each of the Released Claims (as defined
below).  You further agree that you and they will not institute
any action or cause of action (in law, in equity or
administratively), suits, debts, liens, or claims, known or
unknown, fixed or contingent, which you may have or claim to have,
in state or federal court, in arbitration, or with any state,
federal or local government agency or with any administrative or
advisory body, arising from the Released Claims.

"Released Claims" mean any and all claims, causes of action,
suits, obligations, debts, demands, agreements, promises,
liabilities, damages, losses, controversies, costs, expenses and
attorneys' fees of any nature whatsoever, whether based on any
federal law, state law, common law, territorial law, foreign law,
contract, rule, regulation, any regulatory promulgation
(including, but not limited to, any opinion or declaratory
ruling), common law or equity, whether known or unknown, suspected
or unsuspected, asserted or unasserted, foreseen
or unforeseen, actual or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated,
punitive or compensatory, as of the date of the Final Approval
Order, that arise out of the Released Parties' use of an
"automatic telephone dialing system" or "artificial or prerecorded
voice" to contact or attempt to contact Settlement Class Members
in connection with overdrafts of Wells Fargo deposit accounts
during the Class Period.  Released Claims include the claims of
Wells Fargo deposit account holders and non-account holders who
are members of the Settlement Class.
Notwithstanding the above, the Parties agree that any claims
related to Calls made in an attempt to collect any
debts other than those allegedly owed for a Wells Fargo deposit
account are not released.

The Settlement Agreement (available at the website) provides more
detail regarding the release and describes the Released Claims
with specific descriptions in necessary, accurate legal
terminology, so read it carefully.  You can talk to the law firms
representing the Class listed in Question 9 for free, or you can,
at your own expense, talk to your own lawyer if you have any
questions about the Released Parties or the Released Claims or
what theymean.

The release does not apply to Class Members who timely opt-out of
the Settlement.

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT

If you don't want a payment from this Settlement, and you want to
keep the right to sue or continue to sue Wells Fargo on your own
about the legal issues in this case, then you must take steps to
exclude yourself from the Settlement.

8. How do I exclude myself from the Settlement?
To exclude yourself from the Settlement, you must send a letter by
mail saying that you want to be excluded from Cross v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-01270-RWS (N.D. Ga.).  Be sure to
include your full name, address, and telephone number.  You must
also include a statement that you wish to be excluded from the
Settlement.  You must mail your exclusion request postmarked no
later than December 16, 2016 to:

        Cross Wells Fargo TCPA Settlement
        c/o GCG
        P.O. Box 10302
        Dublin, OH 43017-5902

If you ask to be excluded, you will not get any Settlement Award
and you cannot object to the Settlement.  You will not be legally
bound by anything that happens in this lawsuit.  You may be able
to sue (or continue to sue) Wells Fargo in the future. Although no
other person may exclude you from the Settlement Class, nothing
prohibits you from obtaining the assistance of another, such as a
lawyer or family member, in preparing or submitting any individual
exclusion.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTINGYOU

9. Do I have a lawyer in this case?
The Court appointed the following law firms to represent you and
other Class Members:

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Burke Law Offices, LLC;
and Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC have been designated as co-lead
counsel. Meyer Wilson Co., LPA; Skaar & Feagle, LLP; Keogh Law
Ltd.; Kazerouni Law Group, APC; Law Offices of Douglas J. Campion,
APC; and Hyde & Swigart have been designated as additional class
counsel.

All of these lawyers are called Class Counsel.  You will not be
charged separately for these lawyers' services.  If you
want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at
your own expense.

Additionally, you may enter an appearance through your own
attorney if you so desire, but you do not need to do so.

10. How will the lawyers and class representatives be paid?
Class Counsel will ask the Court to approve payment of up to
$9,133,806.82 (30% of the Settlement Fund) to compensate them for
expenses and for attorneys' fees for investigating the facts,
litigating the case, and negotiating the Settlement.  Class
Counsel will also request an award of $15,000 to the Class
Representative, in compensation for her time and effort.  The
Court may award less than these amounts.  These payments, along
with the costs of administering the Settlement, will be made out
of the Settlement Fund.

Any objection to Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees
and costs may be filed, and must be postmarked, no later than
December 16, 2016, which is 30 days following the filing of the
Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
You can tell the Court that you do not agree with the Settlement
or some part of it.

11. How do I tell the Court that I do not think the Settlement is
fair?
You can tell the Court that you don't agree with the Settlement or
some part of it.  If you are a Class Member, you can object to the
Settlement if you do not think the Settlement is fair.  You can
state reasons why you think the Court should not approve it. The
Court will consider your views.  To object, you must send a letter
saying that you object to the proposed Settlement in Cross v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv- 01270-RWS (N.D.
Ga.).  Be sure to include your full name, address, telephone
number, the reasons you object to the Settlement and whether you
intend to appear at the fairness hearing on your own behalf or
through counsel. All objections shall identify any lawyer that
represents you as to the Action or your objection.  Any documents
that you wish for the Court to consider must also be attached to
the objection.  Your objection to the Settlement must be
postmarked no later than December 16, 2016.

The objection must be mailed to the following:

         Cross v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
         Case No. 1:15-cv-01270-RWS (N.D. Ga.)
         Clerk of the Court U.S. District Court for the Northern
         District of Georgia 2211 United
         States Courthouse 75 Ted Turner
         Drive, SW Atlanta, GA 30303

         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         Embarcadero CenterWest
         275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
         San Francisco, CA94111

         Cross Wells Fargo TCPA Settlement
         c/o GCG
         P.O. Box 10302
         Dublin, OH43017-5902

         Troutman Sanders
         222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000
         Virginia Beach, VA23462

THE FAIRNESS HEARING
12. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the
Settlement?
The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the
Settlement.  This Fairness Hearing will be held on February 7,
2017 at 9:30 a.m. at the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, 75 Ted Turner Drive, SW, Atlanta, GA
30303, in Courtroom 2105.  The hearing may be moved to a different
date or time without additional notice, so it is a good idea to
check the website for updates.  At this hearing, the Court will
consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate,
and whether to award attorneys' fees, expenses, and an incentive
award as described above, and in what amounts.  If there are
objections, the Court will consider them.  At or after the
hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Settlement.
We do not know how long it will take the Court to issue its
decision.  It is not necessary for you to appear at this hearing,
but you may attend at your own expense.

13. May I speak at the hearing?
You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Fairness
Hearing.  To do so, you must send a letter saying that you intend
to appear at the Fairness Hearing in Cross v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., Case No. 1:15- cv-01270-RWS (N.D. Ga.).  Be sure to include
your full name, address, telephone number, and the case number
(1:15-cv-01270-RWS).  Your letter stating your notice of intention
to appear must be postmarked no later than December 16, 2016 and
be sent to the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia,
75 Ted Turner Drive, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303.  You cannot speak at
the hearing if you exclude yourself.

IF YOU DO NOTHING
14. What happens if I do nothing at all?
If you do nothing, and are a Class Member, you will not receive a
payment after the Court approves the Settlement and any appeals
are resolved.  In order to receive a payment, you must submit a
claim form.  Unless you exclude yourself, you won't be able to
start a lawsuit, continue with a lawsuit, or be part of any other
lawsuit against Wells Fargo about the legal issues in this case
ever again.

GETTING MORE INFORMATION
15. How do I get more information?
This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement.  More details are
in the Settlement Agreement.  You can get a copy of the Settlement
Agreement by calling the Claims Administrator toll-free at 1-866-
565-7718, writing to: Cross Wells Fargo TCPA Settlement, c/o GCG,
P.O. Box 10302, Dublin, OH 43017-5902, or visiting the website at
www.CrossWellsFargoTCPA.com, where you will also find answers to
common questions about the
Settlement, a claim form, plus other information to help you
determine whether you are a Class Member and whether you are
eligible for a payment.

On the website, www.CrossWellsFargoTCPA.com, there is a complete
notice of the settlement in Spanish. En el sitio web,
www.CrossWellsFargoTCPA.com, hay una notificacion completa del
acuerdo en Espanol.


WEST VIRGINIA: Kanawha Valley Water Crisis Trial Moved
------------------------------------------------------
Kate White, writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that a
federal judge on Oct. 25 again pushed back the trial in the class-
action lawsuit over the 2014 Kanawha Valley water crisis.

After another closed-door meeting with U.S. District Judge John
Copenhaver Jr., attorneys for all sides said that a status
conference in the case would be held at 9:00 a.m. on Oct. 25.

Attorneys had indicated that they expected to be picking a jury
starting Oct. 25.

The trial had been set to begin with jury selection on Oct. 25,
but the judge has urged lawyers to continue trying to reach a
settlement.

It's not clear whether Judge Copenhaver still would rule on Oct.
25 on a series of important pretrial rulings -- including whether
testimony about a key West Virginia American Water Co. document
will be held in a closed courtroom.

More than 224,000 residents and more than 7,300 business owners
are part of the class of plaintiffs suing West Virginia American
Water and Eastman Chemical over their roles in the contamination
of the region's drinking water following the January 2014 spill.

In the case, lawyers for residents and businesses across the
Kanawha Valley allege that West Virginia American did not
adequately prepare for or respond to the Jan. 9, 2014, spill of
Crude MCHM and other chemicals from the Freedom Industries
chemical tank facility, located just 1.5 miles upstream from West
Virginia American's regional drinking water intake in the Elk
River.

In particular, pretrial filings from the plaintiffs have focused
on West Virginia American's failure to keep adequate backup
treated water on hand for emergencies like the chemical spill and
the company's lack of a secondary water intake.

The lawsuit alleges that Eastman, which manufactured Crude MCHM
and sold it to Freedom, did not properly warn Freedom about safety
concerns related to the type of storage tanks Freedom used.

The lawsuit also alleges that Eastman knew the Freedom site was
unsafe and did nothing about it.

Eastman and West Virginia Water are expected argue that the
drinking water contamination was Freedom's fault because the
company's poor practices -- resulting in multiple criminal Clean
Water Act pleas by former Freedom officials -- led to the spill in
the first place.

It had appeared on Oct. 24 that progress was being made toward
some sort of a settlement, in part because Judge Copenhaver
delayed jury selection from Oct. 25 and scheduled the hearing for
what lawyers described somewhat mysteriously as "pretrial
matters."  During the hearing though, Judge Copenhaver made no
rulings on a long list of motions about what evidence can be
presented at trial, saying he would announce those decisions on
Oct. 25.

After the hearing, the judge ordered lawyers for all sides back
into a private session in his chambers.  After meeting for less
than 30 minutes with the judge, the lawyers left the
Robert C. Byrd U.S. Courthouse to have further talks at the
downtown offices of Jackson Kelly, one of the law firms
representing the water company.

The attorneys returned to the courthouse at about 2:00 p.m. and
met privately with the judge again for about 30 minutes.  Then
most of them left, indicating that they were preparing for jury
selection and a trial.

At about 6:00 p.m., lawyers said the judge had again pushed back
jury selection.  The court's online calendar also changed to
reflect the status conference set for Oct. 25.

Judge Copenhaver has insisted to all sides that a settlement would
have to resolve not only the case pending for trial -- known as
Crystal Good v. American Water -- but also a number of state court
cases pending before the Supreme Court's Mass Litigation Panel and
several other pending federal court cases over the spill.


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces Cullars Family Class Suit in S.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Cullars Family Timber Farm, LLLP, and Prater
Family Partnership III, LLLP, All Other Entities and Persons
Similarly Situated v. Weyerhaeuser Company, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00188-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., October 26, 2016), lists its cause as
"Diversity of citizenship," and states that the nature of suit is
"190 Contract: Other."

Headquartered in Seattle, Washington, Weyerhaeuser Company is an
integrated forest products company with offices or operations
worldwide.  The Company primarily grows and harvests trees,
develops and constructs real estate and makes a range of forest
products.  Weyerhaeuser is also classified as a Real Estate
Investment Trust.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John B. Long, Esq.
          Thomas W. Tucker, Esq.
          TUCKER, LONG, PC
          P.O. Box 2426
          Augusta, GA 30903
          Telephone: (706) 722-0771
          Facsimile: (706) 722-7028
          E-mail: jlong@tuckerlong.com
                  ttucker@tuckerlong.com

               - and -

          Samuel A. Fowler, Jr., Esq.
          FOWLER & WILLS, LLC
          318 Jackson St.
          Thomson, GA 30824-1620
          Telephone: (706) 595-8100
          Facsimile: (706) 595-9034


WOODY'S WATERSIDE: Accused by "Quinn" Suit of Violating FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
William Quinn, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Woody's Waterside, LLC, a Florida profit corporation, and Eric
R. Zeisloft, individually, Case No. 2:16-cv-00793-UA-CM (M.D.
Fla., October 26, 2016), accuses the Defendants of violating the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Woody's Waterside, LLC, is a Florida Limited Liability that
operates restaurants in Saint James City and Cape Coral, Florida.
Eric R. Zeisloft is a managing member of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bill B. Berke, Esq.
          BERKE LAW FIRM, PA
          4223 Del Prado Blvd. S.
          Cape Coral, FL 33904
          Telephone: (239) 549-6689
          Facsimile: (239) 549-3331
          E-mail: Berkelaw@yahoo.com


XCEL ENERGY: Hearing on Summary Judgment Motion in Dec. 2016
------------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a hearing on the
e prime defendants' summary judgment motion in the Colorado class
lawsuit (Breckenridge) and oppositions to class certifications in
all the class actions are expected to be heard in December 2016.

The e prime defendants filed a summary judgment motion in the
Colorado class lawsuit (Breckenridge) and oppositions to class
certifications in all the Gas Trading Litigation class actions,
which is also expected to be heard in December 2016.

e prime, inc. (e prime) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel
Energy.  e prime was in the business of natural gas trading and
marketing, but has not engaged in natural gas trading or marketing
activities since 2003.  Thirteen lawsuits were commenced against e
prime and Xcel Energy (and NSP-Wisconsin, in two instances)
between 2003 and 2009 alleging fraud and anticompetitive
activities in conspiring to restrain the trade of natural gas and
manipulate natural gas prices.

The cases were consolidated in U.S. District Court in Nevada. Five
of the cases have since been settled and seven have been
dismissed. One multi-district litigation (MDL) matter remains and
it consists of a Colorado class (Breckenridge), a Wisconsin class
(NSP-Wisconsin), a Kansas class, and two other cases identified as
"Sinclair Oil" and "Farmland."

In May 2016, the MDL judge granted summary judgment dismissing
defendants from the Farmland lawsuit. e prime and Xcel Energy have
filed a motion seeking clarification that this order includes
them. This motion is currently pending and is expected to be heard
in December 2016.

The e prime defendants filed a summary judgment motion in the
Colorado class lawsuit (Breckenridge) and oppositions to class
certifications in all the class actions, which is also expected to
be heard in December 2016.

Trial dates are not expected to occur prior to early 2017. Xcel
Energy, NSP-Wisconsin and e prime have concluded that a loss is
remote.


* Japan Enacts First Class Actions Legislation
----------------------------------------------
Michael A. Eizenga, Esq., and Preet K. Bell, Esq. --
bellp@bennettjones.com -- of Bennett Jones LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that Japan has enacted its first class actions
legislation, following an international trend seen in the European
Union and some other countries in Asia.  The new class actions law
(the Act on Special Measures Concerning Civil Court Proceedings
for the Collective Redress for Property Damage Incurred by
Consumers) came into force on October 1.

Two-stage process

The new class actions law is distinct from the class action
legislation we are familiar with in Canada, and instead contains
some features seen in class action legislation in European
countries, such as France.  The Japanese law is a two-stage
procedure and does not allow for individuals to commence class
actions themselves.  Instead, first, a "Special Qualified Consumer
Organization" (which must obtain certification from the Prime
Minister) commences litigation under the Act against the company,
seeking a declaration that the company is liable for common
obligations owed to a "considerable number" of aggrieved
consumers.  There is no definition of "considerable number" but it
is likely that tens of consumers may suffice.  If the court finds
that the company is liable at the first stage, then the second
stage is for consumers to "opt-in" and join the litigation, where
a court will determine what damages each consumer is entitled to
recover.

Limitations Inherent in the Legislation

Unlike the broader class actions legislation seen in Canada and
the U.S., the Japanese law is narrower likely trying to prevent or
circumscribe the large number of class actions that was seen in
the U.S. after its legislation was enacted.  First, in Japan, a
consumer organization must commence the litigation.  Second,
claims must fall within certain actions relating to a consumer
contract, such as the default of a consumer contract or liability
for a product defect under a consumer contract.  And third,
consumers can only claim for damages directly related to their
claim; consequential losses and damages for pain and suffering are
excluded.  However, once liability is determined under the new
legislation, it is possible consumers may commence separate
individual proceedings claiming such losses.  Therefore, it is
possible that liability under the new Act could potentially open
up a company to greater liability from individual claims seeking
larger amounts of damages.

Looking Forward

Consumer protection has been a large concern for many countries,
resulting in class actions legislation being developed across the
European Union and now in Asia.  Some Asian countries, such as
Hong Kong, still do not have any such legislation and it remains
to be seen if they will follow suit.  Companies with a presence in
Japan should be aware of the legislation and the potential
implications it could have for their business.  As the types and
amount of litigation this law may present are currently unknown,
it may be beneficial to pre-emptively consider and set out
potential responses to such litigation should it be commenced.  In
addition, the law does not apply retroactively so companies should
review all current and future consumer contracts to try and
decrease their exposure to class actions litigation.  While the
Japanese class action regime appears to be far more restrictive
than those that exist in North America (and only time will tell),
it does have the potential to significantly expand the exposure of
many companies doing business in Japan.


* Device Makers Face Legal Threat Over Internet of Things Attack
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff John Roberts, writing for Fortune, reports that the legal
test looks at consumer harms.

Who should be held responsible for the security breach that took
out parts of the Internet?

That question is becoming more pressing as regulators and the
public begin to grasp the implication of the first major "Internet
of things" attack, in which hackers hijacked millions of everyday
devices such as security cameras and printers, and cut off access
to major websites like Amazon and Twitter for hours at a time.

Increasingly, the security community is focusing on the role of
the device makers, whose products contained a major security flaw.
Namely, the companies did not require consumers to change a
default password, which is what made it so easy for hackers to
conscript so many Internet-connected devices into the botnet army
that carried out the attack.

Some of the companies, which include little-known Chinese
manufacturers but also familiar names like Panasonic and Xerox,
have begun a recall of the devices.  But for now, many of their
products remain out in the wild with their software "unpatched."
That means they remain compromised.  Worse, hackers have released
the source code to control the botnet army, meaning future attacks
using devices of this nature are all but certain.

This raises the question of whether the device makers should be
held legally responsible.  Even though they had no role in
directing the attack on the Internet, such an attack was not hard
to foresee -- especially since there have been reports of
compromised cameras, and other Internet-enabled devices, for
years.

According to Michael Zweiback -- michael.zweiback@alston.com -- an
attorney with Alston & Bird and a former cyber-crime prosecutor,
legal action is most likely to come in the form of lawsuits, and
investigations by the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys
general.  In a phone interview with Fortune, he said the
government agencies are in a position to sue the companies selling
these devices for dangerous products and deceptive marketing.

A harder question is whether U.S. consumers who purchased the
compromised devices, which also include network routers and baby
monitors, can bring lawsuits of their own.

While class action lawyers may be watching the situation closely,
a legal victory would be no sure thing.  Even though the companies
appear to have been negligent by failing to introduce tougher
password protection, consumers would still have to show they were
harmed.  And right now the test for showing harm is unclear.

According to Mr. Zweiback, courts are trying to make sense of a
major Supreme Court privacy case last year called Spokeo, which
held that consumers must show "concrete" harm to collect damages.
In the case of a consumer who bought a security camera susceptible
to hacking, it's unclear if they would be able to collect.

The situation is different for Dyn, the Internet service company
that was the direct target of the attack by the millions of
compromised devices, since the firm had to directly absorb the
cost of the attack.  Dyn did not reply to a voice message from
Fortune about whether it plans to pursue legal action against the
device makers.


* FCC Privacy Proposal Seeks to Limit Forced Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------
C. Ryan Barber, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the fight over forced arbitration in consumer contracts found its
latest front in the lobbying over the Federal Communications
Commission's sweeping broadband privacy proposal.

In advance of the Oct. 27 vote on the proposal, which is designed
to give consumers greater control over how their data is used,
Verizon Inc. pushed to preserve its ability to require customers
to resolve disputes in arbitration.  According to a disclosure
form posted on the FCC's website on Oct. 24, in-house lawyers for
Verizon met with an aide to Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and "noted
that the commission cannot -- and should not -- prohibit
arbitration clauses in consumer contracts."

Verizon's disclosure, signed by assistant general counsel
Catherine Hilke, pointed to the Federal Arbitration Act in urging
the commission not to restriction arbitration.

"Nothing in the Communications Act or any other statute authorizes
the commission to supersede Congress' policy judgment favoring
arbitration clauses," Ms. Hilke wrote.

Representatives from Comcast Corp., Charter Communications and the
industry group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association made
similar appeals to an aide to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and
officials in the commission's wireline competition bureau.  In a
summary of two Oct. 18 meetings with FCC officials, an NCTA lawyer
argued that the commission has no authority to restrict
arbitration.

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld mandatory arbitration
clauses in commercial contracts in the face of laws that seek to
invalidate such provisions, including in the communications
context," Loretta Polk, vice president and associate general
counsel for NCTA-The Internet & Television Association. (Davis
Wright Tremaine partner Christin McMeley --
christinmcmeley@dwt.com -- and Mintz Levin partner Christopher
Harvie -- chrishelm@dwt.com -- also attended the meetings,
according to the form.)

Verizon's closest competitor, AT&T Inc., has not addressed
arbitration in recent filings with the FCC.  But it's stance on
arbitration is well-known.

AT&T Mobility LLC won the U.S. Supreme Court case in 2011 that let
companies enforce class-action waivers, forcing consumers into
arbitration.  Since that decision, arbitration agreements have
proliferated and also drawn increased scrutiny from federal
regulatory agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau and U.S. Health and Human Services Department.  Both
agencies have taken steps in recent months to restrict the use of
class-action waivers.

Mr. Clyburn has emerged as the FCC's leading advocate against
arbitration agreements.  On Oct. 23, Time posted an op-ed that Mr.
Clyburn co-authored with U.S. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minnesota,
arguing that communications companies have used class action
waivers to "evade accountability by effectively locking the
courtroom doors on their customers."

"They do it through the use of what are known as mandatory
arbitration clauses, buried deep in the fine print of the
contracts you have to sign in order to get internet service,"
wrote Mr. Clyburn and Sen. Franken, a member of the Senate
Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law.  "These
clauses force you to sign away your right to go to court in the
event of a dispute, in favor of a private arbitration process that
is inherently biased towards corporations and offers no meaningful
appeals process."

On Oct. 20, the same day Verizon met with the Clyburn aide, the
watchdog group Public Knowledge met with an aide to Commissioner
Jessica Rosenworcel and urged the FCC to prevent internet service
providers from enforcing arbitration clauses.

"At a minimum, even if the commission were to determine that it
did not intend to prohibit such clauses based on the record, the
Commission should clarify that it has such authority and will
revisit its determination if evidence of the abusive effects of
these clauses becomes more manifest," Harold Feld, Public
Knowledge's senior vice president, wrote in a disclosure form
filed with the FCC.

Echoing arguments in support of the CFPB's proposal to prohibit
class-action waivers, Public Knowledge argued that arbitration
clauses prevent consumers from joining together as a class and
complementing the FCC's enforcement efforts.  The watchdog group
noted the recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's
decision in AT&T Mobility Services v. FTC, which restricted the
Federal Trade Commission's ability to regulate common carriers
under the FCC's regulatory umbrella.

"Without the ability to sue for relief in court, consumers have no
replacement for the loss of the FTC as a partner with the FCC,"
Mr. Feld wrote.  "Furthermore, the proliferation of mandatory
arbitration clauses effectively forecloses consumers from
enforcing their rights."


* White House Calls for Crackdown on Non-Compete Clauses
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Korte, writing for USA TODAY, reports that after speaking
out about non-compete agreements in May, Vice President Biden said
he heard horror stories.

A Nebraska teacher who couldn't take a summer job selling pet
food; a 56-year-old Connecticut salesman who had to eat through
his retirement savings for two years; a North Carolina doctor who
couldn't continue to practice medicine in the same city.

Now, the White House is calling for a crackdown on non-compete
clauses and other employment practices that it says unfairly limit
the ability of workers to jump from one company to another.

"Folks, no one should have to sit on the sidelines because of an
unnecessary non-compete agreement," Mr. Biden said in a statement
on Oct. 25.  "We have the most dynamic, productive workers in the
world, but they can't reach their true potential without freedom
to negotiate for a higher wage with a new company, or to find
another job after they've been laid off."

The battle against non-compete agreements is the latest front in
an Obama administration initiative to ensure more consumer- and
worker-friendly competition in the marketplace.  Obama signed an
executive order in April directing federal agencies to foster more
competition in industries they regulate.  So far, that's resulted
in new and proposed rules for cable set-top boxes and airline bag
fees.

But it's also an example of Obama's state-and-local strategy of
getting other lawmakers to take action when Congress can't or
won't.  Laws governing non-compete agreements vary from state to
state, and the White House is encouraging states to ban them for
certain workers and industries: low-wage workers unlikely to know
trade secrets, health and safety workers, and those who were laid
off through no fault of their own.

Three states ban non-compete agreements outright: California,
North Dakota and Oklahoma.

But even within those states, the practice often continues, said
Jason Furman, chairman of the president's Council of Economic
Advisers.  Sophisticated workers understand their rights, but many
others unknowingly agree to the non-compete clause.  "So it
introduces a level of randomness and unfairness," he said.

In 2014, eight Silicon Valley companies -- including Apple and
Google -- paid $415 million to settle a civil class action suit
allegedly they colluded to hold down wages of computer programmers
through "no-poaching" agreements.

One company that refused to take part in the scheme: Facebook.

"We take the position that the free movement of labor is a net
positive for Facebook," said Facebook human resources chief
Lori Goler, who's supporting the Obama administration effort.  "We
don't believe that people should have to stay at Facebook if it's
not a good fit for them."

Some employers say the agreements can hurt companies and the
economy by making it more difficult to match the right talents to
the right jobs.

"It suppresses employees from finding new jobs in their chosen
fields," said Mark Chandler, Senior Vice President of Cisco
Systems.  "But it also suppresses entrepreneurs from assembling
teams to drive innovation."

The White House is also encouraging a data-gathering effort, led
by salary data provider Payscale and the Ewing Marion Kauffman
Foundation, to find out more about how companies use non-compete
agreements.

The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission
announced they would launch criminal investigations of companies
caught colluding on salaries or agreeing not to hire each other's
employees.



                            *********

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  * * *