CAR_Public/170420.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, April 20, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 79



                            Headlines

21ST AMENDMENT BREWERY: "Peacock" Sues Over Mislabeled Beer
3D SYSTEMS: Motion for Reconsideration Denied
ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Oral Argument Being Considered in Appeal
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Teachers' Fund Sues Over Overpriced Fluocinocide
ADVANCE AMERICA: Class Action Over High Interest Rates Certified

AG AUTOBODY: "Pinto" Seeks Overtime, Sues Over Lack of Pay Stubs
AIR CANADA: Aveos Maintenance Workers Step Up Class Action
ALASKA AIR: Virgin America Flight Attendants' Class Suit Pending
ALLSTATE INDEM: Motion to Dismiss Breach of Contract Claim Nixed
ALLY FINANCIAL: "Sharpe" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

ALPS ELECTRIC: Files Suit Over Automotive Heater Control Pricing
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss "Wilbush" Suit Underway
AMERICAN FAMILY: MAO-MSO Sues Over Unpaid Reimbursements
AMERICAN REGISTRY: Sued in Ohio Over Erroneous Examination Scores
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Action

ANCHOR36 LLC: "Landry" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
ANZ SECURITES: SCOTUS to Weigh in on Statutes of Repose Issue
ANZ: Class Action Among Cases Neil Gorsuch Needs to Look Into
APOLLO COMMERCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Merger Suit Underway
ARCTIC EXPRESS: "Brewer" Seeks OT Pay, Sues Over Missed Breaks

ARIZONA: Dismissal of Negligence Claims Over 2013 Fire Affirmed
ARKANSAS: Ruling in Suit vs. Police Retirement System Reversed
ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Parties Discontinue Merger-Related Litigation
AUSTRALIA: Class Action v. Murray-Darling Basin Authority Mulled
ARMANDO'S DELI: "Linder" Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages

B/E AEROSPACE: Still Faces Class Suits over Rockwell Merger
BANK OF NEW YORK: 2 Suits over Depositary Receipts Pending
BANK OF OKLAHOMA: Wants Brogdon Bonds Class Action Dismissed
BLACKROCK: Faces Suit Over Self-dealing in 401K Plan
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: "Reining" Seeks Employee Benefits, Overtime Pay

BOBBY HOPSON: Molina Class Certification Bid Denied
BOFI HOLDING: June 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
BOK FINANCIAL: May 15 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
BOK FINANCIAL: Bondholders' Class Suit Pending
BRIGHTON TOWNSHIP: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Sewer Lawsuit

CANADA: Afghanistan War Veterans' Pension Class Action Ongoing
CAPNIA INC: Faces "Garfield" Class Suit over Merger
CEMPRA INC: Faces 3 Securities Actions in North Carolina
CENTRAL MILLS: Pocket Frenz Asserts Breach of Contract
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Gets Favorable Ruling in Misclassification Case

CITIBANK NA: Court Ruling at Odds with Recent SCOTUS Opinions
CITIZENS BANK: "Fultz" Files Suit Over Excessive Overdraft Fees
COLLECTO INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
COLOSSAL CONTRACTORS: "Ramos" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
CORIZON HEALTH: To Settle Suit Over Prisoners' Untreated Hernias

CPN MECHANICAL: Diferro Contracting Seeks Payment of Services
CYNOSURE INC: "Rosenfeld" Suit over Hologic Merger Dismissed
DFC GLOBAL: September 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
DIAMOND RECONSTRUCTION: "Sierra" Suit Alleges FLSA Breach
DOORDASH: Settles Delivery Workers' Class Action for $5 Million

DOS REALES INC: "Olivera" Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages
DPP II INC: "Fleming" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
EGS FINANCIAL: Faces TCPA Class Action in Louisiana
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: July 6 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss

ETSY INC: "Altayyar" Class Action Dismissed
ETSY INC: Consolidated Class Action Remains Stayed
FACEBOOK INC: Wants Suit Over Inflated Video Metrics Tossed
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Hearing Loss Cases by 1,770 Firefighter Nixed
FEDERAL SIGNAL: 556 Firefighters in NY and NJ Hearing Loss Cases

FERASS DELI: "Perez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
FIAT CHRYSLER: Class Action Over Defective Jeep Gas Tanks Tossed
FLORIDA: Court OKs Accurate Death Certs for Same Sex Widowers
FLORIDA: To Pay Millions to Homeowners for Lost Citrus Trees
FLORIDA ROOFING: "Molina" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay

FLOWERS BAKING: "Miller" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
FORD MOTOR: Class Action Over Exhaust Odors Can't Proceed
FRANKLIN COLLECTION: "Hernandez" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
GATEWAY GROUP: Faces Class Action in N.J. Over Racetrack Wages
GENEVA, NY: Faces Class Action Over Arsenic Contamination

GENVEC INC: "Mussman" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal with Intrexon
GERON CORP: Settles Class Action, July 21 Fairness Hearing Set
GLOBAL TEL-LINK: $8.8MM Accord in Lee-Martin Suit Has Initial OK
GREAT LAKES: Has Until April 24 to Respond to Class Action
HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Sued for Overcharging for Health Records

HERON RIDGE: "Steinman" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Delaware Law Class Action in Discovery
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Still Defending Suit v. Match Group
IGNITE PAYMENTS: JWD Automotive Sues Over Unsolicited Fax
INGRAM MICRO: Class Action Over HNA Merger Plan Dismissed

INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Motion to Dismiss Suit Underway
J&D TRANSPORTATION: "Thomas" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
JANET ROUSSELL: "Legros" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
JB & J: Residents Call for Investigation in Caravan Park
JC PENNEY: To Settle Vacation Pay Class Action for $1.75MM

JEVIC HOLDING: Supreme Court Opinion to Impact Hedge Funds
JL WOODE: Denial of Leave to Amend Reversed, Action Remanded
JOES BLUE MARKET: "Gonzalez" Suit Seek Overtime Pay
JPMORGAN CHASE: Balks at Euribor Class Action Discovery Timetable
JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Financial Adviser OT Wage Case for $5.7MM

JPMORGAN CHASE: Hit With Proposed Class Suit Over Car Reposession
KEYCORP: Appeal in Checking Account Overdraft Litigation Pending
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: To Challenge MicroCool Class Action Ruling
LABORATORY CORP: Sued Over Excessive Diagnostic Test Fees
LECHONERA EL SAZON: "Hernandez" Seeks OT, Reimbursements, Tips

LENDINGCLUB CORP: Discovery Underway in Securities Class Actions
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Dismiss 2 Suits Remains Pending
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Compel Arbitration Approved
LG: Bootloop Defect Class Action Amended to Cover More Phones
LIFE CARE CENTERS: "Bowlin-Burdick" Sues Over Missed Breaks

LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: No Trial Set in California Action
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal in Pennsylvania Suit Still Pending
LINCOLN WOOD: "Golzak" Sues Over Defective Windows
LIVING ESSENTIALS: Court Denies Bid to Strike Expert Testimony
LOFT ASSOCIATES: "Cunningham" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls

LOFT ASSOCIATES: Class Certification Sought in "Cunningham" Suit
MANUS ISLAND: Court to Live Stream Detainees' Class Action Trial
MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL: Physicians Healthsource Sues Over Fax Ad
MCDONALD'S: Franchise Workers Seek to Revive Wage Class Action
MCGUINNESS DEV'T: Champ Construction Demands Payment for Services

MDL 1674: CBNV Mortgage Litigation Goes to Arbitration
MERCK & CO: Attorneys' Fees in Vioxx Suit Yet to Be Determined
MERCK & CO: 4,230 Fosamax Cases Pending in U.S. Courts
MERCK & CO: Discovery Ongoing in 20 Remaining ONJ Cases
MERCK & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Cases Alleging Femur Fractures

MERCK & CO: 1,195 Januvia/Janumet Claims Served at Dec. 31
MERCK & CO: 1,330 Propecia/Proscar Suits Filed at Dec. 31
MERCK & CO: Settlement Reached in K-DUR Antitrust Litigation
MERCK & CO: "Smith" Sales Force Litigation Underway
MERCK & CO: Class Suits over M-M-R II Vaccine in Discovery

MEZENTCO SOLUTIONS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
MICHAELS STORES: FCRA Provision Not Enough to Establish Harm
MISSOURI: Public Defender System Suit Moved to Federal Court
MONSANTO CO: Jurisdiction Established Through Grable Doctrine
MYLAN INC: "Nordstrum" Sues Over Overpriced EpiPen Injections

MYLAN INC: Teachers' Fund Sues Over Overpriced Anti-Depressant
NABORS DRILLING: Calderon Seeks Certification of Welders Class
NEW ZEALAND: Brokovich Meets Christchurch Insurance Claimants
NUCOR CORPORATION: $23.4MM Settlement Granted Final Approval
OAKHURST: Maine Overtime Law Wording at Issue in Class Action

OCCAM NETWORKS: Class Rep's Incentive Award Request Challenged
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Property Inspection Case Dismissal Upheld
OLD REPUBLIC: "White" Lawsuit Awaiting Court's Dismissal
ONTARIO: C$8MM Settlement Reached for School of the Blind Suit
OPHTHOTECH CORP: 2 Pension Funds Compete for Lead Plaintiff Role

PARTNER COMMS: Customers' Suit Recognized as Class Action
PATHPOINT: "Gonzalez" Seeks Overtime, Missed Break Premiums
PEABODY ENERGY: Missouri Court Dismisses ERISA Suit
PENNSYLVANIA: Admin Added as Defendants in Water Crisis Suit
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Civil Forfeiture Suit

PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Court Tosses Exchange, Securities Act Claims
PLAINS ALL-AMERICAN: November Trial Set in Oil Spill Class Action
PLURALSIGHT: Court Dismisses Suit Over Auto-Renewal Program
PNC FINANCIAL: Appeal in Overdraft Litigation Remains Pending
PNC FINANCIAL: Interlocutory Appeal Sought in Reinsurance Action

PNC FINANCIAL: Amended and Supplemental Complaint Filed
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Pollak" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes
PRINCETON INFORMATION: Settlement in "Escort" Has Prelim Approval
R.J. REYNOLDS: Fla. Top Court Rules Lawsuits Can Continue
RAILWORKS TRACK: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

RESOURCE CORPORATION: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: May 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing
RHODE ISLAND: ACLU's Class Action Over Sex Offenders Bill Ongoing
RINGCENTRAL INC: Bid to Dismiss Supply Pro Sorbents' Suit Pending
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Oral Argument Held in "Corban" Suit

SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: No Briefing Schedule Yet in "Kader" Suit
SEQWATER: Court Orders Mediation in 2011 Floods Class Action
SEVENTY-SEVEN ENERGY: "Gael" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
SHORE FUNDING: "Cunningham" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
SILVERSCRIPT INSURANCE: Class Action Seeks Medicare Beneficiaries

SMUCKER FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Robin Hood Flour Recall
SNYDER'S-LANCE: June 21 Status Hearing in "Roxberry" IBO Suit
SNYDER'S-LANCE: Seeks to Dismiss or Transfer "Scheurer" Suit
SNYDER'S-LANCE: Merger-Related Suit Dismissed
SNYDER'S-LANCE: Accord in Calif. Labor Suit Has Preliminary OK

SNYDER'S-LANCE: Late July's Motion to Dismiss Underway
SOHO SUSHI: "Zhao" Seeks Overtime Pay, Claims No Pay Stubs
SSE: Shareholder Files Class Action Over Patterson-UTI Deal
STANDARD INNOVATION: Settles We-Vibe Privacy Class Action
STELLAR RECOVERY: "Salinas" Sues Over Illegal Collections Calls

STRATEGIC HVAC: "Barragan" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SWEETWATER, FL: Conditional Class Cert. Sought in "Peneda" Suit
SWISHER HYGIENE: Motions to Dismiss Amended Complaint Underway
TESLA: Disputes Son Ji-chang's Sudden Acceleration Claim
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Illinois Court Narrows Claims in "Eul"

TRINET GROUP: Underwriters Seek to Dismiss Welgus Amended Suit
U.S. IMMIGRATION: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Continued
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Mulled Over Manipulative System
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Software Engineer's Suit Stayed
UNIQUE BEVERAGE: Plaintiff's Attorney Files Motion for Sanctions

UNIT CORP: Class Certification Issues in Panola Case Underway
UNITED KINGDOM: Post Office Could Face Suit by Subpostmasters
UNITED STATES: ACLU Advises Against ICE Enforcement Agreements
UNITED STATES: Travel Ban Violates Constitution, ACLU Says
VCA INC: Seeks to Prevent Duran from Pursuing PAGA Action

VCA INC: Discovery Underway in "Bradsbery and Brakensiek" Suit
VCA INC: Appeal in "Graham" Class Suit Underway
VCA INC: Judge Bernal to Hear "Moran" Suit over Mars Merger
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Class Suit by Merkin & Smith, et al. Underway
WASHINGTON: Faces Suit Over Driver's Act Violation

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: Race Discrimination Class Action OK'd
WELLS FARGO: Former Executives Criticized in Fake Accounts Probe
WOOD GROUP: Certification of Class Sought in "Kibodeaux" Suit
WOOLWORTHS: Class Action Mulled Over 2015 Profit Downgrade

* Workers of Gig Economy Companies Fight for Labor Rights
* Blake Cassel Attorneys Discuss 2016 Pharma Class Action Rulings
* Class Actions Mulled v. UK Councils Over Term-Time Holidays
* Class Action Costs Under BIC Between $70MM-$150MM Each Year
* Construction Defects Bill Aims to Resolve Condo Class Actions

* Junk Fax Rule as Applied to Faxes Struck Down by D.C. Circuit
* Legislation Aims to Avert ADA Class Actions Against Businesses
* Lieff Cabraser Attorney Says FCALA to Protect Price Fixing
* More 401(k) Advisers Face Litigation Risk Under Fiduciary Rule
* Plaintiff-Style Aggregate Damages Play Key Role in Class Suits

* Sheffield Lake Council to Join Class Action Over Bill 331
* Trump Supreme Court Appointee to Affect Pending Cases


                            *********


21ST AMENDMENT BREWERY: "Peacock" Sues Over Mislabeled Beer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Peacock, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The 21st Amendment Brewery Cafe, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01918, (N.D. Cal., April 6, 2017),
seeks (i) to preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendant from
using misleading labeling and marketing of its products, (ii) a
corrective advertising and information campaign, (iii)
restitution, (iv) disgorgement of all monies wrongfully obtained,
(v) punitive damages, and (vii) such other and further relief
under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the California Sherman
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law.

The 21st Amendment Brewery Cafe, LLC falsely claims that its beer
products are exclusively brewed in the Bay Area of California
despite the fact some of the beer is brewed in Minnesota, says the
complaint.

Defendant sells beer products under its trademark, 21st Amendment.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jared H. Beck, Esq.
      Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq.
      Beverly Virues, Esq.
      BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS
      12485 SW 137th Ave., Suite 205
      Miami, FL 33186
      Tel: (305) 234-2060
      Fax: (786) 664-3334

            - and -

      Cullin O'Brien, Esq.
      CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
      6541 NE 21st Way
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33108
      Tel: (561) 676-6370
      Fax: (561) 320-0285


3D SYSTEMS: Motion for Reconsideration Denied
---------------------------------------------
3D Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Defendants' motion for
reconsideration of a Court Order has been denied.

The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been
named as defendants in a consolidated putative stockholder class
action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina. The consolidated action is styled KBC
Asset Management NV v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., Case No.
0:15-cv-02393-MGL. The Amended Consolidated Complaint (the
"Complaint"), which was filed on December 9, 2015, alleges that
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions
and that the former officers are control persons under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock between October 29, 2013, and
May 5, 2015 and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported
class.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety
on January 14, 2016, which was denied by Memorandum Opinion and
Order dated July 25, 2016 (the "Order").

Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order on
August 4, 2016, which was denied by Order dated February 24, 2017.

3D Systems Corporation provides comprehensive 3D printing
solutions.


ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Oral Argument Being Considered in Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the appeal in a
class action lawsuit is being considered for oral argument,
possibly as early as May 2017.

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

"On June 9, 2015, Julia Chang was appointed Lead Plaintiff of the
purported class. On June 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, by making false or
misleading statements or omissions about our Accelerate Pheno(TM)
system and by allegedly employing schemes to defraud. Plaintiff
sought certification of the action as a class action, compensatory
damages for the class in an unspecified amount, legal fees and
costs, and such other relief as the court may order. Defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 21, 2015. The Court
granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice on
January 28, 2016.

"On February 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which
challenges the dismissal of the amended complaint. See Chang v.
Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-CV-00504-SPL (9th
Cir. filed Feb. 26, 2016). The appeal has been fully briefed and
is pending.

"On January 27, 2017, the appellate Court informed the Company
that this case is being considered for oral argument, possibly as
early as May 2017, although the exact date has not yet been set.
We do not anticipate this will have a material impact on our
financial statements."

Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc. is an in vitro diagnostics company
dedicated to providing solutions that improve patient outcomes and
lower healthcare costs through the rapid diagnosis of serious
infections.


ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Teachers' Fund Sues Over Overpriced Fluocinocide
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Actavis Holdco US Inc., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Taro
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01600,
(E.D. Pa., April 7, 2017), seeks to recover treble damages, costs
of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from overcharging
of fluocinocide in violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act.

Fluocinocide is a topical glucocorticoid, used to treat
inflammation and pruritic skin conditions, caused by proriasis,
atopic dermatitis and allergic reactions.

Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund is a
voluntary employee benefits plan providing health benefits to
eligible participants and beneficiaries, including prescription
drug benefits, to approximately 34,000 participants, and their
spouses and dependents.

Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in Hawthorne, New York. It is an owned
subsidiary of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.

Actavis is a pharmaceutical corporation with its global
headquarters in Dublin, Ireland, and with administrative
headquarters in New Jersey.

Teva Pharmaceuticals Curacao N.V. develops, manufactures and
distribute generic pharmaceutical products.

Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in Hawthorne, New York. It is an owned
subsidiary of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
      EDESON AND ASSOCIATES LLC
      3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
      Newtown, PA 18940
      Tel: (215) 867-2399
      Fax: (267) 685-0676
      Email: mcdelson@edelson-law.com

             - and -

      Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, RC.
      8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
      161 Washington Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Tel: (484) 342-0700
      Fax: (484) 580-8747
      Email: scarlato@lawgsp.com


ADVANCE AMERICA: Class Action Over High Interest Rates Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
WFTV9abc reports that an Orlando grandmother is taking on a big
payday lender claiming its sky high interest rates violate Florida
law and creates dangerous debt traps.

Her class action lawsuit started 20 years ago but it just passed a
major hurdle.

Wendy Betts was drowning in payday loans due every two weeks.  "It
was a nightmare, I didn't know what to do," said Ms. Betts, "It
was a lonely time for me."  She had just moved to Orlando, her
husband lost his job.  "We were just trying to get our feet back
on the ground, I had taken a salary cut," said Ms. Betts.

Payday loans seemed her only option.  It's a short term loan due
every payday.  Most customers can only afford to pay the interest
so the loan doesn't go away.

Her interest rate was 312% and at one time she juggled 10
different loans.

"Did you feel trapped?" asked Ulrich.

"Definitely. Definitely.  I didn't know where to turn," replied
Betts.

She contacted attorney Clay Yates, who sued lenders like McKenzie
Check Advance, now doing business as Advance America.

"Her paydays were miserable because she had to keep making the
interest payments," said Mr. Yates.

Ms. Betts' lawsuit started 20 years ago and there have been plenty
of setbacks and wins along the way.  Florida's Supreme Court ruled
against the lender in 2006 finding the loans violated usury laws
capping interest at 18 percent.

The class action lawsuit was just certified last month and accuses
the company of exorbitant interest rates.  It would cover
thousands of customers statewide.

Her attorney would only discuss payday customers in general. "They
get in a situation they can't get out of, It's the crack cocaine
of credit," said Mr. Yates.

Advance America told Action 9 it maintains a strong compliance
record with all regulations.  It can't comment on pending
litigation, but will vigorously defend its lawful business
practices.

"I want people to get some restitution.  They were exploited,"
said Ms. Betts.

Thousands of additional customers are not covered by this class
action.  Their contracts had a binding arbitration clause taking
away their right to sue.


AG AUTOBODY: "Pinto" Seeks Overtime, Sues Over Lack of Pay Stubs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Carrillo Pinto and Eliseo Lomeli Centeno, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AG
Autobody, Incorporated, Ali Reza Ghaufori, Horacio Hernandez and
Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC656977 (Cal.
Super., April 10, 2017), seeks injunctive relief, damages for the
amount of unpaid overtime compensation, including interest thereon
and penalties, unpaid minimum wage compensation, damages for
failure to provide timely and accurate itemized wage statements
and waiting time penalties for any and all failure to timely remit
compensation of all earned and payable wages upon termination of
employment under California Labor Laws.

Pinto and Centeno were employed by Defendants as painters at their
automotive repair facility located at 1115 South La Cienga
Boulevard in Los Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Miller, Esq.
      Bonnie Fong, Esq.
      Kelly Buschman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. MILLER
      5023 Parkway Calabasas
      Calabasas, CA 91302
      Tel: (818) 788-8081

             - and -

      Thomas P. Hogan, Esq.
      Flor Tataje, Esq.
      Shawnte Priest, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS P. HOGAN
      1207 13th Street, Suite 1
      Modesto, CA 95354
      Tel: (209) 214-6600
      Fax: (209) 492-9356


AIR CANADA: Aveos Maintenance Workers Step Up Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Martin Cash, writing for Winnipeg Free Press, reports that former
Aveos airplane maintenance workers have beefed up their efforts to
pursue a $1-billion class-action suit against Air Canada and the
governments of Canada and Quebec.

Lawyers from the Quebec firm Trudel Johnston & Lesperance have
joined other firms in the province -- Jean-Fran‡ois Bertrand
Avocats Inc., Bruno-Pierre Allard and Jean Poirier -- in
litigating the class action.

More than 400 Winnipeg Aveos workers, who lost their jobs in 2012
when Aveos Fleet Performance closed its doors, are eligible to
join the class action.  Aveos was spun off from the former Air
Canada Technical Services.

Gilbert McMullen, a Montreal-based spokesman for the laid-off
workers, said the addition of the Trudel firm puts more firepower
behind efforts to get Air Canada to settle.

"We think it will mean that Air Canada will no longer be able to
play their games," Mr. McMullen said.

The lawsuit likely represents the last opportunity at compensation
for workers who believe the shutdown of the plant was a "flagrant
and deliberate violation" of the Air Canada Public Participation
Act.  That act required Air Canada to maintain operation centres
in Winnipeg, Montreal and Mississauga.

When Aveos went out of business, the airline shipped those jobs
elsewhere, many of them out of the country.

Air Canada argued because it still had line maintenance workers in
those cities, the airline was not violating the law.  Quebec and
Manitoba disagreed, and the former filed a lawsuit against the
airline. Manitoba was an intervener in the case.  A Quebec court
sided with the provinces, and that decision was upheld on appeal.
The case was destined for the Supreme Court of Canada, but the
airline negotiated settlements with the two provinces.

Air Canada said it would establish maintenance centres of
excellence in Winnipeg and Montreal.  In Quebec, the airline also
has committed to a maintenance contract on the Quebec-made C-
Series jets Air Canada intends to purchase.

In return, Quebec and Manitoba withdrew their legal challenges.

However, the promised centre of excellence in Winnipeg has not
materializing.

Air Canada has stated publicly on several occasions it was
supporting the establishment of Manitoba operations for three of
its suppliers -- Cargojet Airways Ltd., Hope Aero Propeller &
Components Inc. and Airbase Services Inc.  The plan was for them
to locate in the old Aveos hangar on Saskatchewan Avenue.  Air
Canada recently signed another 10-year lease on the buildings.

Last year, it was rumoured Cargojet would build a heavy
maintenance operation there and might need to hire a few hundred
workers.  It seems increasingly unlikely the Mississauga-based
cargo carrier is going to follow through with that.

An industry official familiar with the heavy maintenance business
in Canada said he understands Cargojet is not coming to Winnipeg.
"That page has been turned, and I strongly doubt it will be
reopened."

Barry Rempel, the CEO of Winnipeg Airports Authority, is decidedly
less optimistic than he was only a few months ago about Cargojet
setting up in Winnipeg. The WAA holds the land lease on those Air
Canada hangars and is strongly motivated to see it occupied and
generating economic activity.

"I've come to the point of believing the hoped-for Cargojet work
is unlikely but for reasons that have nothing to do with
Winnipeg... location or business climate," Mr. Rempel said in an
email exchange. "We are pursuing what we hope to have potential
for some additional Air Canada partner work here, but nothing is
yet firm."

Cargojet had no comment, spokeswoman Pauline Dhillon said.

Air Canada is still officially sticking to the party line.

"Our commitment to all three remains unchanged," company spokesman
Peter Fitzpatrick said.

Officials from Hope and Airbase were unavailable for comment, but
a Winnipeg aerospace industry official said Airbase -- an airplane
interior cabinet and furnishings manufacturer and maintenance
organization -- is in the process of setting up a shop, with four
employees in Winnipeg.


ALASKA AIR: Virgin America Flight Attendants' Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Air Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a class action lawsuit
filed by Virgin America flight attendants remains pending.

In 2015, three flight attendants filed a class action lawsuit
seeking to represent all Virgin America flight attendants for
damages based on alleged violations of California and City of San
Francisco wage and hour laws.  Plaintiffs received class
certification in November 2016.

Virgin America filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to
dismiss all claims on various federal preemption grounds.  In
January 2017, the Court denied in part and granted in part Virgin
America's motion.

Virgin America believes the claims in this case are without
factual and legal merit and intends to defend this lawsuit
through, among other strategies, filing a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's certification decision and denial
of summary judgment and, if necessary, a motion for certification
of interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

Air Group operates Alaska, Virgin America and Horizon Air.  It
completed the acquisition of Virgin America on December 14, 2016,
at which time Virgin America became its wholly-owned subsidiary.


ALLSTATE INDEM: Motion to Dismiss Breach of Contract Claim Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wystan Ackerman, Esq. -- wackerman@rc.com -- of Robinson+Cole, in
an article for JDSupra, wrote that in prior blog posts, "I've
covered developments in the putative class actions against
insurance companies in Georgia involving diminution in value on
property insurance claims, for example)".  These cases stem from a
2012 Georgia Supreme Court decision ruling that diminution in
value following completion of repairs was potentially covered
under a property insurance policy.  A Georgia federal court
recently decided a motion to dismiss in one of these class
actions.

In Morrow v. Allstate Indem. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46245
(M.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2017), the court ruled as follows on the
central issues:

The court denied the motion to dismiss the breach of contract
claim, rejecting an argument that the policy did not cover
diminished value because it covered only "sudden and accidental
direct physical loss," and rejecting an argument based on the
policy's replacement cost coverage provision. On the second point,
the court noted that the policy provided actual cash value
coverage unless and until the repairs were completed.  The court
wrote that "[a]ctual cash value' implies the obligation to
compensate for any diminished-value losses sustained by the
insured," and that "because the Building Reimbursement Payment is
a payment in addition to the actual cash value payment, any
limitations in the Building Structure Reimbursement provision are
irrelevant." at *12.  The court further concluded that, for
pleading purposes, it was sufficient for the plaintiffs to allege
"that their home suffered foundational and/or structural support
damage, water damage, and mold damage," and that "despite these
repairs, the fair market value of their home diminished because of
the damage." Id. at *15.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the claim for injunctive
relief or specific performance, stating that "[t]he Court cannot
say at this point that Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law
in the form of a damages award." at *20.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment
claim.  Plaintiffs argued that they had a likelihood of future
injury, asserting that they have a 10% chance of submitting a
covered claim for property damage in any given year. The court
concluded that this was insufficient to allege a reasonable
expectation of a future injury, and thus dismissed the declaratory
judgment claim. at *23-24.

It may be advisable for insurers to continue to monitor these
cases.  I'm not aware of any cases in which plaintiffs have sought
to litigate the issue outside of Georgia.  The diminished value
issue has the potential to spread beyond Georgia, as occurred in
the auto insurance context.


ALLY FINANCIAL: "Sharpe" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Mina Sharpe and Belinda McKinnon, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ally Financial, Inc.,
Randstad North America, Inc. and Vaco Charlotte, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-189, (W.D. N.C., April 7, 2017), seeks
compensatory damages, including all pay owed, pre- and post-
judgment interest at the statutory rate, liquidated damages,
overtime compensation found due, reasonable attorneys' fees
incurred prosecuting this claim and such further relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and North Carolina Wage and Hour
Act.

Ally Financial, Inc. provides financial services including auto
financing, corporate financing, insurance, mortgages, stock
brokerage, and online banking services to customers.

Randstad North America, Inc. and VACO Charlotte, LLC are staffing
companies that provide outsourcing, consulting, and workforce
staffing solutions within the areas of engineering, finance and
accounting, healthcare, human resources, IT, legal, life sciences,
manufacturing and logistics, office administration and sales and
marketing to clients nationwide.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants, via the staffing agencies, as
Anti-Money Laundering Investigators. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
      PHIL GIBBONS LAW, P.C.
      15720 Brixham Hill Ave., Suite 331
      Charlotte, NC 28277
      Tel: (704) 612-0038
      Email: phil@philgibbonslaw.com

             - and -

      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      Teresa M Becvar, Esq.
      STEPHEN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 233 1550
      Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
             jzouras@stephanzouras.com


ALPS ELECTRIC: Files Suit Over Automotive Heater Control Pricing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffin Motor Homes, Inc. and SLTNTRST LLC, Trustee for Fleetwood
Liquidating Trust, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Alps Electric Co., Ltd., Alps
Electric (North America), Inc. and Alps Automotive Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-11109, (E.D. Mich., April 7, 2017),
seeks injunctive relief and to recover damages, including treble
damages, and costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees,
resulting from Defendants' violations of the Sherman Act and the
Clayton Act.

Defendants are manufacturers of automotive heater control panels
in motor vehicles manufactured or sold in the United States.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to rig bids, and to
fix, maintain, and/or stabilize their prices in the United States.
Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants fraudulently concealed
their conspiracy. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David H. Fink, Esq.
     Darryl Bressack, Esq.
     Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
     FINK ASSOCIATES LAW
     38500 Woodward Avenue, Ste. 350
     Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
     Tel: (248) 971-2500
     Email: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
            dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com

            - and -

     Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
     William E. Hoese, Esq.
     Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
     KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
     One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Telephone: (215) 238-1700
     Email: jkohn@kohnswift.com
            whoese@kohnswift.com
            dabrahams@kohnswift.com

            - and -

     Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
     William H. London, Esq.
     Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
     FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
     2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
     Bannockburn, IL 60015
     Telephone: (224) 632-4500
     Email: skanner@fklmlaw.com
            wlondon@fklmlaw.com
            mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

            - and -

     Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
     William G. Caldes, Esq.
     Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
     Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
     SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
     1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 496-0300
     Email: espector@srkw-law.com
            bcaldes@srkw-law.com
            jjagher@srkw-law.com
            jspector@srkw-law.com

            - and -

     Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
     Randall B. Weill, Esq.
     Michael S. Smith, Esq.
     PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
     One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
     Portland, ME 04112-9546
     Telephone: (207) 791-3000
     Email: ghansel@preti.com
            rweill@preti.com
            msmith@preti.com

            - and -

     M. John Dominguez, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
     Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
     Telephone: (561) 833-6575

            - and -

     Brian Murray, Esq.
     Lee Albert, Esq.
     Gregory Linkh, Esq.
     GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
     77 Water Street, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10015
     Telephone: (646) 722-4180
     Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com
            lalbert@glancylaw.com
            glinkh@glancylaw.com

            - and -

     Melissa H. Maxman, Esq.
     COHEN & GRESSER LLP
     1707 L Street, NW Suite 550
     Washington, DC 20036
     Telephone: (202) 851 2070
     Email: MMaxman@CohenGresser.com

            - and -

     Brent W. Johnson, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500 West
     Washington, DC 20005
     Telephone: (202) 408-4600
     Email: bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss "Wilbush" Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Ambac Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned, Ori
Wilbush, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc., Diana N. Adams, David
Trick, Jeffrey S. Stein, Nader Tavakoli and Cathleen Matanle
(United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
Civil Action No. 16-cv-05076-RMB, filed on June 28, 2016), remains
pending.

A putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in June 2016
against Ambac and certain of its present and former officers and
directors, for alleged violations of the federal securities laws.
The court appointed a lead plaintiff on October 11, 2016. The lead
plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on November 23,
2016. The suit purports to be on behalf of purchasers of Ambac's
securities from November 13, 2013 through November 17, 2015. It
alleges, among other things, that defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding Ambac's (a) risk
management and credit rating policies and procedures, (b) credit
mitigation strategies, (c) internal controls over financial
reporting, and (d) loss exposures on its public finance bond
portfolio. In particular, the suit alleges that defendants did not
sufficiently disclose Ambac's exposure to bonds issued by the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, despite allegedly being aware of
significant risks associated with those exposures.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
February 27, 2017. Ambac believes the lawsuit is without merit.


AMERICAN FAMILY: MAO-MSO Sues Over Unpaid Reimbursements
--------------------------------------------------------
MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, MSP Recovery, LLC and MSPA Claims 1,
LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAO), Plaintiffs, v. American
Family Mutual Insurance Company and American Family Insurance
Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00262, (W.D. Wis., April 6,
2017), seeks reimbursement for those accident-related medical
expenses paid for by the Plaintiffs' assignors and all other MAOs
that should have been paid, in the first instance, by Defendants;
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under the Medicare
Secondary Payer Provisions; and for breach of contract.

Plaintiffs and the putative class members are Medicare Advantage
Organizations that provide Medicare benefits to Medicare-eligible
beneficiaries enrolled under the Medicare Advantage program. These
Medicare beneficiaries were simultaneously covered by insurance
policies issued by Defendants, which made Defendants the primary
payers for the medical bills, services, and items paid by
Plaintiffs and the Class Members. They paid for the medical items
or treatment even though the Defendants were responsible for
paying those expenses under their no-fault insurance policies and
the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of Medicare, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
      Michael L. Baum, Esq.
      Pedram Esfandiary, Esq.
      BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
      12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Tel: (310) 207-3233
      Fax: (310) 820-7444
      Email: rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
             mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com
             pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com

             - and -

      Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
      Tracy L. Turner, Esq.
      Courtney L. Stidham, Esq.
      PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
      1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
      New Orleans, LA 70112
      Phone: (504) 355-0086
      Email: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com
             tturner@pbclawfirm.com
             cstidham@pbclawfirm.com


AMERICAN REGISTRY: Sued in Ohio Over Erroneous Examination Scores
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys Thomas Zimmerman, Jr., of the Chicago-based Zimmerman
Law Offices and former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann of the
Cleveland-based Dann Law Firm on April 10 filed a federal class
action suit against the American Registry for Diagnostic Medical
Sonography (ARDMS), the body that administers examinations and
awards credentials to professionals who utilize ultrasound
technology.  The suit alleges ARDMS falsely reported that
sonography professionals who took certification exams between
September 2016 and March 2017 failed the tests when they had, in
fact, passed, and that those false reports harmed affected
professionals in a number of ways.

The case, Stephanie Miller and Mary Alyce Dawson v. Inteleos, Inc.
f/k/a American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography, Inc.,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio.

The lead plaintiffs, sonography professionals who received
erroneous examination scores, represent all sonographers
throughout the United States impacted by ARDMS' actions. The
lawsuit seeks damages for lost wages, lost employment
opportunities, and damage to the sonographers' professional
reputations resulting from the false report that they failed their
certification examinations.

ARDMS, which boasts that its credentials have been awarded to more
than 90,000 medical professionals worldwide and are recognized as
the international standard in the field, certifies Registered
Diagnostic Medical Sonographer (RDMS), Registered Diagnostic
Cardiac Sonographer (RDCS), Registered Vascular Technologist
(RVT), Registered Musculoskeletal Sonographer (RMSKS), Registered
Physician in Vascular Interpretation (RPVI), and Registered in
Musculoskeletal (RMSK) Sonography. Inteleos, Inc., the
organization that governs and manages ARDMS is the defendant in
the lawsuit.

"Because it denotes a lack of competency, knowledge and expertise
in sonography, there is a serious stigma associated with failure
to pass the credentialing examination," Attorney Zimmerman said.
Attorney Dann noted that as a result of the false reporting of
failing scores, sonography professionals across the country
suffered harm to their professional reputation, lost their jobs,
were denied employment opportunities, and had to sit for the
certification examination a second time even though they had
already passed the examination.

A copy of the complaint is available upon request. Attorneys
Zimmerman and Dann will be available for interviews and the lead
plaintiffs may also be available to speak with the media on a
limited basis.

Contacts:

Zimmerman Law Offices, PC
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr.
tom@attorneyzim.com
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 440-0020 telephone
www.attorneyzim.com

or

The Dann Law Firm Co., LPA
Marc E. Dann
mdann@dannlaw.com
2728 Euclid Avenue, Suite 300
Cleveland, OH 44115
(216) 452-1026
www.dannlaw.com


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Safirstein Metcalf LLP on April 11 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against AmTrust Financial Services, Inc.
("AmTrust" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:AFSI) and certain of its
officers, and is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased AmTrust securities between March 2, 2015
and March 16, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased Amtrust securities during the Class Period, and
would like more information about getting involved in the Amtrust
Shareholder Class Action, please call 1-800-221-0015, or email
info@SafirsteinMetcalf.com.  If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 1, 2017.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  Any member of
the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

Company: AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
Exchange: NASDAQ
Ticker: AFSI
Cusip: 032359309
Class Period: 3/2/15-3/16/17
Lead Plaintiff Date: 5/1/17

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) AmTrust had ineffective assessment of the
risks associated with the financial reporting; (2) AmTrust had an
insufficient complement of corporate accounting and corporate
financial reporting resources within the organization; (3) as a
result, AmTrust lacked effective controls over financial
reporting; and (4) consequently, defendants' statements about
AmTrust's business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

On February 27, 2017, AmTrust revealed that it "identified
material weaknesses in its internal control over financial
reporting that existed as of December 31, 2016, specifically
related to ineffective assessment of the risks associated with the
financial reporting, and an insufficient complement of corporate
accounting and corporate financial reporting resources within the
organization."  Amtrust also said that it expects to correct
errors in its financial statements for fiscal years ended December
31, 2015 and 2014, and certain financial information for fiscal
years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, and that it intended to
delay the filing of its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2016.  Following this news, AmTrust stock dropped $5.32 per share,
or over 19.23%, to close at $22.34 on February 27, 2017.

                 About Safirstein Metcalf LLP

Safirstein Metcalf LLP focuses its practice on shareholder rights.
The law firm also practices in the areas of antitrust and consumer
protection.


ANCHOR36 LLC: "Landry" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------
Brittany Landry, Plaintiff v. Anchor36, LLC, Anchor36 Logistics,
LLC; and Courtney Richard, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02947,
(E.D. La., April 6, 2017), is a collective action on behalf of all
other current and former similarly situated employees, seeking
unpaid wages and overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs of suit, injunctive and equitable relief,
pre and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate an interstate trucking and logistics business
with principal place of business located at 10417 Ware Street in
River Ridge, Louisiana. Ms. Landry did general office work
including, answering phones, invoicing, dispatching trucks,
responding to customer requests, providing paperwork and supplies
to new drivers and performing inside sales duties and cold-
calling. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
     STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
     6557 West End Blvd.
     New Orleans, LA 70124
     Tel: (504) 267-0777
     Fax: (504) 513-3084
     Email: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com


ANZ SECURITES: SCOTUS to Weigh in on Statutes of Repose Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Mann, writing for SCOTUS blog, reports that California
Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ Securities presents
such a basic question about class actions that it is astonishing
the answer is not already settled: If a plaintiff files a class-
action complaint that includes your claims, does that count as
your complaint for purposes of filing your action in time? Or do
you have to file your own complaint before the deadline for filing
expires? This becomes important any time a litigant decides that
it wants to litigate the dispute separately from the class; when
it "opts out" of the class litigation, it has to file a separate
complaint.  In this case, for example, CalPERS opted out of a
settlement of which it disapproved in a major class action against
underwriters of Lehman Brothers securities; the class-action
complaint had been filed in a timely manner, but the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 2nd Circuit held that CalPERS' individual
complaint, filed after it opted out, was untimely.

The Supreme Court has addressed this question before, in its 1974
decision in American Pipe & Construction v. Utah.  In that case,
the court held that the class complaint did count as the claim of
the individual claimants for purposes of statutes of limitation;
more specifically, it held that the class complaint "tolled," or
suspended, the statute of limitations so that the individual
claimant's later complaint was timely.  In the securities laws,
though, there are two different kinds of filing deadlines.  The
first, statutes of limitation, are relatively short and run from
the time when the claimant discovers the problem that gives it a
right to sue; the second, statutes of repose, are relatively long
and run from the date of the violation in question.  We know from
American Pipe that the class-action complaint tolls the statute of
limitations, but the 2nd Circuit (like most of the lower courts)
has held that it does not toll statutes of repose.

The relevant statute simply says that no "action" shall be brought
after the relevant deadline; it would not be at all difficult to
read the statute to support either side's position. So the great
bulk of what the parties are arguing about is appropriate policy
for class actions.  For the plaintiffs' part (CalPERS in this
case), the argument is obvious: A rule that the class-action
complaint does not protect individual claimants from the statute
of repose means that individual claimants will need to file their
own separate complaints as the statute of repose approaches,
flooding the dockets of federal courts in the process and
destroying the case-management value of class actions. Moreover,
in low-dollar class actions (areas like the Fair Labor Standards
Act, for example), the ruling well might deny relief altogether,
as the individual cases would not warrant the costs of separate
complaints.

The defendants are ANZ Securities and a large group of parties
related to the underwriting of Lehman Brothers securities.  They
rely on the Supreme Court's practice of vigorously applying
statutes of repose like the one at issue here.  The most recent
case, for example, the 2014 decision in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger,
describes those statutes as an "absolute . . . bar" to liability,
one that cannot be extended "for any reason," not "even in cases
of extraordinary circumstances."  They also counter CalPERS'
assertion that a contrary decision will cause a flood of
litigation, pointing out that the 2nd Circuit, home to much of the
nation's securities litigation, has applied this rule since 2013
without any great difficulty.

The recent concern of several members of the court about the costs
of class actions has been conspicuous.  Even in the absence of
Justice Antonin Scalia, the justices well may see the case through
that lens.  The challenge for CalPERS in the argument will be to
overcome any skepticism about class actions and persuade the court
to see this as a case about docket management.


ANZ: Class Action Among Cases Neil Gorsuch Needs to Look Into
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fox News' Bill Mears and Andrew O'Reilly and The Associated Press
report that Justice Neil Gorsuch, vowing to be a "faithful
servant" to the Constitution, was sworn in April 10 to the Supreme
Court, capping a grueling confirmation process and filling the
seat once held by the late Antonin Scalia.

The latest addition to the court was sworn in at a public ceremony
in the Rose Garden.  Justice Anthony Kennedy -- Gorsuch's former
boss -- administered the Judicial Oath, the second of two Gorsuch
took.

"To the American people, I am humbled by the trust placed in me
today," Gorsuch said after taking the oath.  "I will never forget
to whom much is given to much will be expected, and I promise you
that I will do all my powers permit to be a faithful servant of
the Constitution and laws of this great nation."

At the ceremony, President Trump called Gorsuch a man of
"unmatched qualification" and "deeply devoted" to the
Constitution.

"I have no doubt you will rise to the occasion, and the decisions
you make will protect our Constitution today and for many
generations of Americans to come," he said.

Earlier, Gorsuch took the Constitutional Oath in a private
ceremony, administered by Chief Justice John Roberts in the
Supreme Court's Justice's Conference Room.  He was accompanied by
his wife Louise, who held the Bible, and his two daughters.

Gorsuch, 49, takes the seat of the late Justice Scalia, who died
in February last year, and whom Gorsuch has been compared
favorably to by conservatives hopeful for another originalist on
the court.

April 10, 2017: Neil Gorsuch takes the first of two oaths for the
Supreme Court. (Franz Jantzen, Collection of the Supreme Court of
the United States)

He underwent a rocky confirmation hearing as he faced stiff
opposition from Democrats unhappy with how Republicans had blocked
President Barack Obama's nominee -- Judge Merrick Garland -- after
Scalia's death.

Gorsuch is likely to cast a deciding vote in a number of high-
profile cases, which also explains the tough confirmation process.
The high stakes led Republicans to trigger the "nuclear option" to
kill the 60-vote filibuster threshold for Supreme Court nominees.

Here's a preview of what Justice Gorsuch will be looking at:

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley

Seen as the hot-button case of the Court's sitting, this case
involves a Lutheran preschool in Missouri that was denied state
funds to improve a playground due to a law banning prohibiting
government aid to schools with religious affiliations.  Trinity
Lutheran and supporters are hoping that, given Gorsuch's rulings
on past church-state issues, he will back them in this one.

Weaver v. Massachusetts and Davila v. Davis

The first case surrounds a 16-year-old who murdered a 15-year-old
in 2003, and his lawyers claim his Sixth Amendment rights were
violated and he was given inadequate representation after a court
kept his family locked out while a jury was selected and his
lawyers did not object.

The Davila case involves a Texas gang member convicted of killing
a 5-year-old and her grandmother in a shooting.  But lawyers claim
he was given ineffective counsel, and specifically they question
the legal remedies given to capital defendants.

Maslenjak v. U.S.

Justices will hear the case of an ethnic Serb from Bosnia, who was
stripped of U.S. citizenship for lying about how she came to the
country.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled that
a naturalized citizen can be stripped of citizenship in a criminal
proceeding based on immaterial false statements. Gorsuch's record
is unclear on immigration issues, and he only ruled on a few in
his time on the 10th Circuit.

California Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ Securities,
Inc.

This case involves the question of whether certain class-action
securities lawsuits can be barred because they were filed too
late.

The retirement fund in California has sued various financial
institutions over their alleged role in the 2008 collapse of
Lehman Brothers.

How the justices rule in this case is expected to have serious
consequences for institutional investors and also will determine
whether putative class members must file individual complaints
before the three-year period imposed by Section 13 of the
Securities Act has run out.


APOLLO COMMERCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Merger Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the case captioned,
In Re Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
remains pending, Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc. said
in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

After the announcement of the execution of the merger agreement
with Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., a Maryland corporation
("AMTG"), two putative class action lawsuits challenging the
proposed First Merger (as defined in the AMTG Merger Agreement),
captioned Aivasian v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al.,
No. 24-C-16-001532 and Wiener v. Apollo Residential Mortgage,
Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001837, were filed in the Circuit Court
for Baltimore City, (the "Court"). A putative class and derivative
lawsuit was later filed in the Court captioned Crago v. Apollo
Residential Mortgage, Inc., No. 24-C-16-002610.

Following a hearing on May 6, 2016, the Court entered orders among
other things, consolidating the three actions under the caption In
Re Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case
No.: 24-C-16-002610. The plaintiffs have designated the Crago
complaint as the operative complaint. The operative complaint
includes both direct and derivative claims, names as defendants
AMTG, the board of directors of AMTG (the "AMTG Board"), ARI,
Arrow Merger Sub Inc., Apollo and Athene Holding Ltd. and alleges,
among other things, that the members of the AMTG Board breached
their fiduciary duties to the AMTG stockholders and that the other
corporate defendants aided and abetted such fiduciary breaches.
The operative complaint further alleges, among other things, that
the proposed First Merger involves inadequate consideration, was
the result of an inadequate and conflicted sales process, and
includes unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly
preclude competing offers. It also alleges that the transactions
with Athene Holding Ltd. are unfair and that the registration
statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on April 6, 2016 contains
materially misleading disclosures and omits certain material
information.

The operative complaint seeks, among other things, certification
of the proposed class, declaratory relief, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the
First Merger, unspecified damages, and an award of other
unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs.

On May 6, 2016, counsel for the plaintiffs filed with the Court a
stipulation seeking the appointment of interim co-lead counsel,
which stipulation was approved by the Court on June 9, 2016.
Defendants' motions to dismiss have been fully briefed, and oral
argument was held on December 8, 2016.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.


ARCTIC EXPRESS: "Brewer" Seeks OT Pay, Sues Over Missed Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Brewer on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Arctic Express, LLC and Does 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG17856090, (Cal. Super., April
10, 2017), seeks disgorgement of profits, restitution, restoration
of costs incurred, sums or property unlawfully withheld and/or
losses caused by the policy and practice of failing to pay all
minimum wage, overtime and double-time compensation owed,
compensatory damages representing the amount of unpaid
compensation owed for missed meal periods and missed rest breaks,
compensatory damages for failing to provide accurate and itemized
wage statements, waiting time penalties and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs in violation of the California Business and
Professions Code and the California Labor Code as well as and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Arctic Express distributes frozen food deserts for Nestle
throughout California, where Brewer worked for Defendants as a
Route Sales Driver from approximately 2006 to April 2016.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Eric A. Grover, Esq.
      Robert W. Spencer, Esq.
      KELLER GROVER LLP
      1965 Market Street
      San Francisco, CA 94103
      Telephone: (415) 543-1305
      Facsimile: (415)543-7861
      Email: eagrover@kellergrover.com
             rspencer@kellergrover.com

             - and -

      Scot Bernstein, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN, APC
      101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
      Folsom, CA 95630
      Telephone: (916)447-0100
      Facsimile: (916)933-5533
      Email: swampadero@sbemsteinlaw.com

             - and -

      Matthew Mellen, Esq.
      MELLEN LAW FIRM
      One Embarcadero Center, Fifth Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 315-1653
      Facsimile: (415)276-1902
      Email: email@mellenlawfirm.com


ARIZONA: Dismissal of Negligence Claims Over 2013 Fire Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's ruling
dismissing negligence claims against the State of Arizona and the
Arizona State Forestry Division in the appeals cases captioned,
GORDON ACRI, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. STATE OF ARIZONA,
et al., Defendants/Appellees; and CHUCK OVERMYER and NINA BILL
OVERMYER, both as individuals and as representatives of a class
consisting of all of the residents of Yarnell, Glen Ilah, Peeples
Valley, and the surrounding geographical area who suffered damages
as a result of the Yarnell Hill Fire, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v.
STATE OF ARIZONA, a public entity; and the ARIZONA STATE FORESTRY
DIVISION, a public entity, Defendants/Appellees, Case Nos. 1 CA-CV
15-0349, 1 CA-CV 15-0350 Consolidated (Ariz. App.).

On the afternoon of June 30, 2013, the Yarnell Hill Fire burned
out of control, killing 19 local firefighters and destroying
structures and property throughout Yarnell. The Residents asserted
civil claims against the State, alleging that the State had
negligently managed the firefighting efforts, negligently failed
to protect Yarnell from the fire, and negligently failed to
provide a timely evacuation notice, all leading to the destruction
of their property.

On the State's motion, the superior court dismissed the complaints
on the basis that the State did not owe the Residents a duty as
required to state a cause of action for negligence.

On appeal, the Residents argue "sound public policy imposed a duty
of care on the State to protect Yarnell and its people."

In an Opinion dated March 30, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/UuyxQ7 from Leagle.com, the appeals court held that
the superior court correctly concluded that the State did not owe
a duty to protect the Residents' property against naturally caused
wildfires.

The only claim remaining in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint
is his First Cause of Action for sexual harassment, discrimination
and retaliation.


Gordon Acri, et al. are represented by Craig A. Knapp, Esq. --
knapp@krattorneys.com -- Dana R. Roberts, Esq. --
roberts@krattorneys.com -- and -- David L. Abney, Esq. --
abney@krattorneys.com -- KNAPP & ROBERTS, PC

State of Arizona, et al. are represented by:

      Brock J. Heathcotte, Esq.
      Daniel P. Schaack, Esq.
      1275 West Washington Street
      Phoenix, AZ 85007-2926
      Tel: (602) 542-5025


ARKANSAS: Ruling in Suit vs. Police Retirement System Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's denial of
appellants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed appellees'
complaint in the appeals case captioned, ARKANSAS STATE POLICE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND KIRK BRADSHAW, JOHN W. ALLISON, BRANT TOSH,
BLAKE WILSON, DONNIE UNDERWOOD, JOE MILES, AND DR. JOHN SHELNUTT,
IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE ARKANSAS STATE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Appellants, v.
GLENN SLIGH, MYRON HALL, RICKY BRIGGS, LOYD FRANKLIN, MACK
THOMPSON, CLEVE BARFIELD, AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Appellees, Case No. CV-16-304 (Ark.).

On January 19, 2012, appellees Glenn Sligh, Myron Hall, Ricky
Briggs, Loyd Franklin, Mack Thompson, Cleve Barfield  filed a
class-action complaint against Arkansas State Police Retirement
System and Kirk Bradshaw, John W. Allison, Brant Tosh, Blake
Wilson, Donnie Underwood, Joe Miles, and Dr. John Shelnutt, in
their official capacities as members of the Board of Trustees of
the Arkansas State Police Retirement System, on behalf of certain
members of the Arkansas State Police Retirement System Deferred
Option Plan.

An amended complaint was filed on April 20, 2012, and a second
amended complaint was filed on June 6, 2013.

Appellees alleged that the class, which was composed of Arkansas
State Police Officers, had elected to retire into the DROP in
reliance on legislation currently in place at the time of their
election that had established a minimum rate of return on their
DROP retirement accounts. The statutory provision at issue,
Arkansas Code Annotated section 24-6-304(b)(1) (Repl. 2000),
originally stated that members were to earn interest at a rate of
two percentage points below the rate of return of ASPRS's
investment portfolio, but no less than the actuarially assumed
interest rate as certified by the actuary, which was 7.75% at the
time.

The Trustees voted to reduce the interest rate on DROP balances to
3.25% effective July 1, 2009, the start of the 2010 fiscal year
alleging that Act 404 of 2007 was unconstitutional as applied to
those officers who had elected to enter the DROP prior to March
22, 2007, because it impaired their contractual rights under
article 2, Section 17 of the Arkansas Constitution and article 1,
Section 10 of the United States Constitution. Alternatively,
appellees requested a writ of mandamus or injunctive relief
compelling the Trustees to comply with their statutory and
fiduciary duties by accurately providing interest on each member's
DROP account consistent with the law in effect at the time the
member entered the DROP. Appellees also prayed that attorney's
fees and costs be awarded.

On August 11, 2014, appellees filed a motion for summary judgment,
arguing that there were no material facts in dispute and that they
were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Appellees contended
that appellants were not entitled to sovereign immunity because
(1) the interest payments in the DROP come from the ASPRS trust
fund, not from the state general treasury; (2) the State has
waived sovereign immunity in the event of errors in retirement
calculations pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 24-6-205;
and (3) the State has violated appellees' constitutional rights.

On October 6, 2014, appellants filed a response to appellees'
motion as well as a cross-motion for summary judgment arguing that
appellees' claims against them were barred by sovereign immunity
and that appellees had also failed to state a claim pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 because ASPRS and its Trustees are not
"persons" amenable to suit.

The circuit court entered an order on May 27, 2015, granting
appellees' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denying
appellants' cross-motion. With respect to sovereign immunity, the
circuit court specifically found that "the interest money they
seek is not a general financial obligation that would cause the
legislature to appropriate funds from the state Treasury.

Appellees then filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of
damages, requesting that the circuit court order that each of the
fifty-one class members should be paid the difference between "the
erroneous distribution" and what they should have received based
on the interest rates set out in the statute prior to the 2007
amendment. Appellees also argued that they were entitled to costs,
attorney's fees, and prejudgment interest.

The circuit court entered an order on December 23, 2015, granting
summary judgment to appellees. The court awarded damages to each
class member consistent with the exhibits that had been provided
and eventually agreed upon by the parties. The court also found
that appellees were entitled to prejudgment interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of each officer's final DROP payment
through December 10, 2015. However, the court denied appellees'
request for attorney's fees, finding that this claim was barred by
sovereign immunity.

ASPRS and Trustees appeal from the Pulaski County Circuit Court's
order denying their motion for summary judgment and granting
summary judgment to appellees. For reversal, appellants argue that
(1) the circuit court's denial of their summary-judgment motion
should be reversed on the basis that article 5, Section 20 of the
Arkansas Constitution immunizes ASPRS and its Trustees from suit;
(2) the circuit court erred in holding that appellees stated a
claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 because ASPRS and its Trustees
are not "persons" subject to suit; (3) alternatively, even if
ASPRS and its Trustees are not immune from suit and are "persons"
under Section 1983, then appellants are entitled to judgment as a
matter of law on appellees' claims; and (4) in the event we affirm
the circuit court's ruling on liability, appellees are not
entitled to prejudgment interest because their alleged damages
were not ascertainable at the time of the event that gave rise to
their cause of action. Appellees have also filed a cross-appeal
from the circuit court's denial of their request for attorney's
fees.

In an Opinion dated March 30, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/oLzJth from Leagle.com, the Supreme Court held that
there is no error in the records as contemplated in section 24-6-
205, and the section does not waive appellants' immunity with
respect to appellees' suit because the State intentionally amended
the statute regarding the interest paid on DROP accounts, and the
Trustees deliberately voted to reduce the interest rate pursuant
to that statute. Because the Supreme Court reverse based on
appellants' first point on appeal and dismiss appellees'
complaint, there is no need to address the remaining points on
appeal raised by appellants.

Arkansas State of Police Retirement System, et al. are represented
by:

      Leslie Rutledge, Esq.
      Patricia Van Ausdall Bell, Esq.
      ARKANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL
      Department of Arkansas Heritage,
      323 Center St # 200,
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Tel: (501)682-2007

Glenn Sligh, et al. are represented by:

      C. Burt Newell, Esq.
      211 Hobson Ave., PO Box 1620
      Hot Springs, AR 71913
      Tel: (501)762-0455


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Parties Discontinue Merger-Related Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Astoria Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the defendants
and the plaintiffs have agreed to voluntarily discontinue the
consolidated Merger-related litigation without prejudice and
without any costs to any party.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger
Agreement with New York Community Bancorp, Inc., six lawsuits
challenging the proposed Merger were filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of Nassau. These actions were
captioned: (1) Sandra E. Weiss IRA v. Chrin, et al., Index No.
607132/2015 (filed November 4, 2015); (2) Raul v. Palleschi, et
al., Index No. 607238/2015 (filed November 6, 2015); (3) Lowinger
v. Redman, et al., Index No. 607268/2015 (filed November 9, 2015);
(4) Minzer v. Astoria Fin. Corp., et al., Index No. 607358/2015
(filed November 12, 2015); (5) MSS 12-09 Trust v. Palleschi, et
al., Index No. 607472/2015 (filed November 13, 2015); and (6) The
Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis v. Keegan, et al., Index
No. 607612/2015 (filed November 23, 2015). On January 15, 2016,
the court consolidated the New York lawsuits under the caption In
re Astoria Financial Corporation Shareholders Litigation, Index
No. 607132/2015. Each of the lawsuits was a putative class action
filed on behalf of the stockholders of Astoria and named as
defendants Astoria, its directors and NYCB, or collectively, the
defendants.

The complaints generally alleged that the directors of Astoria
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their approval
of the Merger Agreement because they failed to properly value
Astoria and to take steps to maximize value to Astoria's
stockholders, resulting in inadequate merger consideration, and
improperly agreed to deal protection devices that allegedly
precluded other bidders from making a successful competing offer
for Astoria. The complaints further alleged that the directors of
Astoria approved the Merger through a flawed and unfair sales
process tainted by certain alleged conflicts of interest on the
part of the Astoria directors.

Each of the actions sought, among other things, an order enjoining
completion of the Merger and an award of costs and attorneys'
fees. Certain of the actions also sought compensatory damages
arising from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The
defendants believed these actions were without merit. Accordingly,
no liability or reserve was recognized in our consolidated
statement of financial condition at December 31, 2016 with respect
to these matters.

On April 6, 2016, the defendants and lead plaintiffs entered into
a memorandum of understanding, or the MOU, which provided for the
settlement of the consolidated New York lawsuits. The MOU
contemplated, among other things, that Astoria would make certain
supplemental disclosures relating to the Merger, which
supplemental disclosures were made on April 8, 2016 through a
filing with the SEC by Astoria on a Current Report on Form 8-K.

The settlement contemplated by the MOU was subject to the
consummation of the Merger and became null and void and of no
further effect upon the termination of the Merger Agreement. In
light of the termination of the Merger Agreement and the voidance
of the MOU, on February 23, 2017, the defendants and the
plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily discontinue the consolidated
lawsuits without prejudice and without any costs to any party.
Astoria is a Delaware corporation organized in 1993 as the unitary
savings and loan holding company of Astoria Bank and its
consolidated subsidiaries, or Astoria Bank.


AUSTRALIA: Class Action v. Murray-Darling Basin Authority Mulled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Bunn, writing for The Border Mail, reports that the Border
is being warned Murray River flooding could be nastier this spring
than last year.

Murray River Action Group chairman Richard Sargood said the levels
of lakes Dartmouth and Hume boosted the risk of spring flooding.

"If we get anything remotely resembling average rainfall from now
onwards then we would be looking at the same result as last year,"
Mr Sargood said.

"Given Dartmouth is 78 per cent now and it can fill by 25 per cent
across winter in an average year then it is likely to overflow.

"So if Dartmouth goes over and Hume goes over then it (flooding)
could be longer and higher than last year."

Dartmouth at this time in 2016 was 43 per cent full, while Lake
Hume is 62 per cent of capacity compared to 23 per cent in the
same period last year.

The Bureau of Meteorology in its forecast to June 30 notes it is
unlikely that Dartmouth will experience above its median rainfall
of 238 millimetres in that period.

An update for winter is to be published by the bureau on April 27.

Rain last spring led to Lake Hume filling and criticism of the
Murray-Darling Basin Authority for making large releases in
October instead of lowering the level earlier.

Mr Sargood said his group had been promised a meeting with the
authority's basin officials committee in the first quarter of
2017.

"We want some recognition that people living below dams have some
legitimate claims in relation to duty of care from dam operators,"
he said.

"They're prepared to sacrifice us for the wider good and we're
obviously not happy about that, we want to be compensated or have
some management put in place where we've got just as many rights
as anyone else."

Meanwhile, class legal action against the authority is continuing
to simmer.

Lawyer David Burstyner -- dburstyner@adleyburstyner.com.au -- a
principal of the firm Adley Burstyner, said a freedom of
information application targeting the authority was being
prepared.

He said it would focus on documentation relating to how the
releases were handled and policy of maintaining Lake Hume at 99
per cent capacity.

Mr Burstyner said it should be lodged in six weeks.

The class action may be formalised by the end of winter with
Mr Burstyner saying up to 70 flood-affected parties between Albury
and Corowa had shown interest.


ARMANDO'S DELI: "Linder" Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Karen Linder and Zulma Gomez, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Armando's Deli y Pupuseria Inc.,
Umberto Maldonado, Armando Maldonado and Nelson Maldonado,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02045 (E.D. N.Y., April 7, 2017)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law, Wage
Theft Prevention Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Armando's Deli y Pupuseria Inc. operates two Salvadoran
restaurants at 515 Union Ave., Westbury, NY 10012 and 427
Jerusalem Ave., Uniondale, NY, where Plaintiffs were employed as
cooks. Defendants failed to keep full and accurate records of
Plaintiff's hours and wages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      Vivianna Morales, Esq.
      PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
      488 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 583-9500
      Fax: (212) 308-8582
      Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
             morales@pechmanlaw.com


B/E AEROSPACE: Still Faces Class Suits over Rockwell Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
B/E Aerospace, Inc. continues to defend against lawsuits over the
company's merger with Rockwell Collins, Inc., B/E Aerospace said
in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On October 23, 2016, B/E Aerospace entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Rockwell Collins,
Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Rockwell Collins"), and Quarterback
Merger Sub Corp. ("Merger Sub"), a Delaware corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Rockwell Collins.

In connection with the Merger, three putative class action
lawsuits seeking to enjoin the Merger, recover damages, and other
relief, were filed by three different purported stockholders of
the Company. Two of the lawsuits assert claims against the Company
and the members of the Company's Board of Directors and initially
sought to expedite proceedings in advance of the stockholder vote;
plaintiffs have withdrawn the motion to expedite as moot. The
outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain.

The third lawsuit asserted claims against the Company, the members
of the Company's Board of Directors, Rockwell Collins and Merger
Sub; plaintiff in that case moved to enjoin the Merger but has
since withdrawn the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice
as to the named plaintiff.

B/E Aerospace, Inc. is a manufacturer of cabin interior products
for commercial aircraft and for business jets.


BANK OF NEW YORK: 2 Suits over Depositary Receipts Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The Bank Of New York Mellon Corporation continues to defend two
consolidated class action lawsuits related to depositary receipts,
the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

Between late December 2015 and February 2016, four putative class
action lawsuits were filed against BNY Mellon asserting claims
relating to BNY Mellon's foreign exchange pricing when converting
dividends and other distributions from non-U.S. companies in its
role as depositary bank to Depositary Receipt issuers. The claims
are for breach of contract and violations of ERISA. The lawsuits
have been consolidated into two suits which are pending in federal
court in the Southern District of New York.


BANK OF OKLAHOMA: Wants Brogdon Bonds Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Casey, writing for Bond Buyer, reports that Bank of Oklahoma
Financial is arguing that a class action suit alleging it failed
as a trustee for bonds tied to fraud allegedly committed by
Christopher Brogdon and Dwayne Edwards is baseless and should be
dismissed.

BOKF filed its motion to dismiss the case in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.  The bank, through
its lawyers, said in the motion that the ten plaintiffs did not
state a cause of action in their complaint and instead relied "on
baseless innuendo about the behavior of one of BOKF's rogue
employees occurring in a totally different context at a different
point in time."


BLACKROCK: Faces Suit Over Self-dealing in 401K Plan
----------------------------------------------------
Robert Steyer at Pensions and Investments reports a former
BlackRock (BLK) employee has sued the company, alleging that
BlackRock's 401(k) plan executives breached their fiduciary duties
by emphasizing proprietary investments that underperformed
comparative funds and which also charged higher fees.

The plan's executives "selected and retained high-cost and poor-
performing investment options with excessive layers of hidden fees
that are not included in the fund expense ratios," said the
lawsuit by Charles Baird, a former employee who is a current
participant in the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. The
complaint, Baird vs. BlackRock Institutional Trust Co. et al.,
seeks class-action status.

"Almost all of the fund options offered to BlackRock employees and
participants are funds affiliated with BlackRock Inc. (BLK),"
according to the complaint, which argued that "several"
proprietary funds should have been removed.

Failure to do so represented "imprudent and disloyal monitoring"
of investments -- a breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee
Retirement and Income Security Act, the lawsuit said. A "prudent
and loyal" fiduciary would have removed them, the suit said.
The 401(k) plan had about USD1.5 billion in assets and 9,700
participants as of Dec. 31, 2015, according to the lawsuit. It
said about 93% of plan assets were invested in BlackRock-
affiliated funds.

The fees charge by BlackRock's proprietary funds "were higher than
the fees charged by comparative funds with like assets and similar
investment strategies," the lawsuit alleged.

BlackRock spokesman Farrell Denby said: "The suit is without merit
and contains a number of factual inaccuracies. We will vigorously
defend against the action. BlackRock is committed to making the
best decisions in the interest of our plan participants,
continually looking for ways to help them secure a better
financial future."


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: "Reining" Seeks Employee Benefits, Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyley Reining, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc. and Carrabba's
Italian Grill, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00820 (M.D. Fla.,
April 7, 2017) seeks damages including but not limited to unpaid
wages and unpaid overtime wages, as applicable, liquidated
damages, employer's share of federal insurance contributions and
federal unemployment tax, state unemployment insurance and any
other required employment taxes to be paid by Defendants, pre-
judgment interest and post-judgment interest as provided by law,
appropriate equitable and injunctive relief to remedy violations,
reasonable incentive award for the Plaintiff to compensate her for
the time and effort she has spent protecting her interests,
attorneys' fees and costs of the action and such other injunctive,
equitable and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bloomin' Brands, Inc. is the parent corporation of Carrabba's
Italian Grill, LLC, who owns and/or operate Carrabba's
restaurants. From January 2013 to May 2015, Reining was employed
by Defendants as a kitchen manager. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
     1515 S. Federal Hiway
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Telephone: (561) 447-8888
     Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

            - and -

     Michael Palitz, Esq.
     830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: (800) 616-4000
     Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com


BOBBY HOPSON: Molina Class Certification Bid Denied
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ANTHONY MOLINA, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. BOBBY HOPSON, JR.,
et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-00334-KGB (E.D. Ark.),
the Hon. Judge Kristine G. Baker denied without prejudice Mr.
Molina's motion for class certification and supplemental motion
for class certification on March 30, 2017.

The Court said, "The analysis for a Fourth Amendment claim for
unlawful seizure or search is certainly fact-intensive. This is
particularly true when considering the potential immunities
available to different defendants in this matter: statutory,
qualified, and legislative. Defendants note that Mr. Molina
"cannot even set forth one class of people in his motion to
certify, instead having to set forth his best argument: four
distinct groups." Mr. Molina has submitted in his supplemental
motion for class certification what he purports to be the names of
all proposed class members. However, this supplemental information
simply includes names and addresses, the date and reason the
individuals were pulled over, the alleged officer's name, and the
fine that was paid for those individuals that paid a fine. This
supplemental motion does not include information as to what
resolution was reached for each individual or whether, if
convicted or sentenced after a plea, the individual's conviction
has been invalidated as required by Heck. Without this information
and without any record information to separate those proposed
class members whose claims are Heck-barred from those whose claims
are not, the Court finds that Mr. Molina has not met his burden at
this stage to show that the proposed class meets the requirements
of commonality, typicality, and numerosity."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jXA9WeYL


BOFI HOLDING: June 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 11
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of BofI Holding, Inc. securities (BOFI) from April 28,
2016 through March 30, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for BofI investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the BofI class action, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-
1099.html or 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, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) BofI was engaged in unlawful conduct; (2) such conduct
would subject BofI to heightened regulatory scrutiny and potential
criminal sanctions when it became known; and (3) consequently,
BofI's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 2, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1099.htmlor to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


BOK FINANCIAL: May 15 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Final hearing to consider approval of the settlement in the
case, Ratzlaff v. BOKF, N.A., Case No. CJ-2015-00859, pending
before the District Court in and for Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma, is set for May 15, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.

BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that on March 3, 2015,
BOKF, NA and the Company were named as defendants in a class
action alleging (1) that the manner in which the Bank posted
charges to its consumer deposit accounts was improper from
September 1, 2011 through July 8, 2014, the period after which the
Bank and BOK Financial had settled a class action respecting a
similar claim, and before it made changes to its posting order and
(2) that the manner in which the Bank posted charges to its small
business deposit accounts was improper from July 9, 2009 through
July 8, 2014.

Following mediation of the case in August 2016, the Class
Representatives and the Bank reached a settlement of the action
for $7.8 million. The settlement is subject to the approval of the
Court which the Parties to the Action expect. The Company has
funded the settlement.

The Settlement offers payments to eligible customers who paid
Overdraft Fees to Bank of Oklahoma, N.A., Bank of Arkansas, N.A.,
Bank of Albuquerque, N.A., Bank of Arizona, N.A., Bank of Kansas
City, N.A.,* Bank of Texas, N.A., and Colorado State Bank and
Trust, N.A. from September 1, 2011 through July 8, 2014.

Additional information on the case is available at:

              http://www.bokfoverdraftsettlement.com/

Class Counsel is:

     E. Adam Webb, Esq.
     Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
     Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC
     1900 The Exchange, S.E.
     Suite 480
     Atlanta, GA 30339

Defendants' counsel is:

     Frederic Dorwart, Esq.
     Sarah Poston, Esq.
     Frederic Dorwart, Lawyers
     124 East 4th Street
     Tulsa, OK 74103

BOK Financial is a financial holding company.


BOK FINANCIAL: Bondholders' Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation is defending a class action lawsuit
filed by bondholders, BOK said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On August 26, 2016, the Bank was sued in the United States
District Court for New Jersey by two bondholders in a putative
class action on behalf of all holders of the bonds alleging the
Bank participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the
principals.

On September 14, 2016, the Bank was sued in the District Court of
Tulsa County, Oklahoma by 19 bondholders alleging the Bank
participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the
principals.

Management has been advised by counsel that the Bank has valid
defenses to the claims. The Bank expects the Court ordered payment
plan will result in the payment of the bonds by the principals.

Accordingly, no loss is probable at this time and no provision for
loss has been made. If the payment plan does not result in payment
of the bonds, a loss could become probable. A reasonable estimate
cannot be made at this time though the amount could be material to
the Company.

BOK Financial is a financial holding company.


BRIGHTON TOWNSHIP: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Sewer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHMI reports that a class-action lawsuit against Brighton Township
filed by a group of residents who believe they are paying
exorbitant sewer rates will move forward.

A motion made by the township to dismiss the lawsuit was denied in
Livingston County Circuit Court on April 6. Brighton Township
residents Dennis Shoner and Barbara Potocki are representing "a
class of similarly situated persons and entities", according to
the lawsuit. Resident Bob Potocki is among those represented in
the suit and says the motion hearing was "tense, but dignified".
Potocki says the group's attorneys " . . . . made the plain and
clear argument that this was the proper place, time, and judge."

The lawsuit challenges charges currently assessed in relation to
the construction, operation and maintenance of the township's
Sanitary Sewer System. It further states that the overcharges are
"unlawful" and "are motivated by a revenue-raising and not a
regulatory purpose".

The problem, as both the township and the affected residents see
it, is that the sewer system was built in 2003 based on
projections which showed a significant population increase, and
therefore a major increase in the number of sewage treatment
system users based on new homes coming in. However the recession
hit a few years later, and the township's population stagnated.
Because there were few new hookups, the system has been running at
about 40% capacity. The plaintiffs are seeking a refund of all
overcharges collected and that the township pay into a common fund
to benefit those represented in the lawsuit.

Potocki says, "There is a long way between today and justice. . .
but it is a much shorter road than we had yesterday." The case
will return to court April 20th for a class certification motion
hearing on behalf of the plaintiffs.[GN]


CANADA: Afghanistan War Veterans' Pension Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Murray Brewster, writing for CBC News, reports that the sleepy
plains and chalky ridges east of Arras, France, where thousands of
Canadians fought and died 100 years ago, may seem a world away
from the politics of Ottawa, but it wasn't on April 9.

Prime ministers, presidents, princes, soldiers, schoolchildren and
descendents of those who fought at Vimy Ridge gathered at the foot
of the country's soaring memorial to mark the centennial since the
sacrifice.

Back home, however, some veterans of subsequent wars took to
social media to express their frustration the Liberal government
has yet to live up to a key 2015 campaign promise of returning
them to a system of lifetime pensions, as opposed to lump sum
payments.

"I find it ironic that they're celebrating the Battle of Vimy
Ridge when they're also fighting veterans in court," Glen
Kirkland, a former corporal wounded in Kandahar in 2008, said in
an interview with CBC News from his home in Manitoba.

He is referring to a class-action lawsuit brought by former
soldiers from the Afghanistan War, who claim they are being
discriminated against because the current system is not as
generous as the one set up for troops who returned from Vimy and
the First World War.

"They've made promises and they're not living up to them.  They
have to bring back the pension," said Mr. Kirkland.  "What better
way to honour the sacrifices of Vimy than to actually look after
the veterans of today."

The Liberals made a return to the lifetime system of pensions one
of their signature promises of the 2015 election and last month's
federal budget re-iterated that pledge but did not put any money
behind it -- for the moment.

The government is promising some sort of announcement later this
year, but officials, who spoke on background after the budget was
released, said the plan would not meet the demand from some
veterans' groups for equality with the old pension act system.

Last year, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government poured $5.7
billion into better veterans benefits and care.  In the latest
budget, tabled last month, $600 million more -- a lot of it on
education.

There was also a top-up of the controversial lump sum payment that
Kirkland and others want to see replaced.

There was a reminder on April 9 that Canada is not the only
country facing frustrated veterans from modern wars.

"We have all tried to improve what we do for veterans in different
ways," said Michael Fallon, the British defence secretary.

In the U.K., much like Canada, homelessness among ex-soldiers and
mental health service needs are among the major issues of public
policy debate.

"We need to keep thinking as governments as to how we organize
that help and make sure those who need it can get it," Mr. Fallon
told CBC News

Mr. Trudeau's speech on April 9 was long on the symbolism,
sacrifice and values.  He quoted from the letter of soldier Pte.
William Henry Bell, a 20-year-old killed at Vimy, who wrote home
to his parents two days before the battle.

The simple of message of home, family and comfort resonated for
Mr. Trudeau, who held it up as an example of dignity in the face
of fate.

"Friends and honoured guests, let us hold to the grace of William
Henry Bell.  To the grace of the ones who stood by their friends,
through unimaginable hardship.  Through death itself," he told the
thousands who gathered on the green slopes.

The soldiers who fought and died there "were Canadians.  They were
valiant, beyond measure."

Mr. Trudeau also used it as an appeal for peace, coming as it did
amid rising tension with Russia following the volley of cruise
missiles fired by the U.S. into Syria.

"As I see the faces gathered here -- veterans, soldiers,
caregivers, so many young people -- I can't help but feel a torch
is being passed," Mr. Trudeau said.  "One hundred years later, we
must say this, together.  And we must believe it: Never again."


CAPNIA INC: Faces "Garfield" Class Suit over Merger
---------------------------------------------------
Capnia, Inc., in a Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, made supplemental
disclosures to the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A,
filed by Capnia with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 10.

On December 22, 2016, Capnia, Essentialis, Inc., Company E Merger
Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Capnia ("Merger Sub"), and
Neil Cowen, in his capacity as stockholders' representative,
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement") pursuant to which, if the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement are consummated, Merger Sub will merge with
and into Essentialis, with Essentialis surviving the Merger as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Capnia (the "Merger").

On February 16, 2017, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Garfield v. Capnia, Inc., et al., Case No. C17-00284 was
filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Contra Costa against Capnia and certain of its officers and
directors (the "Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit alleges, generally, that
Capnia's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Capnia
stockholders by seeking to sell control of Capnia through an
allegedly defective process, and on unfair terms. The Lawsuit also
alleges that defendants have failed to disclose all material facts
concerning the proposed Merger to stockholders. The Lawsuit seeks,
among other things, equitable relief that would enjoin the
consummation of the proposed Merger, compensatory and/or
rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Capnia denies
the allegations of the Lawsuit, believes that the Definitive Proxy
Statement disclosed all material information, and denies that any
supplemental disclosure is necessary.

                           *     *     *

Redwood City, Calif., Capnia, Inc. (NASDAQ:CAPN), on March 8,
2017, announced that it has completed its previously-announced
merger with privately-held Essentialis, Inc. effective March 7.
Capnia's lead therapeutic asset, diazoxide choline controlled-
release (DCCR), a once-daily oral tablet, is entering Phase II/III
development for the treatment of Prader-Willi Syndrome (PWS) in
2017. Concurrent with the closing of the merger, prior investors
in Essentialis, as well as new investors, invested $10 million in
newly-issued Capnia shares of common stock at $0.96 per share.


CEMPRA INC: Faces 3 Securities Actions in North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------
Cempra, Inc. is defending three securities class action lawsuits
filed in North Carolina, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On November 4, 2016, a securities class action
lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court, Middle
District of North Carolina, Durham Division, naming our company
and certain of our officers as defendants, and alleging violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
allegedly false and misleading statements made by the defendants
between May 1, 2016 and November 1, 2016 (the "Class Period"). The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class comprised of purchasers of
our common stock during the Class Period and seeks damages, costs
and expenses and such other relief as determined by the Court.

"Two substantially similar lawsuits were filed in the United
States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina on
November 22, 2016 and December 30, 2016, respectively.

"We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the
lawsuits vigorously. It is possible that similar lawsuits may yet
be filed in the same or other courts that name the same or
additional defendants."

Cempra is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company focused on
developing differentiated anti-infectives for the acute care and
community settings to meet critical medical needs in the treatment
of infectious diseases.


CENTRAL MILLS: Pocket Frenz Asserts Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------
Pocket Frenz LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Central Mills, Inc. and Charles
Tebele, Defendants, Case No. 651925/2017, (N.Y. Sup., April 10,
2017), seeks damages for Defendants' breach of contract,
preliminary and thereafter a permanent injunction preventing
Defendants from continuing to benefit from Plaintiff's trademark
and from selling products bearing Plaintiff's trademark.

Plaintiff is a marketer and owner of trademarks and patents for
apparel bearing a certain novelty design and is the exclusive
owner of the trademark "POCKET FRENZ" (R), U.S. Patent No.
8,910,314. Plaintiff licensed Defendants to sell Pocket Frenz
products only in the U.S. in exchange for payment of certain
amounts of royalties.

To date, Defendants owe Plaintiff $65,625 in unpaid past due
minimum royalties, plus interest. Defendants also have made use of
Plaintiff's trademark and patent and sold products containing said
marks in the United Kingdom. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Francis P. Karam, Esq.
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Gets Favorable Ruling in Misclassification Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard J. Simmons, Esq. -- rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com --
Brian D. Murphy, Esq. -- bmurphy@sheppardmullin.com -- Lisa M.
Lewis, Esq. -- lmlewis@sheppardmullin.com -- Matthew A. Tobias,
Esq. -- mtobias@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter
& Hampton LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, wrote
that the Court's opinion in Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill
demonstrates how employers can successfully combat class action
claims that employees were misclassified as exempt.  The
successful defense of the class certification motion relied
chiefly on deposition and declaration testimony to highlight
inconsistencies, variations, and individualized inquiries that
prevented resolution of the claims at issue on a class-wide basis.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. defeated certification of six
separate classes involving allegations that the job position of
"Apprentice" was misclassified as exempt for purposes of paying
overtime wages.  They also successfully moved to decertify a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
involving the same claims for 516 opt-in Apprentices nationwide.
The case was brought by seven individuals who had worked as
Apprentices in various Chipotle stores.  The named plaintiffs
worked in six states while the opt-in plaintiffs worked in 37
states.  Chipotle considers the Apprentice position a salaried,
management-level position and classified the position as exempt.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed that they, and the other
Apprentices employed in their respective states, perform
insufficient managerial work and that, as a result, all of these
Apprentices were misclassified as exempt entitling them to
overtime wages.

In order to successfully certify the six state-law classes of
Apprentices, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate that
questions of law or fact were common to the Apprentices who they
sought to represent and that a class action was the superior
method to adjudicate their claims.  Through plaintiffs' own
deposition testimony, deposition testimony from numerous other
Apprentices, and declaration testimony, Chipotle demonstrated to
the Court that individualized inquiries as to each Apprentice's
authority and job duties were necessary to determine if the exempt
classification was appropriate.  Thus, there was no common proof
and class adjudication was inappropriate.

During the various plaintiff depositions, Plaintiff Apprentices we
shown to be taking conflicting positions.  For instance, one
plaintiff testified that he did not have any say in hiring
employees, developing employees or setting work schedules.
However, that very same plaintiff then admitted that he did engage
in hiring, evaluating employee performance and scheduling. Another
plaintiff testified that she spent the majority of her time on the
floor making food.  However, that same plaintiff testified that
she was "running a good store" as an Apprentice, was involved in
marketing, made hiring recommendations, drafted schedules and
assisted with her store's budget.  Similar conflicts surfaced in
the testimony of other plaintiffs as well as many of the opt-in
plaintiffs that showed they were not similarly situated.  These
inconsistent accounts by the plaintiff and opt-ins demonstrated
that Apprentices performed their duties in dissimilar ways and had
varied authority that required individual, rather than collective
analysis.

The Court also noted that differences in the structure of Chipotle
locations, sales volume and managerial style also affected the
amount of time Apprentices spent engaged in exempt managerial and
administrative duties.  Some locations have a General Manager or
other management-level employee who is responsible for one or more
stores that impacts the level of decision-making of an Apprentice
at the same location.  Yet, other locations have no such positions
and are managed solely by Apprentices.  Moreover, locations with
higher sales volumes tend to have larger staffs.  Apprentices at
those locations engaged in more managerial activities such as
hiring, discipline, training and supervision than Apprentices at
stores with lower sales volumes.  Because this too factors into
whether and to what extent any individual Apprentice was engaged
in exempt job duties, the Court concluded that proof of the
Apprentices' claims would not overlap and, thus, does not meet the
class certification standard regarding common questions of law or
fact.

As for the FLSA collective action, 516 Apprentices opted-in to
join with the plaintiffs in their claims.  In order to determine
whether such a collective action could be maintained, the Court
had to decide whether those Apprentices who opted-in were
similarly situated to the plaintiffs.  This included a
consideration of disparate factual and employment settings of
individual plaintiffs, Chipotle's defenses, and procedural
fairness.  With respect to the disparate employment settings, the
Court once again acknowledged the different levels and amount of
authority each Apprentice might have in exercising tasks.  The
Court also observed that such disparities in job duties would
permeate the job position because the 516 opt-ins came from 37
states and covered nine geographic regions.  Such disparities were
highlighted, in part, by the deposition testimony of an Apprentice
who worked in two different states and testified to vastly
different experiences engaging in management-level duties in those
states.

Chipotle also asserted affirmative defenses arguing that some
Apprentices were exempt under the "executive" exemption and others
were exempt under a combination of the "executive" exemption and
"administrative" exemption.  Because of the inconsistencies in the
testimony of plaintiffs as well as the testimony from the opt-in
plaintiffs, the Court determined that it would be difficult for
Chipotle to rely on "representative proof" in asserting these
defenses.  The Court opined that, to find otherwise would reduce
the similarly situated requirement "to a mere requirement that
plaintiffs share an employer, a job title, and a professed
entitlement to additional wages." Because such a standard falls
far below what is required, the Court determined that the FLSA
collective action that was conditionally certified in 2013 could
not be maintained and granted Chipotle's motion to decertify the
collective action.

It is apparent from the Court's opinion that the testimony
presented was given significant weight in making its
determination.  Thus, employers who are able to highlight
variations in job duties that are determinative of exempt status
and articulate the necessity for individualized inquiries in
misclassification cases should have a better chance of persuading
a judge that class and collective certification is not
appropriate.


CITIBANK NA: Court Ruling at Odds with Recent SCOTUS Opinions
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Faustman, Esq. -- dfaustman@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox
Rothschild LLP, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that the
California Supreme Court has once again deviated from what many
view as clear precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the
enforcement of arbitration agreements.  The California court
decided McGill v. Citibank, N.A., holding that state "public
policy" precludes the enforcement of arbitration agreements where
a class sues for "public injunctive relief" under Business and
Professions Code Sec. 17200, California's much abused "unfair
competition" statute.  This decision comes on the heels of
Iskanian v. CLS, in which the California court held that a class
waiver in an arbitration agreement was unenforceable to prevent a
representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act,
again citing "public policy."  The McGill and Iskanian decisions
are at odds with recent SCOTUS opinions such as ATT Mobility v.
Concepcion, and American Express Co. v. Italian Colors. In the
Italian Colors case, the high court specifically rejected state
"public policy" as any kind of exception to the sweeping
preemption of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA").

California has been in a running dog fight with the FAA since
1987.  In that year, SCOTUS decided Perry v. Thomas, in which
Justice Thurgood Marshal upheld the FAA under the Commerce and
Supremacy clauses, and slapped down California's attempt to
undermine arbitration agreements.  Thirty years later, California
courts remain determined to block arbitration under PAGA and
Section 17200 in the face of otherwise enforceable arbitration
agreements.

Also, with the swearing in of Neil Gorsuch, SCOTUS returned to its
full complement of nine justices.  Look for the high court to
grant review of California and Ninth Circuit cases that follow
McGill and Iskanian in the next couple of years with an eye toward
overturning those decisions.  In the meantime, companies should
continue to include waivers of class and representative actions in
their arbitration agreements with consumers and employees, noting
that the waivers are enforceable to the extent permitted by
applicable law.


CITIZENS BANK: "Fultz" Files Suit Over Excessive Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Fultz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Citizens Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00140 (D.R.I., April 7, 2017) seeks damages including
twice the amount of usurious interest paid, prejudgment interest,
costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, other
costs, and such other relief for violation of the National Bank
Act.

Plaintiff maintains a bank account with the Defendant and accuses
the latter of excessively charging overdraft Fees. Such fee was
for $6.99 and was raised to $30.00 on March 7, 2016. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony R. Leone, Esq.
      LEONE LAW LLC
      1345 Jefferson Boulevard
      Warwick, RI 02886
      Telephone: (401) 921-6684
      Facsimile: (401) 921-6686
      Email: aleone@leonelawllc.com

             - and -

      Jeff M. Ostrow, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG
      One West Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 525-4100
      Facsimile: (954) 525-4300


      Jeffrey D. Kaliel
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      Email: jkaliel@tzlegal.com


COLLECTO INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------
Northern California Record reports that a Butte County consumer
has filed a class-action lawsuit against Collecto Inc. and up to
10 of its employees and agents, citing alleged violation of
telephone harassment statutes in trying to collect a debt.

Jenni Hodges filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on April 3 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California against the defendants alleging that they
called the plaintiff several times in an attempt to collect an
alleged debt, violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that, in
February 2016, she suffered damages from receiving several
collection calls on her cellular telephone.  The plaintiff holds
Collecto responsible because it allegedly kept on calling the
plaintiff on her cellular telephone using an automatic telephone
dialing system despite her request to stop calling.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory
damages, $1,500 in treble damages, all legal fees and any other
relief as the court deems just.  She is represented by Todd M.
Friedman, Adrian R. Bacon, and Meghan E. George of the Law Offices
of Todd M. Friedman in Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case
number 2:17-cv-00706-JAM-CMK


COLOSSAL CONTRACTORS: "Ramos" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Carlos Ramos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiffs, v. Colossal Contractors Inc., Case No. 8:17-
cv-00961, (D. Md., April 6, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid back
wages, overtime pay, liquidated damages, treble damages,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Ramos worked as a painter for the Defendants at their construction
sites in Maryland and Virginia. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Rubin, Esq.
      RUBIN EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, PC
      11 North Washington Street, Suite 520
      Rockville, MD 20850
      Telephone: (301) 760-7914
      Facsimile: (301) 838-0322
      Email: jrubin@rubinemploymentlaw.com


CORIZON HEALTH: To Settle Suit Over Prisoners' Untreated Hernias
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ellen Klas at Bradenton reports about 1,800 current and
former Florida prison inmates who were denied medical care for
hernias will be entitled to divide USD1.7 million in damages from
a class-action lawsuit under a conditional settlement agreed to by
the Department of Corrections and its former prison health-care
provider, Corizon, and filed in federal court in Tallahassee last
week.

The suit was brought by the Florida Justice Institute and the
Coral Gables law firm of Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton in September
2015 on behalf of three inmates. It alleged Corizon and the agency
violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and
unusual punishments by denying the inmates medical care in an
effort to save money.

The damages will be paid by Corizon, but the settlement agreement
also requires the state prison system to adopt a new policy to
provide consultations with surgeons for inmates with hernia
symptoms in all Florida facilities.

"Obviously, the inmates are there for a reason. We are not trying
to make their time in detention a country club, but there is a
responsibility to provide humane conditions for their
incarceration and in this case we achieved a big step in making
sure the medical treatment complies with the standard of care in
the industry," said Ken Hartman, one of the attorneys for the
plaintiffs.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hinkle gave preliminary approval
to the settlement at the March 29 hearing but because several of
the affected inmates are residing in other states, the settlement
requires that their state attorneys general be notified and given
an opportunity to object to the agreement. Hinkle said he would
enter a final an order in 100 days.

Corizon would not comment on the settlement, citing the fact that
it had not been finalized.

Ashley Cook, spokesperson for the Florida Department of
Corrections, would not comment on the specifics of the agreement.
"The health and safety of our inmates is a top priority of the
department, and we take any allegations regarding their well-being
very seriously," she said, adding: "Corizon no longer provides
medical services to the department's inmates.''

But two months after the lawsuit was filed in September 2015,
Tennessee-based Corizon announced it would not renew its USD1.1
billion contract with the state to provide healthcare to an
estimated 74,000 of the inmates in the state's prison system. In
February 2015, FDC was ordered to renegotiate the medical contract
by Sen. Greg Evers, R-Baker, chairman of the Senate Criminal
Justice Committee, after a series of reports in the Miami Herald
and other news organizations showed suspicious inmate deaths were
covered up or never reviewed and inmate complaints of harmful
medical care were dismissed or ignored.

In April 2016, Centurion of Florida, LLC, a joint venture between
Centene Corporation and MHM Services, Inc., replaced Corizon as
the medical provider in Florida's prisons.

"The chief goal of this litigation was to reform the way that FDOC
treated patients with symptomatic hernias," the settlement states.
"Before this litigation, the practice was to refuse to provide
surgeries, or even surgical consultations -- despite the
recommendations of doctors -- unless the patient was experiencing
an emergency ..."

Although the settlement does not require the agency to order a
surgery if a doctor recommends it, the agency may not unreasonably
refuse to allow it.

A hernia occurs when the abdominal wall tears or weakens, forcing
other tissue through the opening. It can cause intense pain and
further problems if left untreated. The settlement states the
agency and Corizon for years engaged "in a pattern of not
permitting FDOC prisoners to have hernia surgeries, by denying
them at various levels."

"These scenarios played out for years, resulting in thousands of
prisoners being left in severe pain, unable to engage in normal
life activities, and at risk for serious complications or death,''
the settlement says.

Although the initial complaint was filed on behalf of three
inmates Amado Parra, Archie Green, and Tracy Copeland and detailed
the stories of 15 current and former prisoners, after the lengthy
examination of the agency and Corizon's health care records, the
scope of the lawsuit was broadened to cover hundreds more.

A consent order between the parties was reached on Sept. 23, 2016,
to cover "all past and current prisoners in FDOC custody who were
diagnosed with and/or treated for a hernia between Sept. 8, 2013
and May 31, 2016" while Corizon was the medical provider for that
prison facility.

To determine which current and former inmates were eligible, the
lawyers reviewed all the medical records of inmates who arrived at
the sick bays in Florida prisons during that time period and found
the cases coded for a hernia condition, Hartman said. They also
posted a notice in each of Florida's prison facilities and
collected the names of hundreds more eligible inmates.

The settlement will be divided among the class members by giving
USD1.7 million to the affected inmates, divided into two
subclasses: 308 will each receive about USD2,760 each because a
request for a surgical consultation was submitted and potentially
denied, and 1,480 who exhibited symptoms but were denied a
surgical consultation will receive about USD574.

Attorneys will be paid USD385,000 and the three individuals named
in the lawsuit will be paid an additional USD5,000 each.


CPN MECHANICAL: Diferro Contracting Seeks Payment of Services
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diferro Contracting Corp., on behalf of itself and on behalf of
all other beneficiaries of the trust referred to in this complaint
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CPN Mechanical, Inc.,
Constantine Nikolis a/k/a Constantin Nikolis a/k/a Dino Nikolis
and Yvonne Nikolis, Defendants, Case No. 603101/2017 (N.Y. Sup.,
April 10, 2017) seeks to recover trust assets with interest
accrued, to enjoin the defendants from making any diversion of
said trust funds not authorized pursuant to the provisions of
Article 3-A of the Lien Law of the State of New York, damages for
breach of trust obligation, interest accrued thereon, any
provisional or ancillary relief, reasonable costs and expenses
incident to the prosecution of this action, including a reasonable
fee for DiFerro's attorneys and such other and further relief for
breach of contract and New York's Lien Law.

CPN was a trade subcontractor for HVAC and water systems for the
project of Hudson Meridian Construction Group, LLC located at
Block 00199, Lots 2 along 60, 90 and 130 Furman Street, Brooklyn,
NY, where DiFerro furnished all mechanical piping and mechanical
piping insulation. CPN still lacks the the sum of $926,552.29
excluding its claim for delay damages together with interest from
October 19, 2016, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paula J. Warmuth, Esq.
      STIM & WARMUTH, P.C.
      2 Eighth Street
      Farmingville, NY 11738
      Tel: (631) 732-2000


CYNOSURE INC: "Rosenfeld" Suit over Hologic Merger Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Joel Rosenfeld IRA v. Cynosure, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-10309 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Denise J Casper on March 28,
2017, entered a Stipulation and Order concerning Plaintiff's
Voluntary Dismissal.

Cynosure said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that Cynosure entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger, or the Merger Agreement, with Hologic, Inc.,
or Hologic, and Minuteman Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Hologic, or the Purchaser.

The Company said, "On February 24, 2017, a putative stockholder
class action complaint, captioned Joel Rosenfeld IRA v. Cynosure,
Inc., et al., Civ. Action No. 17-10309 (D. Mass.), or the
Rosenfeld Action, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts in connection with the Offer and the
Merger, naming as defendants us and each member of our board of
directors. The complaint in the Rosenfeld Action, among other
things, criticizes the proposed transaction price as inadequate
and alleges that we and our board of directors omitted certain
allegedly material information from the
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 in
violation of the Exchange Act and related SEC regulations. The
alleged omissions relate to (i) certain of our projections, (ii)
certain data and inputs underlying the financial valuation
analyses, and (iii) the background of the merger process."

"The plaintiff in the Rosenfeld Action seeks an order (i)
maintaining the action as a class action, certifying the plaintiff
as the class representative, and certifying the plaintiff's
counsel as class counsel, (ii) preliminarily and permanently
enjoining defendants and all persons acting in concert with them
from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the Offer or the
Merger, (iii) in the event defendants consummate the Offer or the
Merger, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory
damages, and (iv) awarding appropriate costs, attorneys' fees, and
experts' fees. We and our directors believe this lawsuit is
without merit."

Cynosure develops, manufactures, and markets aesthetic treatment
systems that enable plastic surgeons, dermatologists and other
medical practitioners to perform non-invasive and minimally
invasive procedures to remove hair, treat vascular and benign
pigmented lesions, remove multi-colored tattoos, revitalize the
skin, reduce fat through laser lipolysis, reduce cellulite, clear
nails infected by toe fungus, ablate sweat glands and improve
women's health.


DFC GLOBAL: September 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Barrack Rodos & Bacine and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP on April 11 announced a proposed settlement of In re DFC
Global Corp. securities litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE DFC GLOBAL CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Civ. A. No. 2:13-cv-06731-BMS
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:
All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of DFC Global Corp. ("DFC Global") during the period
from January 28, 2011 through February 3, 2014, inclusive, and
were damaged thereby (the "Class"):
Please read this notice carefully, your rights will be affected by
a class action lawsuit pending in this court.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, that the above-
captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class
action on behalf of the Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Class by definition as set
forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action
and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and
(III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $30,000,000.00 in
cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all
claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on September 19, 2017 at 9:30 a.m., before
the Honorable Berle M. Schiller at the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, James A. Byrne
U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 13-B, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia,
PA 19106, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should
be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the
Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and
the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated February 28, 2017 (and in the
Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet received the
Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator at DFC Global Corp. Securities
Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173030, Milwaukee, WI
53217, 1-877-239-4579.  Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can
also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, www.DFCGlobalSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked no later than September 4, 2017.  If you are
a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not
be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of
the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments
or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than June 16, 2017, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Representative Defendants' Counsel
such that they are received no later than June 16, 2017, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, DFC Global,
the other Defendants or their counsel regarding this notice.  All
questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
         1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
         New York, NY 10020
         (800) 380-8496
         blbg@blbglaw.com

         BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
         Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
         Two Commerce Square
         2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         (215) 963-0600
         info@barrack.com

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

         DFC Global Corp. Securities Litigation
         c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
         P.O. Box 173030
         Milwaukee, WI 53217
         877-239-4579
         www.DFCGlobalSecuritiesLitigation.com

By Order of the Court


DIAMOND RECONSTRUCTION: "Sierra" Suit Alleges FLSA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Rene Sierra, Jose Sanchez, Yandy Rodriguez, Pedro Rodriguez,
Djordj Sinavonic, Armando Leon, Daniel Figueredo And Yolexi
Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Diamond Reconstruction of Tampa
Bay, LLC, Diamond Reconstruction Services, LLC, Nicholas Exarhos,
an individual and Jason Phillips, an individual Defendants, Case
No. 8:17-cv-00812, (M.D. Fla., April 7, 2017), seeks unpaid back
wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such
other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a contracting company in Tampa, in Hillsborough
County, Florida. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as
laborers and/or handymen. Defendant allegedly avoided withholding
employment taxes from their earnings, avoided paying mandatory
employment taxes and failed to pay overtime wages. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cynthia Gonzalez, Esq.
      CYNTHIA GONZALEZ P.A.
      4023 North Armenia Ave., Suite 240
      Tampa, FL 33607
      Telephone (813) 333-1322
      Fax (866) 593-6771
      E-mail: cynthia@wagesdue.com

              - and -

      Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Tel: (813) 224-0431
      Fax: (813) 229-8712
      Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com


DOORDASH: Settles Delivery Workers' Class Action for $5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Rose Dickey, writing for TechCrunch, reports that on-demand
food delivery startup DoorDash has reached an agreement with
workers' rights lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan regarding a class-
action lawsuit that alleged DoorDash misclassified its delivery
workers as independent contractors.

As part of the settlement, DoorDash will pay class members of the
suit $3.5 million, following the court's approval.  The company
has also agreed to pay an additional $1.5 million in four years or
when one of three things happen: DoorDash goes public, the company
is profitable for a full year or some other company acquires
DoorDash at double its current valuation.

In September 2015, Cynthia Marciano and Evan Kissner both
separately filed lawsuits against DoorDash, alleging that DoorDash
misclassified them and other delivery workers as independent
contractors, and therefore violated certain provisions of the
labor code.

The named plaintiffs, Ms. Marciano and Mr. Kissner, will receive
$7,500 each and Ms. Liss-Riordan will get up to $1.25 million,
according to the settlement.  The approximately 33,744 class
members, which entail all those who worked for DoorDash as
independent contractors at some point between September 23, 2011
through August 29, 2016, and completed at least one delivery, will
receive payment as part of the settlement.

Those who "were most active" on DoorDash will "receive
proportionally higher payments," the settlement states.  DoorDash
has also updated its deactivation policy to ensure that all its
delivery people retain access to the platform unless they violate
the rules of engagement.  Before, there was no single source of
truth when it came to deactivating people from the platform.
Another change is that DoorDash delivery workers will be able to
appeal a deactivation if they feel they should not have been
deactivated from the platform.

This settlement, however, does not prevent other people from suing
DoorDash over this exact same reason in the future.  But given
that DoorDash worked with Ms. Liss-Riordan, the lawyer whose name
often shows up on these cases against Uber, Lyft and other on-
demand companies, there's reason to believe that this type of case
might be less attractive for complaints in the future. That's
because the resolution they agreed on was not to change
independent contractors to employee status, but rather change some
policies to improve clarity and ensure more rights for the
workers.

"We firmly believe that the autonomy and flexibility Dashers love
is made possible by, and consistent only with, their status as
independent contractors," DoorDash General Counsel Keith Yandell
wrote on the DoorDash blog.  "That said, we feel that this
settlement represents a fair compromise, addresses valuable Dasher
feedback, and makes changes that will further cement Dashers'
status as independent contractors."


DOS REALES INC: "Olivera" Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anatolio Pena Olivera and Maria Fernanda Martinez, individually
and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dos
Reales, Inc. and Alvaro Quezada, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
02203 (D. Kan., April 62017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages without any tip credit deduction, liquidated
damages, attorney fees, litigation costs and damages for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Kansas Minimum Wage and
Maximum Hours Law and the Kansas Wage Payment Act.

Plaintiffs worked as waiters at the Defendants' restaurant located
at 8841 W 75th Street, Overland Park, Kansas 66204.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul H. Mose, Esq.
      MOSE LAW LLC
      3111 Strong Avenue,
      Kansas City, KS 66106
      Tel: (913) 432-4484
      Fax: (913) 432-4464
      Email: Pablo@moselaw.com

             - and -

      Mark V. Dugan, Esq.
      Heather J. Schlozman, Esq.
      DUGAN SCHLOZMAN, LLC
      8826 Santa Fe Drive, Suite, 307
      Overland Park, KS 66212
      Telephone: (913) 322-3528
      Facsimile: (913) 904-0213
      Email: mark@duganschlozman.com
             heather@duganschlozman.com


DPP II INC: "Fleming" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Taryn Fleming, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DPP II, Inc. d/b/a Home Care Providers of
Texas, Inc., Suzanne M. Rawlings and Kirk C. Hullison,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00995, (N.D. Tex.,
April 7, 2017), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, litigation costs, costs of court, and
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under the provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Defendants provide home health care services. Plaintiff worked for
Defendants as a licensed vocational field nurse.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
      DUNHAM & JONES, P.C.
      1800 Guadalupe Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Tel: (512) 777-7777
      Fax: (512) 340-4051
      E-Mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com

              - and -

      Scotty Jones, Esq.
      DUNHAM & JONES, P.C.
      1110 E. Weatherford Street
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Tel: (817) 339-1185
      Fax: (817) 810-0050
      E-mail: sjones@dunhamlaw.com


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on
April 1, 2017, District Judge John G. Koeltl of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a
putative class action against brokerage firm E*TRADE Financial
Corporation and E*TRADE Securities LLC (collectively, "E*Trade").
Rayner v. E*TRADE Financial Corporation et al, No. 1:16-cv-7129
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2017). Plaintiff brought claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment,
alleging that E*Trade selected third-party trading venues for the
execution of trading orders based on the amount of rebates those
venues paid or "kicked back" to E*Trade rather than selecting the
most efficient or cost-effective trading venue for E*Trade's
clients that plaintiff contends is required by the duty of best
execution.  The Court dismissed all of the claims, holding that
they were precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards
Act (the "SLUSA"), which prohibits class actions based on state
law claims that rely on allegations that defendant made a
misrepresentation or omission of material fact, or employed any
manipulative or deceptive device, in connection with the purchase
or sale of a covered security.

At the outset, plaintiff conceded three of the elements necessary
for a finding of SLUSA preclusion: that the complaint is a covered
class action, based on state law, regarding covered securities.
The Court's decision on the motion to dismiss, therefore, focused
on whether plaintiff's claims (i) were grounded in
misrepresentations or omissions, alleged manipulation and deceit
and (ii) were made in connection with a security transaction.
Regarding the first issue, plaintiff argued that the action only
challenged E*Trade's underlying practices regarding its selection
of venues when routing orders and accordingly did not rely on any
allegations concerning misrepresentations or omissions.  The Court
disagreed, finding that the action was predicated on material
misrepresentations allegedly designed to induce clients to execute
the type of trade that granted E*Trade flexibility to select the
trading venue of its choosing -- even though E*Trade allegedly had
no intention of fulfilling its purported fiduciary obligations --
and thus could not "be disentangled from the misrepresentations or
omissions." The Court reasoned that plaintiff's claims
"necessarily challenge what E*Trade told the plaintiff" about its
selection of trading venues and the nature of E*Trade's
obligations to the plaintiff, and, accordingly, those claims
rested on plaintiff's showing that E*Trade committed false
conduct, thereby further precluding these claims under SLUSA.  The
Court also noted that the Securities and Exchange Commission has
taken the position that the failure to provide "best execution" is
a possible manipulative, deceptive, or otherwise fraudulent
device, further supporting the Court's finding that plaintiff's
claims based on allegations that E*Trade routed orders to
"maximize kickback revenue in violation of its duty of best
execution" were precluded by SLUSA.

Turning to the issue of whether the alleged fraud was made "in
connection with" a securities transaction, the Court found that
the alleged fraud "plainly coincided with the securities
transactions at issue" because the plaintiff took positions in
covered securities through E*Trade and his purchase or sale
decisions were materially affected by E*Trade's allegedly false
promises of best execution.  Notably, after finding that the
claims were precluded by SLUSA, the Court pointed out that
plaintiff's counsel had made clear at oral argument that plaintiff
did not wish to proceed in the event that the claims were
precluded by SLUSA, and had acknowledged that he already is a
member of the proposed class in a related securities class action
pending in the same court alleging violations of Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against E*Trade and
several individual defendants. See Schwab v. E Trade Financial
Corporation, et al., No. 16-cv-5891 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y). Accordingly,
the Court dismissed plaintiff's claims in their entirety.

The decision reinforces the limits imposed by SLUSA on a
plaintiffs' ability to plead state law class actions relating to
alleged disclosure violations.


EGS FINANCIAL: Faces TCPA Class Action in Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a Ridgecrest man has filed a class-action lawsuit
against EGS Financial Care Inc., a debt collector, and a number of
its employees, citing alleged violation of telephone harassment
statutes.

Laurence Clayton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a complaint on April 3 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana alleging that
the defendants knowingly violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that, between
March 2016 and July 2016, he received calls on his cellular
telephone from defendants attempting to collect an alleged
outstanding debt.  The calls caused him to incur certain charges
and/or reduced telephone time for which he had previously paid.
The plaintiff holds EGS Financial responsible because it allegedly
made calls using an automatic telephone dialing system and without
plaintiff's prior express consent.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks statutory damages
of $500 for each and every negligent violation and $1,500 for each
and every willful violations of the Act and all other relief that
the Court deems just and proper.  He is represented by Todd M.
Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC
in Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case
number 1:17-cv-00473


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: July 6 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, City of Cape Coral Municipal Firefighters' Retirement
Plan v Emergent Biosolutions, Inc., HQ et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-
02625 (D. Md.), the Hon. Roger W Titus entered a Memorandum
scheduling a hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint for July 6, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.

Emergent Biosolutions Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the company's motion
to dismiss the purported shareholder class action lawsuit filed
July 19, 2016, by William Sponn remains pending.

The Company said, "On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff William Sponn, or
Sponn, filed a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of
purchasers of our common stock between January 11, 2016 and June
21, 2016, inclusive, or the Class Period, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against us and
certain of our senior officers and directors, collectively, the
Defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we
made materially false and misleading statements about the
government's demand for BioThrax and expectations that our five-
year exclusive procurement contract with HHS would be renewed and
omitted certain material facts. Sponn is seeking unspecified
damages, including legal costs.

"On October 25, 2016, the Court added City of Cape Coral Municipal
Firefighters' Retirement Plan and City of Sunrise Police Officers'
Retirement Plan as plaintiffs and appointed them Lead Plaintiffs
and Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel.

"On December 27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
that cites the same class period, names the same defendants and
makes similar allegations to the original complaint. We filed a
Motion to Dismiss on February 27, 2017. The Defendants believe
that the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intend
to defend themselves vigorously against those claims."

Emergent BioSolutions Inc. is a global life sciences company
seeking to protect and enhance life by focusing on providing
specialty products for civilian and military populations that
address accidental, intentional and naturally emerging public
health threats.


ETSY INC: "Altayyar" Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------
In the case, Altayyar v. Etsy, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02785
(E.D.N.Y.), the Court on March 24, 2017, entered judgment granting
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.  The case is
dismissed with prejudice.

Etsy said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that on May 13, 2015, a purported
securities class action complaint (Altayyar v. Etsy, Inc., et al.,
Docket No. 1:15-cv-02785) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and
certain officers. The complaint was brought on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common
stock from April 16, 2015 through and including May 10, 2015. It
asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or misleading
statements and omissions with respect to, among other things,
merchandise for sale on the Company's website that may be
counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement and
actions taken by third-party brands against Etsy sellers for
trademark or copyright infringement.

On October 22, 2015, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel. On January 21, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed
an amended class action complaint alleging false or misleading
statements or omissions with respect to substantially the same
topics as the original complaint. The amended complaint adds
certain outside directors and underwriters as defendants, expands
the purported class period to be April 16, 2015 to August 4, 2015,
inclusive, and asserts violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint
seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory
damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

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

Etsy offers markets, services and technology that empower creative
entrepreneurs and shape a positive future for business.


ETSY INC: Consolidated Class Action Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit against Etsy, Inc. remains
stayed, Etsy said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On July 21, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint
(Cervantes v. Dickerson, et al., Case No. CIV 534768) was filed in
the Superior Court of State of California, County of San Mateo
against the Company, certain officers, directors and underwriters.
The complaint asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  As in the Altayyar litigation, the
complaint alleges misrepresentations in the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-1 and Prospectus with respect to, among other
things, merchandise for sale on the Company's website that may be
counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement. The
complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

On December 7, 2015, the Company and the underwriter defendants
moved to stay the Cervantes action on the grounds of forum non
conveniens.

On November 5, 2015, another purported securities class action
complaint (Weiss v. Etsy et al., No. CIV 536123) was filed in the
Superior Court of State of California, County of San Mateo. The
Weiss complaint names as defendants the Company and the same
officers, directors and underwriters named in the Cervantes
complaint, and also asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly false or misleading
statements or omissions with respect to, among other things,
merchandise for sale on the Company's website that may be
counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement.

On December 24, 2015, the court consolidated the Cervantes and
Weiss actions. The Company and the named officers and directors
intend to defend themselves vigorously against these consolidated
actions. In light of, among other things, the early stage of the
litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount
or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable
outcome.

On February 3, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to
stay the consolidated actions.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Etsy offers markets, services and technology that empower creative
entrepreneurs and shape a positive future for business.


FACEBOOK INC: Wants Suit Over Inflated Video Metrics Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that marketers who are
suing Facebook over inflated video metrics shouldn't be able to
proceed because they didn't say in their complaint that they
relied on Facebook's metrics when buying the ads, the social
networking service says.

Facebook makes that argument in a motion filed on April 10, asking
U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson in
San Francisco to dismiss the marketers' class-action complaint.

The dispute between the advertisers and social networking service
stems from last year's revelations that Facebook misreported two
metrics related to its video ads.  The result of both errors was
that Facebook inflated the average time spent viewing ad clips by
60% to 80%. The company said last September that its mistaken
calculations did not affect billing.

Six marketers, including the bankrupt tech incubator Quirky,
subsequently sued Facebook for allegedly violating a California
law regarding unfair and fraudulent business acts, among other
claims.  They alleged that the incorrect video ad metrics induced
marketers "to pay more for Facebook video advertising than they
otherwise would have been willing to pay."

But Facebook contends that the marketers haven't alleged enough
facts to show that they relied on the erroneous metrics. "Not a
single plaintiff -- let alone all of them -- alleges that he or it
ever viewed either [metric] and then spent money on video ads
because of an alleged misrepresentation," the company argues.
Facebook also argues that the allegations in the lawsuit are too
vague to support the marketers' claims.  "Plaintiffs fail to
allege which specific misrepresentations are at issue, when and
where Facebook made those specific misrepresentations, when
plaintiffs viewed or relied on them, and how they did so,"
Facebook writes.

Judge Henderson is expected to consider the company's arguments at
a hearing in June.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Hearing Loss Cases by 1,770 Firefighter Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Circuit Court of
Cook County has dismissed the hearing loss cases of 1,770
firefighter plaintiffs from the jurisdiction of the state of
Illinois.

The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters who
claim that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their
hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33
cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a
total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter
plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six
additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299
Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. During 2013, another case was
filed in Cook County involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the
number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine
plaintiffs concluded with a verdict against the Company and for
the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The
Company appealed this verdict. On September 13, 2012, the Illinois
Appellate Court rejected this appeal. The Company thereafter filed
a petition for rehearing with the Illinois Appellate Court, which
was denied on February 7, 2013.

The Company sought further review by filing a petition for leave
to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013. On
May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order
declining to accept review of this case. On July 1, 2013, the
Company satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs,
which has resulted in final dismissal of these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of
this trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The
Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory
appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate
Court accepted the Company's petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs
moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the
trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this
matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois Appellate
Court reversed the trial court's certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012,
the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.
Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify
a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the
sole issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company's objection, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March
11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,
2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class
certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the
Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to
satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of
the firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues
and that there is an adequate representative for the class. During
a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented to the
Court that they would again seek to certify a class of
firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were
defective and unreasonably dangerous.

On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to amend their
complaints to add class action allegations with respect to Chicago
firefighter plaintiffs as well as the approximately 1,800
firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago.

On March 11, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiff's motions to
amend their complaints. Plaintiffs have indicated that they will
now file motions to certify classes in these cases. On April 24,
2015, the cases were transferred to Cook County chancery court,
which will decide all class certification issues.

The Company intends to continue its objections to any attempt at
certification. The Company has also filed motions to dismiss cases
involving firefighters who worked for fire departments located
outside of the state of Illinois based on improper venue.

On February 24, 2017, the Circuit Court of Cook County entered
orders dismissing the cases of 1,770 such firefighter plaintiffs
from the jurisdiction of the state of Illinois.

Federal Signal Corporation, founded in 1901, was reincorporated as
a Delaware corporation in 1969. The Company designs, manufactures
and supplies a suite of products and integrated solutions for
municipal, governmental, industrial and commercial customers.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: 556 Firefighters in NY and NJ Hearing Loss Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that:

     * A total of 451 firefighters are currently involved in
       hearing loss cases filed in the state of New York.

     * A total of 105 firefighters are currently involved in
       hearing loss cases filed in New Jersey.

The Company has been sued on this issue outside of the Cook
County, Illinois venue. Many of these cases have involved lawsuits
filed by a single attorney in the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. During 2007 and through 2009,
this attorney filed a total of 71 lawsuits involving 71 plaintiffs
in this jurisdiction. Three of these cases were dismissed pursuant
to pretrial motions filed by the Company. Another case was
voluntarily dismissed. Prior to trial in four cases, the Company
paid nominal sums to obtain dismissals.

Three trials occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases filed
in 2007 through 2009. The first trial involving one of these
plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff. In particular, the jury found that the Company's
siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company
negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the
amount of $0.1 million, which was subsequently reduced to $0.08
million. The Company appealed this verdict. Another trial,
involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, also occurred
in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company
as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. The
third trial, also involving nine Philadelphia firefighter
plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury returned a
defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all
plaintiffs involved in that trial.

Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials,
the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining
filed cases in Philadelphia at that time, as well as other
firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the
Philadelphia cases. On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a
Global Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with the
law firm of the attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants,
on behalf of 1,125 claimants the firm represented (the
"Claimants") and who had asserted product claims against the
Company (the "Claims"). Three hundred eight of the Claimants had
lawsuits pending against the Company in Cook County, Illinois.
The Settlement Agreement, as amended, provided that the Company
pay a total amount of $3.8 million (the "Settlement Payment") to
settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of
the law firm in connection with its representation of the
Claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures
set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In order for the Company to
be required to make the Settlement Payment: (i) each Claimant who
agreed to settle his or her claims had to sign a release
acceptable to the Company (a "Release"), (ii) each Claimant who
agreed to the settlement and who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit, had
to dismiss his or her lawsuit with prejudice, (iii) by April 29,
2011, at least 93% of the Claimants identified in the Settlement
Agreement must have agreed to settle their claims and provide a
signed Release to the Company and (iv) the law firm had to
withdraw from representing any Claimants who did not agree to the
settlement, including those who filed lawsuits. If the conditions
to the settlement were met, but less than 100% of the Claimants
agreed to settle their Claims and sign a Release, the Settlement
Payment would be reduced by the percentage of Claimants who did
not agree to the settlement.

On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and
conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a
payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was
based upon the Company's receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided
by Claimants, which was 95.02% of all Claimants identified in the
Settlement Agreement.

The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims
and lawsuits by the Claimants and denies that its products caused
any injuries to the Claimants. Nonetheless, the Company entered
into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its
expenses, including legal fees, and avoiding the inconvenience,
uncertainty and distraction of the claims and lawsuits.
During April through October 2012, 20 new cases were filed in the
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These
cases were filed on behalf of 20 Philadelphia firefighters and
involve various defendants in addition to the Company. Five of
these cases were subsequently dismissed. The first trial involving
these 2012 Philadelphia cases occurred during December 2014 and
involved three firefighter plaintiffs. The jury returned a verdict
in favor of the Company. Following this trial, all of the parties
agreed to settle cases involving seven firefighter plaintiffs set
for trial during January 2015 for nominal amounts per plaintiff.

In January 2015, plaintiffs' attorneys filed two new complaints in
the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf of
approximately 70 additional firefighter plaintiffs. The vast
majority of the firefighters identified in these complaints are
located outside of Pennsylvania. One of the complaints in these
cases, which involves 11 firefighter plaintiffs from the District
of Columbia, was removed to federal court in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims in
this case on May 31, 2016. The Company has moved to recover
various fees and costs in this case, asserting that plaintiffs'
counsel failed to properly investigate these claims prior to
filing suit. With respect to claims of other out-of-state
firefighters involved in these two cases, the Company moved to
dismiss these claims as improperly filed in Pennsylvania. The
Court granted this motion and dismissed these claims on November
5, 2015. During August through December 2015, another nine new
cases were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania. These cases involve a total of 193
firefighters, most of whom are located outside of Pennsylvania.
The Company again moved to dismiss all claims filed by out-of-
state firefighters in these cases as improperly filed in
Pennsylvania. On May 24, 2016, the Court granted this motion and
dismissed these claims. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal
regarding this decision. On May 13, 2016, four new cases were
filed in Philadelphia state court, involving a total of 55
Philadelphia firefighters who live in Pennsylvania. During August
2016, the Company settled a case involving four Philadelphia
firefighters that had been set for trial in Philadelphia state
court during September 2016.

During April through July 2013, additional cases were filed in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. These cases involve 247 plaintiff
firefighters from Pittsburgh and various defendants, including the
Company. During May 2016, two additional cases were filed against
the Company in Allegheny County involving 19 Pittsburgh
firefighters. After the Company filed pretrial motions, the Court
dismissed claims of 55 Pittsburgh firefighter plaintiffs. The
Court scheduled the first trials of these Pittsburgh firefighters
to occur in May, September and November 2016. On April 14, 2016,
the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment
regarding strict liability claims asserted by all plaintiff
firefighters involved in the first trial scheduled for May 2016.
Subsequently, the Court also dismissed all remaining negligence
claims asserted by these firefighters. The next trial involving
six Pittsburgh firefighters started on November 7, 2016. Shortly
after this trial began, plaintiffs' counsel moved for a mistrial
because a key witness suddenly became unavailable. The Court
granted this motion and rescheduled this trial for March 6, 2017.
During January 2017, plaintiffs also moved to consolidate and
bifurcate trials involving Pittsburgh firefighters. In particular,
plaintiffs seek one trial involving liability issues which will
apply to all Pittsburgh firefighters who have filed suit against
the Company. The Company intends to oppose this motion. During
March 2014, an action also was brought in the Court of Common
Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania on behalf of 61 firefighters.
This case likewise involves various defendants in addition to the
Company. After the Company filed pretrial motions, 33 Erie County
firefighter plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims.

On September 17, 2014, 20 lawsuits, involving a total of 193
Buffalo Fire Department firefighters, were filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Erie County. Several product
manufacturers, including the Company, have been named as
defendants in these cases. All of the cases filed in Erie County,
New York have been removed to federal court in the Western
District of New York. During February 2015, a lawsuit involving
one New York City firefighter plaintiff was filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County. The plaintiff
named the Company as well as several other parties as defendants.
That case has been transferred to federal court in the Northern
District of New York. Plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss
this case during May 2016. The Company also is aware that a
lawsuit involving eight New York City firefighters was filed in
New York County, New York, on April 24, 2015. The Company has not
yet been served in that case.

During November 2015 through January 2016, 28 new cases involving
a total of 227 firefighters were filed in various counties in the
New York City area. During December 2016, an additional case,
involved 11 New York firefighters, was filed in New York County
state court. A total of 451 firefighters are currently involved in
cases filed in the state of New York.

During November 2015, the Company was served with a complaint
filed in Union County, New Jersey state court, involving 34 New
Jersey firefighters. This case has been transferred to federal
court in the District of New Jersey. During the period from
January through May 2016, eight additional cases were filed in
various New Jersey state courts. Most of the firefighters in these
cases reside in New Jersey and work or worked at New Jersey fire
departments. During December 2016, a case involving one New Jersey
firefighter was filed in the United States District Court of New
Jersey. A total of 105 firefighters are currently involved in
cases filed in New Jersey.

During May through October 2016, nine cases were filed in Suffolk
County, Massachusetts state court, naming the Company as a
defendant. These cases involve 194 firefighters who lived and
worked in the Boston area.

From 2007 through 2009, firefighters also brought hearing loss
claims against the Company in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland and
Kings County, New York. All of those cases, however, were
dismissed prior to trial, including four cases in the Supreme
Court of Kings County, New York that were dismissed upon the
Company's motion in 2008. On appeal, the New York appellate court
affirmed the trial court's dismissal of these cases. Plaintiffs'
attorneys have threatened to file additional lawsuits. The Company
intends to vigorously defend all of these lawsuits, if filed.
The Company's ongoing negotiations with its insurer, CNA, over
insurance coverage on these claims have resulted in reimbursements
of a portion of the Company's defense costs. These reimbursements
are recorded as a reduction of corporate operating expenses. For
the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, the Company
recorded reimbursements from CNA of $0.2 million, $0.3 million,
and $0.3 million, respectively, related to legal costs,
respectively.

Federal Signal Corporation, founded in 1901, was reincorporated as
a Delaware corporation in 1969. The Company designs, manufactures
and supplies a suite of products and integrated solutions for
municipal, governmental, industrial and commercial customers.


FERASS DELI: "Perez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eloiza Perez and John Doe, on behalf of themselves and FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, v. Ferass Deli Corp., Ebrahim Alghurazy and
Moises (last name unknown), Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02502,
(S.D. N.Y., April 6, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime, unpaid spread
of hours premium, liquidated damages, statutory penalties and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Perez was hired by Defendants as a cashier for Defendants' Deli
located at 831 6th Avenue, New York, NY 10001. Defendants failed
to provide accurate wage statements, thus cannot account for her
overtime, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


FIAT CHRYSLER: Class Action Over Defective Jeep Gas Tanks Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Jeep
Liberty gas tank lawsuit has been dismissed by a Missouri judge
after the plaintiff claimed Fiat Chrysler concealed defects with
the location of the gas tanks, causing a loss of vehicle value.

The plaintiff says Chrysler lied about the gas tanks in Jeep
vehicles, only to later order a recall of the SUVs.

The plaintiff says he bought his 2003 Jeep Liberty in 2013
believing the SUV was safe, until Chrysler recalled the Jeeps to
help protect the gas tanks from rear impacts that could cause the
Jeeps to go up in flames.

In 2013, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
requested that FCA recall Jeep Liberty and Grand Cherokee SUVs at
risk of fires due to the location of the gas tanks, but Chrysler
fought the request and said the vehicles were safe.

The case hinged on press releases from June 2013 when Chrysler
said the Jeeps were not defective and that federal safety
regulators were wanting recalls because those regulators didn't
have the proper information.

But it wasn't long after those statements that Fiat Chrysler
announced a recall of 1.5 million Jeeps to install trailer hitches
to the rear of the SUVs even though the government wanted 2.7
million Jeeps recalled.

Chrysler had already won dismissal of the proposed class-action
lawsuit in 2015, but the plaintiff amended the complaint and told
the judge the automaker completely failed by placing the plastic
gas tanks behind the rear axles of the Jeeps. According to the
lawsuit, Jeep owners have lost money because of the recall and
because of the location of the gas tanks.

The judge ruled there was no evidence that two press releases
Chrysler posted in 2013 were ever sent to the used car dealership
where the plaintiff bought his Jeep Liberty.  Those press releases
talked about the safety of the SUVs and were posted to Chrysler's
website after the government requested the automaker recall the
Jeeps.

The plaintiff claims the dealership should have known they were
selling a defective Jeep, but the judge disagreed and said that
Fiat Chrysler had no connection with the sale of the Jeep Liberty.

In addition, just because the plaintiff eventually saw the press
releases doesn't mean the dealership that sold the Jeep saw the
press releases before selling the Jeep.

The Jeep gas tank lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
Western District of Missouri - Faltermeier v. FCA US LLC.

Faltermeier is represented by Shank & Moore LLC.


FLORIDA: Court OKs Accurate Death Certs for Same Sex Widowers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Record reports that two same sex marriage widowers won a
class action ruling for the right to accurate death certificates
of spouses that acknowledge their marriage and recognize the
surviving spouse, according to court documents March 23.

Hal Birchfield and Paul Mocko married before same sex marriage was
legal in Florida, and when their spouses died in 2013 and 2014,
same sex marriage wasn't federal law yet, at least not until
Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. Even retroactively, amending a
spouse's death certificate to acknowledge the same sex marriage
and surviving partner's name -- though legal now -- was unheard of
without a specific court order.

Birchfield and Mocko filed a class action in 2015, and in March
were finally able to receive some measure of closure, their
attorney, Karen Loewy of Lambda Legal, said.

"It's really a basic constitutional law," Loewy told the Florida
Record, "that when the Supreme Court issued a ruling like
Obergefell and applies it to the parties that are right before
that court -- that ruling applies retroactively. All of these
marriage bans were unconstitutional from the get-go. This ruling
really recognizes the breadth of that unconstitutionally and the
need for a remedy for everybody who experienced that
discrimination."

Birchfield and Mocko challenged that they and others similarly
affected couples had a constitutional right to immediately receive
the same benefit same sex marriage couples enjoyed since
Obergefell. They said the state had a duty to backdate the remedy
to include all cases regarding of the status of any preceding or
current litigation.

"Having a death certificate that erases your relationship and what
you meant to each is incredibly painful," Loewy said. "It's
inconceivable that [the ruling] could have gone the other way.
This case provides a remedy for all surviving same sex spouses
where the [partners] died before the marriage ban was struck
down."

She said these individuals now have the respect and dignity that
recognize their relationships, adding. "Frankly, the simplest and
most straight-forward thing for the state to have done would have
been to issue the amended death certificates in the first place
and not insist that the surviving spouses would have to jump
through hoops before they would be willing to amend death
certificates."

The court ruled the state could no longer require specific court
orders to amend same sex death certificates, though they still
require supporting and verifiable documentation. Additionally, the
same sex marriage couple must be legally married at the time a
spouse passes, and to amend a death certificate, the original must
have omitted marital status and the surviving spouse's name.

"Appeals usually runs 30 days from entry of judgment and we're not
even at two weeks yet," Loewy said. "But it will be pretty
shocking for the state to take a position that they're not
required to provide amended death certificates to same sex
marriage spouses. It's a really straightforward application of all
of the rulings regarding marriage equality and it would be an act
of supreme resistance for the state to want to appeal this, not to
mention just cruel to do so."


FLORIDA: To Pay Millions to Homeowners for Lost Citrus Trees
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Fineout at The Ledger reports that Florida may drop a long-
running legal battle and instead agree to pay millions to
homeowners across the state whose healthy citrus trees were torn
down in a failed attempt to eradicate citrus canker.

House Republicans have agreed to spend USD66 million to end
lawsuits filed on behalf of homeowners in Broward, Lee and Palm
Beach counties. There are also lawsuits that were filed in both
Orange and Miami-Dade counties that could eventually push up the
cost even more.

Rep. Carlos Trujillo, a House budget chairman, defended making the
payments now because lower courts have already ruled against the
state in several counties. The House has included the money in its
proposed USD81.2 billion budget that will be voted on next week.
"We should pay a judgment that has been levied against us,"
Trujillo said. "Just kicking the can down the road for the next
legislature is probably not the best idea."

The House move to pay off the lawsuits now runs counter to a
suggestion from Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam.

Putnam said in a statement that "for the sake of fairness" he has
maintained that the state should not pay anything until the court
cases reach the state Supreme Court, adding the "courts have
ordered wildly different amounts of compensation to the
homeowners." Since 2011 Putnam's office has spent at least USD3.17
million with private attorneys to defend the state in the
litigation.

The Senate -- which is working on a rival budget -- so far has not
agreed to go along with the payment. Sen. Rob Bradley, a north
Florida Republican who oversees the budget committee responsible
for spending on agricultural issues, said he was surprised that
the House had proposed paying off the lawsuits now. But he said he
was open to discussing the payments with the House.

"It's certainly a liability that is hanging over the state of
Florida," Bradley said.

Canker is a bacterial disease that blemishes a tree's fruit and
can cause it to drop prematurely, although fruit that ripens can
still be squeezed for juice -- the primary use of Florida's
commercial citrus crop. After a 53-year lull, canker reappeared in
Florida in 1986 and was spread by the wind.

A last-ditch attempt to protect Florida's USD9 billion dollar
citrus industry from widespread contamination began in 2000, as
the state ordered the destruction of even healthy citrus trees
within 1,900 feet of an infected tree with or without the owner's
permission. More than 16 million trees were destroyed statewide
during the six-year program, including 865,000 residential trees,
before a series of hurricanes spread canker too widely to be
eradicated.

For compensation, the state gave each homeowner a USD100 Wal-Mart
gift card for the first tree killed and USD55 cash for each
subsequent tree, but thousands complained their trees were worth
much more.

Class-action lawsuits were filed and courts agreed. Judges ordered
homeowners in Broward, Lee, Orange and Palm Beach counties to be
fully compensated. Those rulings total about USD100 million and a
Miami-Dade County case that remains open could double that. Part
of the judgments include payments to the law firms that filed the
lawsuits.


FLORIDA ROOFING: "Molina" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Molina, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Florida Roofing Solutions, Inc., Florida
Gc Solutions, Inc. and Edwin Gaitan, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
01064 (S.D. Tex., April 6, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants performs roofing, re-roofing, maintenance and repair
work for clients in the commercial and industrial sectors
throughout Florida where Molina worked as an iron worker. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      Curt Hesse, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


FLOWERS BAKING: "Miller" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Holley Miller, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Flowers Baking Co. of Ohio, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-00725 (N.D. Ohio., April 6, 2017), seeks damages in the
amount of unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, court costs, reasonable attorneys'
fees and all other relief as allowed by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Flowers produces and markets a wide variety of fresh and frozen
bakery food including breads, buns, rolls, snack cakes and
pastries. Miller was employed by Defendant as a route driver. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER LLC
      7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
      Massillon, OH 44646
      Telephone: (330) 470-4428
      Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
      Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
      Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

             - and -

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Phone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      Email: chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
             anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


FORD MOTOR: Class Action Over Exhaust Odors Can't Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that an
Illinois man will not be allowed to pursue his attempt at a class
action lawsuit against Ford Motor Company over exhaust odors that
had accumulated in passenger cabins of some of their vehicles --
in part because a similar class action is nearing settlement in
Florida.

On April 6, U.S. District Judge Sara L. Ellis dismissed with
prejudice the second amended complaint of plaintiff David
Schiesser, who said the 2013 Ford Explorer he bought from Joe
Rizza Ford in Orland Park developed a problem with exhaust odor.

According to the opinion, Schiesser bought the car in June 2012,
and in August or September 2015 -- after the three-year warranty
expired -- noticed the odor.  He brought it to the dealership that
October for repairs.  Through the dealership, Ford proposed two
repairs, each costing between $800 and $900, but neither
guaranteed to fix the problem. Absent that promise, Mr. Schiesser
opted not to have the work done.

Mr. Schiesser filed suit in 2016, represented by attorneys with
the firms of Wexler Wallace LLP, of Chicago, and Audet & Partners,
of San Francisco.

Judge Ellis' background said Ford began issuing technical service
bulletins acknowledging the defect in December 2012.

"Ford provided the TSBs to authorized dealerships, but not to non-
Ford automotive repair facilities," Judge Ellis wrote.  "Ford also
did not disclose these TSBs to its customers."

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration started
looking into the exhaust leak issue in July 2016.  Judge Ellis
also noted a federal court in Florida has preliminarily approved a
nationwide settlement addressing Mr. Schiesser's allegations,
further impeding his ability to sue.

Mr. Schiesser's second amended complaint included claims for
breach of express warranty, common law fraud and violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.  Ford moved to dismiss the complaint,
challenging the sufficiency of Schiesser's allegations.

Judge Ellis first considered whether Mr. Schiesser sufficiently
claimed the vehicle's warranty terms are "unconscionable."  He
contended the terms were unconscionable because Ford knew of the
defect when the car was sold, but Judge Ellis wrote the complaint
"contains no allegations that Ford knew that carbon monoxide was
entering vehicle compartments at the time Mr. Schiesser purchased
his vehicle."  Further, Mr. Schiesser declined purchase of an
extended warranty and did not seek to have the problem repaired
inside the time before the factory warranty expired.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act creates a federal cause of action
for breach of written and implied warranties under state law,
Ellis wrote, and Mr. Schiesser's claim here fails by virtue of the
failure of the state breach complaint.

In arguing Judge Ellis should dismiss the UDTPA claim, Ford said
federal law does not allow Mr. Schiesser to request an injunction
forcing the automaker to develop a fix for the defect.

"Although Schiesser does not characterize his requested relief in
so many words," Judge Ellis wrote, "he clearly seeks a recall" --
a determination functionally within the power only of the U.S.
Secretary of Transportation, not a judge.

Further, Judge Ellis said, Mr. Schiesser's pursuit of remedies
distinct from what the Florida court has already preliminarily
approved runs "contrary to well-established principles of judicial
comity and efficiency."

Judge Ellis rejected Mr. Schiesser's fraud allegations by finding
he failed to identify "any communication by Ford, let alone one
that omitted disclosure of the defect," that induced him to buy
the car.  His complaint referenced several Ford documents, but
does not say, "he saw or heard any of the allegedly deceptive
communications prior to purchasing the vehicle."

In summary, Judge Ellis noted the second amended complaint does
not cure the deficiencies identified in the first complaint,
leading her to dismiss with prejudice, terminating the case.

Ford was represented in the action by the firm of DLA Piper, of
Chicago and Baltimore.


FRANKLIN COLLECTION: "Hernandez" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Guillermo Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Franklin Collection Service,
Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 8:17-
cv-00637, (C.D. Cal., April 7, 2017), seeks statutory damages,
actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit,
prejudgment interest and such other further relief under the
Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant contacted Plaintiff regarding an alleged debt using a
letter making threats to sue Plaintiff if he did not pay the
alleged debt in full. Hernandez feels deceived, anxious and
harassed due to this. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Phone: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: 866-633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com


GATEWAY GROUP: Faces Class Action in N.J. Over Racetrack Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wichert, writing for Law360, reports that a security firm and
other employers of workers at Monmouth Park Racetrack have been
slapped with a putative class action in New Jersey state court
alleging they have failed to pay the wages required under a state
statute dealing with building services at state-owned and state-
leased facilities.

Named plaintiff Joseph DiCosta brought the suit against his
onetime employer, Newark-based Gateway Group One, and other
entities, claiming they are in violation of the New Jersey State
Building Service Contracts Act, according to the complaint filed
on March 29 in Essex County Superior Court.

"Defendants' ongoing illegal policies of failing to pay class
members at the proper hourly rate has resulted in class members
being denied substantial legally required compensation," the
complaint states.  "As a result of defendants' conduct, the class
members have endured significant economic damages."

The complaint proposes a class of all individuals employed by the
defendants since March 2011 at the racetrack in positions that
require compensation pursuant to the statute, "including but not
limited to security services, cleaners, painters, electricians,
laborers and grounds workers."  The proposed class members have
lived in New Jersey at all times relevant to the matter, the
complaint says.

Gateway Group One entered into an agreement to perform security
services at the racetrack, according to the complaint.  The
complaint states that Mr. DiCosta worked for the company at
Monmouth Park during 2014, but it does not specify the position he
held.

The other defendants are identified in the complaint as "ABC
Corps. and Jane and John Does."

The racetrack, located in Oceanport Borough, New Jersey, is owned
by the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority.  The New Jersey
Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association operates the racetrack under a
lease agreement with the authority.

Under the New Jersey State Building Services Contracts Act,
contractors and subcontractors furnishing building services at
state-owned and state-leased facilities must pay prevailing wages
to their employees.

In June 2015, Mr. DiCosta's attorney, Ravi Sattiraju, brought a
similarly proposed class action against the operator of the
Meadowlands Racetrack, alleging that the company failed to pay a
security guard, Darlene Sharpe, and other workers the hourly rates
required under the act.

But a trial court in October 2015 dismissed Sharpe's first amended
complaint against New Meadowlands Racetrack LLC, and a state
appellate panel affirmed that decision on Jan. 20, 2017.

The panel found that the prevailing wage requirements do not apply
to the company since they are limited to contracts entered into by
the state for the "principal purpose" of furnishing building
services.

Although a lease agreement with the New Jersey Sports and
Exposition Authority, which owns the East Rutherford property,
requires New Meadowlands to provide building services, "the
contract between NJSEA and NMR was not for the principal purpose
of furnishing building services, but rather to run a racetrack,"
the panel said.

In an order filed on April 6, the New Jersey Supreme Court refused
to second-guess the appellate ruling and denied Sharpe's petition
for certification.

Mr. Sattiraju and a spokesman for Gateway Group One could not
immediately be reached for comment on April 10.

Mr. DiCosta is represented by Ravi Sattiraju of the Sattiraju Law
Firm PC.

Counsel information for Gateway Group One was not immediately
available.

The case is Joseph DiCosta v. Gateway Group One et al, case number
L-2310-17, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, County of Essex.


GENEVA, NY: Faces Class Action Over Arsenic Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------
David L. Shaw, writing for Finger Lake Times, reports that the
city is responsible for the cleanup of lead and arsenic from the
soil at the former Geneva Foundry on Jackson Street.

In an update to City Council dated April 5, City Manager Matt Horn
said a work plan was submitted to the state Department of
Environmental Conservation for review and approval.

The DEC is responsible for cleanup in the neighborhoods
surrounding the foundry site, and Horn said the city is pushing
for expedited remediation effort.

Horn said he expects a public meeting in June to discuss
remediation of the foundry property, which is owned by the city.

The city hopes the property can be sold and redeveloped after the
cleanup.

"We expect the remediation will happen in August," Mr. Horn said.

The plan calls for the removal of the top foot of soil on the
property, disposal in an approved facility and replacement of the
soil with clean soil cover.

A class action lawsuit against the city, Ontario County, the DEC
and state Health Department as been filed on behalf of 136
property owners in the Foundry neighborhood.

One of them is City Councilor-at-Large Mark Gramling.

The basis of the claims is that the lead and arsenic contamination
was known in the mid-1980s, but property owners were not notified
until last fall, preventing them from taking action to avoid the
contamination or make decisions to not buy a home in that
neighborhood.

Mr. Horn said the city sent notices to the people who filed
notices of claims against the city to schedule a 50-h hearing
within 90 days.

Those hearings have been scheduled from April through June.

Other updates provided by Horn include:

DEC NEIGHBORHOOD REMEDIATION:

   -- The state has retained two consulting firms, Ecology &
Environment and LaBella Associates, to complete the investigation
and remediation.

   -- The DEC issued a fact sheet in March to all property owners
in the neighborhoods.

   -- City staff met with Ecology & Environmental and DEC
officials on Feb. 17, Feb. 29, March 13, March 23 and April 4.

They discussed the anticipated schedule, dissemination of
information in English and Spanish to the residents, access to
city property in the neighborhood for staging equipment used to
remove, haul away and replace the contaminated soil and scheduling
another public meeting.

DEC REMEDIATION SCHEDULE:

   -- Mr. Horn said 30 properties have been identified as priority
sites, based on their use, such as day care facilities, proximity
to the former foundry site and ability to secure access from the
property owners.

   -- For those 30 properties, notices were sent March 15. Further
investigation is needed to prepare a remediation plan. Those
properties will be remediated first.

   -- Mr. Horn said the city continues to push for an expedited
schedule for remediation.

   -- Approximately 100 properties have been identified that need
additional sampling.  Notices were sent to those property owners
March 21 and access is needed to sample and define the boundary of
the remediation area.

   -- Other properties are supposed to get an updated letter. If
such a letter is received, Horn said the property owners should
send back the access authorization so DEC can start the process.

REMEDIATION CONTRACTORS:

   -- DEC agreed to provide the city with weekly or bi-weekly
scheduled updates.

   -- For April, a staging area will be set up on State Street
across from the Geneva Peeps egg cooperative. A limited access
agreement is being negotiated for the owners of that parcel.

   -- Consultants are completing property boundary surveys for
residential properties.

   -- Consultants are sampling soils of residential properties.
That will start for field sampling and April 17 for geoprobe or
underground sampling.

   -- Remediation work is scheduled to start in July.

"The city has no control over the neighborhood cleanup schedule
and remains disappointed with the state's proposed remediation
schedule," Mr. Horn said.  "We continue to push for a quicker
resolution by outreach to the DEC central office in Albany and the
Region 8 director in Avon."

He said once the initial rounds of sampling are completed and the
consultants develop the work plans for the first round of
residential areas, it's expected "the schedule will move faster."

"The city will continue to push for a more expedited schedule once
the initial investigation work is completed," Horn said.

FOUNDRY FACTS

A foundry operation at 23 Jackson St. began in 1868 and ended in
1988.  During those 120 years, the foundry emitted lead, arsenic
and other contaminants through its smokestacks, much of it landing
on the foundry grounds and in the soils of surrounding residential
neighborhoods.

The city acquired the property for back taxes in 1998 and entered
it into the state's environmental restoration program.

The foundry buildings were demolished and removed in 2005, leaving
only slabs and foundations. It is zoned for commercial and
industrial uses.

When operating, the foundry melted cast iron objects by burning
processed coal or coke mixed in layers with scrap and unrefined
iron.

Soil samplings in the mid-1980s revealed elevated levels of lead
and arsenic in the soil on a handful of nearby properties.
However, no warnings were issued to homeowners until last fall.


GENVEC INC: "Mussman" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal with Intrexon
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Mussman, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Genvec, Inc., Douglas J. Swirsky, Michael
Richman, Wayne T. Hockmeyer, William N. Kelley, Stefan D. Loren,
Quinterol J. Mallette and Marc R. Schneebaum, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00388 (D. Del., April 6, 2017) seeks to preliminarily and
permanently enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
acquisition of GenVec by Intrexon Corporation and any vote on
such, unless and until defendants disclose and disseminate the
material information to GenVec stockholders; rescissory damages in
case the merger pushes through; costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees; and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

For each share of GenVec common stock they own, GenVec
stockholders will receive 0.297 shares of Intrexon common stock,
representing $7.00 per share of GenVec common stock based on
Intrexon's 5-day volume weighted average price as of January 23,
2017.

The Registration Statement with the SEC in connection with the
merger omits GenVec management's and Intrexon's projections,
including projections utilized by Roth Capital Partners, LLC in
its financial analyses, Roth's potential conflicts of interest and
the valuation analyses prepared by Roth in connection with the
rendering of its fairness opinion, says the complaint.

GenVec is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical corporation located
at 910 Clopper Road, Suite 220N, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878.

Intrexon is a company focused on synthetic biology that designs,
builds and regulates gene programs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-5310

             - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036


GERON CORP: Settles Class Action, July 21 Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Aycock, writing for Seeking Alpha, reports that
Geron says in a filing that it's entered into a settlement
resolving a consolidated class-action securities lawsuit.

In exchange for dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all
defendants in the matter, Geron is settling for $6.25M in cash --
$6M of which will be paid by Geron's insurers, with the company
ponying up $250K and admitting no wrongdoing.

The class consisted of buyers of the company's stock between
Dec. 10, 2012 through and including March 11, 2014.

The settlement heads for a fairness hearing on July 21, 2017.


GLOBAL TEL-LINK: $8.8MM Accord in Lee-Martin Suit Has Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ALICE LEE and DAVID W. MARTIN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
GLOBAL TEL-LINK CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-
02495-ODW-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Court provisionally grants the
motion for class certification and preliminarily approves class
settlement.

Settlement Fund and GTL's Changing Practices:

GTL will pay $8,800,000 into a common settlement fund. Class
members who submit a claim will receive a pro-rata share of the
balance of that amount--after payment of notice and administration
costs, any Court-ordered award of attorneys' fees and expenses,
and any Court-ordered incentive award for Plaintiff. Because the
amount that class members will receive depends on the number of
claims submitted, the parties cannot estimate with specificity the
amount that members who submit claims are likely to receive.
However, they conservatively estimate that if the percentage of
potential class members who submit claims is in keeping with
typical TCPA cases (roughly 5%), then each class member will
receive about $60. In addition to the payment to class members who
submit claims, GTL will change its practices to include in all
Notification Calls an interactive-voice and/or keyactivated opt-
out mechanism that the called party may use to opt-out of all
future Notification Calls. The called party will also be provided
with a toll-free number that can be used to opt-out. Finally,
opting out is effective to block all future calls, regardless of
the number of times an inmate attempts to call that number.

The settlement amount shall be reserved and paid out as follows:

     1. Opting In and Opting Out:

After Notice is initially sent, class members will have 60 days in
which to submit timely and valid requests for exclusion. Requests
for exclusion must be mailed to the settlement administrator.
Similarly, objections to the settlement must be made within 60
days. Objections must be filed with the Court. The parties have
agreed that in order to ensure that only valid class members can
object to the settlement, objectors must provide a valid claim ID,
demonstrate ownership of a telephone number that appears on the
class list based on GTL's records, or produce telephone records
establishing receipt of a Notification Call.

     2. Release of Claims:

Any class member who does not opt out within the 60-day period
described above will release all claims against GTL arising out of
Notification Calls, calls made by automatic telephone dialing
systems, and/or artificial or prerecorded voice calls to mobile
telephones during the class period.

     3. Calculation of Payment:

Once the claims period has ended, the settlement administrator
will calculate the amount each class member is to receive (the
amount will be uniform among all class members, aside from any
incentive award to the named plaintiff).

     4. Method of Payment:

The settlement administrator will send checks to the class members
who submit valid claims. The recipients will then have 120 days to
cash the check.  Any amounts that remain uncashed after 120 days
will be part of a second distribution, whereby any remaining funds
will be distributed to class members who did cash their checks,
provided that each member would receive at least $10 in the second
distribution. After 120 days of the date of the checks in the
second distribution, any remaining funds will be paid to the
National Consumer Law Center, which works with the FCC to enforce
the protections of the TCPA. No funds will revert to GTL.

     5. Attorneys' Fees and Incentive Award:

Class counsel has indicated that they will file a motion for
attorneys' fees and for an incentive award for the named
plaintiff. Further, the parties have not agreed that GTL
is stipulating to a certain amount of fees or awards; GTL is
permitted to oppose the requested awards. Moreover, the parties
have agreed that the settlement is not contingent upon any such
awards being granted.

     6. Costs to be Deducted from the Settlement Amount:

Deducted from the settlement fund will be: costs of notice and
administration of settlement; any Court-ordered award of
attorneys' fees and expenses; and any Court-ordered incentive
award for Plaintiff.

     7. Blow-Up Clause:

The parties have not identified any particular number of
claims or opt-outs that would void the settlement.

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


GREAT LAKES: Has Until April 24 to Respond to Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Ann Maher, writing for Madison Record, reports that Great Lakes
Educational Loan Services has until April 24 to respond to a
proposed class action claiming financially stressed borrowers were
steered into costly repayment programs instead of more affordable
income-driven repayment options.

Plaintiff Nicole Denise Nelson, 33, of Shiloh filed suit in
February in federal court in East St. Louis on behalf of
potentially thousands of others seeking in excess of $5 million in
compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages.

Ms. Nelson is an attorney formerly employed at the Belleville
office of the Illinois Attorney General.  She is represented by
Brandon Wise -- bwise@prwlegal.com -- and Paul Lesko --
plesko@prwlegal.com -- of Pfeiffer Rosca Wolf Abdullah Carr & Kane
in St. Louis.

The suit claims that Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, based
in Madison, Wisc., has encouraged financially strapped borrowers
into forbearance, "which is more costly to the student loan
borrower but significantly less costly for the student loan
servicer."

At the heart of the case is how Great Lakes handles borrowers
experiencing financial hardships that are not temporary.  Such
borrowers are being encouraged to file for forbearances, rather
than more appropriate income-driven repayment plans, because it's
in the best interests of the student-loan servicer, the complaint
says.

"In sum, counseling borrowers about alternative student loan
payment plans and enrolling those student loan borrowers in
income-driven repayment plans is costly for Defendants and its
employees," the complaint says.  "In contrast, enrollment of
student loan borrowers in forbearance can often be completed over
the phone, in a matter of minutes, and generally without the
submission of any paperwork."

The complaint indicates that 10 as yet unnamed individual
defendants may be added to the complaint.

Ms. Nelson began making payments on her student loans in December
2009 but entered into forbearance by November 2012, according to
her complaint.  Over the next few years, Ms. Nelson bounced in and
out of forbearance, changed jobs and became unemployed, but when
she discussed her situation over the phone with Great Lakes
employees, she was told that her options were forbearance or a
deferment, according to the complaint.

"Plaintiff was not informed of alternative or income-driven
repayment option," the complaint says.  "These other alternative
or repayment options would have likely allowed Plaintiff a $0.00
or extremely low monthly payment, and would have counted as
qualifying payments towards loan forgiveness.  Instead, Plaintiff
was, pursuant to Defendants' policy and practice, steered into
forbearance."

The complaint points out that federal student loan borrowers who
can't make monthly payments on their student loan debt may opt for
alternative repayment plans that can include a percentage of their
discretionary income or that can count toward loan forgiveness
programs.

"However, despite the wide-spread availability of income-driven
repayment plans, and their clear benefits to student loan
borrowers, student loan servicers, like Great Lakes,
systematically deterred Plaintiff, and upon information and
belief, potentially thousands of other borrowers from obtaining
access to some or all of the benefits and protections associated
with income driven repayment plans," the complaint says.

Great Lakes steered financially stressed borrowers into
forbearance programs instead of other, more long-term but less
lucrative student-loan repayment options, according to the
complaint.

"Consequently, Great Lakes has failed to perform its core duties
in the servicing of student loans," the complaint says.  "Instead,
Great Lakes has violated its duties to Plaintiff and others
similarly situated under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act, as well as violating the trust that
student loan borrowers placed in the company, by steering
struggling student loan borrowers into forbearance, rather than an
eligible 'income-driven' repayment plan that could have provided
monthly payments as low as $0.00 per month, a significant benefit
to the struggling student loan borrower, but (potentially) less
profitable for Defendants."

Members of the class in this case would be anyone who lives in
Illinois, has student-loan contracts in the state and, since Feb.
21, 2014, "were subjected to Defendants' unfair and deceptive
conduct," the complaint says.

The case is presided over by District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel.

Magistrate Judge Stephen Williams will handle pre-trial
proceedings.


HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Sued for Overcharging for Health Records
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Healthport Technologies LLC,
IOD Inc. and CIOX Health LLC, citing alleged breach of contract,
fraud and unjust enrichment from overcharging patients for health
records.

Leon Kuchenmeister, Cindy A. Hugger-Gravitt, and Beth A. Bretoi
filed a complaint on behalf of all those similarly situated on
March 20, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Georgia
against the defendants, alleging that they excessively charged the
plaintiffs for copies of their personal health information.

According to the complaint, Mr. Kuchenmeister, Ms. Hugger-Gravitt
and Ms. Bretoi sustained financial harm from being unlawfully
charged.  The plaintiffs hold Healthport Technologies, IOD Inc.
and CIOX Health responsible because the defendants allegedly
charged their patients for providing medical records requested by
their physicians or hospitals.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek out-of-pocket
damages in an amount that exceeds $6.50 per request, compensatory
damages, exemplary and/ or punitive damages, injunction against
the defendant, court costs and any further relief the court
grants.  They are represented by Justin T. Holcombe and Kris Skaar
of Skaar & Feagle LLP in Woodstock, Ga.

U.S. District Court for the District of Georgia Case number 1:17-
cv-01001-RWS


HERON RIDGE: "Steinman" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Linda Steinman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Heron Ridge Associates, PLLC and Debra
Scheck, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-11123,
(E.D. Mich., April 10, 2017), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, litigation
costs, costs of court, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Heron Ridge, provides mental health and chemical dependency
services throughout Southeast Michigan. It maintains offices in
Clarkston, Ann Arbor, Plymouth and Bingham Farms. Steinman worked
at Defendant's Plymouth and Ann Arbor offices as a billing
coordinator and receptionist.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charlotte Croson, Esq.
      Joseph X. Michaels, Esq.
      NACHTLAW, P.C.
      101 North Main Street, Suite 555
      Ann Arbor, MI 48104
      Tel: (734) 663-7550
      Email: ccroson@nachtlaw.com
             jmichaels@nachtlaw.com


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Delaware Law Class Action in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Delaware Law class action litigation against IAC is in
discovery, IAC/Interactivecorp said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On November 21, 2016, following the Company's announcement in its
Definitive Proxy Statement of a proposal to adjust the Company's
capital structure by adopting an amendment and restatement of the
Company's certificate of incorporation (the "New Certificate") to
establish a new class of non-voting capital stock, which would be
known as Class C common stock, and potentially declaring and
paying a dividend of one share of the Class C common stock for
each outstanding share of IAC common stock and Class B common
stock (the "Dividend" and, together with the adoption of the New
Certificate, the "Class C Issuance"), a putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the
Company and its Board of Directors purportedly on behalf of the
Company's stockholders.  See Miller et al. v. IAC/InterActiveCorp
et al., C.A. No. 12929-VCL (Del. Ch. Ct.).  The lawsuit generally
alleged, among other things, that IAC's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed Class C Issuance
inasmuch as it was allegedly designed to unduly benefit the
Company's Chairman and Senior Executive, Barry Diller, in respect
of his alleged voting control of the Company and would harm IAC's
public stockholders.  Among other remedies, the lawsuit sought to
enjoin the filing of the New Certificate with the Delaware
Secretary of State, as well as unspecified money damages.

On November 22, 2016 and December 12, 2016, two additional
putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against the Company and its Board of Directors
purportedly on behalf of the Company's stockholders and asserting
substantially similar allegations, claims and remedies as in the
Miller lawsuit.  See Halberstam v. Bronfman et al., C.A. No.
12935-VCL (Del. Ch. Ct.), and California Public Employees'
Retirement System v. IAC/InterActiveCorp et al., No. 12975-VCL
(Del. Ch. Ct.).  All three lawsuits have been consolidated as In
re IAC/InterActiveCorp Class C Reclassification Litigation, No.
12975-VCL, and the Court has designated the CalPERS complaint as
the operative complaint in the case and established a case
schedule.  On January 23, 2017 and February 3, 2017, the
defendants filed answers denying the material allegations of the
complaint.  The case is currently in discovery.

While the Class C Issuance was approved at the Company's 2016
Annual Meeting of Stockholders, the Company has agreed not to
effect the Class C Issuance during the pendency of the lawsuit
described immediately above, and the Delaware Court of Chancery
has been so informed.

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

IAC is a media and Internet company comprised of widely known
consumer brands, such as HomeAdvisor, Vimeo, Dictionary.com, The
Daily Beast, Investopedia, and Match Group's online dating
portfolio, which includes Match, Tinder, PlentyOfFish and OkCupid.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Still Defending Suit v. Match Group
--------------------------------------------------------
IAC/Interactivecorp continues to defend a securities class action
litigation against Match Group, IAC said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On February 26, 2016, a putative nationwide class action was filed
in federal court in Texas against Match Group, five of its
officers and directors, and twelve underwriters of Match Group's
initial public offering in November 2015.  See David M. Stein v.
Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-549 (U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Texas).  The complaint alleged that Match
Group's registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with its initial public offering were materially false and
misleading given their failure to state that: (i) Match Group's
Non-dating business would miss its revenue projection for the
quarter ended December 31, 2015, and (ii) ARPPU (as defined in
"Item 2-Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations-General-Key Terms") would
decline substantially in the quarter ended December 31, 2015.  The
complaint asserted that these alleged failures to timely disclose
material information caused Match Group's stock price to drop
after the announcement of its earnings for the quarter ended
December 31, 2015.  The complaint pleaded claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of material fact in,
or omissions of material facts from, the registration statement,
the prospectus, and related communications in violation of
Sections 11 and 12 and, as to the officer/director defendants
only, control-person liability under Section 15 for Match Group's
alleged violations.  The complaint sought among other relief class
certification and damages in an unspecified amount.

On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint was
filed in the same court against the same defendants by a different
named plaintiff.  See Stephany Kam-Wan Chan v. Match Group, Inc.
et al., No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Texas).  On April 25, 2016, Judge Boyle in the Chan case issued an
order granting the parties' joint motion to transfer that case to
Judge Lindsay, who is presiding over the earlier-filed Stein case.
On April 27, 2016, various current or former Match Group
shareholders and their respective law firms filed motions seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for
the putative class.

On April 28, 2016, the Court issued orders: (i) consolidating the
Chan case into the Stein case, (ii) approving the parties'
stipulation to extend the defendants' time to respond to the
complaint until after the Court has appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel for the putative class and has set a schedule for the
plaintiff's filing of a consolidated complaint and the defendants'
response to that pleading, and (iii) referring the various motions
for appointment of lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel
for the putative class to a United States Magistrate Judge for
determination.  In accordance with this order, the consolidated
case is now captioned Mary McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc.
et al., No. 3:16-CV-549-L.  On June 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge
issued an order appointing two lead plaintiffs, two law firms as
co-lead plaintiffs' counsel, and a third law firm as plaintiffs'
liaison counsel.

On July 27, 2016, the parties submitted to the Court a joint
status report proposing a schedule for the plaintiffs' filing of a
consolidated amended complaint and the parties' briefing of the
defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. On August 17, 2016, the Court issued an order approving
the parties' proposed schedule.

On September 9, 2016, in accordance with the schedule, the
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint.  The new
pleading focuses solely on allegedly misleading statements or
omissions concerning the Match Group's Non-dating business. The
defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint on November 8, 2016. The plaintiffs filed oppositions to
the motions on December 23, 2016, and the defendants filed replies
to the oppositions on February 6, 2017.

"We and Match Group believe that the allegations in these
lawsuits, and the material allegations and claims therein, are
without merit and intend to continue to defend against them
vigorously," the Company said.

IAC is a media and Internet company comprised of widely known
consumer brands, such as HomeAdvisor, Vimeo, Dictionary.com, The
Daily Beast, Investopedia, and Match Group's online dating
portfolio, which includes Match, Tinder, PlentyOfFish and OkCupid.


IGNITE PAYMENTS: JWD Automotive Sues Over Unsolicited Fax
---------------------------------------------------------
JWD Automotive, Inc. d/b/a individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Ignite
Payments, LLC and John Does 1-5, Defendants, Case 2:17-cv-00191
(M.D. Fla., April 7, 2017) seeks actual monetary loss, treble
damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and such further relief
under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

JWD Automotive, Inc. operates as Napa Auto Care of Cape Coral. On
or about April 5, 2017, Defendants used a telephone facsimile
machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited
facsimile to Plaintiff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


INGRAM MICRO: Class Action Over HNA Merger Plan Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
If you held shares of Ingram Micro Inc. between February 17, 2016
and December 5, 2016, this Notice contains important information
regarding the dismissal of a putative class action concerning the
acquisition of Ingram Micro Inc., and an agreement to pay
attorneys' fees and expenses to counsel for Plaintiff in that
action.

The purpose of this notice is to inform former stockholders of
Ingram Micro Inc. ("Ingram Micro") about developments with respect
to the litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled
Scheiner v. Ingram Micro Inc., et al., C.A. No. 12380-VCMR (the
"Action").

On February 17, 2016, Ingram Micro announced the proposed
acquisition of Ingram Micro by affiliates of HNA Group Co., Ltd.
("HNA Group") for $38.90 per share in cash, pursuant to a
definitive agreement and plan of merger filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on February 17,
2016 (the "Transaction").

On May 19, 2016, Ingram Micro filed a Definitive Proxy Statement
on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy Statement") with the SEC in connection
with the Transaction.

On May 25, 2016, a purported Ingram Micro stockholder
("Plaintiff") commenced  the  Action  by  filing  a  Verified
Class  Action  Complaint  (the "Complaint") in the Delaware Court
of Chancery, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the Board of Directors (the "Board") of Ingram Micro and aiding
and abetting against HNA Group, Tianjin Tianhai Investment
Company, Ltd. and GCL Acquisition, Inc. in connection with the
Transaction.

On May 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Expedited
Proceedings in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On June 2, 2016, Ingram Micro filed a supplement to the Proxy
Statement on Form DEF14A with the SEC that Plaintiff believes
addressed and mooted the claims raised in the Complaint regarding
the sufficiency of the disclosures in the Proxy Statement.

On June 21, 2016, Ingram Micro stockholders voted to approve the
Transaction, which closed on December 5, 2016.

On March 13, 2017, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered a
Stipulation and Order dismissing the Action with prejudice as to
Plaintiff, and without prejudice as to any other putative class
member, and retaining jurisdiction solely for the purpose to
determine Plaintiff's counsel's anticipated application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses based upon
the alleged benefits provided by certain supplemental disclosures
set forth in the supplement to the Proxy Statement (the "Fee and
Expense Application").

After negotiations, Ingram Micro has agreed to make a fee and
expense payment to Plaintiff's counsel in the Action in the amount
of $142,500 to resolve the Fee and Expense Application. The
Delaware Court of Chancery has not been asked to review, and will
pass no judgment on, this payment of fees and expenses or its
reasonableness.

If you have any questions regarding the Action, please contact the
attorneys below:

         RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Brian D. Long, Esq.
         Gina M. Serra, Esq.
         Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
         2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
         Wilmington, DE 19803
        (302) 295-5310

Attorneys for Plaintiff

         MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
         William M. Lafferty, Esq.
         1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         (302) 658-9200

Attorneys for Defendants


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Motion to Dismiss Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action
complaint remains pending, the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a
purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and
Thomas Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and
Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that the former
customer and members of the purported class of IB LLC's customers
were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used by
the Company to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer
brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint
seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

On February 19, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
class action complaint. On September 28, 2016, the Court issued an
order granting the Company's motion to dismiss and dismissing the
complaint in its entirety, and without providing plaintiff leave
to amend. On October 5, 2016, the Court entered judgment in the
Company's favor. On October 12, 2016, plaintiff filed motions for
leave to file an amended complaint and to vacate or amend
judgment, which the Company opposed. The Court has not yet ruled
on these motions.

"We believe that the proposed amended complaint, like the original
complaint, lacks merit. Further, even if the complaint ultimately
were to survive a motion to dismiss, we do not believe that a
purported class action is appropriate given the great differences
in portfolios, markets and many other circumstances surrounding
the liquidation of any particular customer's margin-deficient
account. IB LLC and the related defendants intend to continue to
defend themselves vigorously against the case and, consistent with
past practice in connection with this type of unwarranted action,
any potential claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in
defending the case shall be fully pursued against the plaintiff."

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. is an automated global electronic
broker and market maker.


J&D TRANSPORTATION: "Thomas" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Bobby Thomas, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. J&D Transportation and John Does 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-02434 (D.N.J., April 10, 2017) seeks overtime
compensation and minimum wage compensation as well as
reimbursement of all pay and benefits denied, liquidated damages,
costs and expenses of this action and reasonable legal fees and
all other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law.

J&D Transportation operates a medical transportation company where
Plaintiff worked as a driver. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
      Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
      Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
      1101 Kings Highway N., Ste. 402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Phone: (856) 685-7420
      Fax: (856) 685-7417


JANET ROUSSELL: "Legros" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Tyler Legros, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Janet Roussell, Shelby Roussell and Rocky Roussell,
Case No. 6:17-cv-00506 (W.D. La., April 7, 2017) seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs
and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest and such other and
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Janet Roussell, Shelby Roussell and Rocky Roussell rent solids
control equipment such as centrifuges, de-sanders and de-silters,
to the oil and gas industry. Defendants employed Plaintiff as
field service technician to operate, maintain, service and repair
these machines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
      David I. Moulton
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
      Email: mparmet@brucknerburch.com
             dmoulton@brucknerburch.com

             - and -

      Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
      417 W. University Ave.
      P.O. Box 4325
      Lafayette, LA 70502
      Telephone: (337) 235-5294
      Telecopier: (337) 235-1095
      Email: kwdejean@kwdejean.com


JB & J: Residents Call for Investigation in Caravan Park
--------------------------------------------------------
Carl Eve at The Herald reports that retired caravan park residents
say they want Cornwall Council to investigate park owners for
allegedly breaching terms of an order put in place to stop them
treating residents unfairly.

Tony Turner, chairman of the St Dominic Park Residents'
Association in Cornwall has long battled on behalf of residents at
Harrowbarrow, Cornwall, as well as residents at a number of other
parks owned and operated by JB & J Small Park Homes, who also
trade as Sovereign Park Homes Estates Ltd and Sovereign Park Home
Developments Ltd.

Mr. Turner said he formed the JBS Residents Action Alliance in
order to bring residents' associations and their members across
the various counties together and that this was a class action
involving financial transparency.

In 2014 The Herald reported how Plymouth Magistrates Court ordered
Jeffery Small (Junior) -- co-owner of the St Dominic's Park and
Planet Park in Delabole -- to pay more than GBP11,500 after he
admitted a slew of health and safety breaches at the two sites.
Small (Junior), who jointly operates the company with his mother
and formerly his father, had previously admitted nine breaches of
the company's caravan site licensing conditions after inspections
by Cornwall Council officials. The court heard the breaches
included street lamps left with broken glass fittings, exposed
wiring in a clubhouse and a former swimming pool building being
demolished by unqualified personnel and in 2015 he was also found
guilty of two public protection charges involving a site in
Torbay, when the Judge described his evidence a "somewhat vague
and evasive"

In July 2015 The Herald's sister paper, the Herald Express
reported on a court case at Newton Abbot Magistrates' Court where
District Judge Kevin Grey found Jeffrey Small (Junior) guilty of
two counts of recklessly engaging in commercial practices which
contravene the requirements of professional diligence under unfair
trading regulations.

Mr. Small, who owned Beechdown Park near Paignton, was ordered to
pay GBP28,120 on two charges relating to the construction of the
concrete bases from homes at the park.

Judge Grey told Small his "your conduct led to severe disruption
for over a year. You showed a lack of knowledge in the
construction industry."

Following the case a Torbay Council spokesman said they were
pleased with the guilty verdict, adding that its Trading Standards
team aimed to "promote a fair and safe trading environment for the
people of Torbay."

On February 28 this year Mr. Turner, accompanied by large number
of elderly park residents and the Small's legal representative
attended Plymouth County Court regarding alleged breaches of an
order, secured by Cornwall Council in January 2011, which had seen
Small Junior agree to abide by Section 219 of the Enterprise Act
2002 not to undertake harassment of his tenants or breach duties
of care.

Mr. Turner argued that a recent series of bills for services and
utility supplies handed to residents were in excess to what they
should be and that requests for the original bills from utility
companies were not answered and that requested Statements of
residents accounts had not been forthcoming.

Mr. Turner said these actions were effectively a continual breach
of the 2011 order.

After lengthy debate Judge Cotter QC stayed the case until May 1
"so as to allow Cornwall County Council to consider its position
in light of the allegations made within this action", noting that
while the council had investigatory powers via its Trading
Standards officers, he himself did not have such powers.

He noted that if Cornwall Council indicated it "did not intend to
take any action in relation to said allegations, the parties were
to liaise" and seek to agree directions "for the future conduct of
this action".

Following the hearing, Sovereign's legal representative wrote to
Mr. Turner agreeing to settle the dispute.

Mr. Turner told The Herald: "I notified Cornwall Council of the
settlement and reminded them that Judge Cotter had stayed the case
until he heard from them about their plans.

"Our feeling is local authorities don't do what they are supposed
to do, which is protect residents.

"Cornwall council's trading standards are supposed to investigate
the breach of order and any other issues under the consumer act.
They have received a large number of complaints about breaches to
the order.

"As a result of their refusal to take action we've had to take it
through the courts. We have the evidence and we've provided it to
them -- so why haven't they pursued it?

"Their response to me is "we've only got 10 trading standards
officers and we get 6,500 complaints a year."

A spokesman for Cornwall Council said: "Cornwall Council has
confirmed that it will consider the investigation of alleged
breaches and criminal offences where sufficient evidence is
produced but at this time it is not in a position to instigate
legal action, especially where such action would duplicate the
County Court action brought by Mr. Turner.

"Furthermore, the Council has asked that future complaints by the
Residents Association are registered via the Citizens Advice
Consumer Service so as to afford the same fair and proper
treatment as the other 6,500 consumer complaints received by
Cornwall Council each year."


JC PENNEY: To Settle Vacation Pay Class Action for $1.75MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene at Law 360 reports J.C. Penney Co. agreed to pay
USD1.75 million to a group of ex-workers who had alleged in a
once-certified class action the retailer was shorting them on pay
for unused vacation days after they left the company, according to
a proposed deal filed in California on April 7.

The company won a bid to decertify the class in late 2015 and had
beaten the claims in a summary judgment ruling last year, but
agreed last fall to clear the slate with the ex-retail store
employees after they took the case to the Ninth Circuit, court
records show.

The settlement is about a third of the total damages the workers
alleged they'd suffered by the company's non-payment, according to
the proposal.

"This is a substantial recovery and much more than is routinely
approved," the workers said in their motion for preliminary
approval of the deal. "Moreover, this percentage recovery compares
very favorably with named plaintiffs' likelihood of success on
appeal."

The suit was originally filed in April 2011 by two former J.C.
Penney workers accusing the retailer of illegally forfeiting wages
when employees left work, and committing unlawful business
practices under California laws.

J.C. Penney has argued that its "my time off" vacation policy
clearly advised workers they could accrue vacation benefits only
after the expiration of a waiting period, which equaled one year
for non-management employees, and that vacation-time deposits were
advances for future work instead of compensation for past work.

While California does not require employers to offer employees
paid vacation, if an employer does choose to offer such benefits,
they are effectively considered additional wages for services
performed and protected from forfeiture under state labor laws,
according to court documents.

The workers in the case initially won class certification in late
2014, but were decertified a year later when the court found the
class wasn't cohesive enough to be heard as one group, court
records show.

Then, J.C. Penney won a summary judgment ruling on all claims,
prompting the workers to call on the Ninth Circuit for an appeal.

The parties had first alerted the court they were gearing up for a
settlement in September while the employees were still appealing
the summary judgment order in J.C. Penney's favor, court records
show.

But both the appeal and the trial court case were put on hold late
last year while the department store and its ex-workers hammered
out the terms of their accord, according to filings in the case.

The deal proposed April 7 covers attorneys' fees and costs and any
penalties under the state's Private Attorneys General Act, the
filing shows.

The attorneys will seek about USD612,500 in fees and no more than
USD75,000 in costs, they said, and after PAGA penalties are paid
out, plus other administrative costs, the amount left to be paid
to class members is USD975,481, according to the filing.

The class includes all part-time, non-management employees who
worked at the company between April 5, 2007, and Oct. 20, 2016,
and whose employment was terminated sometime in that period
without them signing an arbitration agreement.

An attorney for the employees declined to comment. A
representative for J.C. Penney didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment on April 7.

The employees are represented by James C. Kostas and David Huffman
of Huffman & Kostas and Sheldon A. Ostroff of Law Ofc Sheldon A
Ostroff.

J.C. Penney is represented by Catherine A. Conway --
cconway@gibsondunn.com -- and Karl G. Nelson --
knelson@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn.

The case is Raymond Tshudy et al. v. J.C. Penney Co. et al., case
number 3:11-cv-01011, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.


JEVIC HOLDING: Supreme Court Opinion to Impact Hedge Funds
----------------------------------------------------------
AllAboutAlpha reports that the U.S. Supreme Court's recent opinion
in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. matters to hedge funds
pursuing a distressed assets strategy, because the Justices have
now made it more clear than they had before that the absolute
priority rule under the U.S. bankruptcy code's chapter 11 is . . .
absolute.  It isn't a suggestion.

The take-away is that those entities financing acquisitions,
including hedge funds that may be seeking alpha through
unconventional loans, should not do so in the expectation that
should there be a default, or should an unforeseen global
financial crisis arise, there will be the safety net of a quick
in-and-out structured lending dismissal to allow the entity to
take back equity or assets of the debtor.  Hedge funds or others
who might be tempted by such a thought, who might also think that
it is possible through such a structured dismissal to pay off
those junior creditors whose assistance may be needful for the
continuing operation of an entity in such a case, at the expense
of someone in the middle, will have to think again.

Failure, and Two Lawsuits

But let's delve into the facts.  This case came about because a PE
concern, Sun Capital Partners, bought out the trucking company,
Jevic, in 2006, using money it borrowed from CIT Group. In those
go-go days, the presumption was that the rising housing and
derivatives-enabled tide would keep all ships afloat, however
heavily laden.  But when the financial crisis hit, Jevic
Transportation went to bankruptcy court.  It filed there on May
16, 2008, just one month after the failure of Bear Stearns.

In that context, Jevic filed, and it sent its employees
termination notices.

Almost immediately, this move elicited two lawsuits.  First,
Casimir Czyzewski and other employees as a class alleged violation
of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (so named
because someone really wanted it to have the acronym WARN).  The
employees won a judgment worth $12.4 million. Not all of those
millions were created equal, though: for purposes of the Supreme
Court ruling, the important fact is that $8.3 million of that
judgment consisted of a priority wage claim under the bankruptcy
statute and (in the words of the Supreme Court upon review), that
claim was "therefore entitled to payment ahead of general
unsecured claims against the Jevic estate."

Separately, the bankruptcy court allowed a committee of Jevic's
unsecured creditors to file a fraudulent conveyance lawsuit
against Sun and CIT for fraudulent transfer, that is, contending
that they had "hastened Jevic's bankruptcy by saddling it with
debts that it couldn't service."

Workers Bear the Burden of Structured Dismissal

The bankruptcy court in this matter issued a "structured
dismissal" of the chapter 11 petition that meant stiffing the
workers, the WARN judgment creditors.  Why did it do this? In
short, it found that there was no preferable alternative.  The
estate had dwindled in value to the point where it couldn't even
satisfy outstanding administrative and priority claims.  The
situation could be improved somewhat by a resolution of the
fraudulent-conveyance lawsuit against Sun and CIT on terms that
would require either or both of them to pay money into the estate,
but that would requirement either their consent or the continued
expenditure of resources on litigation.

Normally, administrative insolvency would have called for a
movement away from chapter 11, into chapter 7 liquidation.  But in
this case, the bankruptcy court found, the workers also would have
gotten nothing, other junior creditors would have gotten nothing,
and the fraudulent transfer action would have had to have been
abandoned in the absence of the resources necessary to pursue it.

The bankruptcy court, then, approved a structured dismissal of the
litigation that involved a deposit of $2 million by CIT into an
account earmarked to pay the unsecured creditor's committee for
its costs; the transfer of a lien held by Sun on Jevic's remaining
$1.7 million into a trust, which would pay low priority unsecured
creditors; the dismissal of the fraudulent conveyance action; and
the dismissal of the chapter 11 bankruptcy itself. That court, and
the district court and then the appeals court, all found that this
was the best available distribution, and no worse for the class-
action workers than the alternative liquidation [although no
better, because they get nothing on either time line.]

Appeals Court Bought it, SCOTUS Did Not

The appellate court said that "in rare cases like this one, [we]
approve structured dismissals that do not strictly adhere to the
Bankruptcy Court's priority scheme."

The Supreme Court would have none of it. "[We] cannot find in the
violation of ordinary priority rules that occurred here any
significant offsetting bankruptcy-related justification," Justice
Breyer wrote.  The justification that was offered, if allowed
here, would not be rare, and would have deleterious systemic
effects even if it were.

As Charles M. Tatelbaum, of the Florida law firm Tripp Scott, has
written, "unsecured creditors, labor unions, ands other
subordinated debt holders will be empowered with enhanced
bargaining power should the need for a bankruptcy reorganization
arise."


JL WOODE: Denial of Leave to Amend Reversed, Action Remanded
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed in part, reversed in part,
and remanded action the appeals case captioned, Charlene KOPNICK,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JL WOODE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC; JL WOODE
LTD., LLC EXIST [(sic)]; JL WOODE LTD., LLC EXIST [(sic], d/b/a
HAWTHORNE HOUSE; and HAWTHORNE HOUSE LP, Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 1-15-2054 (Ill. App.).

Charlene Kopnick sued her former landlord, claiming a violation of
section 5-12-170 of Chicago's Residential Landlord and Tenant
Ordinance (RTLO) (Chicago Municipal Code Section 5-12-170 (amended
Nov. 17, 2010)), a violation of section 2 of the Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud Act) (815
ILCS 505/2 (West 2012)), and common law unjust enrichment with
regard to her 2014 lease.

Kopnick began renting and residing in a high rise apartment
building at 3450 North Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, in January 2013.
In count I, Kopnick alleged the landlord "did not give" her a
summary copy of the RLTO, either when offering the 2014 lease or
when she executed the 2014 lease, in violation of section 5-12-170
of the RLTO. She proposed to represent the interests of herself
and the class of individuals who signed a new lease or a renewal
lease with her landlord on or after January 1, 2013. In count II,
Kopnick alleged that the landlord required 60 days' notice of her
intent to renew or move out at the end of her lease and had
"charged" her a daily fee equal to one day's rent for each of the
eight days that she had not provided timely notice. In count III,
she realleged her prior material allegations and added that her
landlord's "collection of notice fees and the enforcement of their
notice fee policy is an unjust retention of a benefit obtained by
coercion."

Kopnick's landlord filed a combined motion to dismiss pursuant to
section 2-619.1 of the Code. The trial court granted the
landlord's motion to dismiss the three-count action with prejudice
pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code)
(735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2014)).

On appeal, Kopnick argues her allegations were factually
sufficient and that, at minimum, she should have been allowed to
amend.

In an Opinion dated March 30, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/dnKmYu from Leagle.com, the Appellate Court reversed
the court's denial of leave to amend the allegations of violation
of the RLTO because the court abused its discretion in rendering a
"with prejudice" dismissal of Count I and denying Kopnick leave to
amend, given that (1) Kopnick proposed allegations that would
correct the defects of her original pleading, (2) amending would
not prejudice or surprise Hawthorne House because the dismissed
complaint was the only pleading on file and the defendant's
discovery into possible defenses was still available, (3) the
proposed amendment was timely made at the preliminary stages of
this relatively new case, and (4) Kopnick had no previous
opportunities to amend.

The Appellate Court remanded for further proceeds as to RLTO claim
only; and (3) affirmed the trial court's ruling as to the other
claims because it is properly dismissed with prejudice.


JOES BLUE MARKET: "Gonzalez" Suit Seek Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Francisco Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Joe's Blue Market Corp. and Terry
Thompson, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21331 (S.D.
Fla., April 7, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Joe's Blue Market Corp. operates a market and kitchen selling
packaged and cooked foods, household goods and beverages to its
customers at its two locations in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Gonzales worked for the Defendants as stocker and cashier. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith M. Stern, Esq.
      Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      One Flagler
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: (305) 901-1379
      Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
              hsolis@workingforyou.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Balks at Euribor Class Action Discovery Timetable
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Gorta and Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, report that a
New York federal judge on April 10 told attorneys in a proposed
putative class action by investors alleging J.P. Morgan and
Citigroup conspired to manipulate Euribor that there was a "big
hole in the donut" that is their proposed schedule, namely any
indication when discovery will be completed.

U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel told interim co-lead counsel
Christopher Lovell -- CLovell@lshllp.com -- of Lovell Stewart
Halebian Jacobson LLP that the 2013 case is the oldest on his
calendar and the parties' less than ambitious timeline didn't make
the cut.  He was particularly unimpressed with a provision for
another proposed schedule in January 2019 after motions on class
certification are complete.

"That's not going to happen.  I have a proposed scheduling order,"
Judge Castel said, adding later, "I don't see anything in the
parties' proposal that sets an end for fact discovery. . . . When
I look at this there's a big hole in the donut."

Judge Castel streamlined the case considerably in February when he
cut four plaintiffs from the suit, saying they lacked standing, as
well as six foreign defendants who didn't fall under his
jurisdiction because their allegedly illegal activities to
manipulate the euro interbank offered rate weren't tied to the
U.S.  He also dismissed all Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and Commodity Exchange Act claims from the suit
and cut three out of four Sherman Act claims in the case.

Now the two remaining plaintiffs, FrontPoint Australian
Opportunities Trust and the California State Teachers' Retirement
System -- the only ones that could allege direct transactions with
any defendants -- will move forward with one Sherman Act claim and
common-law claims of unjust enrichment and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Citigroup and J.P.
Morgan.

Mr. Lovell balked a little at the judge's schedule, which called
for completion of all discovery, including class discovery, by
December 2018, a month before the parties had hoped to return to
court to discuss further scheduling.  He told the judge that the
discovery timetable would be difficult because of the need to
overcome European privacy laws to obtain documentation.

"I really don't think these are optimal dates," Mr. Lovells told
the judge.

"It's April 2017 and I gave you until December 2018.  That's
hardly a squeeze where I come from," said Judge Castel, who was
born and reared in Queens.

His prodding exchange with Mr. Lovell certainly sped up the
proceedings on April 10.  Other plaintiffs' counsel swiftly
declined an offer to be heard and defense counsel quickly told the
judge they could work within his schedule.

The investors first sued the banks in Illinois federal court in
February 2013, before the case transferred to New York that April.
The suit claims that from June 2005 to March 2011, the banks
conspired to fix Euribor, which is used to reflect the interest
rate charged on short-term loans of unsecured funds in euros
between prime banks and the wholesale money market.

The European Banking Federation, an unregulated trade association,
forbids banks from coordinating or submitting false data for their
daily terms reports that inform the Euribor rate. According to the
complaint, the scheme flouting those restrictions was orchestrated
by Christian Bittar of Deutsche Bank and Philippe Moryoussef of
Barclays and later RBS.

In January, the plaintiffs reached a $45 million settlement with
HSBC Bank PLC, and in December 2015, the court granted preliminary
approval to a $94 million settlement with Barclays PLC.

The plaintiffs also voluntarily dismissed BNP Paribas S.A. and
Deutsche Bank AG and DB Group Services from the case.

UBS, Rabobank, Credit Agricole, RBS, Societe Generale and ICAP
were all deemed to be out of jurisdiction because their
connections to the U.S. were too tenuous. While all the banks had
branches in the U.S., Judge Castel said for those defendants, the
conduct at issue in the case took place abroad, and without a
"nucleus" in the states, it was outside his jurisdiction.

Because Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. are Delaware
corporations with headquarters in New York, the claims against
them stuck.

The investors are represented by interim co-lead class counsel
Vincent Briganti -- vbriganti@lowey.com -- Geoffrey M. Horn --
ghorn@lowey.com -- Peter D. St. Phillip -- pstphillip@lowey.com
-- and Michelle E. Conston -- mconston@lowey.com -- of Lowey
Dannenberg Cohen & Hart PC and Christopher Lovell, Gary S.
Jacobson -- GSJacobson@lshllp.com -- and Ian T. Stoll --
IStoll@lshllp.com -- of Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP.
Other counsel includes Joseph J. Tabacco --
jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com -- Patrick T. Egan --
PEgan@BermanDeValerio.com -- and Todd A. Seaver --
tseaver@bermandevalerio.com -- of Berman DeValerio, Brian P.
Murray and Lee Albert of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, and David E.
Kovel -- dkovel@kmllp.com -- of Kirby McInerney LLP.

Citibank is represented by Lev Louis Dassin and Jonathan Samuel
Kolodner -- jkolodner@cgsh.com -- or Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP and by Andrew Arthur Ruffino -- aruffino@cov.com --
and Alan M. Wiseman -- awiseman@cov.com -- of Covington & Burling
LLP.

J.P. Morgan is represented by Francis John Acott --
francis.acott@stblaw.com -- Michael Steven Carnevale, Jeffery Li
Ding, Abram Jeremy Ellis -- aellis@stblaw.com -- Paul Christopher
Gluckow -- pgluckow@stblaw.com -- Alexander Nuo Li --
zander.li@stblaw.com -- Omari Largos Royter Mason, Thomas C. Rice,
Elizabeth Jane Shutkin and Rachel Serenity Sparks Bradley of
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

The case is Sullivan v. Barclays PLC, et al., case number 1:13-cv-
02811, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Financial Adviser OT Wage Case for $5.7MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Arluck, Alex Lawson and Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360,
report that JPMorgan Chase & Co. and current and former Chase
financial advisers who accused the bank of stiffing them on
overtime pay told a New York federal court on April 7 they had
reached a $5.7 million deal to end a collective and class action
battle.

JPMorgan and 1,056 opt-in plaintiffs filed a 32-page memorandum of
law urging U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain to preliminarily
approve the settlement, which covers state and federal claims from
workers who say they were denied overtime, had unauthorized
deductions taken from their wages, and were improperly required to
pay for expenses in violation of state laws.

In addition to the Fair Labor Standard Act collective certified in
2013, the deal proposes classes encompassing financial and
private-client advisers in New York and New Jersey as well as
private-client and independent private-client advisers in
California.

"By reaching a settlement prior to trial, plaintiffs will avoid
further expense and delay in obtaining a recovery for the class,"
the motion said.

The tentative deal comes after extensive discovery and an appeal
to the Second Circuit.

In December 2011, Jeffrey Lloyd and Ellen Szymkiewicz hit JPMorgan
with a proposed class action alleging violations of state and
federal overtime laws. In June 2012, the court accepted a similar
case by Kenneth Ciullo as related.

The advisers won an opposed bid for conditional certification in
September 2013. Judge Swain also granted JPMorgan's bid to compel
arbitration for workers who had signed a version of Chase's
arbitration agreement governed by American Arbitration Association
rules, but kept the claims of those who signed a different version
governed by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rules in
federal court.

JPMorgan appealed the FINRA ruling, arguing the authority's
current rules, which precluded arbitration, didn't apply because
the rule changes went into effect after the former advisers signed
their employment agreements. But in June 2015, a three-judge panel
for the Second Circuit upheld the lower court.

Attorneys for both parties declined to comment on April 10.

The plaintiffs are represented by Justin M. Swartz, Deirdre A.
Aaron and Chauniqua D. Young of Outten & Golden LLP and John
Halebian -- JHalebian@lshllp.com -- and Adam Mayes --
AMayes@lshllp.com -- of Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP.

Chase is represented by Sam S. Shaulson --
sam.shaulson@morganlewis.com -- and Thomas A. Linthorst --
thomas.linthorst@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The cases are Lloyd et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al. and
Ciullo v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. et al., case numbers 1:11-cv-09305
and 1:12-cv-02197, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Hit With Proposed Class Suit Over Car Reposession
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin at Reuters reports JPMorgan Chase Bank's auto finance
unit has been hit with a proposed class action in Minnesota
accusing it of repossessing cars and putting them up for sale
without giving their owners legally required advance notice.

Filed on April 6 in federal court in St. Paul, the lawsuit accuses
Chase Auto Finance of wrongful repossession, conversion of
consumers' property and violations of the U.S. Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which bars repossessions unless
the lender has a right to the property.


KEYCORP: Appeal in Checking Account Overdraft Litigation Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
KeyCorp's appeal in the Checking Account Overdraft Litigation
remains pending, KeyCorp said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In February 2010, KeyBank was named a defendant in a putative
class action seeking to represent a national class of KeyBank
customers allegedly harmed by KeyBank's overdraft practices. The
case was transferred and consolidated for purposes of pretrial
discovery and motion proceedings to a multidistrict proceeding
styled In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(the "District Court"). KeyBank filed a notice of appeal in regard
to the denial by the District Court of a motion to compel
arbitration. In August 2012, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit (the "Eleventh Circuit") vacated the
District Court's order denying KeyBank's motion to compel
arbitration and remanded the case for further consideration. In
June 2013, KeyBank filed with the District Court its renewed
motion to compel arbitration and stay or dismiss litigation. The
District Court granted KeyBank's renewed motion to compel
arbitration and dismissed the case. The plaintiff appealed.

On June 18, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the District
Court's order granting KeyBank's renewed motion to compel
arbitration and remanded the case to the District Court to address
the issue of the enforceability of KeyBank's arbitration
provision.

On February 3, 2015, the District Court denied KeyBank's Second
Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss the Complaint.
KeyBank has filed an appeal.

KeyCorp is the parent holding company for KeyBank National
Association ("KeyBank"), its principal subsidiary.


KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: To Challenge MicroCool Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly-Clark Corporation on April 10 disclosed that it will
challenge the recent verdict in a California class action lawsuit
involving MicroCool surgical gowns sold by Halyard Health, its
former health care business.

Nearly seventy million MicroCool gowns have been sold without a
single complaint of an injury.  The Company believes the jury's
verdict is contrary to the evidence presented at trial and that
its punitive damages award is baseless, excessive and not
consistent with California and federal laws.  The Company
therefore intends to challenge the verdict in post-judgment
motions in the District Court and, depending upon the rulings on
those motions, to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

Based on its confidence in the success of its challenge to the
verdict, as well as an indemnification agreement with co-defendant
Halyard Health, (which was spun off from Kimberly-Clark at the end
of 2014) under which Halyard Health must cover Kimberly-Clark's
losses, claims and expenses related to this litigation, Kimberly-
Clark believes the final outcome of this litigation will not
result in any material financial exposure for the company.

                     About Kimberly-Clark

Kimberly-Clark (NYSE: KMB) -- http://www.kimberly-clark.com-- and
its well-known global brands are an indispensable part of life for
people in more than 175 countries.  Every day, nearly a quarter of
the world's population trust Kimberly-Clark's brands and the
solutions they provide to enhance their health, hygiene and well-
being.  With brands such as Kleenex, Scott, Huggies, Pull-Ups,
Kotex and Depend, Kimberly-Clark holds No. 1 or No. 2 share
positions in more than 80 countries.


LABORATORY CORP: Sued Over Excessive Diagnostic Test Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Seaman, writing for Triad Business Journal, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed in Greensboro claims that Burlington-
based Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is overcharging
patients for diagnostic tests.

The lawsuit, filed in the Middle District of North Carolina,
alleges that fees patients are being charged by LabCorp exceed
fair market rates established for the tests.

"The lab companies have two fee schedules -- they charge market
prices to people with insurance and grossly exaggerated fees to
people without insurance," said Robert Finkel --
rfinkel@wolfpopper.com -- an attorney with Wolf Popper LLP, which
is representing patients in the suit, in a released statement.

The law firm, based in New York, has filed a similar suit against
Quest Diagnostics Inc. in New Jersey for overcharging patients.

In the complaint, several individuals, on behalf of a larger
class, claims that LabCorp issues patients invoices that are
"intentionally deceptive and misleading."  The filing says the
invoices from LabCorp aggregate charges for multiple tests, third-
party payments, and copays or deductibles.

By issuing bills this way, the company does not inform patients of
any insurance discounts or payments that are being applied to each
individual lab test or what patients are being required to pay as
a co-pay or deductible for each lab test, according to the 39-page
complaint.  The lawsuit also claims that LabCorp does not inform
patients whether certain tests are covered by their insurance
company.

"Patients reasonably assume that the tests are covered by
insurance or Medicare, or that the fees will be reasonable market
prices, and are not in a position to negotiate the lab companies'
excessive rates, as are insurance companies," Finkel said.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for any overpayments as
well as punitive damages.  They have also requested that the court
issue an order prohibiting LabCorp from engaging in the improper
billing practices alleged in the complaint.

When asked about the lawsuit, LabCorp spokeswoman Pattie Kushner
said, "We don't publicly comment on pending litigation, but we
believe our billing and pricing practices are lawful and we intend
to vigorously defend this lawsuit."


LECHONERA EL SAZON: "Hernandez" Seeks OT, Reimbursements, Tips
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorenzo Hernandez and John Doe, on behalf of themselves and FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, v. Lechonera El Sazon Criolllo Corp.,
Feliciano Ortiz, Elizabeth Colon and Flor Colon, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-02498 (S.D. N.Y., April 6, 2017) seeks unpaid
overtime, unpaid minimum wages, unreimbursed business related
expenses, illegally retained tips, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York
Labor Law and the Fair Labor Labor Standards Act.

Hernandez was hired by the Defendants as a delivery person for
their restaurant located at 632-A Castle Hill Avenue, Bronx, NY
10473. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Discovery Underway in Securities Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the case captioned, In re LendingClub Corporation
Shareholder Litigation, No. CIV537300, have begun discovery,
LendingClub said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

During the year ended December 31, 2016, five putative class
action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws
were filed in California Superior Court, naming as defendants the
Company, current and former directors, certain officers, and the
underwriters in the December 2014 initial public offering (the
IPO). All of these actions were consolidated into a single action
(Consolidated State Court Action), entitled In re LendingClub
Corporation Shareholder Litigation, No. CIV537300.

In August 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 (Securities Act) based on allegedly false and misleading
statements in the IPO registration statement and prospectus. The
Company filed a demurrer requesting the Court dismiss certain of
the claims alleged in the amended complaint, which was granted in
part in the fourth quarter of 2016.

The plaintiffs thereafter filed a Second Amended Consolidated
Complaint which the Company thereafter filed a new demurrer
seeking to dismiss certain claims. The hearing on this demurrer
will be in the first quarter of 2017. In the interim the parties
have begun discovery. The Company believes that the plaintiffs'
allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend
against the claims.

Lending Club is the world's largest online marketplace connecting
borrowers and investors.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Dismiss 2 Suits Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation's motion to dismiss the Evellard and Wertz
class action lawsuits remains pending, LendingClub said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In May 2016, two related putative securities class actions
(entitled Evellard v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV-
2627-WHA, and Wertz v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV-
2670-WHA) were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company
and certain of its officers and directors. In mid-August 2016, the
two actions were consolidated into a single action.

The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed in the
fourth quarter of 2016. The Court is expected to hear this motion
in the first quarter of 2017. The Company believes that the
plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims.

Lending Club is the world's largest online marketplace connecting
borrowers and investors.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Compel Arbitration Approved
-------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation's motion to compel arbitration in a
federal consumer class action has been granted, LendingClub said
in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

In April 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
federal court in New York, alleging that persons received loans,
through the Company's platform, that exceeded states' usury limits
in violation of state usury and consumer protection laws, and the
federal RICO statute. The Company has filed a motion to compel
arbitration on an individual basis, which was granted in February
2017. The Company believes that the plaintiff's allegations are
without merit, and intends to defend this matter vigorously.

Lending Club is the world's largest online marketplace connecting
borrowers and investors.


LG: Bootloop Defect Class Action Amended to Cover More Phones
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Kravets, writing for Ars Technica, reports that a few weeks
ago, Ars wrote about a proposed class-action lawsuit targeting two
of LG's flagship devices, the G4 and V10.  The suit complained of
a well-known bootloop issue that either bricked the devices or
slowed them to a snail's pace -- all to the backdrop of warranties
or LG failing to fix the problem.  After Ars published the story,
many Android fans were wondering why other LG phones that suffered
the same issues were not included in the original lawsuit.

Wait no longer: the Southern California federal lawsuit has been
amended to now include the Nexus 5X, and the LG G5 and LG V20. The
updated lawsuit covers every high-profile LG phone from 2015 and
2016.

Random reboots

Among other things, the suit claims that the phones' processors
were inadequately soldered to the motherboard, rendering them
"unable to withstand the heat."  Initially, the phones begin to
freeze, suffer slowdowns, overheat, and reboot at random.
Eventually, the suit says, they fail.

LG, of South Korea, did not immediately respond for comment.
Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams has given the gadget and appliance
maker until May 8 to respond in court.


LIFE CARE CENTERS: "Bowlin-Burdick" Sues Over Missed Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barbara J. Bowlin-Burdick, individually on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Life Care Centers of
America, Inc. and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. BC657139, (Cal. Super., April 10, 2017), seeks compensation
for pay due and owing as required by California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission orders, penalties,
penalties for failure to timely pay wages to terminated or
resigned employees, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs
of suit incurred and such other and further relief under the
California Labor Code and the Business and Professions Code.

Defendant operates ten convalescent, retirement living,
rehabilitations and skilled nursing centers in California.
Plaintiff worked as a receptionist at Defendant's Bel Tooren Villa
Convalescent Hospital in Bellflower, California. She claims to
have worked through her meal breaks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     George S. Azadian, Esq.
     Edrik Mehrabi, Esq.
     AZADIAN LAW GROUP, PC
     790 E, Colorado Blvd., 9th Floor
     Pasadena, CA 91101
     Tel: (626) 449-4944
     Fax: (626) 628-1722
     Email: George@azadianlawgroup.com


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: No Trial Set in California Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that no trial
date has been set in a class action lawsuit in California.

In November 2016, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company, its chief executive
officer and chief financial officer. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities between
November 9, 2015 and November 14, 2016, inclusive. The complaint's
allegations relate generally to the Company's November 2016
restatement of certain prior period financial statements.

In January 2017, a purported Company shareholder filed a motion
for appointment of lead counsel and lead plaintiff. The motion is
scheduled to be heard by the court in March 2017. No trial date
has been set.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against the lawsuit.

Ligand is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and
acquiring technologies that help pharmaceutical companies discover
and develop medicines.


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal in Pennsylvania Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal by plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit in Pennsylvania
remains pending, Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "In 2012, a federal securities class action and
shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania alleging
that the Company and its chief executive officer assisted various
breaches of fiduciary duties based on our purchase of a licensing
interest in a development-stage pharmaceutical program from the
Genaera Liquidating Trust in 2010 and our subsequent sale of half
of our interest in the transaction to Biotechnology Value Fund,
Inc."

"The district court granted our motion to dismiss an amended
complaint on November 11, 2015 and the plaintiff has appealed that
ruling to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Company
intends to continue to vigorously defend against the claims
against the Company and its chief executive officer.  The outcome
of the matter is not presently determinable."

Ligand is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and
acquiring technologies that help pharmaceutical companies discover
and develop medicines.


LINCOLN WOOD: "Golzak" Sues Over Defective Windows
--------------------------------------------------
Robert and Carol Golzak, and John Karnes on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lincoln Wood
Products, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00617, (M.D. Pa., April 6, 2017),
seeks compensatory damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief,
costs of suit, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on any
amounts awarded, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys fees and
expert fees and such other and further relief resulting from
negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach
of express warranty, unfair and deceptive acts and practices,
fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unjust
enrichment and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act.

Plaintiffs purchased defective windows designed, marketed,
manufactured, advertised, distributed and sold by Lincoln, in
particular the aluminum wood clad, exterior glazed windows. Water
allegedly seeps through unsealed or inadequately sealed areas of
the window frame.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
      Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Phone: (610) 642-8500
      Fax: (610) 649-3633
      Email: bfj@chimicles.com
             awf@chimicles.com

             - and -

      Panagiotis V. Albanis, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      12800 University Drive, Suite 600
      Fort Myers, FL 33907
      Tel: (239) 432-6605
      Fax: (239) 433-6836
      Email: palbanis@forthepeople.com

             - and -

      Frank Petosa, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      600 N. Pine Island Rd. Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Tel: (954) 318-0268
      Fax: (954) 333-3515
      Email: fpetosa@forthepeople.com


LIVING ESSENTIALS: Court Denies Bid to Strike Expert Testimony
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ABC DISTRIBUTING, INC., et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. LIVING ESSENTIALS LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 5:15-cv-02064-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Court denies Defendants'
motion to strike the expert testimony of Dr. McDuff at this stage.

The Court says a price discrimination case such as this one is an
ill-fit for class certification. Ultimately, there are not common
questions of law and fact, as price discrimination cases require
an individualized showing of competition and injury. The
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class is denied. The parties have
a pending discovery dispute which will be heard on April 26, 2017,
at 1:00 p.m. At that time, the Court will hold a case management
conference to discuss any changes to the case schedule and the
scope of future discovery.

In this price discrimination case under the Robinson-Patman Act,
the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants sell 5-Hour Energy to
wholesalers for different prices, to the disadvantage of small
wholesalers. The Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes of small
wholesalers, defined by their competition with the large
wholesaler, Costco. In response, Defendants move to strike
plaintiffs' class certification expert report. The Court finds
that Dr. McDuff's expert report is admissible at this stage, but
rejects its recommendations and conclusions. Thus, the Court
denies Defendants' motion to strike the expert report. The Court
also denies the motion for class certification because individual
claims predominate over class-wide claims in a Robinson-Patman
case. In addition, the classes are impermissibly vague because it
is defined by proximity to Costco, a party neither in this case
nor accused of any wrongdoing.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=F606x3mL


LOFT ASSOCIATES: "Cunningham" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Cunningham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Loft Associates, LLC d/b/a Cheddar
Express, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02110 (E.D. N.Y., April 7,
2017), seeks damages, an injunction against Defendant prohibiting
it from further calls and such other and further relief for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant, a financing company, allegedly used an automatic
telephone dialing system to make at least four calls and text
messages to Plaintiff's cell phone without Plaintiff's prior
express consent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
      BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
      85 Miles Avenue
      White Plains, NY 10606
      Phone: (914) 358-5345
      Fax: (212) 571-0284
      Email: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com


LOFT ASSOCIATES: Class Certification Sought in "Cunningham" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CRAIG CUNNINGHAM on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LOFT ASSOCIATES,
LLC D/B/A CHEDDAR EXPRESS, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02110
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order:

   a. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification; or
      alternatively;

   b. taking this motion under submission and deferring further
      activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to be
      set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23 scheduling order.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ge04qC5j

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358 5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571 0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com


MANUS ISLAND: Court to Live Stream Detainees' Class Action Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Price, writing for myGC.com.au, reports that lawyers
representing Manus Island detainees in a class action have
welcomed a landmark decision by the Victorian Supreme Court to
live-stream the upcoming trial to a global audience.

The Court recognised live-streaming was necessary to ensure access
to justice for the significant proportion of group members who had
no prospect of attending the hearing in person.

Slater and Gordon Practice Group Leader Rory Walsh said the Court
rejected applications to oppose and restrict access to live-
streaming.

"The Commonwealth originally opposed live-streaming proceedings
completely, even to group members for whom it would be impossible
to attend" Mr Walsh said.

"They later changed their position, arguing access to the stream
should not be available to the general public, but instead should
be restricted to the group members.

"The Supreme Court rejected this approach, citing the high degree
of public interest, which extends well beyond those who live in
Victoria.

"We were not surprised the Commonwealth opposed this approach, but
we are heartened that the treatment of group members at the Manus
Detention Centre will now be properly tested in an Australian
Court in an open and publically accessible manner."

Mr Walsh said this is believed to be an Australian first.

"As far as we're aware, this is the first time Australian Court
proceedings will be streamed overseas" Mr Walsh said.

"The potential size of the class is 1,905 people, the majority of
whom (approximately 1,500) are either overseas or still in
detention either on Manus Island or in Australia.

"This case will be the largest and most forensic public
examination of the events and conditions at the Manus Island
Detention centre, which have been shrouded in secrecy until now.

"Live-streaming the trial online means these group members and the
general public will be able to view the proceedings that will
affect and may finally determine the rights of these detainees.

"We are prepared for a long trial and have fought hard to overcome
numerous legal hurdles to ensure the evidence of whistle-blowers,
experts and, most importantly, the detainees will be heard."


MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL: Physicians Healthsource Sues Over Fax Ad
---------------------------------------------------------------
Physicians Healthsource, Inc., individually, and as the
representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. The Massachusetts Medical Society and John Does 1-5,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00225 (S.D. Ohio, April 6, 2017)
seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and the Junk Fax Prevention Act.

Physicians Healthsource is an Ohio corporation, and it operates a
chiropractic clinic located at 3328 Westbourne Drive in
Cincinnati, Ohio.

The Massachusetts Medical Society produces and sells continuing
education materials for the medical industry. It allegedly sent a
faxed ad to the Plaintiff's fax machine. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     George D. Jonson, Esq.
     Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq.
     MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON
     36 E. Seventh Street, Suite 2100
     Cincinnati, OH 45202
     Tel: (513) 241-4722
     Fax: (513) 241-8775
     Email: gjonson@mrjlaw.com
            mstubbs@mrjlaw.com


MCDONALD'S: Franchise Workers Seek to Revive Wage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that workers for
McDonald's franchises in California will ask a federal appeals
court to revive their proposed class action seeking to hold
McDonald's Corp liable for wage-and-hour violations because they
believed the fast food giant was their employer.

The workers filed a notice of appeal saying they would challenge
rulings by U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco
that denied class certification to more than 1,200 current and
former workers in January and threw out their individual claims
under state labor law in March.


MCGUINNESS DEV'T: Champ Construction Demands Payment for Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Champ Construction Corp., individually, and as representatives of
all trust beneficiaries similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v.
McGuinness Development, LLC, Britt Realty, LLC, The Horizon Group,
Horizon 53 Broadway LLC, David Marom, Cathay Bank, Equity
Environmental Engineering, LLC, Bank Of The Ozarks, and John Does
1-10 and other Lien Holders unknown, Case No. 507085/2017 (N.Y.
Sup., April 10, 2017) seeks all trust funds misappropriated or
otherwise improperly diverted, in an amount totaling at least
$1,386,590.65 including additional damages for delays, lost
profits and costs relating to continual and excessive alterations
and fundamental changes to scopes of work.

Champ contracted with Britt and Britt's alter-ego, Horizon Group
and Horizon 53, to perform certain work in connection with
McGuiness' ground-up multi-story residential construction project
located at 211 McGuiness Boulevard, Brooklyn, New York. Defendants
have refused to pay Champ for all of its work performed to date,
leaving an outstanding balance of at least $1,386,590.65. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian L. Gardner, Esq.
      David T. Meglino, Esq.
      COLE SCHOTZ P.C.
      1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1900
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (212) 752-8000


MDL 1674: CBNV Mortgage Litigation Goes to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that the CBNV Mortgage Litigation was submitted to binding
arbitration before a panel of three arbitrators.

Between 2001 and 2003, on behalf of either individual plaintiffs
or proposed classes of plaintiffs, several separate lawsuits were
filed in state and federal courts against Community Bank of
Northern Virginia (CBNV), a PNC Bank predecessor, and other
defendants asserting claims arising from second mortgage loans
made to the plaintiffs. The state lawsuits were removed to federal
court and, with the lawsuits that had been filed in federal court,
were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a multidistrict
litigation (MDL) proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re:
Community Bank of Northern Virginia Lending Practices Litigation
(No. 03-0425 (W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 1674). In January 2008, the
Pennsylvania district court issued an order sending back to the
General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, for Wake
County, North Carolina the claims of two proposed class members,
which have subsequently been dismissed.

In October 2011, the plaintiffs in the MDL proceeding filed a
joint consolidated amended class action complaint covering all of
the class action lawsuits pending in this proceeding. The amended
complaint names CBNV, another bank, and purchasers of loans
originated by CBNV and the other bank (including Residential
Funding Company, LLC (RFC)) as defendants. (In December 2013, the
Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding involving RFC was completed with
the company being liquidated and claims against the company being
resolved, including, through a settlement between the plaintiffs
and RFC approved in November 2013, the claims in these lawsuits.)
The principal allegations in the amended complaint are that a
group of persons and entities collectively characterized as the
"Shumway/Bapst Organization" referred prospective second
residential mortgage loan borrowers to CBNV and the other bank,
that CBNV and the other bank charged these borrowers improper
title and loan fees at loan closings, that the disclosures
provided to the borrowers at loan closings were inaccurate, and
that CBNV and the other bank paid some of the loan fees to the
Shumway/Bapst Organization as purported "kickbacks" for the
referrals. The amended complaint asserts claims for violations of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Truth in
Lending Act (TILA), as amended by the Home Ownership and Equity
Protection Act (HOEPA), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO).

The amended complaint seeks to certify a class of all borrowers
who obtained a second residential non-purchase money mortgage
loan, secured by their principal dwelling, from either CBNV or the
other defendant bank, the terms of which made the loan subject to
HOEPA. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified
damages (including treble damages under RICO and RESPA),
rescission of loans, declaratory and injunctive relief, interest,
and attorneys' fees.

In November 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. In June 2013, the court granted in part and
denied in part the motion, dismissing the claims of any plaintiff
whose loan did not originate or was not assigned to CBNV,
narrowing the scope of the RESPA claim, and dismissing several of
the named plaintiffs for lack of standing. The court also
dismissed the claims against the other lender defendant on
jurisdictional grounds. The limitation of the potential class to
CBNV borrowers reduces its size to approximately 26,500 from the
50,000 members alleged in the amended complaint.

Also in June 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which was granted in July 2013. In July 2015, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the grant of
class certification by the Pennsylvania district court.

PNC said, "We moved for a rehearing of the appeal, which was
denied in October 2015. In November 2015, we filed a petition for
a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of
the decision of the court of appeals, which was denied in February
2016. We filed motions with the district court for decertification
and summary judgment in April 2016."

"In August 2016, we reached a settlement with the plaintiffs. In
December 2016, the court granted final approval of the settlement.
Under this settlement, in February 2017, the matter was submitted
to binding arbitration before a panel of three arbitrators, who
will determine whether we will pay the plaintiff class either an
amount (inclusive of class counsel fees and expenses) we proposed
($24 million) or an amount proposed by the plaintiffs ($70
million), with no discretion to choose any other amount. The
arbitrators are required to reach a decision by the end of March
2017."


MERCK & CO: Attorneys' Fees in Vioxx Suit Yet to Be Determined
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the amount of attorneys'
fees to be paid in Vioxx product liability lawsuits is yet to be
determined.

Merck was a defendant in a number of putative class action
lawsuits alleging economic injury as a result of the purchase of
Vioxx, all but one of which have been settled. Under the
settlement, Merck agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve all
properly documented claims submitted by class members, approved
attorneys' fees and expenses, and approved settlement notice costs
and certain other administrative expenses.

The claims review process has been completed with the Company
paying approximately $700,000. The amount of attorneys' fees to be
paid is yet to be determined.


MERCK & CO: 4,230 Fosamax Cases Pending in U.S. Courts
------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Merck is a defendant in
product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Fosamax
(Fosamax Litigation). As of December 31, 2016, approximately 4,230
cases are filed and pending against Merck in either federal or
state court. In approximately 20 of these actions, plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that they have suffered osteonecrosis
of the jaw (ONJ), generally subsequent to invasive dental
procedures, such as tooth extraction or dental implants and/or
delayed healing, in association with the use of Fosamax. In
addition, plaintiffs in approximately 4,210 of these actions
generally allege that they sustained femur fractures and/or other
bone injuries (Femur Fractures) in association with the use of
Fosamax.


MERCK & CO: Discovery Ongoing in 20 Remaining ONJ Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that discovery is currently
ongoing in 20 remaining cases alleging osteonecrosis of the jaw
(ONJ).

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

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

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

Discovery is currently ongoing in some of the approximately 20
remaining ONJ cases that are pending in various federal and state
courts and the Company intends to defend against these lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Cases Alleging Femur Fractures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in
the Femur Fracture MDL and in state courts where Femur Fracture
cases are pending.

In March 2011, Merck submitted a Motion to Transfer to the JPML
seeking to have all federal cases alleging Femur Fractures
consolidated into one multidistrict litigation for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings. The Motion to Transfer was granted in May
2011, and all federal cases involving allegations of Femur
Fracture have been or will be transferred to a multidistrict
litigation in the District of New Jersey (Femur Fracture MDL). In
the only bellwether case tried to date in the Femur Fracture MDL,
Glynn v. Merck, the jury returned a verdict in Merck's favor. In
addition, in June 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court granted
Merck's motion for judgment as a matter of law in the Glynn case
and held that the plaintiff's failure to warn claim was preempted
by federal law.

In August 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court entered an order
requiring plaintiffs in the Femur Fracture MDL to show cause why
those cases asserting claims for a femur fracture injury that took
place prior to September 14, 2010, should not be dismissed based
on the court's preemption decision in the Glynn case. Pursuant to
the show cause order, in March 2014, the Femur Fracture MDL court
dismissed with prejudice approximately 650 cases on preemption
grounds. Plaintiffs in approximately 515 of those cases are
appealing that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit (Third Circuit). The Femur Fracture MDL court has since
dismissed without prejudice another approximately 540 cases
pending plaintiffs' appeal of the preemption ruling to the Third
Circuit. On June 30, 2016, the Third Circuit heard oral argument
on plaintiffs' appeal of the preemption ruling and the parties are
awaiting the decision.

In addition, in June 2014, the Femur Fracture MDL court granted
Merck summary judgment in the Gaynor v. Merck case and found that
Merck's updates in January 2011 to the Fosamax label regarding
atypical femur fractures were adequate as a matter of law and that
Merck adequately communicated those changes. The plaintiffs in
Gaynor have appealed the court's decision to the Third Circuit. In
August 2014, Merck filed a motion requesting that the court enter
a further order requiring all plaintiffs in the Femur Fracture MDL
who claim that the 2011 Fosamax label is inadequate and the
proximate cause of their alleged injuries to show cause why their
cases should not be dismissed based on the court's preemption
decision and its ruling in the Gaynor case. In November 2014, the
court granted Merck's motion and entered the requested show cause
order.

As of December 31, 2016, seven cases were pending in the Femur
Fracture MDL, excluding the 515 cases dismissed with prejudice on
preemption grounds that are pending appeal and the 540 cases
dismissed without prejudice that are also pending the
aforementioned appeal.

As of December 31, 2016, approximately 2,860 cases alleging Femur
Fractures have been filed in New Jersey state court and are
pending before Judge Jessica Mayer in Middlesex County. The
parties selected an initial group of 30 cases to be reviewed
through fact discovery. Two additional groups of 50 cases each to
be reviewed through fact discovery were selected in November 2013
and March 2014, respectively. A further group of 25 cases to be
reviewed through fact discovery was selected by Merck in July
2015, and Merck has continued to select additional cases to be
reviewed through fact discovery during 2016.

As of December 31, 2016, approximately 280 cases alleging Femur
Fractures have been filed and are pending in California state
court. A petition was filed seeking to coordinate all Femur
Fracture cases filed in California state court before a single
judge in Orange County, California. The petition was granted and
Judge Thierry Colaw is currently presiding over the coordinated
proceedings. In March 2014, the court directed that a group of 10
discovery pool cases be reviewed through fact discovery and
subsequently scheduled the Galper v. Merck case, which plaintiffs
selected, as the first trial. The Galper trial began in February
2015 and the jury returned a verdict in Merck's favor in April
2015, and plaintiff has appealed that verdict to the California
appellate court. Oral argument on plaintiff's appeal in Galper was
held on November 17, 2016 and the parties are awaiting a decision.
The next Femur Fracture trial in California that was scheduled
to begin in April 2016 was stayed at plaintiffs' request and a
new trial date has not been set.

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


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


MERCK & CO: 1,195 Januvia/Janumet Claims Served at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Merck is a defendant in
product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Januvia
and/or Janumet. As of December 31, 2016, approximately 1,195
product user claims have been served on Merck alleging generally
that use of Januvia and/or Janumet caused the development of
pancreatic cancer and other injuries. These complaints were filed
in several different state and federal courts.

Most of the claims were filed in a consolidated multidistrict
litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California called "In re Incretin-Based Therapies
Products Liability Litigation" (MDL). The MDL includes federal
lawsuits alleging pancreatic cancer due to use of the following
medicines: Januvia, Janumet, Byetta and Victoza, the latter two of
which are products manufactured by other pharmaceutical companies.
The majority of claims not filed in the MDL were filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (California
State Court). As of December 31, 2016, eight product users have
claims pending against Merck in state courts other than the
California State Court.

In November 2015, the MDL and California State Court -- in
separate opinions -- granted summary judgment to defendants on
grounds of preemption. Of the approximately 1,195 served product
user claims, these rulings resulted in the dismissal of
approximately 1,100 product user claims.

Plaintiffs are appealing the MDL and California State Court
preemption rulings.

In addition to the claims noted, the Company has agreed, as of
December 31, 2016, to toll the statute of limitations for
approximately 50 additional claims. The Company intends to
continue defending against these lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: 1,330 Propecia/Proscar Suits Filed at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Merck is a defendant in
product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Propecia
and/or Proscar. As of December 31, 2016, approximately 1,330
lawsuits have been filed by plaintiffs who allege that they have
experienced persistent sexual side effects following cessation of
treatment with Propecia and/or Proscar. Approximately 50 of the
plaintiffs also allege that Propecia or Proscar has caused or can
cause prostate cancer, testicular cancer or male breast cancer.
The lawsuits have been filed in various federal courts and in
state court in New Jersey. The federal lawsuits have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict
litigation before Judge Brian Cogan of the Eastern District of New
York. The matters pending in state court in New Jersey have been
consolidated before Judge Jessica Mayer in Middlesex County. In
addition, there is one matter pending in state court in
California, one matter pending in state court in New York, and one
matter pending in state court in Ohio. The Company intends to
defend against these lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: Settlement Reached in K-DUR Antitrust Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Merck and Upsher-Smith
have reached a settlement in principle with the class of direct
purchasers and the opt-outs to the class.

In June 1997 and January 1998, Schering-Plough Corporation
(Schering-Plough) settled patent litigation with Upsher-Smith,
Inc. (Upsher-Smith) and ESI Lederle, Inc. (Lederle), respectively,
relating to generic versions of Schering-Plough's long-acting
potassium chloride product supplement used by cardiac patients,
for which Lederle and Upsher-Smith had filed Abbreviated New Drug
Applications (ANDAs).

Following the commencement of an administrative proceeding by the
U.S. Federal Trade Commission in 2001 alleging anti-competitive
effects from those settlements (which was resolved in Schering-
Plough's favor), putative class and non-class action suits were
filed on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of K-DUR against
Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle and were consolidated in
a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey. These suits claimed violations of federal
and state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and
common law causes of action, and sought unspecified damages. In
April 2008, the indirect purchasers voluntarily dismissed their
case.

In February 2016, the District Court denied the Company's motion
for summary judgment relating to all of the direct purchasers'
claims concerning the settlement with Upsher-Smith and granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment relating to all of the
direct purchasers' claims concerning the settlement with Lederle.
In anticipation of trial, the parties filed motions to exclude
certain expert opinions and other evidence, and defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment.

In February 2017, Merck and Upsher-Smith reached a settlement in
principle with the class of direct purchasers and the opt-outs to
the class. Merck will contribute approximately $80 million in the
aggregate towards the overall settlement. Formal settlement
agreements with the class and the opt-outs have yet to be executed
and the settlement with the class is subject to approval by the
District Court.


MERCK & CO: "Smith" Sales Force Litigation Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the sales force
litigation by Kelli Smith remains pending.

In May 2013, Ms. Kelli Smith filed a complaint against the Company
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of herself and a putative class of female sales
representatives and a putative sub-class of female sales
representatives with children, claiming (a) discriminatory
policies and practices in selection, promotion and advancement,
(b) disparate pay, (c) differential treatment, (d) hostile work
environment and (e) retaliation under federal and state
discrimination laws. Plaintiffs sought and were granted leave to
file an amended complaint.

In January 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding four
additional named plaintiffs. In October 2014, the court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss or strike the class claims as
premature.

In September 2015, plaintiffs filed additional motions, including
a motion for conditional certification under the Equal Pay Act; a
motion to amend the pleadings seeking to add ERISA and
constructive discharge claims and a Company subsidiary as a named
defendant; and a motion for equitable relief. Merck filed papers
in opposition to the motions.

On April 27, 2016, the court granted plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification but denied plaintiffs' motions to extend
the liability period for their Equal Pay Act claims back to June
2009. As a result, the liability period will date back to April
2012, at the earliest. On April 29, 2016, the Magistrate Judge
granted plaintiffs' request to amend the complaint to add the
following: (i) a Company subsidiary as a corporate defendant; (ii)
an ERISA claim and (iii) an individual constructive discharge
claim for one of the named plaintiffs. Approximately 700
individuals have opted-in to this action; the opt-in period has
closed.


MERCK & CO: Class Suits over M-M-R II Vaccine in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the class action
lawsuits by direct purchasers of the M-M-R II vaccine have
proceeded to discovery.

On n June 21, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania unsealed a complaint that has been filed
against the Company under the federal False Claims Act by two
former employees alleging, among other things, that the Company
defrauded the U.S. government by falsifying data in connection
with a clinical study conducted on the mumps component of the
Company's M-M-R II vaccine. The complaint alleges the fraud took
place between 1999 and 2001. The U.S. government had the right to
participate in and take over the prosecution of this lawsuit, but
notified the court that it declined to exercise that right. The
two former employees are pursuing the lawsuit without the
involvement of the U.S. government.

In addition, two putative class action lawsuits on behalf of
direct purchasers of the M-M-R II vaccine, which charge that the
Company misrepresented the efficacy of the M-M-R II vaccine in
violation of federal antitrust laws and various state consumer
protection laws, are pending in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

In September 2014, the court denied Merck's motion to dismiss the
False Claims Act suit and granted in part and denied in part its
motion to dismiss the then-pending antitrust suit. As a result,
both the False Claims Act suit and the antitrust suits have
proceeded into discovery. The Company intends to defend against
these lawsuits.


MEZENTCO SOLUTIONS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Adelle Loiselle, writing for Blackburn News, reports that a
LaSalle mother of three who received diluted doses of chemotherapy
says she's not giving up after a judge approved a class-action
settlement that awards hundreds of cancer patients just $1,500
each.

"I kinda hoped the judge was taking this long because he was
looking into all the details himself," says Sarah Johnson.  "It's
just heart-breaking that it went the other way."

Ms. Johnson is one of 49 litigants in a class-action lawsuit who
filed an objection to the $2.3-million settlement before Justice
Gregory Verbeem approved it.

"I cried," she says describing her initial reaction on April 7.

Ms. Johnson was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2012.  She
was 37, and she was seven months pregnant with her third son.

"I did the chemo like they told me to and you know, the first time
you're diagnosed with cancer is very upsetting, but at the time
time you have the mentality like well, I'm just going to beat
this," she says.  "But the second time you're diagnosed, it's the
difference between life and death."

Ms. Johnson suspects her incorrect dose is to blame for her second
diagnosis and worries about her children's future.  In a raw
statement on Facebook the day of the judge's ruling, she expressed
her disappointment.

"They treated us like lab rats without our permission.  They saved
money by doing this, and they killed many of us by doing this.
They've made my life a living hell by doing this, and they'll kill
many more, including me by doing this. They will take my boys'
mother away by doing this."

Her oldest son is 12 now, and she says he can not remember what
life was like before.

Many of the litigants felt disrespected by the amount they would
receive in the settlement, but even more so, many like
Ms. Johnson, say the money is not the main issue.

"I would like at least for them to acknowledge it and look into
it.  It's a pretty big mistake," says Ms. Johnson.  "And it's not
being treated like a big mistake."

The settlement does not assign responsibility to Mezentco
Solutions Inc., Marchese Hospital Solutions and MedBuy Corporation
for supplying the diluted chemotherapy used by 1,200 patients.  Of
those, 290 patients were treated at Windsor Regional Hospital, and
691 at London Health Sciences Centre.  The rest were treated at
hospitals in Peterborough and New Brunswick.

Ms. Johnson fears that without acknowledgement, a similar mistake
could be made in the future.

In his statement, Justice Verbeem wrote he is "very satisfied that
the terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable and in the best
interests of the class members as a whole."

Ms. Johnson admits she is too emotional right now to say for
certain what her next move will be but says she would like to opt
out of the settlement if it is not too late.


MICHAELS STORES: FCRA Provision Not Enough to Establish Harm
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Henderson, Esq., of Sedgwick LLP, in an article for Mondaq,
reports that consent to a background check seems to be a part of
any employment application these days, whether the job sought is
with a large corporation or the corner deli.  Employers gain a
measure of protection from conducting background checks on
prospective employees.  They are useful for verifying that the
prospective employee has been honest about their educational
achievements and past employment, and identifying those
prospective employees that may carry a risk of theft or workplace
violence.

However, courts have seen a recent wave of litigation over the
sufficiency of the employer's disclosure of the background check
and the prospective employee's consent to same.  The Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) requires that the employer's intent to obtain
a background check be disclosed conspicuously, in a dedicated,
stand-alone document:

[A]n employer or prospective employer cannot "procure, or cause a
consumer report to be procured, for employment purposes with
respect to any consumer, unless:

   -- a clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing
to the consumer at any time...before the report is procured or
caused to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the
disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment
purposes; and

   -- the consumer has authorized in writing . . . the procurement
of the report by that person.

In re Michaels Stores, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9310, *10-11
(D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2017) (citing 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681b(b)(2)(A)).

This FCRA disclosure requirement is known as the "stand-alone
disclosure requirement," and it has been the subject of a number
of recent opinions. The most recent of those is Vera v. Mondelez
Global LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38328 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2017).
Plaintiff Johnny Vera applied online for a job with Mondelez, an
international manufacturer of food products that are marketed
under a variety of brand names. As part of the application
process, the website displayed a statement related to the general
topic of background checks (the Statement). Vera was required to
scroll down the webpage in order to read the Statement in its
entirety.  The Statement provided information about requesting a
background check, and included an authorization for "all
companies, credit agencies, educational institutions, persons,
government agencies, criminal and civil courts, and former
employers to release information they have about me and release
them from any liability for doing so."

In filing a putative class action lawsuit against Mondelez, Vera
did not allege that the Statement failed to disclose the fact that
Mondelez sought a background check as part of his employment
application, nor that Vera denied Mondelez permission to conduct a
background check.  Instead, Vera alleged that the Statement
violated FCRA's "stand-alone disclosure requirement" because the
Statement contained more information than just a disclosure that
Mondelez intended to procure a consumer report about Vera.

In seeking to dismiss the putative class action, Mondelez argued
that the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because
Vera failed to allege an injury-in fact.  In analyzing and
ultimately accepting Mondelez's argument, the Court drew heavily
from the recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016).  Spokeo involved a FCRA provision
that obligates consumer reporting agencies to follow certain
procedures when collecting and reporting background and credit
information about individuals.  The Supreme Court noted that the
clear intent of the provision was to decrease the risk of
disseminating false information. Id. at 1550.  The Supreme Court
also noted, however, that an agency's failure to follow the
procedures may result in no harm to the consumer where the
information provided was entirely accurate. Id.  Accordingly, the
Supreme Court held that violation of the FCRA provision, alone,
was insufficient to establish constitutional harm. Id.

In Vera, the plaintiff never alleged he was deprived of
information to which he was entitled under the FCRA.  The
pleadings were also devoid of any allegation that the receipt of
such information implicated a fundamental right.  The Court
further noted, to the extent the FCRA establishes privacy right
protections that implicate a fundamental right, such was not
implicated here, as Vera admitted that he gave Mondelez permission
to investigate his private information. Vera, 2017 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS at *8-9.  As a result, the Court concluded that the "stand-
alone disclosure requirement" was akin to the FCRA provision at
issue in Spokeo. Id.  "A failure to comply with the procedures
might cause the statutorily identified harm, i.e. inaccurate and
unauthorized reporting . . .[b]ut a procedural violation will not
necessarily cause that harm, so the procedural violation by itself
is not an injury in fact." Id. at *10. The Court proceeded to
dismiss Vera's lawsuit on the basis that it did not have subject
matter jurisdiction. Id. at *11.

As noted above, the Vera opinion is not an isolated one.  Several
federal courts have had the opportunity to analyze whether harm is
presumed from a violation of the "stand-alone disclosure
requirement."  The majority appear to be in consensus in finding
that the "stand-alone disclosure requirement" is procedural in
nature, not substantive, and that any claimant must accordingly
show harm from violation of the statute. See In re Michaels
Stores, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9310 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2017);
Fields v. Beverly Health & Rehab. Servs., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
29771 (D. Minn. Mar. 1, 2017); Lee v. Hertz Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 166911 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2016); Landrum v. Blackbird
Enters., LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143044 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 3,
2016). But see Hargrett v. Amazon. Com DEDC, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 17236 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2017) (addressing an alleged
violation of the "stand-alone disclosure requirement," and finding
that injury-in-fact may exist solely by virtue of the statute
creating legal rights).

Employers should be careful to ensure that their application
documents meet the disclosure requirements under the FCRA.  While
any lawsuit that may result from the failure to comply may
ultimately be dismissed, it is costly and time consuming to defend
against a potential class action complaint alleging violation of
the "stand-alone disclosure requirement."


MISSOURI: Public Defender System Suit Moved to Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Moore at KSMU reports the class action lawsuit filed by
the ACLU and others against the state of Missouri over its public
defender system has been moved from state to federal court,
according to Missouri's public court records database.

Jacquie Shipma, General Counsel for the Missouri State Public
Defender, told KSMU that either court would have been appropriate,
since the lawsuit alleges violations of both state and federal
law.

But all of the defendants have agreed to have the case moved to
federal court, which is a requirement for the change.
She said the Missouri State Public Defender system felt the
federal court system would be better for this type of case, but
declined to elaborate on why.

This lawsuit is centered on the US Constitutional right to
counsel, as provided by the 6th Amendment.

In the original petition, the American Civil Liberties Union and
other parties allege that Missouri's public defenders are not
adequately representing their clients because of an ongoing lack
of funding for the state program.

Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of ACLU of Missouri, provided
the following written statement on April 7 afternoon:

"This afternoon, the state chose to remove the case to the federal
district court for the Western District of Missouri as it is
legally entitled to do. This change of venue, however, does
nothing to alter or address the serious allegations made by the
plaintiffs in this case, who continue to face prosecution across
the state, without the benefit of adequately resourced attorneys.
We look forward to moving forward with this important litigation
in federal court."

The director of the Missouri Public Defender System, Michael
Barrett, told KSMU recently he was not surprised by the lawsuit,
which was originally filed in March.

"We knew that, when a public defender has 200 cases, 180 cases,
that that's a constructive denial of an individual's right to
counsel," Barrett said.

Barrett drew national attention to Missouri's public defender
system when he highlighted the lack of funding by attempting to
appoint former Governor Jay Nixon as a public defender in a Cole
County case. The New York Times Editorial Board caught wind of
that and wrote a scathing editorial about Missouri's lack of
funding for indigent criminal defense.

Barrett says he feels he has done everything he can to streamline
the MSPD system.

"We have 350 lawyers for 82,000 cases. We resolve trial cases --
everything from misdemeanors to murder -- for an on average cost
of 355 dollars per case. And that's including overhead. Now,
anyone who's ever hired an attorney knows that 350 dollars is used
up in the first hour of their work," Barrett said.

And when someone's liberty is on the line, an attorney simply
needs to spend more time than that on a case, he said.
"The underfunding of indigent defense is a national epidemic.
We're never going to be at the front line of receiving resources,"
Barrett said.

But even within that national epidemic of underfunding, he said,
Missouri trails at the end.

Some states have developed models of partnerships involving
private attorneys doing pro-bono work for indigent defendants.
Several years ago, KSMU investigated other public defender systems
and reported on their methods here.

Barrett would not say whether he has looked to other states as
examples on successful methods of providing adequate indigent
defense.  He said the solution does not need to be complicated.
"The model is quite simple. You get in a room and you decide what
are the maximum caseloads an individual lawyer can handle,"
Barrett said.

Governor Eric Greitens has recommended in next year's budget
about 25 million dollars less than what the Missouri State Public
Defender says it needs to address the funding issue.

Shipma said the next step in the federal court case will be for
the defendants to file a response of pleading, often referred to
as an "answer."  Missouri's Attorney General, John Hawley, will
file that on behalf of Governor Eric Greitens and the state of
Missouri, both named as defendants. Shipma will file a response on
behalf of the parties she is representing, which include Barrett
and members of the Missouri State Public Defender Commission.


MONSANTO CO: Jurisdiction Established Through Grable Doctrine
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Gosling, Esq. -- kgosling@mofo.com -- and Samuel Cortina,
Esq. -- scortina@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP, in an
article for Lexology, wrote that establishing federal jurisdiction
through the Grable doctrine is rare, but a Missouri federal court
recently reminded us that it is not impossible.  In Bader Farms,
Inc. v. Monsanto Co., No. 1:16-CV-299 SNLJ, 2017 WL 633815 (E.D.
Mo. Feb. 16, 2017), the court found that, even though federal
jurisdiction did not appear on the face of the complaint, it
existed under Grable because the plaintiffs' state-law claims
required examination of the actual practices of and regulations
guiding a federal agency, thus raising a significant federal
issue.  This case may be useful for many companies subject to
federal regulation seeking to invoke removal jurisdiction.

The Bader Farms plaintiffs, a group of farmers, originally sued
Monsanto in Missouri state court, asserting a number of state law
claims.  They alleged that Monsanto fraudulently concealed
information from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS), the federal agency that regulates genetically engineered
seeds, when it petitioned to deregulate genetically engineered
soybean and cotton seeds.  APHIS ultimately approved the petition,
and the seeds were released to the public.  According to the
plaintiffs, Monsanto intentionally withheld from APHIS that a
corresponding herbicide had yet to be approved by the EPA.  Rather
than wait for the new compatible herbicide, farmers who bought the
new seeds treated their crops with an old, illegal herbicide that
drifts onto nearby farms and kills non-genetically-engineered
crops.  The Bader Farms plaintiffs were farmers whose crops were
allegedly damaged by this drifting herbicide.

Monsanto removed the case to federal court.  The complaint had
only state-law claims against a non-diverse defendant, which
almost always defeats federal jurisdiction.  Yet Monsanto defeated
the farmers' motion to remand. How?

The answer lies in the "Grable doctrine," a rarely successful
basis for federal question jurisdiction.  Under the well-pleaded
complaint rule, federal question jurisdiction must appear on the
face of the complaint and cannot be created by a federal defense.
This typically means that state-law claims cannot create federal
question jurisdiction.  In Grable & Sons Metal Prod., Inc. v.
Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005), however, the Supreme
Court established a narrow doctrine under which federal question
jurisdiction exists if a state-law claim "raise[s] a federal
issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum
may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved
balance of federal and state responsibilities." Id. at 314.

The Bader Farms court relied on Grable in finding that federal
jurisdiction existed.  According to the court, the farmers'
allegations directly questioned the actual practices of and
regulations governing APHIS -- for example, whether APHIS would
have deregulated the genetically engineered seeds had Monsanto not
allegedly concealed the truth. The case ultimately posed a
"collateral attack on the validity of APHIS's decision to
deregulate the new seed." Bader Farms Inc., 2017 WL 633815, at *3.
Thus, the court concluded that the question raised a substantial
federal issue under Grable.

This outcome might seem straightforward, but it actually marks a
significant victory for defendants.  Efforts to establish federal
jurisdiction through Grable have rarely succeeded.  Indeed, courts
routinely reject Grable arguments even where state-law claims
clearly implicate federal issues and regulations. (We recently
discussed one such case here.)  Bader Farms might give some
defendants a leg up in trying to avoid that result.  Under Bader
Farms, if a plaintiff alleges that (1) a defendant concealed from
a federal agency information that it had a duty to disclose, (2)
the information was material, and (3) the concealment prevented
the agency from performing its regulatory duties, the defendant
may be able to remove based on a significant federal issue.  This
precedent will be useful for companies in regulated industries who
wish to litigate in federal court.


MYLAN INC: "Nordstrum" Sues Over Overpriced EpiPen Injections
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angie Nordstrum and Carly Bowersock, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mylan Inc., Mylan
Specialty L.P., Pfizer, Inc., King Pharmaceuticals LLC and
Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
02401, (D. N.J., April 7, 2017), seeks to recover treble damages,
costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from
overcharging of epinephrine-injecting devices in violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act as well as
various state consumer protection laws.

Defendants produce, market and sell the EpiPen, a self-injecting
device that delivers epinephrine, a synthetic form of adrenaline
used to relax muscles around airways and tightening blood vessels
to maintain respiratory and cardiovascular function during
allergies.

Mylan Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place
of business at 1000 Mylan Blvd., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317.
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a West Virginia corporation with its
principal place of business at TSl Chestnut Ridge Road,
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505.

Pfizer, through its wholly owned subsidiaries King and Meridian,
is exclusive supplier of EpiPens to Mylan. King manufacturers the
epinephrine for the EpiPen, and Meridian (who holds the EpiPen
auto-injector patents) manufactures the EpiPen injector device
itself.

Defendants allegedly engage in anticompetitive and illegal
exclusionary conspiracy to maintain monopoly over said product and
has made billions of dollars at the expense of consumers and
third-party payors.

Plaintiffs have food allergies for which she has purchased several
EpiPens annually from Mylan.

Plaintiff is represented by:

James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Michael A. Innes, Esq.
      CARELLA, BRYNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & ANGELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Fax: (973) 994-1744

             - and -

      Damien J. Marshall, Esq.
      Duane L. Loft, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 446-2300
      Fax: (212) 446-2350

             - and -

      Paul J. Geller, Esq.
      Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Fax: (561) 750-3364

            - and -

      Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
      Arthur L. Shingler III, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423

            - and -

      Brian D. Penny, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
      161 Washington Street, Suite 1025
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Telephone: (484) 342-0700
      Fax: (484) 580-8747


MYLAN INC: Teachers' Fund Sues Over Overpriced Anti-Depressant
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Mylan, Inc., Sandoz, Inc. and Taro Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01557, (E.D. Pa., April 6, 2017),
seeks to recover treble damages, costs of suit and reasonable
attorneys' fees resulting from overcharging of generic
chlomipramine hydrochloride capsules in violation of the Sherman
Act and Clayton Act.

Dhlomipramine hydrochloride is an anti-depressant used to treat
obsessive compulsive disorder.

Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund is a
voluntary employee benefits plan providing health benefits to
eligible participants and beneficiaries, including prescription
drug benefits, to approximately 34,000 participants, and their
spouses and dependents.

Mylan Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place
of business at 1000 Mylan Blvd., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317.
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a West Virginia corporation with its
principal place of business at TSl Chestnut Ridge Road,
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505.

Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in Hawthorne, New York. It is an owned
subsidiary of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.

Sandoz, Inc., is a Colorado corporation with its principal place
of business in Princeton, New Jersey. It deals in generic
pharmaceuticals and bio-similars.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
      EDESON AND ASSOCIATES LLC
      3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
      Newtown, PA 18940
      Tel: (215) 867-2399
      Fax: (267) 685-0676
      Email: mcdelson@edelson-law.com

             - and -

      Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, RC.
      8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
      161 Washington Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Tel: (484) 342-0700
      Fax: (484) 580-8747
      Email: scarlato@lawgsp.com


NABORS DRILLING: Calderon Seeks Certification of Welders Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOSE CALDERON, on behalf of himself
individually, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED et al., the
Plaintiffs, v NABORS DRILLING TECHNOLOGIES USA INC., NABORS
CORPORATE SERVICES INC., NABORS INDUSTRIES INC. and EXPRESS
PAYROLL INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00710 (S.D. Tex.),
Mr. Calderon seeks to certify a class of:

   "all Welders Who Worked for Defendants at the Crosby, Texas
   location Within the Past Three Years, Classified as
   Independent Contractors, and Paid Straight Time Instead of
   Time and a Half for Overtime Hours Worked".

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
          THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
          3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
          Houston, TX 77054
          Telephone: (832) 778 8182
          Facsimile: (832) 778 8353
          E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


NEW ZEALAND: Brokovich Meets Christchurch Insurance Claimants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Small, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that celebrity
consumer rights activist Erin Brockovich says the Christchurch
rebuild is taking too long.

The 56-year-old American, who was immortalised in a Hollywood film
about her battle against a US energy company, was in New Zealand
on April 10 to speak with Christchurch insurance claimants.

Ms. Brockovich spent time visiting the houses of people still
dealing with insurance companies and the Earthquake Commission to
settle their claims and repair their homes.

"The conditions that they're living in broke my heart," she said.

Ms. Brockovich said money was the main reason the process was
being dragged out for so long.

"At the end of the day these are huge payouts.  It's the root
cause for why we see, in most of these situations, big delays."

Ms. Brockovich is most famous for her work as a legal clerk whose
investigation led to the success of a major class action against
the Pacific Gas and Electric Company in California in the 1990s.

She came into the spotlight after the 2000 release of Erin
Brockovich, starring Julia Roberts.

Since then, Ms. Brockovich has worked on many high-profile cases,
usually to do with environment and health.

She consults for Shine Lawyers, an Australian legal firm that also
practices in Christchurch.

Ms. Brockovich said the link between her other cases and the
situation in Christchurch was people's need for health, welfare
and safety for their families.

"We all have more in common than you realise."

She said in her visits she saw families living in terrible
conditions.

"The black mould in these houses is suffocating.

"I hope insurance companies continue to get the message: this is
ridiculous."

She said she had plenty of experience dealing with insurance
companies.

Claimants needed support to get justice, she said.

"Oftentimes leadership isn't aware fully of what's going on in the
community because people aren't talking to them."

Visiting Christchurch had been an "eye-opening experience", she
said.

"It's been too long. Six years is too long."


NUCOR CORPORATION: $23.4MM Settlement Granted Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the court has granted
final approval of the class action settlement.

Since 2008, Nucor has been a defendant, along with other major
steel producers, in several related antitrust class-action
proceedings filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel
purchasers in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The majority of these complaints were filed
in September and October of 2008, with two additional complaints
being filed in July and December of 2010. Two of these complaints
were voluntarily dismissed and are no longer pending. The
plaintiffs alleged that from April 1, 2005 through December 31,
2007, eight steel manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in
anticompetitive activities with respect to the production and sale
of steel. Nucor denies those allegations. The plaintiffs sought
monetary and other relief on behalf of themselves and classes of
direct and indirect purchasers of steel products from the
defendants in the United States between April 1, 2005 and December
31, 2007.

On September 30, 2016, Nucor entered into an agreement to settle
the claims of the class of direct purchasers of steel products for
the amount of $23.4 million, which was paid during the fourth
quarter of 2016. Nucor believes the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit and did not admit liability or the validity of the
plaintiffs' claims as part of the settlement, but entered into the
settlement in order to avoid the burden, expense and distraction
of further litigation. The settlement was subject to court
approval.

On November 3, 2016, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. Direct purchasers of steel products were given notice
of the settlement and the opportunity to object to the settlement
or to opt out as class members. No purchasers timely objected to
the settlement, and only two purchasers filed notices of intent to
opt out.

On February 16, 2017, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement. The settlement does not resolve claims asserted by a
separate putative class of indirect purchasers of steel products.
Nucor and other Defendants have moved to dismiss those indirect
purchaser claims.

The company said, "We will continue to vigorously defend against
the indirect purchasers' claims and any other claims relating to
these allegations. We cannot at this time predict the outcome of
the remaining litigation or estimate the range of Nucor's
potential exposure (if any) and, consequently, have not recorded
any reserves or contingencies related to the class of indirect
purchasers."

Nucor Corporation and its affiliates manufacture steel and steel
products.


OAKHURST: Maine Overtime Law Wording at Issue in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dee Thompson, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals issued a decision March 13 that impacted Maine's
overtime law and at issue was the use of a simple comma.

A summary judgment decision in a lawsuit against a group of truck
drivers was reversed, resulting in the revival of the drivers'
class action lawsuit for unpaid overtime against Oakhurst Dairy.

The controversy revolved around the definitions in Maine's
overtime law.  The specific wording of the law as written
discusses employees who work with food products, specifically the
"canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing,
storing, packing for shipment or distribution" of those particular
products.

The phrase that really came under the microscope was "packing for
shipment or distribution."  That phrase was at the center of the
district court summary judgment motion.  The drivers claimed that
since they didn't pack goods, they were entitled to overtime.

Kevin Haskins -- khaskins@preti.com -- an attorney at Preti
Flaherty in Portland, Maine, said Oakhurst had argued that the
phrase "packing for shipment or distribution" encompasses two
distinct activities -- "packing for shipment" and "distribution" -
- each of which is a stand-alone exempt activity.

Oakhurst argued that the drivers were exempt and therefore not
entitled to overtime because they were engaged in "distribution."
A Maine federal court agreed.

Mr. Haskins told Legal Newsline the "doctrine of parallel usage"
applied in the case.

"It's a rule of grammar, which basically says that words in a
series should be parallel so that each word is a functional match
of the others.  So, for the drivers, they argued that the
exemption contained a series of gerunds, or words ending in 'ing,'
except for the last two words.

"They argued that those two words -- 'shipment' and 'distribution'
-- were functionally different from the gerunds and essentially
served the same role as modifiers of the last gerund in the list:
'packing.'  The problem with the drivers' parallel usage argument
was that the last element of a series is usually preceded by a
conjunction, like 'and' or 'or,' and the only conjunction in this
series came before the word 'distribution,' which could suggest
that 'distribution' did not merely modify 'packing,' but that it
was a stand-alone exempt activity in its own right."

Mr. Haskins went on to explain that neither side was able to make
an argument that removed the ambiguity of the wording in the
exemption.

"The reason the drivers' interpretation ultimately prevailed was
because the court agreed that ambiguous terms in Maine's wage and
hour law should be construed liberally to further the 'beneficent'
and 'remedial' purpose of the law," he said.

"Because the drivers' interpretation resulted in a more narrow
exemption -- and greater overtime pay protection -- the court
simply found that it was more consistent with the remedial purpose
of the law."

Mr. Haskins doesn't foresee a wave of these types of decision in
the future, or think this ruling sets a precedent for other
actions in which wording or punctuation might be at issue.

"What is also interesting about this case is that the legislative
history of the exemption was as ambiguous as the text -- that is
not always the case and, had there been greater clarity in that
department, the end result might very well have been different,"
he notes.

The decision was surprising, though, as Mr. Haskins explains; "The
ambiguity in both the text of the exemption and its legislative
history is surprising, particularly given the age of the statute,
which dates back to the 1960s.  And, as the court pointed out,
there was no real guidance by way of Maine case law, either, which
again is a bit surprising given the age of the statute."


OCCAM NETWORKS: Class Rep's Incentive Award Request Challenged
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Chiappardi and Jeff Montgomery, writing for Law360, report
that shareholders' counsel in the Occam Networks Inc. merger case
told the Delaware Chancery Court on April 10 to reject the class
representative's request for an unprecedented incentive award
measured in the millions of dollars, arguing it would set bad
policy and "hang over every future class action in Delaware."

During a hearing in Wilmington, Robert J. Katzenstein --
rjk@skjlaw.com -- of Smith Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP said that if
investor Herbert Chen's request for what, at more than $3 million,
would be the largest incentive award in Chancery Court history is
approved, it would set a precedent that may well embolden other
lead plaintiffs to play inappropriate roles in future cases.

"It would encourage a new species of professional class
representatives," Mr. Katzenstein told Vice Chancellor J. Travis
Laster.  "They may well insist on making strategic decisions and
having veto power."

Counsel would have to handle such class representatives with "kid
gloves" and watch that any "off-the-cuff remark" could turn into
full-blown litigation over fees, Mr.  Katzenstein said.

In the case challenging Occam's $200 million tie-up with Calix
Inc., Mr. Chen is seeking what's known as a special or incentive
award, which is a payment that can be doled out to a particular
plaintiff that makes an extraordinary contribution to a case.

The award Mr. Chen is seeking has previously been described at
roughly $3 million, but at oral argument April 10, shareholders'
counsel said it appeared that figure had ballooned to $7 million.
Chen did not address the figure directly but said counsel was
"mischaracterizing" his arguments.

The investor argues that without his efforts, the case would have
been either lost or resolved for much less than the ultimate $35.5
million settlement struck midway through a two-week trial in April
2016.

Such incentive awards have traditionally been measured in the
four- or five-figure range, and the attorneys representing the
class had acknowledged that Chen played a valuable role, even
recommending he be awarded about $1 million.

That figure alone would be record-breaking, but class attorneys
are resisting more money being added to the total.

In court Monday, Mr. Katzenstein said Mr. Chen's pursuit of the
incentive award has been filled with "insults and invective,"
riddled with illogical arguments and a notion that he alone led
the case to success.

"Whatever were the merits of Mr. Chen's argument for an incentive
award, he cannot argue he did all the work," Mr. Katzenstein said
in court.  "He argues he has been more valuable than all the
lawyers put together."

Mr. Katzenstein said Mr. Chen is essentially seeking attorneys'
fees, but he is not a lawyer, does not have the same
responsibilities and is not bound by the same code of conduct.

Mr. Chen argues that he is indeed entitled to the hefty award,
claiming he did the equivalent of 6,500 hours of work on the case
that reaped benefits, such as teasing out discovery that prompted
the aiding and abetting claims against Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati PC, Occam's legal advisers until 2014, and the firm's
ultimate withdrawal from the action.

The investor claims that class counsel was at one point trying to
effect a settlement by making an "end run" around him, and without
his push, the case could have settled for much less money or even
simple additional disclosures in proxy statements.

Mr. Chen's characterization of his role has found some support
from class counsel.  Shareholders' attorney David A. Jenkins --
djenkins@skjlaw.com -- of Smith Katzenstein & Jenkins had
previously testified that Mr. Chen was "by a factor of 10 more
helpful than any other plaintiff I've been involved with."

But Jenkins also said the litigation was a group effort, with Chen
playing a role in an effective ensemble.

The Occam settlement came after five years of litigation
challenging the 2010 merger as undervalued, and class counsel has
requested roughly $10 million in fees and expenses from the
litigation.

Vice Chancellor Laster did not rule on April 10; he said he would
render a written opinion.

Mr. Chen is proceeding pro se on his incentive award bid.

The shareholders are represented by Robert J. Katzenstein, David
A. Jenkins and Kathleen M. Miller of Smith Katzenstein & Jenkins
LLP and Joseph Levi, Michael H. Rosner and Nicholas I. Porritt of
Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

The Occam directors and officers are represented by Peter J. Walsh
Jr. -- pwalsh@potteranderson.com -- Arthur L. Dent --
adent@potteranderson.com -- and Aaron R. Sims of Potter Anderson &
Corroon LLP, Patrick E. Gibbs -- pgibbs@cooley.com -- of Cooley
LLP and Matthew Rawlinson -- matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- of Latham &
Watkins LLP.

Wilson Sonsini is represented by David E. Ross -- dross@ramllp.com
-- of Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP and Evan R. Chesler --
echesler@cravath.com -- Sandra C. Goldstein --
sgoldstein@cravath.com -- and Kevin J. Orsini --
korsini@cravath.com -- of Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP.

The case is Chen et al. v. Occam Networks Inc. et al., case number
5878, in the Delaware Court of Chancery.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Property Inspection Case Dismissal Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
Shanice Harris, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of a
class action lawsuit last month.  The lawsuit questioned fees
given during property inspections after the plaintiffs in the case
had defaulted on their mortgages.

Ocwen Financial Corp., a loan servicing company in Florida,
charged Mary Lou Vega, Tara Inden and Regina Saffold-Sanders for
property inspections.  The inspections took place after the
plaintiffs defaulted on their loans.

According to Ocwen, the mortgage contracts that the plaintiffs
signed specifically stated that they could charge the plaintiffs
for property inspections that are necessary to protect the
lender's interest.  Those costs would be passed on to the
plaintiffs.

Once the plaintiffs defaulted on their loans, Ocwen sent property
inspectors to the premises to see if the occupants were
maintaining the integrity of the property.

Ms. Vega, Ms. Inden and Ms. Saffold-Sanders sued Ocwen as a
result, alleging that the higher ups at Ocwen were conspiring
against them to commit fraud.  They alleged that the lenders were
in violations of RICO (The Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act) and the California Unfair Competition Law.  The
plaintiffs said that the fees were never disclosed to them and
that they were done too frequently and never reviewed with them.

"I was not surprised by the Ninth Circuit's ruling," John
Raffetto, attorney at Goodwin Law in Washington, D.C., told Legal
Newsline.  "It is in line with established precedent about what
plaintiffs must allege to state fraud claims."

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the trail court to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims.  It ruled that the allegations brought forth
by the plaintiffs were not enough to claim fraud.  The inspections
were in accordance with the clause outlined in Ocwen's mortgage
contracts, which was signed by the plaintiffs.

Many circuits throughout the country have seen similar cases to
Vega v. Ocwen.

"Those cases sometimes involve different claims and different
factual allegations, but the heart of those complaints is the
same," Mr. Raffetto said.  "When those cases involve fraud
allegations, courts often have to address the issue that drove the
decision in Vega."

The case will be the blueprint in deciding future cases where
defendants are facing fraud claims as it pertains to servicing
obligations.

"Because the Ninth Circuit's decision addressed a pleading
standard, the decision is unlikely to directly affect borrowers,
lenders, and loan servicers," Mr. Raffetto said.  "Plaintiffs and
defendants in similar cases will likely use the Ninth Circuit's
decision to frame their litigation strategies."


OLD REPUBLIC: "White" Lawsuit Awaiting Court's Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that the "Ba" lawsuit has been dismissed with prejudice and the
"White" lawsuit is awaiting the Court's dismissal.

On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class
action suits alleging RESPA violations were filed in the Federal
District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting
RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial
Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries.
(White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as
successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.). The lawsuits are two of twelve
against various lenders, their captive reinsurers and the mortgage
insurers, filed by the same law firms.

All of these lawsuits were substantially identical in alleging
that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance arrangements
with the defendant banks' captive insurance subsidiaries under
which payments were made in violation of the anti-kickback and fee
splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Ten of
the twelve suits have been dismissed. A class has not been
certified in either remaining suit. Those two remaining suits
seeking unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the
allegedly improper payments were settled with an agreement to make
nominal payments. Ba has been dismissed with prejudice and White
is awaiting the Court's dismissal.


ONTARIO: C$8MM Settlement Reached for School of the Blind Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle McQuigge at The Star reports a class-action lawsuit
involving allegations of physical, emotional and sexual abuse at
an Ontario boarding school for the blind has been settled out of
court.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs say the CAD8-million
settlement with the province -- reached one day before the case
was to go to trial -- must still be approved by courts.
A hearing date is tentatively set for June.

The class action included former students of the W. Ross Macdonald
School for the Blind in Brantford, Ont.

The defendant was not the school itself or any individual staff
members, but rather the government of Ontario, which was
responsible for overseeing the school.

Allegations contained in the statement of claim contended students
attending the school from the early 1950s to the late 2000s were
subjected to psychological degradation, physical violence and
sexual abuse.

The suit also alleged some staff were improperly trained for their
jobs and the school failed to conduct regular criminal or
reference checks on employees.

A former student who became the lead plaintiff in the class-action
suit said he welcomed the settlement and hoped it would bring an
end to a painful chapter for all concerned.

"I'm pleased that we didn't have to go to trial on this one," said
Robert Seed, who attended the school from 1954 to 1965. "I think
all parties concerned, they were pretty level-headed about it and
. . . wanted to make sure that the people that are in the lawsuit
were taken care of."

Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney General issued a statement
outlining the general terms of the settlement, but declined
further comment as the deal is still subject to court approval.
W. Ross Macdonald referred all questions to the Ministry of
Education, which did not respond to a request for comment.

The class-action suit, which was certified by the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in 2012, covered students who attended W. Ross
Macdonald between Jan 1, 1951 and May 4, 2012. A family class also
covered close relatives of students who went to the school from
March 31, 1978 to May 4, 2012.

The statement of claim in the case contained allegations of
widespread physical, emotional and sexual abuse spanning at least
six decades.

It alleged the Ontario government, as ultimate overseer of the
school, failed to protect a particularly vulnerable population
from harm.

"Throughout the class period, the residence counsellors, teachers
and administrators at Ross MacDonald treated the students with
contempt, prejudice and indifference," the statement of claim
alleged. "They engaged in abusive conduct, often taking advantage
of the visual disabilities of students."

Students were routinely punished for minor matters such as feeling
homesick, struggling with their reading skills or using too much
toilet paper, the statement of claim alleged.

The suit claimed staff members from teachers to school aids often
resorted to violence, such as forcing students to drink from
urinals and jumping on the backs of those as young as six years
old.

The statement of claim also alleged staff played upon the visual
impairments of students, sneaking up on them during private
conversations and spinning students around to deliberately
disorient them.

Seed, for his part, alleged he was the target of unwanted sexual
advances by a residence counsellor working at the school some time
during his 11-year tenure.

He also alleged witnessing another teacher striking students,
throwing objects at them and making belittling remarks that eroded
their confidence.

Tom Dekker, a former student who had been scheduled to testify at
the trial that was averted by the settlement, said he believes W.
Ross Macdonald has undergone significant reforms in recent years
and offers a valuable resource to blind students from across the
country.

He said he views the settlement as an acknowledgment of wrongdoing
and welcomes it on those terms.

"I think I'd be a lot better off in life if certain things hadn't
happened to me at that place," he said from Victoria, B.C. "So
this is just kind of compensation to give me some kind of
resources to catch up on things I missed out on."

Seed agreed, saying the suit was not meant to tarnish the school's
reputation, but rather to seek justice for people who continue to
feel the effects of their time there to this day.

He likened their situation to other more high-profile instances of
alleged abuse in residential school facilities.

"In a lot of cases we were measured up against the residential
school abuse that the indigenous people suffered," he said. "I
attended the hearings in Thunder Bay, Ont., and the stories that I
heard were much the same as W. Ross Macdonald."


OPHTHOTECH CORP: 2 Pension Funds Compete for Lead Plaintiff Role
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ophthotech Corporation is defending a class action lawsuit by
Frank Micholle et al., the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Pending before the Court are:

     -- a Motion to Appoint City of Bristol Pension Fund, Brandon
        Suedekum, Ashok Dalal, Sergio Albonico, and Mayur Shah
        (OPHT Investor Group) to serve as lead plaintiff(s); and

     -- a Motiom to Consolidate Cases 1:17-cv-00210-; 1:17-cv-
        01758; and a Motion to Appoint Sheet Metal Workers'
        Pension Plan of Southern California, Arizona and Nevada
        to serve as lead plaintiff(s) and their Motion to Appoint
        Counsel.

The Company said, "A purported class action lawsuit has been filed
against us and certain of our current and former executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Frank Micholle et al. v.
Ophthotech Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00210, filed on
January 11, 2017. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf
of shareholders who purchased our common stock between May 11,
2015 and December 12, 2016. The complaint generally alleges that
we and certain of our officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading
statements concerning the prospects of our Phase 3 trials for
Fovista in combination with anti-VEGF drugs for the treatment of
wet AMD. The complaint seeks equitable and/or injunctive relief,
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other costs."

"We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously
defend against this lawsuit. We are unable, however, to predict
the outcome of this matter at this time. Moreover, any conclusion
of these matters in a manner adverse to us and for which we incur
substantial costs or damages not covered by our directors' and
officers' liability insurance would have a material adverse effect
on our financial condition and business. In addition, the
litigation could adversely impact our reputation and divert
management's attention and resources from other priorities,
including the execution of business plans and strategies that are
important to our ability to grow our business, any of which could
have a material adverse effect on our business."

Ophthotech is a biopharmaceutical company specializing in the
development of novel therapeutics to treat ophthalmic diseases,
with a focus on diseases of the back of the eye.


PARTNER COMMS: Customers' Suit Recognized as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner" or the "Company"),
an Israeli communications operator, on April 9 disclosed that the
Company received a lawsuit and a motion for the recognition of
this lawsuit as a class action, filed against Partner in the Haifa
District Court on April 2, 2017.

The claim alleges that Partner enrolls customers to its "internet
and fixed-line communications" service (the "Service") and charges
them for the Service without their having ordered it and with
respect to some of them, charges them without their having used
the Service.  In addition, it is claimed that customers that
contacted Partner in writing, claiming that they were overcharged
and were afterwards credited by Partner, did not receive a written
response to their letters so that they were unable to know whether
the credit is partial or full.

If the claim filed against Partner is recognized as a class
action, the total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by
the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 60 million.

Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and is unable at
this preliminary stage, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty,
the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range of
potential exposure, if any.


PATHPOINT: "Gonzalez" Seeks Overtime, Missed Break Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Gonzales as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pathpoint, a California
Corporation and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. BC657147
(Cal. Super., April 10, 2017), seeks minimum wages, liquidated
damages and penalties, compensatory, consequential, general and
special damages, statutory penalties, prejudgment interest on all
due and unpaid wages, attorneys' fees and costs and such other and
further relief under the California Labor Code.

Defendants operate various programs and centers throughout Los
Angeles County and numerous other counties in California, serving
clients suffering from developmental disabilities. Plaintiff is
employed by Defendants as a Direct Support Professional. Gonzales
claims to have worked through meal periods, paid below minimum
wage and denied wage statements. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
      Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
      HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
      2274 East Maple Ave.
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Tel: (424) 292-2350
      Fax: (424) 292-2355
      Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
             tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
             sblakely@haineslawgroup.com


PEABODY ENERGY: Missouri Court Dismisses ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted motion to
dismiss the case captioned, LORI J. LYNN and JAVIER GONZALEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 4:15CV00916 AGF (E.D. Mo.).

The putative class action is brought under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, (ERISA), claiming breach of fiduciary
duties by Defendants, the fiduciaries of three ERISA-governed
Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) made available to employees of
Peabody Energy Corporation (Peabody) as retirement investment
options.

Plaintiffs initiated the action on June 11, 2015, on behalf of
three Peabody ESOP Plans and their participants and beneficiaries.
Named as Defendants in Plaintiffs' original complaint were three
Peabody-related corporate entities, and various entities and
individuals who allegedly had responsibilities regarding the
management and investment of the Plans' assets. Plaintiffs
asserted that all Defendants were ERISA fiduciaries who breached
their fiduciary duties by continuing to offer Peabody Stock as an
investment option for the Plans from December 14, 2012, onward
(the Class Period) when it was imprudent to do so; maintaining the
Plans' existing significant investment in Peabody Stock when it
was no longer a prudent investment for the Plans; failing to avoid
conflicts of interest; and failing adequately to monitor other
persons to whom management of the Plans was delegated. The
imprudence alleged was based on the collapse of coal prices during
the Class Period and indications that Peabody was headed to
bankruptcy.

The second amended -- and operative -- complaint was filed on
March 11, 2016. The gravamen of Plaintiffs' claims continues to be
that Defendants breached their duties as ERISA fiduciaries by
retaining Peabody stock as a retirement investment option in the
Plans from December 14, 2012, onward. As a remedy, Plaintiffs seek
monetary damages that would restore the values of the Plans'
assets to what they would have been if the Plans had been properly
administered.

Defendants file a motion to dismiss the action for failure to
state a claim.

In a Memorandum and Order dated March 30, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/hBuVlZ from Leagle.com, Judge Fleissig held that
Plaintiffs failed to allege facts to support a claim that
Defendants here breached their fiduciary duties by not monitoring
the ESOP investments.

Lori J Lynn, et al. are represented by Don R. Lolli, Esq. --
dlolli@dysarttaylor.com -- DYSART AND TAYLOR -- Donna Siegel
Moffa, Esq. -- dmoffa@ktmc.com -- Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. --
eciolko@ktmc.com -- Julie E. Siebert-Johnson, Esq. --
jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. -- mkgyandoh@ktmc.com
-- and -- James A. Maro, Jr., Esq. -- jamaro@ktmc.com -- KESSLER
AND TOPAZ

Gregory H. Boyce, et al. are represented by Darren A. Shuler, Esq.
-- dshuler@kslaw.com -- Martha B. Daniels, Esq. --
mdaniels@kslaw.com -- and -- David Tetrick, Jr., Esq. --
dtetrick@kslaw.com -- KING AND SPALDING, LLP -- James F. Bennett,
Esq. -- jbennett@dowdbennett.com -- and -- Sheena R. Hamilton,
Esq. -- shamilton@dowdbennett.com -- DOWD BENNETT, LLP


PENNSYLVANIA: Admin Added as Defendants in Water Crisis Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Schmtt at Trib Live reports two former Butler Area School
District administrators have been added to a federal lawsuit in
connection with the lead water crisis that forced the closure of
Summit Elementary School.

On April 7, plaintiff's lawyers added the district's maintenance
director Glenn Terwilliger and assistant superintendent Mary Wolf
as defendants. Former superintendent Dale Lumley was already a
defendant in the original lawsuit filed in early February.

All three administrators resigned in February in the midst of the
scandal.

The school district announced in a Jan. 20 letter to parents that
students and staff at Summit Elementary School had been told not
to drink the water from a well on the property because it was
contaminated with lead. But the possible cover-up of the lead
problems might date back to August.

The lawsuit against the school district contends that Lumley and
administrators concealed information for months that Summit
Elementary School's water supply contained dangerous amounts of
lead. About 250 students attend the school.

Further testing found E. coli bacteria in the well that supplies
the school, prompting the building to be closed indefinitely.
Students at Summit are attending classes in the shuttered Broad
Street School until the water issues are resolved.

Jennifer Tait sued the district and Lumley after her daughter,
Jillian, who attended Summit, tested positive for lead exposure.
The case filed by attorneys Brendan Lupetin and Douglas Olcott
seeks class-action status, which would let families of other
students exposed to lead in the water join the lawsuit.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and an order for
the district to pay for future periodic lead testing for Summit
students.

Their lack of action created "a school full of poisonous drinking
water," the lawsuit contends.

"By conspiring together each one of the defendant co-conspirators
is jointly and severally liable for any and all harm resulting to
the class members," the attorneys wrote in the amended lawsuit.

The Pennsylvania State Police and Butler County District
Attorney's office are investigating whether criminal charges
against administrators are warranted.

Their lack of action created "a school full of poisonous drinking
water," the lawsuit contends.


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Civil Forfeiture Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Philadelphia denied FJD
Defendants' motion to dismiss and the City Defendants' motion to
dismiss the case captioned, CHRISTOS SOUROVELIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., Defendants, Case No.
14-4687 (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiffs filed the putative class action on August 11, 2014,
challenging Philadelphia's civil forfeiture policies and
practices. Plaintiffs originally filed six claims under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 against the City of Philadelphia, the Mayor, and the
Police Commissioner (City Defendants); and the Philadelphia
District Attorney and D.A.'s Office (D.A. Defendants). Plaintiffs
Sourovelis, Welch, and Hernandez are the owners of real property
against which the D.A. Defendants commenced, under the CSFA,
forfeitures that were pending in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County at the time the First Amended Complaint was
filed.

After all of Plaintiffs' claims survived a motion to dismiss and
the parties settled Counts One and Two, Plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint, adding four state court administrators as
defendants and adding a seventh claim. Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint contains allegations relating to three sets of
procedures: (1) the civil forfeiture procedures that existed at
the time they filed this action, which Plaintiffs allege were in
place from approximately January 2, 2007, through October 19, 2015
(Prior Procedures); (2) the civil forfeiture procedures in place
from October 19, 2015, through July 25, 2016, pursuant to interim
measures adopted by Defendants in response to the instant lawsuit;
and (3) the current civil forfeiture procedures, which the First
Judicial District adopted on July 25, 2016 (Current Procedures).

In response to the Second Amended Complaint, the City Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss Counts Four and Six of the Second
Amended Complaint. The FJD Defendants move to dismiss all four
claims against them pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and
Rule 12(b)(1).

The City Defendants move to dismiss Counts Four and Six of the
Second Amended Complaint on the basis that (1) Plaintiffs have not
plausibly alleged that the City's policies or customs caused the
conduct at issue in Counts Four and Six; and (2) Plaintiffs have
failed to alleged conduct by a City policymaker in connection with
those two claims.

In a Memorandum dated March 30, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/wfj5YV from Leagle.com, Judge Robreno found that the
Plaintiffs have standing with respect to all of their claims
against the FJD Defendants. As to the City Defendants' motion, the
court denied dismissal because Rule 12(h)(6) does not permit a
party to file duplicative, successive motions to dismiss as the
City Defendants have done.

Doila Welch, et al. are represented by David Rudovsky, Esq. --
drudovsky@krlawphila.com -- KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP

            -- and --

      Darpana M. Sheth, Esq.
      Dan Alban, Esq.
      Milad Emam, Esq.
      Robert P. Frommer, Esq.
      INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
      901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900
      Arlington, VA 22203
      Tel: (703)682-9320

City of Philadelphia, et al. are represented by:

      Michael R. Miller, Esq.
      CITY OF PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPT
      1515 Arch St,
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Tel: (215)686-1776

Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, et al. are represented
by:

      Bryan C. Hughes, Esq.
      Elizabeth J. Rubin, Esq.
      Branden James Albaugh, Esq.
      Douglas Weck, Esq.
      Michael R. Miller, Eq.
      PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
      3 S Penn Square,
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Tel: (215)686-8000


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Court Tosses Exchange, Securities Act Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on
March 29, 2017, Chief District Judge Lee Rosenthal of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division dismissed a putative class action against Plains All
American Pipeline, a major national oil and gas pipeline operator,
and its holding companies (collectively, "Plains Defendants"), as
well as individual officer and director defendants of Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. (collectively, "Individual Defendants"),
and financial institutions which acted as underwriters in the
securities offerings at issue (collectively, "Underwriter
Defendants").  In re Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. Sec.
Litig., Case No. H:15-2404 (S.D.T.X. Mar. 29, 2017).  Plaintiffs,
individuals and institutional investors who purchased equity and
debt instruments issued by entities affiliated with Plains All
American Pipeline in seven different public offerings, brought
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act").  The claims were brought after a May 2015 oil
spill allegedly caused by a ruptured Plains pipeline that resulted
in approximately 101,000 gallons of oil spilling into the Pacific
Ocean. Plaintiffs alleged that, prior to and after the spill, the
company falsely claimed to have a comprehensive, effective
environmental and regulatory compliance program to prevent oil
spills and, if such spills occurred, to quickly remediate the
effects.  The Court dismissed the Exchange Act claims, holding
that the majority of the statements at issue were not "actionably
misleading," and that plaintiffs failed to allege facts giving
rise to a strong inference of scienter.  The Court also dismissed
the Securities Act claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
as to all offerings except one, and dismissed the remaining
Securities Act claims on the basis that they sounded in fraud and
were subject to the same particularized pleading requirement as
the Exchange Act allegations, and therefore were not actionably
misleading for the same reasons.

Notably, in dismissing plaintiffs' Securities Act claims, the
Court addressed Underwriter Defendants' argument that claims for
certain offerings should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction because plaintiffs lacked standing to assert claims
based on alleged misrepresentations that occurred in the offerings
for securities they did not purchase.  The Court declined to
follow the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in NECA-IBEW
Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 693 F.3d 145 (2d
Cir. 2012), a case that denied a motion to dismiss an action
brought by a shareholder who purchased securities in some, but not
all, of a series of offerings.  The Court disagreed with NECA on
the ground that it was at odds with the prior rulings from the
Supreme Court in Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), Blum v.
Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982), and Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343
(1996). The Court noted that even if it did follow NECA,
plaintiffs lacked standing because plaintiffs did not allege a
sufficient identity of interests between the representative and
the absent putative class members.

In considering the remaining claims, the Court divided the
statements at issue into four topic categories: (1) integrity
management, corrosion control of pipelines, and leak detection;
(2) legal compliance; (3) spill-response capabilities; and (4) the
size and scope of the spill.  The Court held that plaintiffs'
allegations as to each category of alleged misstatements failed to
plead a claim. The Court found that many of the statements were
inactionable for various different reasons, including that:
plaintiffs did not allege that certain statements were false or
did not allege facts that rendered the statements false or
misleading; many allegedly false statements were vague and
general; and some statements were examples of corporate
cheerleading, or truisms, which could not be the basis of a
securities-fraud claim.  The Court also found that allegations as
to certain statements of opinion did not plead a claim under
Omnicare.  Regarding plaintiffs' allegations as to statements made
in the underwriting agreements, the Court declined to hold that
such statements could not form the basis of an Exchange Act claim
as a matter of law, but also found that plaintiffs had not made
particularized allegations of falsity as to such statements.

Although the Court found that a handful of other alleged
misstatements -- such as a statement that the company performed
scheduled maintenance on all of the pipelines and made repairs and
replacements when necessary -- potentially could be actionably
misleading and material, the Court held that the allegations
regarding these misstatements failed to plead scienter.  For the
statements by the company's safety and security director who had
been designated to speak on the company's behalf, scienter was not
adequately pled because the complaint contained "no allegations
about what [he] knew and when he knew it." Further, for statements
on the company's website that it performed regular maintenance,
plaintiffs neither alleged that the statement was made or
authorized by an officer with the requisite scienter, nor was it
so "important and dramatic" that it must have been approved by
corporate officials.  The Court also found that plaintiffs' more
general allegations of scienter -- including group -- pleading
allegations and allegations regarding defendants' financial
incentives -- were insufficient. The Court did note, however, that
defendants' loss-causation arguments did not provide a separate
sufficient basis to dismiss the case at that time.

Concerning the remaining Securities Act claims, the Court found
that those claims, too, sounded in fraud and were subject to the
same particularized pleading standard as the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 claims, and were inadequately pleaded for the same reasons.
As a result, the Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety,
without prejudice and with leave to amend.


PLAINS ALL-AMERICAN: November Trial Set in Oil Spill Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Giana Magnoli, writing for Noozhawk, reports that the criminal
case against Plains All-American Pipeline regarding the 2015
Refugio Oil Spill will next be in court in November for a trial
call date, according to the Santa Barbara County District
Attorney's Office.

A county Grand Jury indicted the company on 46 criminal counts one
year after the May 19, 2015, spill, in which a 24-inch Plains
crude oil pipeline ruptured and spilled 123,228 gallons onto the
coastline and into the ocean near Refugio State Beach on the
Gaviota Coast.

Superior Court proceedings thus far have included closed hearings
regarding Grand Jury testimony, and a motion by Plains attorneys
to move the trial out of Santa Barbara County, which was denied.

Some motions are still awaiting rulings and the possible trial
schedule will likely be looked at again at the Nov. 2 hearing.

On a separate track, a class-action lawsuit against Plains has
moved forward with certification for the subclass of fisher and
fish-industry people, which includes those affected by the fishery
closures during the oil spill clean-up.

Lead plaintiffs include companies and individuals who fish for sea
cucumbers, shrimp, halibut, rock crab, black cod, squid and
California spiny lobster, as well as those who purchase seafood
along the Central Coast for processing or retail sale.

Attorneys for plaintiffs in the case, including Santa Barbara-
based Cappello & Noel, are working to get the other three
subgroups class certified by a federal judge, including oceanfront
property owners, the business tourism industry, and the oil
industry.

The District Court judge consolidated the class-action suits into
one case.

The timeline of the civil class-action suit is not impeded or
helped by the progress of the criminal case, said Leila Noel of
Cappello & Noel.  Ms. Noel and Barry Cappello are among the lead
counsel on the class-action suit.

Noel said the attorneys hope and expect the other plaintiff
subclasses will be certified as well, after a new motion is
submitted and another hearing is held.

Cappello & Noel specifically is working with several experts for
the plaintiffs, including one who is doing ocean-flow modeling of
where the spilled oil went, and a real property expert looking at
affected land owners, she said.

U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez's ruling "certifies the
following class to pursue this class action: Persons or entities
who owned or worked on a vessel that landed seafood within the
California Department of Fish & Wildlife fishing blocks 651 to
657, 664 to 671, 681 to 683, as well as persons or entities who
owned or worked on a vessel that landed ground fish, including but
not limited to sablefish, halibut and rockfish, in fishing blocks
631 to 633, 637 to 639, 643 to 645, 658 to 659, and 684 to 690,
between May 19, 2010 and May 19, 2015 and were in operation as of
May 19, 2015, as well as those persons and businesses who
purchased and re-sold commercial seafood so landed, at the retail
or wholesale level, that were in operation as of May 19, 2015."

The court also appointed lead counsel for fisheries plaintiffs in
this case, including Robert J. Nelson of the firm Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Lynn Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
-- and Juli Farris -- jfarris@kellerrohrback.com -- of Keller
Rohrback L.L.P.; A. Barry Cappello of the firm Cappello & Noel;
and William M. Audet of Audet & Partners.


PLURALSIGHT: Court Dismisses Suit Over Auto-Renewal Program
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corinne Lincoln-Pinhiero at Legal Newsline reports a Sacramento
man sued an online IT training company under California's
Automatic Purchase Renewals Statute (CAPRS) and the Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), but the case was dismissed for
misinterpretation of the statute and failure to establish a
legitimate right of action.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
issued its order Feb. 17.

Kyle Johnson sued Pluralsight, an online video training company
for IT professionals and software developers, under the Auto-
Renewal Law (ARL) and UCL, alleging he subscribed to a free trial
of the videos and Pluralsight didn't notify him of the auto-
renewal program.

"The ruling wasn't surprising," Perrie Weiner, an attorney at DLA
Piper, told Legal Newsline. "When you read the (CAPRS) statute and
the legislative history it's pretty clear that to bring a claim
relating to the ARL, you have to do it under the UCL or the false
advertising law, and it has to be a legitimate claim."

The ARL has a series of requirements state businesses must adhere
to if they are to provide continuous service programs to
consumers. CAPRS allows an individual to sue for an ARL-related
claim under other statutes such as the UCL or the false
advertising law. Because of this, the Johnson claim was dismissed
with prejudice. In a DLA Piper analysis Weiner co-wrote with
Edward Totino and Kirby Hsu, they claimed most of the current
cases haven't been correctly applied, including Johnson.

"Think of a private right of action like this," Wiener said. "When
a legislature drafts laws, they intend for normal civil litigants
and plaintiffs to be able to bring a claim under it if the terms
of that statute have already been violated. That's why you always
have to look at the legislative intent of the law before you bring
a claim to see if it is intended for a consumer to be able to
state a private right of action under that law. CAPRS is a very
harsh and draconian statute so you can see why they want it to be
applied in truly appropriate facts and circumstances."

Additionally, all ARL-related claims must meet two standing
requirements: proof of injury-in-fact and proof of causation,
which is key. A plaintiff's allegations must show they suffered
both injury and loss of money or property.

"The statute is evolving," Weiner said. "It's meant more for
attorney generals and the district attorney to be able to pursue
claims. So, what the courts are doing is saying if you can
actually articulate a claim, meaning if you can prove these two
requirements then maybe they'll let you bring this as a class
action."

However, for a claim to be truly successful, part of the issue is
whether you can actually get the claim class-certified because the
true value in these cases is if they're brought as a class action,
Weiner said.

"An individual plaintiff's claim isn't worth all that much," he
said. "If you can get it class certified, you're talking about
rendering anything a company gave as a product (now as) a gift --
and thus not being able to charge for it. Lawyers typically appeal
these (individual) decisions. But (Johnson) really didn't appear
to be injured. If we can find proper plaintiffs may be this might
be a different story. But most of these claims are imaginary plots
to game the statutes."

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Court
Case number 2:16-cv-1148


PNC FINANCIAL: Appeal in Overdraft Litigation Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.'s appeal in the Overdraft
Litigation remains pending, PNC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Beginning in October 2009, PNC Bank, National City Bank and RBC
Bank (USA) have been named in lawsuits brought as class actions
relating to the manner in which they charged overdraft fees on ATM
and debit transactions to customers and related matters. All but
two of these lawsuits, both pending against RBC Bank (USA), have
been settled.

The pending lawsuits naming RBC Bank (USA), along with similar
lawsuits pending against other banks, have been consolidated for
pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (the MDL Court) under the caption In re
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation (MDL No. 2036, Case No.
1:09-MD-02036-JLK ). A consolidated amended complaint was filed in
December 2010 that consolidated all of the claims in these MDL
Court cases. The first case against RBC Bank (USA) pending in the
MDL Court (Dasher v. RBC Bank (10-cv-22190-JLK)) was filed in July
2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

The other case against RBC Bank (USA) (Avery v. RBC Bank (Case No.
10-cv-329)) was originally filed in North Carolina state court in
July 2010 and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina before being transferred to the
MDL Court. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in November
2014.

These cases seek to certify multi-state classes of customers for
the common law claims described below (covering all states in
which RBC Bank (USA) had retail branch operations during the class
periods), and subclasses of RBC Bank (USA) customers with accounts
in North Carolina branches, with each subclass being asserted for
purposes of claims under those states' consumer protection
statutes. No class periods are stated in any of the complaints,
other than for the applicable statutes of limitations, which vary
by state and claim.

The customer agreements with the plaintiffs in these two cases
contain arbitration provisions. RBC Bank (USA)'s original motion
in Dasher to compel arbitration under these provisions was denied
by the MDL Court. This denial was appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. While this appeal was pending,
the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in AT&T Mobility v.
Concepcion, following which the court of appeals vacated the MDL
Court's denial of the arbitration motion and remanded to the MDL
Court for further consideration in light of the Concepcion
decision. RBC Bank (USA)'s motion to compel arbitration, now
covering both Dasher and Avery, was denied in January 2013.

PNC said, "We appealed the denial of the motion to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which, in February 2014,
affirmed the order of the district court denying arbitration. We
filed a motion asking the court of appeals to reconsider its
decision, which it denied in March 2014. In December 2014, we
filed a motion to compel arbitration as to the claims of the
plaintiff in Dasher based on an arbitration provision added to the
PNC account agreement in 2013. In August 2015, the district court
denied our motion. Later in August 2015, we appealed the denial of
our arbitration motion to the court of appeals. The appeal is
pending.

"In December 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In
February 2016, the district court denied our motion.

"The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the banks engaged
in unlawful practices in assessing overdraft fees arising from
electronic point-of-sale and ATM debits. The principal practice
challenged in these lawsuits is the banks' purportedly common
policy of posting debit transactions on a daily basis from highest
amount to lowest amount, thereby allegedly inflating the number of
overdraft fees assessed. Other practices challenged include the
failure to decline to honor debit card transactions where the
account has insufficient funds to cover the transactions.

"The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unconscionability;
conversion; unjust enrichment; and violation of the consumer
protection statute of North Carolina. The plaintiffs seek, among
other things, restitution of overdraft fees paid, unspecified
actual and punitive damages (with actual damages, in some cases,
trebled under state law), pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees,
and declaratory relief finding the overdraft policies to be unfair
and unconscionable."


PNC FINANCIAL: Interlocutory Appeal Sought in Reinsurance Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that in the Captive Mortgage Reinsurance Litigation, PNC has filed
a petition to certify for interlocutory appeal to U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In December 2011, a lawsuit (White, et al. v. The PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 11-7928)) was filed
against PNC (as successor in interest to National City Corporation
and several of its subsidiaries) and several mortgage insurance
companies in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. This lawsuit, which was brought as a class action,
alleges that National City structured its program of reinsurance
of private mortgage insurance in such a way as to avoid a true
transfer of risk from the mortgage insurers to National City's
captive reinsurer. The plaintiffs allege that the payments from
the mortgage insurers to the captive reinsurer constitute
kickbacks, referral payments, or unearned fee splits prohibited
under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), as well
as common law unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs claim, among other
things, that from the beginning of 2004 until the end of 2010
National City's captive reinsurer collected from the mortgage
insurance company defendants at least $219 million as its share of
borrowers' private mortgage insurance premiums and that its share
of paid claims during this period was approximately $12 million.
The plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of all persons
who obtained residential mortgage loans originated, funded or
originated through correspondent lending by National City or any
of its subsidiaries or affiliates between January 1, 2004 and the
present and, in connection with these mortgage loans, purchased
private mortgage insurance and whose residential mortgage loans
were included within National City's captive mortgage reinsurance
arrangements. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, statutory
damages under RESPA (which include treble damages), restitution of
reinsurance premiums collected, disgorgement of profits, and
attorneys' fees.

In August 2012, the district court directed the plaintiffs to file
an amended complaint, which the plaintiffs filed in September
2012.

PNC said, "In November 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. The court dismissed, without prejudice, the
amended complaint in June 2013 on statute of limitations grounds.
A second amended complaint, in response to the court's dismissal
order, was filed in July 2013. We filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint, also in July 2013. In August 2014, the
court denied the motion to dismiss.

"We then filed an uncontested motion to stay all proceedings
pending the outcome of another matter then on appeal before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that involves
overlapping issues. In September 2014, the district court granted
the stay. In October 2014, the court of appeals decided that other
matter, holding that the RESPA claims in that case were barred by
the statute of limitations. We then filed a motion for
reconsideration of the denial of our motion to dismiss in light of
the court of appeals' decision.

"In January 2015, the district court denied our motion. In March
2015, the parties stipulated to, and the court ordered, a stay of
all proceedings pending the outcome of a new other matter
currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit that also involves overlapping issues. In February 2016,
the court of appeals in the other matter issued a decision
favorable to our position.

"In September 2016, the plaintiffs moved to lift the stay and for
permission to file a Third Amended Class Action Complaint to add
claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO) and to assert that the RESPA claim is not barred by the
statute of limitations under the "continuing violation theory"
because every acceptance of a reinsurance premium is a new
occurrence for these purposes.

"In January 2017, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend
to add a RICO claim, but granted their motion permitting them to
rely on the continuing violation theory to assert claims under
RESPA. We have filed a petition to certify this issue for
interlocutory appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit and have sought a stay in the district court pending an
appeal."


PNC FINANCIAL: Amended and Supplemental Complaint Filed
-------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that each of the counsel in the Interchange Litigation has filed a
proposed amended and supplemental complaint on behalf of its
respective proposed class.

Beginning in June 2005, a series of antitrust lawsuits were filed
against Visa, MasterCard, and several major financial
institutions, including cases naming National City (since merged
into PNC) and its subsidiary, National City Bank of Kentucky
(since merged into National City Bank which in turn was merged
into PNC Bank). The plaintiffs in these cases are merchants
operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S., as well as
trade associations. Some of these cases (including those naming
National City entities) were brought as class actions on behalf of
all persons or business entities that have accepted Visa(R) or
MasterCard(R). The cases have been consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York under the caption In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant-Discount Antitrust Litigation (Master File No. 1:05-md-
1720-JG-JO).

In July 2012, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the class plaintiffs and an agreement in
principle with certain individual plaintiffs with respect to a
settlement of these cases, under which the defendants agreed to
pay approximately $6.6 billion collectively to the class and
individual settling plaintiffs and agreed to changes in the terms
applicable to their respective card networks (including an eight-
month reduction in default credit interchange rates). The parties
entered into a definitive agreement with respect to this
settlement in October 2012. The court granted final approval of
the settlement in December 2013. Several objectors appealed the
order of approval to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, which issued an order in June 2016, reversing approval of
the settlement and remanding for further proceedings. In November
2016, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the court of appeal's
decision, which is still pending.

As a result of the reversal of the approval of the settlement, the
class actions have resumed in the district court. In November
2016, the district court appointed separate interim class counsel
for a proposed class seeking damages and a proposed class seeking
equitable (injunctive) relief. In February 2017, each of these
counsel filed a proposed amended and supplemental complaint on
behalf of its respective proposed class.

These complaints make similar allegations, including that the
defendants conspired to monopolize and to fix the prices for
general purpose card network services, that the restructuring of
Visa and MasterCard, each of which included an initial public
offering, violated the antitrust laws, and that the defendants
otherwise imposed unreasonable restraints on trade, resulting in
the payment of inflated interchange fees and other fees, which
also violated the antitrust laws. In their complaints,
collectively the plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive
relief, unspecified damages (trebled under the antitrust laws) and
attorneys' fees. PNC is named as a defendant in the complaint
seeking damages but is not named as a defendant in the complaint
that seeks equitable relief.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Pollak" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BRACHA POLLAK and DAVID BENELI, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-04025-BRM-DEA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs
move the Court for certification of classes:

Class A:

   "all New Jersey consumers (1) who received a 'LL1' template
   collection letter from the Defendant (2) on an obligation owed
   or allegedly owed to U.S. Bank, (3) during the time period of
   June 9, 2014 to the present".

Class B:

   "all New Jersey consumers (1) who received a 'LL1' template
   collection letter from the Defendant, (2) on an obligation
   owed or allegedly owed to Citibank N.A., (3) during the time
   period of March 9, 2015 to the present."

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act provides that a debt
collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or
attempt to collect any debt. The statute prohibits debt collectors
from, inter alia making threats to take any action that cannot
legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. Despite this
clear statutory directive, Portfolio engaged in a collection
practice, wherein it would mail an 'LL1' Collection Letter to its
debtors. These LL1 Letters contained a 30-day response deadline,
along with implicit threats of imminent litigation if no response
was received was received before the expiration of this
arbitrarily set deadline.

The Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Hgjod0gc

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (347) 526 4093
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-mail: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com


PRINCETON INFORMATION: Settlement in "Escort" Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted motions for
preliminary approval of class settlement, conditional
certification of proposed class, and appointment of class counsel
and denied approval of the proposed notice of settlement in the
case captioned, HOPE ESCORT, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. PRINCETON
INFORMATION LTD, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-4487 (VSB)
(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Hope Escort and Anthony Barratt bring the action
against Defendants Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citigroup
Technology, Inc., Baha Industries Corp. d/b/a Open Systems
Technologies, and Princeton Information Ltd. on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of similarly situated employees of
Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay them
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. (FLSA), and New York Labor Law Section
190 et seq.

Plaintiffs and members of the settlement class are current and
former employees of various third-party staffing vendors who
performed work on behalf of an affiliate of Defendant Citigroup
Inc. Plaintiffs and members of the settlement class worked as
"Know Your Customer Analysts" between June 10, 2009 and the
present.

On December 11, the Court held a status conference at which the
Court granted the parties' request for a 60 day stay of all
proceedings to facilitate settlement negotiations. On January 4,
2016, the parties met for an in-person settlement conference in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On April 11, 2016, the parties
reported that they had settled.

Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for: (1) preliminary approval of a
class settlement agreement; (2) conditional certification of the
proposed class; (3) approval of the proposed notice of the
settlement; and (4) appointment of class counsel.

In a Memorandum and Opinion dated March 30, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/Sjxy5A from Leagle.com, Judge Broderick concluded
that (1) the settlement is the result of substantial investigative
efforts, arm's length negotiations and that its terms are within
the range of possible settlement approval; (2) the proposed
Settlement Class satisfies Rule 23(b); and (3) Plaintiffs'
counsel, Andrew R. Frisch of the law firm Morgan & Morgan, PA
meets the requirements of Rule 23(g) as class counsel.

A fairness hearing is set on July 7, 2017, at 11:00 a.m.

Hope Escort is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      Charles R. Morgan, Esq.
      Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      850 3rd Ave
      Suite 402
      Brooklyn, NY 11232
      Tel:(212)564-1637

Princeton Information LTD, et al. are represented by Michael
Jonathan Puma, Esq. -- michael.puma@morganlewis.com -- and -- Sam
Scott Shaulson, Esq. -- sam.shaulson@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN,
LEWIS &BOCKIUS LLP

Open Systems Technologies, Inc. is represented by Andrew Herman,
Esq. -- aherman@chjllp.com -- and -- Debra S. Morway, Esq. --
dmorway@chjllp.com -- and -- Michael A. Curley, Esq. --
mcurley@chjllp.com -- CURLEY & MULLEN LLP -- Michael Jonathan
Puma, Esq. -- michael.puma@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS AND
BOCKIUS LLP


R.J. REYNOLDS: Fla. Top Court Rules Lawsuits Can Continue
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver at Greensboro reports the Florida Supreme Court
ruled unanimously on April 6 that thousands of lawsuits can
continue against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

The decision appears to increase the odds that the U.S. Supreme
Court may choose to address the legal disputes in the future.

Reynolds spokesman Bryan Hatchell said on April 7 the company
declines to comment on the ruling.

The lawsuits sprang from a decision in 2006 by the Florida Supreme
Court that decertified a USD145 billion class-action lawsuit
initially filed by Howard Engle. That ruling limits former class
members to filing individual lawsuits stating that cigarettes
caused their respective illnesses.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled against Reynolds' motion that the
Engle cases are preempted by federal law set by Congress, which
allows cigarettes to be advertised, marketed and sold at retail.
The case involves a USD3.48 million jury award in 2013 to the
estate of Phil Marotta.

Marotta's lawyers claimed his lung cancer was caused by his
addiction to cigarettes made and sold by Reynolds.
The jury, based on liability claims, assigned 58 percent of the
blame for Marotta's illness to Reynolds and 42 percent to Marotta.
The justices ruled that Marotta's estate is eligible to pursue
punitive damages and remanded the case to the initial trial court.
In April 2015, a three-judge panel of the federal 11th Circuit
Court of Appeals ruled that federal law preempts certain state
product liability and negligence claims since Congress wanted to
regulate, but not ban, cigarettes. The panel determined Engle
plaintiffs must prove the cigarettes smoked by themselves or
relatives were defective.

However, in January 2016, a majority of the 11-member appeals
court vacated that ruling.

The Florida justices said "Reynolds contends that Congress,
through decades of legislation, has established its intention to
regulate cigarettes while foreclosing their removal from the
market, and that any state law that conflicts with this objective
is implicitly preempted. Reynolds argues that imposing tort
liability for the sale of ordinary cigarettes amounts to a ban,
and therefore such claims are preempted."

However, the justices said Congress "only intended to preempt
state laws to the extent that they relate to labeling or
advertising of tobacco product."

"We hold that permitting Engle progeny plaintiffs to bring state
law strict liability and negligence claims against Engle
defendants does not conflict with these objectives.. . . There is
no indication that Congress had a 'clear and manifest purpose' to
insulate the tobacco industry from state tort liability."

The justices determined Engle claims are rooted in accusations
that tobacco companies manipulated nicotine levels to attract and
then addict smokers.

The case is R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Petitioner, v. PHIL J.
MAROTTA, etc., Respondent, No. SC16-218 (Fla.).


RAILWORKS TRACK: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Pablo Gonzalez and Jerry A. Snow, Jr., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Railworks Track
Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00733, (S.D. Ohio,
April 7, 2017), seeks unpaid compensation, including overtime
wages, liquidated damages, costs and disbursements, and reasonable
allowances for fees of counsel and experts and reimbursement of
expenses, relief or any other recovery pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act.

Railworks is a private corporation specializing in railroad track
construction and maintenance and maintenance service where Snow
worked as an operator, laborer and foreman. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Trent R. Taylor, Esq.
     Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
     BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
     250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Telephone: (614) 221-4221
     Fax: (614) 744-2300
     Email: ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com
            bderose@barkanmeizlish.com


RESOURCE CORPORATION: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Myriam Restrepo Hernandez, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Resource Corporation of
America and Recovery of Texas, LLC, Resource Corporation Of
America, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00284, (W.D. Tex., April 6,
2017), seeks unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, taxable costs
and allowable expenses of this action, attorneys' fees, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Resource Corporation of America contracts with hospitals
throughout the United States to provide billing services on their
behalf. Plaintiff worked for the defendants as a Social Security
Disability and Medicaid Specialist Leads and Patient Support
Representative from January 7, 2009 until June 30, 2016. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
      MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      13590 Ranch Road 12
      Wimberley, TX 78676
      Telephone: (512) 782-0567
      Telecopier: (512) 782-0605
      Website: www.morelandlaw.com
      Email: edmond@morelandlaw.com

             - and -

      John Judge, Esq.
      JUDGE COSTRA AND PUTMAN P.P.
      The Commissioners House at Heritage Square
      2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
      Austin, TX 78746
      Telephone: (512) 328-9099
      Facsimile: (512) 328-4132
      Email: jjudge@jkplaw.com


REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: May 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------
A Court has scheduled a Settlement Fairness Hearing on May 19,
2017, at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time at the Court, located at 191 North
First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, to, among other things, make a
final determination of the Settlement of a class action lawsuit
against Revance Therapeutics, Inc., the Company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

As of May 2015, the Company became subject to a securities class
action complaint, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement System v. Revance Therapeutics Inc., et al, CIV 533635,
which was filed on behalf of City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement System in the Superior Court for San Mateo County,
California against the Company and certain of its directors and
executive officers at the time of the June 2014 follow-on public
offering, and the investment banking firms that acted as the
underwriters in the follow-on public offering. In general, the
complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented the then-
present status of the RT001 topical clinical program and made
false and misleading statements regarding the formulation,
manufacturing and efficacy of its drug candidate, RT001 topical,
for the treatment of crow's feet at the time of the follow-on
public offering. The complaint has been brought as a purported
class action on behalf of those who purchased common stock in the
follow-on public offering and seeks unspecified monetary damages
and other relief. On October 5, 2015, the Company made a motion
for transfer of the action to the Superior Court for the County of
Santa Clara on the basis that venue was improper in San Mateo
County.  Plaintiff's counsel did not oppose the transfer motion,
and the action was received by Santa Clara Superior Court on
November 6, 2015 and assigned the following case number, 15-CV-
287794. On November 23, 2015, the Court issued an Order deeming
the case complex and staying all discovery and motions pending
further order.

Before proceeding with further Court action, including the filing
of its motions to dismiss under California rules, the Company
agreed with Plaintiff to conduct a mediation. The parties did not
reach agreement during the mediation. However, following the
mediation, the parties continued discussions and, on October 31,
2016, executed a stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation").
Under the Stipulation, in exchange for a release of all claims by
the plaintiff class, the Company has agreed to settle the
litigation for $6.4 million in cash, of which the Company expects
$5.9 million to be covered by its insurance policies. The
Stipulation maintains that the defendants, including the Company,
deny all wrongdoing and liability related to the litigation.
Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement on November 11, 2016 and a hearing regarding
preliminary approval was set for January 6, 2017.

On January 6, 2017, the Court issued an order (the "Order")
preliminarily approving the settlement proposed in the Stipulation
by and among the plaintiff class and all named defendants in the
Action, including the Company (the "Settlement"), and directing
that notice of the proposed settlement be given to all members of
the plaintiff class (the "Class Members"). The Court scheduled a
hearing ("Settlement Fairness Hearing") on May 19, 2017, at 9:00
a.m. Pacific Time at the Court, located at 191 North First Street,
San Jose, CA 95113, to, among other things, make a final
determination whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate and should be approved by the Court. The Order provides
that Class Members may opt out of the Settlement and that they may
object to the Settlement in advance of and/or at the Settlement
Fairness Hearing.

The Stipulation and the Settlement remain subject to final
approval by the Court and certain other conditions. It is
anticipated that the Settlement, if approved, would not have a
material impact on the Company's business.

This litigation, including the Settlement, remains subject to
uncertainty, and the actual defense and disposition costs may
depend upon many unknown factors. Therefore, there can be no
assurance that this litigation will not have a material adverse
effect on our business, results of operations, financial position
or cash flows.

Revance Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology
company focused on the development, manufacturing, and
commercialization of novel botulinum toxin products for multiple
aesthetic and therapeutic indications.


RHODE ISLAND: ACLU's Class Action Over Sex Offenders Bill Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Milkovits, writing for Providence Journal, reports that
for the last few years, Harrington Hall, the largest homeless
shelter in Rhode Island, has become by default a last stop for
dozens of sex offenders -- to the dismay of local residents and
politicians.

Now, House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello said he's supporting a bill
to limit the number of sex offenders at most residential
facilities, like Harrington Hall, in order to force Gov. Gina
Raimondo's administration to do something about the problem.

"Right now, we have a default situation that's creating a danger
for Cranston and Rhode Island," Mr. Mattiello said by phone on
April 7.

Rep. Robert Lancia, R-Cranston, would limit the number of sex
offenders to no more than 10 percent of residents at facilities
receiving state funding.  Hospitals, nursing homes, long-term care
and psychiatric facilities would be exempt.

This is aimed at Harrington Hall, where neighboring residents have
complained about an increase of offenders.  "We cannot be the
dumping ground for sex offenders," Mr. Lancia said on April 9,
during one of the three public forums he's hosting on the issue.

Mr. Mattiello, whose district includes Harrington Hall, said he
will bring Mr. Lancia's bill to the House floor after the
legislative break. (Another bill by Mr. Lancia that would require
homeless shelters to report sex offenders to local police within
an hour, is still under consideration.)

If the 10-percent bill passes, the administration will have until
Jan. 1 to come up with a solution.   After that, facilities with
too many sex offenders will have to send them elsewhere.

But where?

Mr. Mattiello said that's up to the state administration and
Crossroads Rhode Island, which runs Harrington Hall, to figure
out.  "If people are placed intelligently and thoughtfully,
there's not the danger that's created at Harrington Hall," Mr.
Mattiello said by phone on April 9.

While both Mr. Mattiello and Lancia say it will require more
resources, there's no estimate of cost.  Mr. Lancia said he wants
to collaborate with agencies working with the homeless.  Ideally,
he'd like to see a facility with directed programs -- in an
industrial park somewhere else.

Trouble is, there aren't many places that will accept sex
offenders.

Federal law already bans them from living in federally subsidized
housing.  Rhode Island passed a law in 2008 banning them from
living within 300 feet of a school.  Then, in 2015, after Warwick
state Rep. Joseph McNamara said "parents were panicking" in his
district, the General Assembly expanded the ban to 1,000 feet for
Level III offenders, deemed most likely to re-offend.

That made nearly 64 percent of Providence off-limits for housing
and forced dozens of sex offenders to move.  The Rhode Island
affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class-
action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in October 2015 to stop the
law. Enforcement is delayed as the case winds through federal
court.

However, it made Harrington Hall the only men's shelter in Rhode
Island that could take homeless high-risk sex offenders. The
average rose from five offenders to several dozen staying there,
and locals complained.

Mr. Lancia said he wants to force the state government to deal
with the issue.  As he told a small crowd of residents and local
politicians on April 9, "We're not playing anymore."


RINGCENTRAL INC: Bid to Dismiss Supply Pro Sorbents' Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended complaint by
Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC remains pending, RingCentral said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On February 7, 2017, the Clerk of Court entered a Notice vacating
hearing on the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The Company said, "On April 21, 2016, Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC
(SPS) filed a putative class action against us in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
(Court), alleging common law conversion and violations of the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) arising from fax
cover sheets used by our customers when sending facsimile
transmissions over our system (Lawsuit).  SPS seeks statutory
damages, costs, attorneys' fees and an injunction in connection
with its TCPA claim, and unspecified damages and punitive damages
in connection with its conversion claim."

"On July 6, 2016, we filed a Petition for Expedited Declaratory
Ruling before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
requesting that the FCC issue a ruling clarifying certain portions
of its regulations promulgated under TCPA at issue in the Lawsuit
(Petition).  The Petition remains pending.

"On July 8, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the Lawsuit in its
entirety, along with a collateral motion to dismiss or stay the
Lawsuit pending a ruling by the FCC on our Petition.  On October
7, 2016, the Court granted our motion to dismiss and gave SPS 20
days to amend its complaint.  The Court concurrently dismissed our
motion to dismiss or stay as moot.

"SPS filed its amended complaint on October 27, 2016, alleging
essentially the same theories and claims.  On November 21, 2016,
we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, along with a
renewed motion to dismiss or stay the case pending resolution of
the FCC Petition.  The motions to dismiss and to stay the Lawsuit
are fully briefed and under submission to the Court.  Discovery
has not yet commenced.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in the Lawsuit.
Litigation is inherently uncertain, however, and it is too early
in this proceeding to predict the outcome of this Lawsuit.  Based
on the information known by us as of the date of this filing and
the rules and regulations applicable to the preparation of our
consolidated financial statements, it is not possible to provide
an estimated amount of any such loss or range of loss that may
occur."

RingCentral is a provider of software-as-a-service, or SaaS,
solutions for businesses to support modern communications for
their increasingly mobile and distributed workforces.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Oral Argument Held in "Corban" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that oral argument was
scheduled for March 7, 2017, in the "Corban" class action lawsuit
in Massachusetts.

Purported class action complaints were filed against the Company
and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on January 27, 2014 and January 29,
2014. The complaints were consolidated into a single action
(Corban v. Sarepta, et. al., No. 14-cv-10201) by order of the
court on June 23, 2014. Plaintiffs' consolidated amended
complaint, filed on July 21, 2014, asserted violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5
against the Company, and Chris Garabedian, Sandy Mahatme, and Ed
Kaye ("Individual Defendants," and collectively with the Company,
the "Corban Defendants"), and violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants.  Plaintiffs
alleged that the Corban Defendants made material
misrepresentations or omissions during the putative class period
of July 24, 2013 through November 12, 2013, regarding a data set
for a Phase 2b study of eteplirsen and the likelihood of the FDA
accepting the Company's new drug application for eteplirsen for
review based on that data set. Plaintiffs sought compensatory
damages and fees.

On August 18, 2014, the Corban Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, which the Court granted on March 31, 2015.  Plaintiffs
subsequently sought leave to file a second amended complaint,
which the Corban Defendants opposed.  On September 2, 2015, the
Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend as futile.
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on September 29, 2015, seeking
review of the Court's March 31, 2015 order dismissing the case and
the Court's September 2, 2015 order denying leave to amend.

On January 27, 2016, Plaintiffs filed in the district court a
motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(2), arguing that the FDA Briefing Document
published on or about January 15, 2016, was material and would
have changed the Court's ruling.  On February 26, 2016, the First
Circuit stayed the appeal pending the district court's ruling on
the 60(b)(2) motion.  Defendants opposed the 60(b)(2) motion, and
on April 21, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for relief
from judgment.  On May 19, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to
alter or amend the April 21, 2016 order pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e).

On May 20, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion, and
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Court's April 21, 2016
denial of their 60(b)(2) motion and May 20, 2016 denial of their
59(e) motion.  On June 13, 2016, the First Circuit granted
Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the two appeals.  Oral argument
was scheduled for March 7, 2017. An estimate of the possible loss
or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

Sarepta is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
the discovery and development of unique RNA-targeted therapeutics
for the treatment of rare neuromuscular diseases.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: No Briefing Schedule Yet in "Kader" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a briefing schedule
has not yet been set in the appeal related to the "Kader" class
action lawsuit.

A complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on December 3, 2014 styled William Kader,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Sarepta Therapeutics Inc., Christopher Garabedian, and Sandesh
Mahatme (Kader v. Sarepta et.al 1:14-cv-14318).

On March 20, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against the Company, and Chris
Garabedian and Sandy Mahatme ("Individual Defendants," and
collectively with the Company, the "Kader Defendants"), and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
Individual Defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that the Kader
Defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions during
the putative class period of April 21, 2014 through October 27,
2014, regarding the sufficiency of the Company's data for
submission of an NDA for eteplirsen and the likelihood of the FDA
accepting the NDA based on that data. Plaintiffs sought
compensatory damages and fees.

The Kader Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on May
11, 2015.  On April 5, 2016, following oral argument on March 29,
2016, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss.

On April 8, 2016, Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
an amended complaint, which Defendants opposed.  On January 6,
2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and
dismissed the case.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February 3, 2017. A
briefing schedule has not yet been set. An estimate of the
possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

Sarepta is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
the discovery and development of unique RNA-targeted therapeutics
for the treatment of rare neuromuscular diseases.


SEQWATER: Court Orders Mediation in 2011 Floods Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Solomons, writing for Brisbane Times, reports that the New
South Wales Supreme Court has ordered the Queensland government
and the bodies that run the state's dams to sit down with lawyers
for almost 7000 flood victims to find a mediated settlement in the
multimillion-dollar class action brought over the way Wivenhoe and
Somerset dams were managed during the 2011 flood crisis.

The parties will meet in private from August 14 to try to find a
way to avoid the costs of a mammoth trial, set down for 54 days to
start in October.

Lawyers Maurice Blackburn wrote to the more than 6800 residents of
Brisbane and Ipswich it represents, warning of the risks of going
to trial.

"If the case goes to trial and the court makes a decision, there
will be a winner and a loser.  A mediated outcome provides a
compromise between these binary outcomes . . . having regard to
the risks involved for each of them in going to trial," the firm
wrote in its letter, obtained by Fairfax Media.

"A mediated outcome would deliver compensation to group members
sooner because it would not be subject to the possibility of
appeals . . . which can take several more years."

Maurice Blackburn lawyer Vavaa Mawuli told Fairfax Media the firm
was assessing the losses suffered by its clients using a sample of
250 of the group, but the work was still at "very early stages".

She said this information was being gathered with a view to
presenting it at mediation in August.

Seqwater, which manages Wivenhoe and Somerset dams, told Fairfax
Media it was "surprised that the loss assessment process only
commenced in January when the proceedings were filed in July
2014".

The order for mediation comes as Ipswich flood victims Phillip and
Koula Hassid pursue a rival class action in the same court for
people who suffered pure economic loss, such as where property
values were depressed but direct property damage not sustained.

Lawyer for Mr Hassid, Michael Gillis, said potentially hundreds of
people were in this category.  He planned to place advertisements
seeking interest in the action in coming days.

Maurice Blackburn stopped pursuing this type of loss for its
clients in March 2016.

"We took a decision weighing up various things and whether it's
viable," said the firm's Ms Mawuli.

"It's a perfectly legitimate claim but to establish those claims -
- it's very difficult and complex."

Seqwater, the state government and Maurice Blackburn all raised
concerns at a court hearing last month that the Hassids' action
could delay proceedings for the other litigants.

"Our main priority is for our clients to have their day in court,"
Ms Mawuli said.

The main class-action claim is that Seqwater failed to release
enough water from Wivenhoe Dam in the early stages of the flood or
to take proper account of rainfall forecasts.  The Hassids plan to
use the same evidence to argue their case.

Seqwater said it was "confident that its management of the event,
and the actions taken by its flood engineers, will continue to be
shown to have significantly reduced the impact of the flood."


SEVENTY-SEVEN ENERGY: "Gael" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Mainard Gael, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Seventy-Seven Energy, Inc., Jerry L.
Winchester, Victor Danh, Andrew Axelrod, Douglas J. Wall, David
King, Edward J. Dipaolo and Steven Hinchman, Defendants, Case No.
2017-0266, (Del. Ch., April 7, 2017), seeks to enjoin,
preliminarily and permanently, the acquisition of Seventy-Seven by
Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc.  The suit further seeks damages, costs
of this action, including a reasonable allowance for the fees and
expenses of Plaintiff's attorneys and experts and such other
further relief for  breach of fiduciary duties.

On December 12, 2016, the Company announced that Patterson-UTI
Energy, Inc. will acquire Seventy-Seven Energy, Inc. (SSE) in
exchange for shares of newly-issued common stock wherein its
stockholders will receive 49,559,000 shares of Patterson-UTI
common stock. The transaction is valued at approximately $1.42
billion.

The complaint says Defendants failed to disclose material
information concerning the Company's financial projections for
years 2017 through 2020, thus leading the Plaintiffs to question
the basis of the merger amount.

SSE is an Oklahoma-based diversified oilfield services company,
providing well site services and equipment to U.S. land-based
exploration and production customers for unconventional extraction
of oil and natural gas. They provide drilling, pressure pumping,
and oilfield rental tools. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-5310

             - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Tel: (202) 524-4290


SHORE FUNDING: "Cunningham" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CRAIG CUNNINGHAM on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SHORE FUNDING
SOLUTIONS INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02080 (E.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order:

   a. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification; or
      alternatively;

   b. taking the motion under submission and deferring further
      activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to be
      set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23 scheduling order.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AlT1qyWK

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: 914 358 5345
          Facsimile: 212 571 0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com


SILVERSCRIPT INSURANCE: Class Action Seeks Medicare Beneficiaries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frier Levitt on April 10 announced a search for Medicare
beneficiaries with Part D coverage through SilverScript Insurance
Company ("SilverScript") that may have paid excessive copayments
for a possible class action lawsuit.  Medicare beneficiaries with
Part D benefits that pay more than $200 out of pocket for covered
medications may have claims against SilverScript for overpaying
for medications year after year and may be able to serve as a
class action representative.  Upon success, class action
representatives are not only compensated for their loss, but also
receive payment for their service as a class action
representative.

Medicare beneficiaries that participate in SilverScript may have
overpaid for the drug benefit copayment.  SilverScript, the
largest Medicare-approved Part D prescription drug plan provider,
is a wholly owned subsidiary of CVS Health, Inc., which also owns
and operates CVS Caremark, a Pharmacy Benefit Manager.
SilverScript calculates Medicare beneficiary out of pocket
copayments based in part on the amount of money that Caremark, who
processes prescription drug claims, pays to the participating
pharmacy at the point of sale.  Through utilization of Direct and
Indirect Remuneration Fees ("DIR Fees"), SilverScript and Caremark
may have inflated the initial costs of medication paid to the
pharmacy at the point of sale, only to reduce the amount paid to
pharmacies months later, well after patients have received their
medications.

The damage to Medicare beneficiaries occurs because SilverScript
does not re-calculate the Medicare beneficiaries' copayment and is
believed to not refund the excess copayment made by patients.
Patients paid a copayment at the point of sale based on a price
set by SilverScript and Caremark that may not have been accurate.
Patients may have paid hundreds or thousands of dollars more than
they should have over the course of a single year.  Frier Levitt
is looking to file a class action against SilverScript challenging
the over payment by patients.

Medicare beneficiaries with Part D coverage through SilverScript
who pay more than $200 out of pocket for covered medications are
encouraged to contact attorney Steven L. Bennet, Esq. at
sbennet@frierlevitt.com or (973) 618-1660. Beneficiaries have the
right to express concerns with their Part D coverage and doing so
does not put their coverage at risk.

                   About Frier Levitt, LLC

Frier Levitt -- http://www.FrierLevitt.com-- is a national
boutique healthcare law firm. Our 27 healthcare attorneys include
pharmacist-lawyers, class action attorneys, trial attorneys and
those whose practice concentrates in Medicare law.


SMUCKER FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Robin Hood Flour Recall
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a pair of Alberta-based law firms
say they've filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of people who
bought or consumed a popular brand of flour that's been linked to
illnesses from E. coli.

James H. Brown and Associates and Higgerty Law say they're seeking
damages from Smucker Foods of Canada Corp. following a national
recall of 10-kilogram bags of Robin Hood Original All Purpose
Flour.

A statement of claim says the representative plaintiff lives in
Victoria, B.C., and became so sick after eating cookie dough that
her kidneys began shutting down.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency issued a recall in Western
Canada for the flour late last month, and the Public Health Agency
of Canada says an outbreak of E. coli O121 has been linked to the
flour.

The health agency says there have been 26 cases of people being
infected with the bacteria in British Columbia, Saskatchewan,
Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador.

No deaths have been reported, but at least six people required
hospital care.


SNYDER'S-LANCE: June 21 Status Hearing in "Roxberry" IBO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Roxberry et al v. Snyders-Lance, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-02009 (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. John E Jones, III, entered
on April 13, 2017, a Scheduling Order providing that the Court
will conduct a status call in this matter on June 21 at 11:00 a.m.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs shall initiate the call to Chambers,
(717) 221-3986, with all counsel on the line and prepared to
proceed.

Snyder's-Lance, Inc. continues to defend against the case
captioned, Roxberry, et. al, v. S-L Distribution Company, LLC,
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On July 25, 2016, plaintiffs comprised of independent business
owners ("IBO") filed a putative class action against Snyder's-
Lance, Inc. and our distribution subsidiary, S-L Distribution
Company, Inc. in the Eastern District Court of Tennessee.  The
case was transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Case
No. 1:16-cv-02009) on October 3, 2016.  The lawsuit seeks
statewide class certification on behalf of a class comprised of
IBOs in Tennessee, and nationwide certification for the Federal
law collective action. The plaintiffs allege that they were
misclassified as independent contractors and should be considered
employees.

"We believe we have strong defenses to all the claims that have
been asserted against us.  At this time, no demand has been made,
and we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, from this lawsuit," the Company said.

Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation incorporated in
1926, is a branded snack food company with operations in North
America and Europe.


SNYDER'S-LANCE: Seeks to Dismiss or Transfer "Scheurer" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Scheurer, LLC v. S-L Distribution, Inc. Case No.
2:16-cv-08783 (D. N.J.), Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Class Action Complaint, and/or in the Alternative, Motion to
Transfer Venue and Motion to Strike remains pending.

The case is pending before the Hon. Madeline Cox Arleo.

Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that on December 8, 2016,
plaintiff served a putative class action on behalf of all
similarly situated independent business owners ("IBO") in New
Jersey against its distribution subsidiary, S-L Distribution
Company, LLC. Plaintiff is a former IBO whose distribution
agreement was terminated pursuant to the re-engineering and
buyback of routes in New Jersey in 2011, resulting from the merger
of Snyder's of Hanover, Inc. and Lance, Inc. The lawsuit seeks
statewide class certification on behalf of a class comprised of
IBOs in New Jersey for alleged violations of the New Jersey
Franchise Practices Act ("NJFPA") relative to various terminations
of the distributor agreement.

"We believe we have strong defenses to all the claims that have
been asserted against us. At this time, no demand has been made,
and we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, from this lawsuit," the Company said.

Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation incorporated in
1926, is a branded snack food company with operations in North
America and Europe.


SNYDER'S-LANCE: Merger-Related Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the court has granted a
stipulated order of dismissal of the Merger-related Litigation.

On November 10, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of Diamond Foods' stockholders in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware. The complaint names as defendants Diamond
Foods, the members of Diamond Foods' board of directors, Snyder's-
Lance, Shark Acquisition Sub I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Snyder's-Lance ("Merger Sub I") and
Shark Acquisition Sub II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Snyder's-Lance ("Merger
Sub II"). The complaint generally alleges, among other things,
that the members of Diamond Foods' board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Diamond Foods' stockholders in
connection with negotiating, entering into and approving the
merger agreement with Snyder's-Lance, Inc. The complaint
additionally alleges that Snyder's-Lance, Merger Sub I and Merger
Sub II aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaint sought injunctive relief, including the enjoinment of
the merger, certain other declaratory and equitable relief,
damages, costs and fees. An amended complaint was filed on
December 21, 2015. The amended complaint adds further allegations
related to the merger process and disclosures contained in the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by Snyder's-Lance on
November 25, 2015.

On January 15, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for expedited
proceedings requesting a preliminary injunction and expedited
discovery, which the Court denied on February 3, 2016. Plaintiff
also filed a books and records demand case in North Carolina,
which the court subsequently dismissed with prejudice.

On January 19, 2016, another action was filed in the court of
chancery in the state of Delaware similar to the above matter. On
October 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which modified some of plaintiff's allegations, including now
expressly seeking a quasi-appraisal remedy or rescissory damages.
Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on
December 22, 2016.

On February 3, 2017, plaintiffs moved to consolidate the two
Delaware cases, which defendants did not oppose, and which the
Court granted on February 3, 2017.

On February 24, 2017, the parties filed a stipulated proposed
order of dismissal, seeking voluntary dismissal of the Delaware
litigation with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs and without
prejudice as to the putative class. The court granted the
stipulated order of dismissal on February 27, 2017.

Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation incorporated in
1926, is a branded snack food company with operations in North
America and Europe.


SNYDER'S-LANCE: Accord in Calif. Labor Suit Has Preliminary OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the court has granted
preliminary approval of the settlement of a California Labor Code
Litigation.

Former employee Patricia Sparks filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Diamond Foods on November 25, 2015 in San
Francisco Superior Court alleging Diamond Foods' violation of the
California Labor Code by failing to include on wage statements the
start date of the pay period and by failing to include on wage
statements the name and address of the legal entity that is the
employer.  Plaintiff amended her complaint on January 4, 2016 to
add a claim for penalties under California's Private Attorneys
General Act based on the same underlying violations.  Diamond
Foods timely answered the First Amended Complaint on March 7,
2016.

The parties attended the initial case management conference on May
2, 2016 and a further case management conference occurred on
August 1, 2016.

"We accrued $8.3 million associated with this outstanding claim in
the Diamond Foods opening balance sheet as that represented our
best estimate of the probable liability at that time. We
determined such accrual by estimating the aggregate potential
penalties that we believed it was probable could be assessed under
the applicable California laws, which are strict liability
penalties," the Company said.

"On September 19, 2016, the parties to this litigation reached a
tentative settlement pursuant to which we have agreed to pay $0.7
million on a class wide basis. We signed a memorandum of
understanding reflecting this preliminary settlement amount. The
parties submitted a settlement agreement to the court and the
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. As a result,
we have recorded a measurement period adjustment to reduce the
opening balance sheet accrual. Accordingly this settlement amount
did not impact our Consolidated Statements of Income for the year
ended December 31, 2016."

Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation incorporated in
1926, is a branded snack food company with operations in North
America and Europe.


SNYDER'S-LANCE: Late July's Motion to Dismiss Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Late July's motion to
dismiss an amended complaint in the Evaporated Cane Juice
Litigation remains pending.

A putative class action suit was filed against Late July on
September 18, 2013, and is pending in the US District Court for
the Northern District of California. The action accuses Late July
of violating federal and state law by using the term "evaporated
cane juice" ("ECJ") in the ingredients list on its products'
labels. The plaintiffs' complaint alleges ECJ is not the common
and usual name for the ingredient at issue and is misleading. The
complaint attempts to state claims for violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law,
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and unjust enrichment.
Late July filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 27,
2013, based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine, lack of
standing, and failure to state a claim.

On May 22, 2014, the Court stayed the action, applying the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction, due to the FDA's ongoing
consideration of the issue of using the term ECJ on food labels.
On May 26, 2016, the FDA issued its guidance for industry on the
topic. As a result, the stay was lifted on July 22, 2016. On
August 31, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among
other things, relies on the FDA's recently issued guidance. Late
July filed a motion to dismiss such amended complaint, and a
hearing on that motion was held on February 16, 2017.

"At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, from this lawsuit," the Company said.

Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation incorporated in
1926, is a branded snack food company with operations in North
America and Europe.


SOHO SUSHI: "Zhao" Seeks Overtime Pay, Claims No Pay Stubs
----------------------------------------------------------
Kewei Zhao, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. Soho Sushi, Inc. d/b/a Soho Sushi, Yufita Tjhin and
Li Bin Cao, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02517 (S.D. N.Y., April
7, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Soho Sushi, Inc. operates Soho Sushi, a Japanese restaurant at 231
Sullivan Street, New York, NY 10012, where Kewei Zhao was employed
as a deliveryman. Defendants failed to keep full and accurate
records of Plaintiff's hours and wages, the complaint asserts.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 762-1324
      Fax: (718) 762-1342
      Email: johntroy@troypllc.com


SSE: Shareholder Files Class Action Over Patterson-UTI Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Patterson-UTI Energy said that Mainard Gael,
SSE stockholder, filed putative class action challenging
disclosures in connection with deal against SSE and SSE's board.

The company related complaint alleges that sse's board of
directors breached its fiduciary duties

The alleged omissions generally relate to certain financial
projections.

The complaint alleges the board failed to disclose in joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed in relation with deal certain allegedly
material information.


STANDARD INNOVATION: Settles We-Vibe Privacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Shane Olafson, Esq. -- solafson@lrrc.com -- of Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that the
Internet of Things (or "IoT") is a hot topic in privacy circles,
given its rapid expansion among everyday consumer products.
Broadly referring to Internet-connected-devices, the IoT
encompasses a variety of consumer goods, such as kitchen
appliances (smart ovens and refrigerators), home security, window
blinds, light bulbs, and lawn care equipment.  Many personal
devices are now connected as well, including toothbrushes, a smart
hairbrush that measures hair density and brushing habits, a pillow
that monitors snoring and analyzes sleeping habits, and even
sexual devices -- which brings us to the present story.

The company Standard Innovation Corp. sells a personal vibrator
product called the We-Vibe.  According to the class complaint: "To
fully operate the We-Vibe, users download Defendant's 'We-Connect'
application from the Apple App Store or the Google Play store and
install it on their smartphones. With We-Connect, users can 'pair'
their smartphone to the We-Vibe, allowing them -- and their
partners -- remote control over the vibrator's customizable
settings and features."  However, "[u]nbeknownst to its
customers . . . Defendant designed We-Connect to (i) collect and
record highly intimate and sensitive data regarding consumers'
personal We-Vibe use, including the date and time of each use and
the selected vibration settings, and (ii) transmit such usage
data -- along with the user's personal email address -- to its
servers in Canada." The plaintiffs also allege that the company
misrepresented the security of the app, as evidenced by two
hackers at the 2016 Def Con conference being able to hack into and
control someone else's device.  The proliferation of IoT hacking
has led some to suggest that a better name might be IoTTCBH, or
Internet of Things That Can Be Hacked.

As part of the settlement, in addition to monetary compensation
for the class, the company agreed to implement or change many of
its privacy practices.  Specifically, the company agreed to (1)
not collect email addresses through its We-Connect app, (2) update
its privacy notice to specifically disclose its data collection
and use practices, (3) provide users with a method to opt out of
their data being provided to third parties, (4) take various steps
to ensure that all users with the We-Connect app receive notice of
the company's privacy policies, and (5) purge certain consumer
privacy information already collected.

As more devices are interconnected, concerns over the security of
those devices and the data collection/use practices of IoT device
makers are growing.  The We-Vibe class action highlights the
importance of appropriate privacy policies and practices, as well
as technical device security.


STELLAR RECOVERY: "Salinas" Sues Over Illegal Collections Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosario Salinas, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Stellar Recovery, Inc., and Does
1-10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-
01961, (N.D. Fla., April 7, 2017), seeks actual and statutory
damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees and such other and
further relief for negligent violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Stellar Recovery, Inc. is debt collection company tasked to
collect a debt from the Plaintiff by use of the mails and
telephone. Defendant repeatedly called Plaintiff using an
automatic telephone dialling system despite Plaintiff's express
revocation of consent to be called. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Phone: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: 866-633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com
             mgeorge@toddflaw.com


STRATEGIC HVAC: "Barragan" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Rogelio Perez Barragan on behalf of himself individually, and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Strategic HVAC &
Insulation LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01090, (S.D. Tex.,
April 10, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, post-judgment interest on all
amounts awarded and all such other and further relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Barragan was an employee of Strategic HVAC & Insulation LLC at its
location in Houston, Texas, applying insulating materials to
ductwork. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
      THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
      3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
      Houston, TX 77054
      Phone: (832) 778-8182
      Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
      Email003A Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


SWEETWATER, FL: Conditional Class Cert. Sought in "Peneda" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JUAN M. RAMIREZ PENEDA, the Plaintiff, v.
CITY OF SWEETWATER, FLORIDA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
20067-UU (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an
order:

   a. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "current and former maintenance persons who worked for
      Defendant in the last three years and who were not paid
      overtime compensation for their hours worked over 40 each
      week;

   b. directing Defendant to produce, in an electronic readable
      format, to the undersigned counsel within 14 days of the
      Order granting this Motion a list containing the full
      names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and email
      addresses of putative class members who worked for
      Defendants between January 2014 and the present;

   c. authorizing the undersigned counsel to send initial notice,
      in both English and Spanish, to all individuals whose names
      appear on the list produced by the Defendants' counsel by
      first-class mail;

   d. directing Defendants to post at all of its business
      locations located within Florida, a copy of the initial
      notice in the form, in both English and Spanish;

   e. authorizing the undersigned counsel to send a follow-up
      notice, in both English and Spanish, to all individuals
      whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendants'
      counsel but who, by the 14th day prior to the close of the
      Court-approved notice period, have yet to opt in to the
      instant action;

   f. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
      produced by Defendants' counsel a total of 60 days from the
      date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to
      Become Opt-In Plaintiff form; and

   g. providing other and further relief as the Court deems just
      under the circumstances.

The case is a collective action to enforce the overtime provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was a non-exempt
maintenance person for Defendant from on or about May 5, 2001
through on or about September 14, 2016.

On January 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all others similarly-situated alleging that he and the
other non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant were not
properly paid for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Specifically, Defendant, in Plaintiff's paystubs, would classify
overtime compensation as regular other and pay out certain hours
worked over forty hours as regular time instead of time and a
half.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MboAp0aE

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rainier Regueiro, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anthony Joseph Perez, Esq.
          GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.
          4937 SW 74th Court No. 3
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: 305-553 3464
          Facsimile: 305.553 3031
          E-mail: ajperezlaw@gmail.com


SWISHER HYGIENE: Motions to Dismiss Amended Complaint Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swisher Hygiene Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, that the
Company is filing this Current Report on Form 8-K for the purpose
of updating its stockholders on events, through the date of this
report, relating to the civil suit filed against the Company,
certain of the Company's current and former officers and
directors, and Ecolab Inc. ("Ecolab") in the State of Illinois
action captioned, Paul Berger v. Swisher Hygiene Inc. et al. (Case
No. 2015 CH 13325), Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
Chancery Division (the "Berger litigation").

On November 17, 2016, the Court granted Defendants' motions to
dismiss the Berger litigation and granted Plaintiff leave to amend
its complaint with respect to claims against Ecolab.
On December 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against
Ecolab and the Company as a Nominal Defendant, captioned Paul
Berger on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Ecolab Inc. as Defendant, and Swisher Hygiene Inc. as Nominal
Defendant (Case No. 2015 CH 13325) (the "Amended Complaint"). In
the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a direct claim against
Ecolab, stating that it aided and abetted the Company's directors
in breaching their fiduciary duties by approving the sale of the
Company assets to Ecolab and issuing a misleading Proxy Statement.
In addition, Plaintiff asserts a derivative claim against Ecolab,
purportedly on behalf of the Company as nominal defendant, for
alleged fraudulent transfer of assets, arising out of the same
facts. Plaintiff seeks (1) a determination that the action is a
class action; (2) a declaration that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties and that Ecolab aided and abetted
such purported breaches of fiduciary duty; (3) rescission of the
transfer of assets; (4) avoidance of the transfer of assets
pursuant to the Fraudulent Transfers Act; (5) an award of damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and costs; and (6) the
grant of such other relief as the Court may find just and proper.

On February 10, 2017, Ecolab and the Company filed motions to
dismiss the Amended Complaint, which motions are currently
pending. Plaintiff's right to appeal the Court's adverse rulings
issued on November 17, 2016 are stayed until a final appealable
ruling on the motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint.


TESLA: Disputes Son Ji-chang's Sudden Acceleration Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
Topspeed reports that it's no secret that Tesla has been the
target of plenty of lawsuits over the last year or two.  In fact,
it seems that just about anyone who crashes their Model S or Model
X wants to blame Tesla. Musk was smart, however, and has equipped
each of Tesla's vehicles with a data recorder, which has proven
invaluable in protecting the company from people that seem to
forget how to drive.  Usually, it's someone saying autopilot
screwed up, but there are others that claim their vehicle
accelerated all on its own.  This guy from California, however,
really takes the cake.  Last year, this cat (Son Ji-chang) drove
his car through his garage and firmly lodged it right into his
living room.  He immediately pointed the finger at Tesla and
initiated yet another lawsuit -- one that's attempting to evolve
into class-action status.  He even used his wealth to launch a
media campaign to slander Tesla a bit.  His claim?

"The vehicle spontaneously began to accelerate at full power,
jerking forward and crashing through the interior wall of the
garage, destroying several wooden support beams in the wall and a
steel sewer pipe, among other things, and coming to rest in (his)
living room."

Well, the suit also names several other complaints that have been
reported to the NHTSA, a good number of which point to driver
error.  In other words, the driver hit the accelerator, and the
car did what it was supposed to do; Go.  And, in this specific
case, a third-party even reviewed the logs from one of these
alleged rogue cars and determined the same thing, so it's not
necessarily just Tesla trying to flip things around.  Well, the
people behind the most recent suit have changed their approach,
and instead of saying Tesla is responsible for this unintended
acceleration, they say that Tesla is responsible for not
preventing this unintended acceleration.  Basically, they say the
car should know that the driver accidentally hit the gas pedal and
ignore that input . . .

So, to put things simply, Son Ji-chang and a number of others, say
that Tesla is responsible for these "sudden acceleration"
accidents because it hasn't built a failsafe car.  Tesla vehicles
should be able to understand what the driver's intentions are and
prevent them from making mistakes -- or in Son Ji-chang's case --
stop them from creating a homemade drive-in.  The sudden
acceleration suit against Toyota was legitimate, to a certain
degree, as the floor mats of certain vehicles were found to hang
up on the accelerator.  But, in this situation, the suit is
claiming that Tesla is under obligation to build a "failsafe car."
Tesla disagrees:

"According to Plaintiffs, the purported defect is that Tesla's
vehicles are allegedly prone to sudden, unintended acceleration.
Plaintiffs allege that the sudden acceleration may be caused by
defects in various vehicle systems or by driver negligence, but
that, in any event, Tesla should have designed a failsafe system
to prevent it.  Tesla contends that each sudden acceleration
incident alleged in the FAC (First Amended Complaint) was the
result of driver error, denies that its cars are defective in any
way, and disputes that there is a legal duty to design a failsafe
car."

Is this really what the world is coming to? We pass off blame for
our own wrongdoings just to save a buck? Come on, people.  If you
accidentally floor the accelerator and smash into some shit,
that's your fault. You can't just push blame on the company that
made the car because you don't want to pay for your mistake. This
specific suit will next continue come May 1st in Santa Ana federal
court.  I can't wait to see what happens next.  Maybe the court
will rule against Son Ji-chang, and he'll suit the court for
hurting his feelings.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Illinois Court Narrows Claims in "Eul"
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ruben Castillo of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois granted in part Defendants'
motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) the case captioned, SHARON EUL et al., on behalf of
themselves and a class, Plaintiffs, v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15 C 7755. (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs in the putative class action allege that the Defendants
-- various debt holders, debt servicers, and law firms retained to
collect debt -- violated multiple provisions of the federal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Illinois Interest Act,
the Illinois Collection Agency Act, and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act in the course of their
attempts to collect on alleged student loan debt from the
Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are 19 individuals, mostly citizens of Illinois,
who all currently live in Illinois or at some relevant time in the
past lived in Illinois. All but one of them allege that they have
been sued in Cook County Circuit Court to collect on alleged
student loan debts, some because they were cosigners on the loans.
All the actions taken on behalf of the NCT entities against the
Plaintiffs were actually performed by a "servicing agent," either
Defendant NCO Financial Systems, Inc. (NCO) or its successor,
Defendant Transworld Systems (Transworld), or by attorneys
employed by these servicing agents.

The Defendants presently move to dismiss most Counts of the
Consolidated Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Defendants argue that the Court cannot credit
Plaintiffs' so-called "rent-a-charter" scheme as plausible,
because exhibits should trump allegations when they conflict and
the Plaintiffs' loan documents themselves. Defendants' second
argument is that, as assignees of the Plaintiffs' student loan
debts, they are permitted to charge and collect interest at the
same rate at the original lender. Defendants argue that Count III
fails to state a claim under the FDCPA because the allegedly
prohibited debt collection lawsuits were timely under the
applicable statute of limitations, which Defendants contend is 10
years.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 30, 2017 available
at https://is.gd/7CEggd from Leagle.com, Judge Castillo dismissed
as to Count III finding that Plaintiffs have not alleged any debt
collection lawsuits that were filed outside a 10-year limitations
period because Plaintiffs' student loan agreements constitute
"written contracts" such that a 10-year statute of limitations
applies.

Count VI is dismissed because Plaintiffs have no implied private
right of action under Section 9, they also have failed to state a
claim under Section 8a-1; Count VII is dismissed without prejudice
because Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege either intent
or proximate causation and therefore fail to state a claim under
the ICFA; Count X because Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim
under Section 1692e; Count XII because the Court is unable to
discern what, if any, factual allegations support the bare legal
conclusion that "Defendants violated" 225 ILL. COMP. STAT. 425/9;
and Count XIII because as a matter of law that the letters'
creditor identification was not false or misleading.

As to Count V the Court declines to dismiss because Defendants do
not offer any other arguments for why Plaintiffs fail to state a
Section 1692e claim; Count VIII because Plaintiffs do not dispute
that Section 2.03 of the ICAA applies to Blitt and WWR; Count IX
because Plaintiffs have stated a claim under Section 1692e(8); and
Count XI because Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged injury in fact
to confer Article III standing and have statutory standing to
pursue a violation of Section 2S of the ICFA.

Stephen Knox, Sr., et al. are represented by:

      Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
      Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
      Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
      James O. Latturner, Esq.
      EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
      20 South Clark Street
      Suite 1500
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312)739-4200

Transworld Systems, Inc., et al. are represented by David M.
Schultz, Esq. -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Todd Philip Stelter,
Esq. -- tstelter@hinshawlaw.com -- and -- Jason L. Santos, Esq. --
jsantos@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP -- James Kevin
Schultz, Esq. -- jschultz@sessions.legal -- Bryan C. Shartle, Esq.
-- bshartle@sessions.legal -- Daniel W. Pisani, Esq. --
dpisani@sessions.legal -- and -- Morgan Ian Marcus, Esq. --
mmarcus@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC

Blitt and Gaines, P.C., et al. are represented by James Kevin
Schultz, Esq. -- jschultz@sessions.legal -- Bryan C. Shartle, Esq.
-- bshartle@sessions.legal -- Daniel W. Pisani, Esq. --
dpisani@sessions.legal -- and -- Morgan Ian Marcus, Esq. --
mmarcus@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC


TRINET GROUP: Underwriters Seek to Dismiss Welgus Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Welgus v. Trinet Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:15-
cv-03625 (N.D. Cal.), a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint; and Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support
Thereof, were filed on April 17 by Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.,
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Jefferies LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co.,
LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, Wiliam Blair &
Company, LLC.

A hearing on the Motion is set for Sept. 14, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Beth Labson Freeman.

Responses are due by June 1 and replies are due by June 22.

Trinet Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in August 2015, Howard
Welgus, a purported stockholder filed a putative securities class
action lawsuit, Welgus v. TriNet Group, Inc. et. al., under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the United States District
Court (the Court) for the Northern District of California. The
complaint was later amended in April 2016.

The Company said, "The amended complaint generally alleges that
TriNet and the other defendants caused damage to purchasers of our
stock by misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose facts
generally pertaining to alleged trends affecting health insurance
and workers' compensation claims. The other defendants include
certain of our officers and directors, General Atlantic, LLC, a
former significant shareholder, and the underwriters of our IPO."

"n November 2016, the parties appeared at a hearing before the
Court on our motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its
entirety.

"In January 2017, the Court issued an order granting TriNet's and
the other defendants' motions to dismiss. The Court dismissed the
plaintiff's claims in part with prejudice and in part without. As
a result, the Court has given the plaintiff until March 3, 2017 to
file a second amended complaint with respect to claims not
dismissed with prejudice.

"If the plaintiff chooses not to file a second amended complaint,
the case will be dismissed with prejudice and a final judgment
will be entered. We are unable to reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation."

TriNet is a leading provider of human resources (HR) solutions for
small to midsize businesses (SMBs).


U.S. IMMIGRATION: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Continued
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled Rony Chavez Aguilar, the Plaintiff, v. U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Chicago Field Office, et al., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02296 (N.D. Ill.), generally
continuing the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 6, 2017,
as discussed on the record, before any discovery requests are
served, a motion shall be filed and noticed up for presentment.
The June 15, 2017 status hearing is to stand. If Mr. Weintraub
would like to, he may appear by phone for status hearings, by
e-mailing the Courtroom Deputy Carolyn_Hoesly@ilnd.uscourts.gov
(cc counsel of record) a few days in advance.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FS3T6cFU


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Mulled Over Manipulative System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Catriona Harvey-Jenner, writing for Cosmopolitan.com, reports that
Uber can't catch a break.  If the ride-hailing app isn't being
inundated with accusations of its drivers sexually assaulting
passengers, then its former employees are making claims about
sexual harassment and gender bias in the workplace. And now
there's this: allegations that Uber's technology sneakily defrauds
both passengers and drivers in order to make both parties lose out
in the financial stakes.

According to Ars Technica, a class-action lawsuit against Uber has
been proposed over the manipulative system that apparently short-
changes riders and drivers when it comes to upfront fare
calculations (a feature which isn't yet available in the UK).  The
system apparently works as follows: passengers are shown an
upfront ride fare that's higher than it should be because it
calculates a "slower and longer route" compared to the one the
driver is shown.

Drivers, therefore, are shown a lower fare for the quicker, more
efficient route which is the one ultimately paid out by the app.
If this is true, Uber is effectively playing drivers and
passengers off against one another; we're made to pay a higher
price for an indirect route, while drivers aren't earning
commission from that higher fare.  They're only making money off
the quicker, lower-priced route.

Not cool, Uber, not cool.

The lawsuit has allegedly been filed by a driver based in LA, and
the legal documents accuse Uber of having "deliberately
manipulated the navigation data used in determining the fare
amount paid by its users and the amount reported and paid to its
drivers."

It goes on to label the sneaky technology as a "well-planned
scheme to deceive drivers and users", before calling it
"shocking", "methodical", and "extensive".

The legal case claims Uber's programme acts as a "breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and unfair competition,"
according to Ars Technica.  If courts find against Uber in this
instance, not only could it lead to a potentially massive payout
in miscalculated fares, but also the prospect of an entire
overhaul of its technology. Ouch.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Software Engineer's Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California denied
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings in
the case captioned, H. McELRATH, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-07241-JSC (N.D. Cal.), pending the
Supreme Court's ruling of Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d
975 (9th Cir 2016).

In mid-2014, Plaintiff Lenza H. McElrath was recruited by Uber
Technologies, Inc., and another technology company for employment
as a software engineer. Relying primarily on Uber's offer to
provide Plaintiff with 20,000 Incentive Stock Options (ISO),
Plaintiff joined Uber. Plaintiff subsequently entered into an
Employment Agreement with Uber. Among other things, the Agreement
promised Plaintiff 20,000 ISOs "to the maximum extent allowed by
the tax code" and that an ISO-qualifying exercise schedule would
apply."

The Employment Agreement also included an Offer Letter which
required Plaintiff to sign the Employment Agreement, and noted
that he must agree that all disputes relating to his employment
would be fully and finally resolved by binding arbitration.

Plaintiff filed an action against Uber in San Francisco Superior
Court, alleging claims under the Private Attorney General Act
(PAGA), as well as two claims of fraud. Plaintiff later amended
the state court complaint to allege only a PAGA claim. On February
6, 2017, upon the parties' request, the state action was stayed
pending final judgment in the action or further order of the state
court.

Seven months after filing suit in state court, Plaintiff filed
this putative class action in this Court alleging six claims for
relief under California law. All the claims are premised on
Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant represented to Plaintiff and
the putative class that they would receive 20,000 ISO stocks, but
most of what they were given were NSO.

Defendant moves to compel arbitration seeking to enforce the ADR
Agreement and class action waiver. Plaintiff, for his part, urges
that the Agreement prohibits him from engaging in concerted
activity and is unenforceable under Morris v. Ernst & Young, 834
F.3d 975 (9th. Cir. 2016).

In her Order dated March 30, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/5nTwBu from Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Corley held
that the entire arbitration Agreement is unenforceable because
Morris action bars the relief Uber seeks.  A stay of proceedings
until the Supreme Court resolves Morris is appropriate because the
majority of Landis factors weigh in favor of granting a stay, and
the issue before the Supreme Court is central to the issue in the
instant case.

A case management conference is set on December 7, 2017 at 1:30
p.m.

Lenza H. McElrath, III is represented by Brian Samuel Clayton
Conlon, Esq. -- bsc@phillaw.com -- Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq. --
nac@phillaw.com -- and -- Randy Scott Erlewine, Esq. --
rse@phillaw.com -- PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP

Uber Technologies, Inc. is represented by Michelle T. Ton, Esq. --
mton@cooley.com -- and -- Patrick Edward Gibbs, Esq. --
pgibbs@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP


UNIQUE BEVERAGE: Plaintiff's Attorney Files Motion for Sanctions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Lye, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit over coconut water has resulted in the plaintiff's
attorney filing a motion for sanctions after being accused of
using the media to strengthen his position.

A class action lawsuit was filed on March 9 in the U.S. District
Court in the District of Oregon against Unique Beverage Co.,
claiming it was falsely advertising a coconut beverage that
contained no coconut.  The plaintiff, Vicky Silva, alleged she
suffered damages after purchasing the product.

On March 14, the attorneys for the company wrote a letter that
accused the plaintiff of releasing details of the case to the
media.  It called into question how such a move violated both the
Oregon and California Rule of Professional Conduct.

"There is no question that your intention in doing so was to
prejudice Unique's ability to defend against your unfounded
allegations.  Frankly, it's not a noble way for you to begin this
lawsuit in Oregon," Joe Hochman of Hochman Legal Group wrote.

Mr. Hochman also advised that there was to be no contact made with
Unique Beverages or its personnel but rather that any
communication be directed to the Hochman law firm.

Plaintiff's lawyer, Michael Fuller, filed a motion for sanctions
on March 21, requesting to be reimbursed for the cost of hiring an
independent ethics counsel to handle the complaint of the letter.

In a court document, Mr. Fuller states that there was no contact
made with the media following the filing of the complaint on March
9.

"Defendant's March 14 letter had no basis or justification in fact
or law.  The letter was an intentional bad faith attempt to
threaten plaintiff's counsel, attack the professionalism and
ethics of plaintiff's counsel, gain leverage in the litigation,
and chill plaintiff's speech in the future," Mr. Fuller wrote to
the court.

In addition Mr. Fuller detailed his attempts to contact
Mr. Hochman through voice messages and email but indicated
Mr. Hochman had not responded and therefore showing a willful
refusal to confer.

Ms. Silva has requested a trial by jury and seeks actual,
statutory, punitive damages, interest and reimbursement for legal
fees.


UNIT CORP: Class Certification Issues in Panola Case Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that there is no timetable
for when the court will issue its ruling on class certification
issues in the case, Panola Independent School District No. 4, et
al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of
Latimer County, Oklahoma.

The Company said, "Panola Independent School District No. 4,
Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine
Pate, Juanita Golightly, Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy
are the Plaintiffs in this case and are royalty owners in oil and
gas drilling and spacing units for which the company's exploration
segment distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is
that the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty
obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing
related fees. Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class
action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from us for our
Oklahoma production."

"We have asserted several defenses including that the deductions
are permitted under Oklahoma law. We have also asserted that the
case should not be tried as a class action due to the materially
different circumstances that determine what, if any, deductions
are taken for each lease.

"On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order
certifying the class. On May 11, 2012 the court of civil appeals
reversed the trial court's order certifying the class. The
Plaintiffs petitioned the supreme court for certiorari and on
October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied.

"On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a second request to
certify a class of royalty owners that was slightly smaller than
their first attempt. Since then, the Plaintiffs have further
amended their proposed class to just include royalty owners
entitled to royalties under certain leases located in Latimer, Le
Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma.

"In July 2014, a second class certification hearing was held
where, in addition to the defenses described above, we argued that
the amended class definition is still deficient under the court of
civil appeals opinion reversing the initial class certification.
Closing arguments were held on December 2, 2014. There is no
timetable for when the court will issue its ruling. The merits of
Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while class certification
issues are pending."

Unit Corporation was founded in 1963 as an oil and natural gas
contract drilling company.  Today, in addition to drilling
operations, it has operations in the exploration and production
and mid-stream areas.


UNITED KINGDOM: Post Office Could Face Suit by Subpostmasters
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Ratcliff at the Guardian reports that more than 1,000
subpostmasters who claim they were wrongly accused of theft or
false accounting could join a class action against the Post Office
to clear their names.

The case could result in a payout of tens of millions to the
subpostmasters, who say that a faulty IT system led to accounting
shortfalls. Many lost their jobs and were forced to pay back
thousands of pounds that had gone missing from their branches,
while some were given prison sentences.

The legal firm Freeths, which is leading the action, said hundreds
of current and former subpostmasters had come forward since a
group litigation order was granted in January, and that many more
might do so before the deadline of 26 July.

"Our claim goes back to 1999, the year when the Horizon IT system
was installed. There are thousands and thousands of subpostmasters
out there who may be entitled to join the group claim . . . the
potential pool of claimants is very significant, but we just don't
know how many people will come forward over the next few months,"
said James Hartley, a partner with Freeths.

The claimant group says that the Post Office failed in its legal
duty because it held subpostmasters responsible for financial
losses before properly investigating shortfalls and failed to
inform individuals that their cases were not isolated incidents.
It is also claimed that Post Office personnel harassed the
subpostmasters involved -- alleged incidents include Post Office
employers acting aggressively while interrogating subpostmasters,
and searching individuals' homes. A review by forensic accountants
Second Sight, published in 2015, found the Post Office had failed
to investigate irregularities at sub-post offices before launching
civil and criminal inquiries.
Advertisement

Alan Bates, who set up the campaign group Justice for
Subpostmasters Alliance after his contract with the Post Office
ended in 2003, hoped the case would bring the Post Office to
account. "We want to expose the truth. They've had more than one
opportunity to come forward and put their hands up and say 'look,
we know there's things that we've not got right', but we're going
to have to do that through the courts. We just want it known how
badly the Post Office has treated people. They've ruined lives the
length and breadth of this country. It's not just one person --
the subpostmaster -- who's affected, it's whole families."

Scott Darlington, who ran a Post Office in Alderley Edge,
Cheshire, received a suspended prison sentence, 120 hours'
community service and a GBP410 fine after he was convicted of
false accounting. He first started noticing problems with Horizon
when it reported that he was GBP1,700 down on stamps. He reported
the shortfall to the Post Office and was made to repay the money.
"I just thought something will come back -- this is far too much
for this to be some kind of accounting error." Six months later he
faced a GBP44,000 shortfall and was accused of false accounting.
"I can't really tell you how bad it's been," he said. "My whole
life has been turned upside down. Once you have a criminal record,
for a start, doing 120 hours of community service that took six
months because I was only allowed to do it on a Friday. I was
signing on, I was getting housing benefit. I'd been earning GBP35k
a year up until this point. I couldn't get a job for three-and-a-
half years."

Parallel to the group litigation order, the Criminal Cases Review
Commission is looking at more than 30 cases where subpostmasters
received convictions to decide if some were unsafe. If so, they
will be referred to the appeal court and could be overturned.
Tracey Merritt, who was accused by auditors of theft and false
accounting at her branch in Yetminster -- though they have since
dropped the charges -- said the Post Office had failed to provide
adequate training in Horizon or to give any support when problems
occurred. Merritt lost her post office and shop, and faced hefty
solicitors' fees and abuse from some members of the community. She
wants her name cleared.

The Post Office said in a statement: "The Post Office welcomes the
group litigation order as offering the best opportunity for the
matters in dispute to be heard and resolved. We will not otherwise
comment on litigation while it is ongoing. We continue to have
confidence in the Horizon system, which has around 78,000 users
across 11,600 branches nationwide to process six million
transactions a day."


UNITED STATES: ACLU Advises Against ICE Enforcement Agreements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mankato Free Press reports that there is one thing worse than a
bad policy, and that's unfair enforcement of a bad policy.

That's the case with the Trump administration's recent immigration
detainer policy, which coerces and pressures local sheriffs to
detain suspects in illegal immigration cases beyond what is
legally defensible.  Attorney General Jeff Sessions adds insult to
injury by producing a weekly list of sheriff's offices who are not
standing in line with an overreaching policy.

An in-depth report by The Free Press showed Blue Earth and
Nicollet county sheriffs and the Mankato Police department have a
policy of "Don't arrest, do assist" and "Don't stop, don't ask."

Blue Earth County Sheriff Brad Peterson and Nicollet County
Sheriff Dave Lange say they cooperate with Immigration and Customs
Enforcement authorities, but they're not obligated to do the ICE's
work.  The sheriffs and Mankato Police don't ask about immigration
status as a matter of routine.  If they "discover" a person is in
the country illegally, they are obligated to notify ICE and that's
what they do.

Mankato Public Safety Director Todd Miller says his department
doesn't stop people just to ask their immigration status. They
also don't ask victims or witnesses to a crime about their
citizenship status.  Mr. Peterson said the sheriff's office does
not notify ICE even though they may suspect a tipster, witness or
victim might not be a citizen.

The sheriff's department's first responsibility, he said, is to
ensure the community's safety, and that may be hampered if victims
and witnesses are afraid to come forward when a crime has been
committed.

That policy will likely rile those with a narrow view of a complex
immigration law and the duties of law enforcement, but it's a
common sense approach that squares with the law.

In fact, court cases in New Mexico and Oregon make local
authorities liable for detaining suspects after they would be
released on a local charge.  In response to the verdict in a New
Mexico class action case, the jail was found to be illegally
holding the ICE suspects and the court awarded them a financial
settlement.

The Minnesota Sheriffs Association sent out an advisory letter in
response to the case, letting sheriff's offices know of the
consequences of these actions, though the association offered no
advice.

The American Civil Liberties Union has advised sheriff's offices
and others to reject ICE detainer requests and says they risk more
by honoring them.  The ACLU also advises sheriff's offices to
avoid enforcement agreements with ICE, which have been encouraged.

Local authorities have taken the right approach to these legally
suspect ICE practices.  They are fulfilling all their legal
obligations of cooperation, but are not spending local time and
resources on the job that should be done by the federal
government.


UNITED STATES: Travel Ban Violates Constitution, ACLU Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Yeganeh Torbati and Mica Rosenberg at Reuters report that Internal
State Department instructions to implement President Donald
Trump's temporary travel ban on citizens of six Muslim-majority
nations help demonstrate that the ban violates the constitution,
the American Civil Liberties Union argued in court filings late on
April 6.

The ACLU made the argument as part of its lawsuit in federal court
in the Northern District of California on behalf of three student
visa holders against Trump's March 6 executive order barring
travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from
entering the United States for 90 days and refugees for four
months. The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, says the
order discriminates against Muslims.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson issued instructions to
implement Trump's order in a series of four cables to consular
officers worldwide last month, which were first revealed by
Reuters.

The ACLU pointed to language from one of the cables that directs
consular officers to assess whether applicants from the six
countries "found otherwise eligible" for U.S. visas could still be
denied visas based on Trump's order. The ACLU said the guidance
"amounts to an unconstitutional amendment of existing law."
Tillerson issued the cable on March 10, and followed it with
another set of instructions on March 15, the day before the ban
was supposed to go into effect. After federal courts blocked the
central tenets of Trump's order, Tillerson issued two other cables
that rescinded many of his previous instructions but left some
tighter visa vetting procedures in place.

A State Department official declined to comment on the litigation
or the cables. The Department of Justice also declined to comment.
The Trump administration has said that the travel ban and
increased screening of foreigners are crucial to protecting the
United States from terrorist attacks. The government is arguing in
court that the president has broad authority under the law to make
immigration decisions when there are concerns about national
security.

The March executive order replaced a more sweeping travel ban that
Trump signed on Jan. 27, which sparked chaos and protests at
airports and was challenged by more than two dozen lawsuits. The
original ban had covered citizens of Iraq, as well as the six
countries also included in the revised ban. Iraq was dropped from
the revised order, as was an indefinite ban on all refugees from
Syria.

The revised ban aimed to overcome legal hurdles by excluding legal
permanent residents and allowing for waivers for people with ties
to the United States. The ACLU, in its claims that the order
discriminates against Muslims, points to calls by Trump on the
campaign trail for a "Muslim ban" and to a speech he made last
month calling the new ban a "watered-down" version of the first.


VCA INC: Seeks to Prevent Duran from Pursuing PAGA Action
---------------------------------------------------------
VCA Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that the Company's motion to prevent
Jorge Duran from pursuing his PAGA action remains pending before
the court.

The Company said, "On May 29, 2013, a former veterinary assistant
at one of our animal hospitals filed a purported class action
lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, titled Jorge Duran vs.
VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc., et. al. The lawsuit seeks to assert
claims on behalf of current and former veterinary assistants
employed by us in California, and alleges, among other
allegations, that we improperly failed to pay regular and overtime
wages, improperly failed to provide proper meal and rest periods,
and engaged in unfair business practices. The lawsuit seeks
damages, statutory penalties, and other relief, including
attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Duran moved to certify a meal
period premium class, a rest period premium class and a class
under California's Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et
seq., on January 9, 2014.

"On May 7, 2014, we obtained partial summary judgment, dismissing
four of eight claims of the complaint, including the claims for
failure to pay regular and overtime wages. On June 24, 2015, the
Court denied Plaintiff's Motion.

"The plaintiff continues to have a Private Attorney Generals Act
("PAGA") claim. On or about January 10, 2017, VCA filed a motion
to prevent Duran from pursuing his PAGA action. That motion is
currently pending before the court.

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

VCA is a national animal healthcare company operating in the
United States and Canada.  It provides veterinary services and
diagnostic testing to support veterinary care, and sells
diagnostic imaging equipment and other medical technology products
and related services to the veterinary market.


VCA INC: Discovery Underway in "Bradsbery and Brakensiek" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action lawsuit by La Kimba
Bradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek, VCA Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

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

"In September 2014, the court issued an order staying the La Kimba
Bradsbery lawsuit. On or about August 23, 2016, the Court lifted
the stay and discovery is proceeding.

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

VCA is a national animal healthcare company operating in the
United States and Canada.  It provides veterinary services and
diagnostic testing to support veterinary care, and sells
diagnostic imaging equipment and other medical technology products
and related services to the veterinary market.


VCA INC: Appeal in "Graham" Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Defendants' appeal related to the class action lawsuit by Tony M.
Graham remains pending, VCA Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On March 12, 2014, an individual client who
purchased goods and services from one of our animal hospitals
filed a purported class action lawsuit against us in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
titled Tony M. Graham vs. VCA Antech, Inc. and VCA Animal
Hospitals, Inc. The lawsuit sought to assert claims on behalf of
the plaintiff and other individuals who purchased similar goods
and services from our animal hospitals and alleged, among other
allegations, that we improperly charged such individuals for
"biohazard waste management" in connection with the services
performed. The lawsuit sought compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, and other relief, including attorneys' fees
and costs. VCA successfully had the venue transferred to the
Southern District of California. Plaintiffs filed their motion for
class certification on February 12, 2016."

"On May 16, 2016, VCA filed its opposition to plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. On June 10, 2016, VCA filed a motion for
summary judgment as to all of plaintiffs' individual claims. The
Honorable Christina Snyder issued her decision on September 12,
2016, granting Defendants' summary judgment motion and denying
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot. On October 13,
2016, Defendants filed a Notice to Appeal.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

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

VCA is a national animal healthcare company operating in the
United States and Canada.  It provides veterinary services and
diagnostic testing to support veterinary care, and sells
diagnostic imaging equipment and other medical technology products
and related services to the veterinary market.


VCA INC: Judge Bernal to Hear "Moran" Suit over Mars Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, Frances Moran v. VCA Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01502
(C.D. Cal.), has been from Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian
and Judge R. Gary Klausner to Judge Jesus G. Bernal and Magistrate
Judge Sheri Pym for all further proceedings.

VCA Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit related to its
merger with Mars Incorporated, VCA said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

VCA said, "On January 7, 2017, we entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with MMI Holdings, Inc.
("Acquiror"), Venice Merger Sub Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Acquiror ("Merger Sub"), and, solely for purposes of Section 9.15
of the Merger Agreement, Mars, Incorporated ("Mars"), pursuant to
which, among other things, at the closing of the merger, we will
become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Acquiror (the "Merger")."

"Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger
Agreement, two putative stockholder class action complaints were
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California relating to the proposed Merger with Mars: (1) Hight
vs. VCA Inc., et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-00289, filed February 15,
2017, which named the Company, the Company's Board of Directors,
Mars, Merger Sub and Acquiror, as defendants, and which alleges,
among other allegations, that (a) the consideration to be paid to
the Company's stockholders in connection with the proposed Merger
is inadequate, (b) the Company's Board of Directors and management
have a conflict of interest due to continued employment and/or
change in control payments, (c) the proposed Merger contains deal
protection devices that preclude other bidders from making
successful competing offers for the Company, and (d) the
disclosures included in the proxy statement filed by the Company
contain materially false or misleading statements or omissions;
and (2) Moran vs. VCA Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01502, filed
February 23, 2017, which named the Company and the Company's Board
of Directors as defendants, and which alleges, among other
allegations, that the disclosures included in the proxy statement
filed by the Company contain materially false or misleading
statements or omissions. Each of the actions assert claims under
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

"The actions seek, among other things, (a) to enjoin the
defendants from proceeding with the shareholder vote on the Merger
or completing the Merger on the agreed upon terms, (b) rescission
of the Merger or an award of rescissory damages, to the extent the
proposed Merger has already been consummated, and (c) an award of
plaintiff's costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and
other equitable relief as the court deems proper.

"The Company believes that the actions are without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend against all claims asserted."

VCA is a national animal healthcare company operating in the
United States and Canada.  It provides veterinary services and
diagnostic testing to support veterinary care, and sells
diagnostic imaging equipment and other medical technology products
and related services to the veterinary market.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Class Suit by Merkin & Smith, et al. Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit by Merkin & Smith, et als. remains pending,
Vonage Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law
by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees. On
October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On November 26, 2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the
Complaint. On December 4, 2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration, which the Court denied on February 4, 2014.

On March 5, 2014, Vonage appealed that decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 26, 2014,
the district court proceedings were stayed pending the appeal.

On February 29, 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district
court's ruling and remanded with instructions to grant the motion
to compel arbitration.

On March 22, 2016, Merkin and Smith filed a petition for
rehearing. On May 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its February
29, 2016 decision and issued a new order reversing the district
court's order and remanded with instructions to compel
arbitration. The Ninth Circuit also declared as moot the petition
for rehearing.

On June 27, 2016, the lower court stayed the case pending
arbitration. A joint status report was filed with the District
Court on December 23, 2016.

Vonage is a provider of cloud communications services for
businesses and consumers.


WASHINGTON: Faces Suit Over Driver's Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Nina Culver at Spokesman reports that a Spokane woman has filed a
lawsuit against the Washington State Patrol Chief John Bastiste,
alleging that the department's practice of selling unredacted
accident reports is a violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection
Act.

The act forbids the release of personal information contained in
motor vehicle records without consent. The WSP reports are
automatically filled in electronically with information from motor
vehicle records.

Jade Wilcox was in a car accident on July 9, 2016. Only five days
later she received a letter from the law office of Craig Swapp in
an attempt to solicit her business, according to the lawsuit filed
by Spokane attorney Jim Sweetser.

"This is a common and routine sale of DPPA-protected personal
information," the lawsuit states. Attorneys, chiropractors and
others obtain WSP collision reports for solicitation and their own
personal profit, it said.

Swapp buys hundreds of accident reports in bulk every month and
uses them to contact people offering his services, the lawsuit
states. Wilcox's report was one of the reports his company
purchased.

The lawsuit filed in federal court, which Sweetser hopes will
become a class action, seeks USD2,500 per violation of the DPPA
plus punitive damages. The suit also seeks an immediate injunction
barring the public sale of accident reports by the WSP.


WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: Race Discrimination Class Action OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahlering, Esq., Alex Karasik, Esq., Gerald Maatman, Jr.,
Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that
one of the hottest areas in workplace class actions involves
criminal background checks used by employers.  On one end of the
spectrum, employers want to be sure they are not subjecting their
businesses, employees, and clients to any potential criminal
conduct by their own workers.  On the other hand, many prospective
employees with criminal backgrounds may have been adequately
rehabilitated through the criminal justice system and merely need
an opportunity to prove they can be counted on as an employee.  In
Little v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, No. 14-
1289, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48637 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2017),
Plaintiffs alleged that a criminal background check policy used by
the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ("WMATA") to
screen candidates and employees was facially neutral, but had a
disparate impact on African-Americans.  After the Plaintiffs moved
for class certification , Judge Collyer of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia granted Plaintiffs' motion in part
and certified three classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and
23(c)(4), finding that Plaintiffs had satisfied Rule 23's
requirements with respect to liability and the availability of
injunctive or other declaratory relief, but that the proposed
classes failed to meet the predominance requirement of Rule
23(b)(3) because the case involved "more than just the individual
determination of damages."  Id. at *65.

The Little ruling puts employers on notice that even if their
workforce is predominately made up by one protected class, their
criminal background policies can still be challenged as having a
disparate impact on that class for purposes of class
certification.

Case Background

WMATA, the primary public transit agency for the Washington D.C.
metropolitan region, adopted its Policy 7.2.3 to govern how and
when individuals with criminal convictions can obtain or continue
employment with WMATA and its contractors and sub-contractors.
Id. at *4-5.  Plaintiffs alleged that although the policy was
facially neutral, it had a disparate impact on African-Americans.
WMATA argued that the policy was adopted as a business necessity.
Id. at *6.  Further, WMATA  argued that the make-up of its
employee and contractor workforce, which included 12,000
individuals, was 75% African-American, thus demonstrating that no
discrimination occurred.

Plaintiffs moved for certification of a hybrid Rule 23(b)(2) and
Rule 23(b)(3) class, seeking both injunctive and individual
monetary damages for the alleged discriminatory policy.  Id. at
*16.  Alternatively, if the Court determined monetary damages were
not suitable for class-wide determination, Plaintiffs proposed
certification under Rule 23(b)(2) for liability and injunctive
relief determinations and the application for Rule 23(c)(4) to
allow the question of liability to be answered on a class-wide
basis (but with individual hearings on damages owed to each
specific class member).

The Court's Decision

The Court held that certification was proper under Rule 23(b)(2)
and Rule 23(c)(4) and certified three classes for a determination
of liability and injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2), but
withheld any individual damages determinations.  Id. at *46.
Beginning with its Rule 23(a) analysis, the Court first noted that
as WMATA did not dispute Plaintiffs' assertion that the overall
class included over 1,000 individuals, and each sub-class included
at least 200, the Court found that Plaintiffs satisfied the
numerosity requirement.  Further, the Court determined that
Plaintiffs satisfied the commonality requirement since the policy
at issue was mandated for non-discretionary application to all
hiring decisions regard the class members, regardless of whether
the candidates applied for positions with different contractors,
sub-contractors, or directly with the WMATA.  Id. at *50.
Regarding typicality, the Court concluded that the class
representatives' claims were typical of the class as they
addressed each part of the policy with the exception of one policy
appendix, for which Plaintiffs did not present a class
representative.  Finally, regarding adequacy, the Court rejected
WMATA's argument that the proposed named Plaintiffs were
inadequate because they lacked standing, noting the merits of
their allegations were not to be considered as part of the class
certification calculus.  Id. at *56-57.

Next, the Court analyzed Plaintiffs' motion for certification of a
hybrid Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) class.  WMATA argued that
Plaintiffs failed to identify which parts of Policy 7.2.3 produced
a disparate impact, and their failure to identify the particular
challenged employment practice prohibited certification.  Noting
that each appendix to the policy constituted a separate employment
practice, and that Plaintiffs identified three appendices to the
policy that allegedly had a disparate impact on African-Americans,
the Court found that Plaintiffs satisfied their burden under Rule
23(b)(2).  Id. at *59-60.

However, the Court held that Plaintiffs failed to meet the
predominance requirement under Rule 23(b)(3) and therefore refused
to certify the class for monetary damages.  Id. at *65-66.
Specifically, the Court reasoned that the case involved "more than
just the individual determination of damages" -- namely, the trier
of fact must also determine, for each individual class member,
whether that class member was not hired or fired due to the Policy
7.2.3., or for some other reason.  Accordingly, the Court granted
in part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified
three classes under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(c)(4) with respect
to liability and the availability of injunctive relief.

Implications For Employers

This ruling illustrates that even if a majority of an employer's
workforce is part of a protected class, an employer's policies
potential can still be considered to have a disparate impact on
that class for purposes of Rule 23 class certification.
Plaintiffs will likely use this ruling in subsequent motions for
class certification in class actions involving the disparate
impact of criminal background policies.  As such, employers should
be cognizant of the effect of its policies, and continue to ensure
they are neutrally applied.


WELLS FARGO: Former Executives Criticized in Fake Accounts Probe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Sweet, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
problems at Wells Fargo and its overly aggressive sales culture
date back at least 15 years, and management had little interest in
dealing with the issue until it spiraled out of control resulting
in millions of accounts being opened fraudulently, according to an
investigation by the company's board of directors.

The bank's board also clawed back another $75 million in pay from
two former executives, CEO John Stumpf and community bank
executive Carrie Tolstedt, saying both executives dragged their
feet for years regarding problems at the second-largest U.S. bank.
Both were ultimately unwilling to accept criticism that the bank's
sales-focused business model was failing.

The 110-page report has been in the works since September, when
Wells acknowledged that its employees opened up to 2 million
checking and credit card accounts without customers'
authorization.  Trying to meet unnaturally high sales goals, Wells
employees even created phony email addresses to sign customers up
for online banking services.

"(Wells' management) created pressure on employees to sell
unwanted or unneeded products to customers and, in some cases, to
open unauthorized accounts," the board said in its report.

Many current and former employees have talked of intense and
constant pressure from managers to sell and open accounts, and
some said it pushed them into unethical behavior.  The April 10
report backs up those employees' stories.

"It was common to blame employees who violated Wells Fargo's rules
without analyzing what caused or motivated them to do so . . . (or
determine) whether there were responsible individuals, who while
they might have no directed the specific misconduct, contributed
to the environment (that caused it)," the board said.

The report also says that problems in the bank's sales culture
date back to at least 2002, far earlier than what the bank had
previously said.  And that Mr. Stumpf knew about sales problems at
a branch in Colorado since at least that year.

Wells Fargo's CEO, Tim Sloan, said in a conference call with
reporters it was "frustrating" to hear that the bank may have had
sales problems dating back so long ago.

The bank has already paid $185 million in fines to federal and
local authorities and settled a $110 million class-action lawsuit.
The scandal also resulted in the abrupt retirement last October of
Mr. Stumpf, not long after he underwent blistering questioning
from congressional panels. The bank remains under investigation in
several states and by federal authorities.

The board's report recommended that Mr. Stumpf and Ms. Tolstedt
have more of their compensation clawed back for their negligence
and poor management.  Ms. Tolstedt will lose $47.3 million in
stock options, on top of $19 million the board had already clawed
back.  Mr. Stumpf will lose an additional $28 million in
compensation, on top of the $41 million the board already clawed
back.  Along with the millions clawed back from other executives
earlier this year, the roughly $180 million in clawbacks are among
the largest in U.S. corporate history.

The board was unrelenting in their criticism of Mr. Stumpf and Ms.
Tolstedt, saying that both, when presented with the growing
problems in Wells' community banking division, were unwilling to
hear criticism or consider changes in behavior.  The board
repeatedly faulted Ms. Tolstedt, calling her "insular and
defensive" and unable to accept scrutiny from inside or outside
her organization.

The board also found that Ms. Tolstedt actively worked to downplay
any problems in her division.  In a report made in October 2015,
nearly three years after a Los Angeles Times investigation
uncovered the scandal, Ms. Tolstedt "minimized and understated
problems at the community bank."

When the scandal first broke, Wells said it had fired roughly
5,300 employees as a result of the sales practices.  But when that
figure was revealed it was the first time that the board of
directors had heard the sales practices problems were of such a
large size and scope.  According to the report, as recently as May
2015, senior management told the board that only 230 employees had
been fired for sales practices violations.

Ms. Tolstedt declined to be interviewed for the investigation, the
board said, on advice from her lawyers.

Ms. Tolstedt did issue a statement to the media, however,
disputing the board's conclusions.

"We strongly disagree with the report and its attempt to lay blame
with Ms. Tolstedt.  A full and fair examination of the facts will
produce a different conclusion," said Enu Mainigi with the law
firm Williams & Connolly.

Mr. Stumpf also received his share of criticism.  In its report,
the board found that Mr. Stumpf was also unwilling to change
Wells' business model when problems arose.

"His reaction invariably was that a few bad employees were causing
issues . . . he was too late and too slow to call for inspection
or critical challenge to (Wells') basic business model," the board
said.

Mr. Stumpf, however, did not seem to express regret for how he
handled those initial weeks after the bank was fined, including
where he initially levied most of the blame on low-level employees
for the sales practices problems instead of management, said
Stuart Baskin, lawyer with Shearman & Sterling, the firm that the
board hired to investigate the sales scandal.

The investigation found that Wells' corporate structure was also
to blame.  Under Mr. Stumpf, Wells operated in a decentralized
fashion, with executives of each of the businesses running their
divisions almost like separate companies.

While there is nothing wrong with operating a large company like
Wells in a decentralized fashion, the board said, the structure
backfired in this case by allowing Ms. Tolstedt and other
executives to hide the problems in their organization from senior
management and the board of directors.

Wells has instituted several corporate and business changes since
the problems became known nationwide.  Wells has changed its sales
practices, and called tens of millions of customers to check on
whether they truly opened the accounts in question.

The company also split the roles of chairman and CEO.  Tim Sloan,
Wells' former president and chief operating officer, took over as
CEO.  Stephen Sanger, who had been the lead director on Wells'
board since 2012, became the company's independent chairman. Since
taking that position, Mr. Sanger has clawed back tens of millions
of dollars in stock awards and compensation due to
Mr. Stumpf and Ms. Tolstedt.  In January, the board took the
unusual action of publicly firing four executives whom the board
said had major roles in the bank's sales practices at the center
of the scandal. It also cut bonuses to other major executives,
including Mr. Sloan.

However, the board's concluded that Mr. Sloan had little direct
involvement in the questionable sales practices.

Mr. Sanger said on April 10 that, with the release of the report,
the board would take no more actions to fire management who may
have been involved with the sales scandal.  However, Mr. Sloan
said that the bank was still reviewing records and some management
has been fired in recent months.

Notably, Mr. Sloan said that the bank actually had hired back
roughly 1,000 employees who may have been dismissed for not
meeting those unrealistic sales quotas, or those who may have left
on their own accord because they did not want to violate their
ethics.

The report is unlikely to quell the criticism aimed at Wells
Fargo.  The bank is still under investigation by Congress, state
and federal authorities. And last week an influential shareholder
advisory firm said investors should vote out nearly the entire
board of directors when the bank holds its annual shareholder
meeting later this month.

Better Markets, a left-leaning group that wants stricter
regulations on banks, called the report "grossly deficient" and
said it was "too little, too late."


WOOD GROUP: Certification of Class Sought in "Kibodeaux" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL KIBODEAUX, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WOOD
GROUP PRODUCTION AND CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. the Defendant, Case
No. 4:16-cv-03277 (S.D. Tex.), Kibodeaux asks the Court to
conditionally certify a class consisting of:

   "all persons who worked for Wood Group Production and
   Consulting Services, Inc., as Drilling Consultants,
   Completions Consultants, and/or Construction Consultants who
   were classified as independent contractors and paid a day-rate
   at any time from 2014 to the present.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant, regularly working more
than twelve-hour days for weeks at a time. Wood Group paid
Kibodeaux for these long hours on a day-rate basis, paying him a
flat amount for all hours that he worked in a single day, even
though day-rate workers like Kibodeaux are entitled to overtime
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Kibodeaux's claims are
straightforward: Wood Group's compensation plan for day-rate
workers like himself (namely, its Drilling, Completions, and
Construction Consultants) violated the FLSA because it failed to
pay these workers overtime. Kibodeaux seeks conditional
certification under the FLSA and authorization to send notice to
other putative plaintiffs so that they may learn of (and
potentially join) this matter before their statutes of limitations
expire.

Because Wood Group denied Kibodeaux and the putative class of day-
rate workers overtime under its uniform compensation policy, these
workers are similarly situated. The Court should thus allow
Kibodeaux to send Court-approved notice of this action to the
putative class members informing them of their rights and
providing them the opportunity to make a claim for unpaid wages.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0NSIZfKf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352 1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352 3300
          E-mail: cmjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  litkin@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877 8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877 8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


WOOLWORTHS: Class Action Mulled Over 2015 Profit Downgrade
----------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Wilkins, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Woolworths' disastrous foray into hardware continues to haunt the
retail giant after law firm Maurice Blackburn revealed plans for a
$100 million class action against Australia's biggest supermarket
chain.

Despite closing the doors on its loss-making Masters Home
Improvement business last year, the proposed class action relates
to alleged breaches of the Corporations Act dating back to
Woolworths' shock profit downgrade in early 2015 and attempts to
stem big losses from its hardware operation.

By late 2014, analysts were reporting Woolworths was putting up
margins at the supermarket chain, cutting staffing levels and
leaning on suppliers in an attempt to make up burgeoning losses at
its failed Masters Home Improvement chain and Big W.

Shopper backlash to price increases and a broader deterioration
across the supermarket chain gained momentum between December 2014
and January 2015, eventually forcing the retailer's management to
cut its full-year earnings outlook in February 2015.  Woolworths'
shares dived 13.7 per cent in the wake of the profit downgrade.

One analyst said Woolworths eventually confessed to being too
focused on meeting short-term earnings targets but the insight
came too late to prevent many shoppers abandoning the chain,
creating an opening for Wesfarmers' Coles business to exploit.

"They just kept on trying to meet earnings targets by going back
to the milking cow that was the supermarkets business," one
analyst said.

The proposed class action could exceed $100 million, Maurice
Blackburn said on April 11.  It has opened a registration portal
for shareholders to sign up to the claim.

While Maurice Blackburn's investigation continues, the law firm
alleged Woolworths knew that it was significantly behind its
profit projections as early as October 2014 but continued to
maintain its profit guidance until the publication of its half-
year accounts in February 2015.

"When corporations don't abide by the laws requiring they make
timely and accurate market disclosures, these aren't mere
technical breaches -- it causes loss to shareholders, undermines
the integrity of the market and distorts the efficient allocation
of capital that could go to more deserving companies," Maurice
Blackburn principal Andrew Watson said.

"The end result is that shareholders, both individual everyday
Australians and large institutional investors entrusted with
members' savings such as large superannuation funds, unwittingly
suffer the consequences and lose out in a major way."

Fears the poor performance of Masters was hurting Woolworths' core
supermarket business surfaced after the supermarket chain reported
soft first-quarter sales in late 2014, prompting a number of
analysts to question whether the retail giant would meet its full-
year net profit guidance.

In a research note from December 3, less than a week after
Woolworths reaffirmed its full-year guidance, Bank of America
Merrill Lynch analyst David Errington slashed the earnings outlook
for the retailer by 5 per cent for fiscal 2016 and 13 per cent for
fiscal 2017.

Merrill Lynch forecast the 2015 full-year net profit after tax
would grow by 4.5 per cent, at the bottom end of the retail
giant's guidance of between 4 and 7 per cent growth.

"The key reason for our earnings downgrade are our view of the
continued deterioration of Woolworths' non-supermarket business,
notably Masters and Big W and the reduced ability in our view of
Woolworths supermarkets to continue increasing margins," Mr
Errington said.

"In our view, continuing to drive margins higher in Australian
supermarkets is seeing a loss in competitive position, leading to
deteriorating sales and ultimately a fall in margins."

Woolworths cut its full-year net profit after tax guidance to the
"lower end" of analyst forecasts as part of its half-year results
in February 2015.

The retailer's 2015 full-year net profit before one-off costs
inched up by just 0.1 per cent to $2.45 billion, while its full-
year net profit slumped 12.5 per cent to $2.15 billion, thanks to
big losses at the Masters chain.

IMF Bentham has proposed to fund the class action, which would
deal with claims of alleged misleading or deceptive conduct and
alleged breaches of continuous disclosure laws between November
27, 2014 and February 26, 2015.

Senior investment manager at IMF Bentham, Wayne Attrill, said like
all shareholder class actions, it would proceed only if enough
shareholders signed up.

"This is a chance for investors who believe they were deprived of
information on the true state of affairs of the company standing
up and being able to access a meaningful redress," Mr Attrill
said.

Woolworths on April 11 said it had not been served with
proceedings and would defend any action.

"Woolworths considers that it has, at all times, complied with its
continuous disclosure obligations," the company said in a
statement.

The class action follows failed action against Woolworths by the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

According to Maurice Blackburn, Woolworths said in its defence to
the ACCC proceedings that it had forecast in October 2014 that
there would be a variance in its gross profit before freight of
$53 million.

The competition watchdog's case was launched in December 2015 and
related to the company's dealings with suppliers to plug a profit
shortfall after discovering a $50 million hole in its books. The
Federal Court last year ruled the conduct towards suppliers was
not unconscionable.

Australian Shareholders' Association director Allan Goldin said he
would watch the case closely. "If continuous disclosure didn't
happen, then we are obviously very concerned," he said.

Class actions need seven or more people to run, but their
financial viability depends on the size of shareholder losses.

Maurice Blackburn would not say whether any institutional
shareholders were behind the action.


* Workers of Gig Economy Companies Fight for Labor Rights
---------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times reports that the promises Silicon Valley makes
about the gig economy can sound appealing.  Its digital technology
lets workers become entrepreneurs, we are told, freed from the
drudgery of 9-to-5 jobs.  Students, parents and others can make
extra cash in their free time while pursuing their passions, maybe
starting a thriving small business.

In reality, there is no utopia at companies like Uber, Lyft,
Instacart and Handy, whose workers are often manipulated into
working long hours for low wages while continually chasing the
next ride or task.  These companies have discovered they can
harness advances in software and behavioral sciences to old-
fashioned worker exploitation, according to a growing body of
evidence, because employees lack the basic protections of American
law.

A recent story in The Times by Noam Scheiber vividly described how
Uber and other companies use tactics developed by the video game
industry to keep drivers on the road when they would prefer to
call it a day, raising company revenue while lowering drivers'
per-hour earnings.  One Florida driver told The Times he earned
less than $20,000 a year before expenses like gas and maintenance.
In New York City, an Uber drivers group affiliated with the
machinists union said that more than one-fifth of its members earn
less than $30,000 before expenses.

Gig economy workers tend to be poorer and are more likely to be
minorities than the population at large, a survey by the Pew
Research Center found last year.  Compared with the population as
a whole, almost twice as many of them earned under $30,000 a year,
and 40 percent were black or Hispanic, compared with 27 percent of
all American adults.  Most said the money they earned from online
platforms was essential or important to their families.

Since workers for most gig economy companies are considered
independent contractors, not employees, they do not qualify for
basic protections like overtime pay and minimum wages.  This
helped Uber, which started in 2009, quickly grow to 700,000 active
drivers in the United States, nearly three times the number of
taxi drivers and chauffeurs in the country in 2014.
Opinion Today

The use of independent contractors is hardly an innovation.
Traditional businesses like garment factories, construction
companies and trucking have often misclassified employees as
contractors to avoid offering benefits, paying payroll taxes and
abiding by labor laws.  What makes this different is that gig
economy businesses are arguing that their use of the independent
contractor model is in fact better for workers.

Increasingly workers, and government agencies are pushing back.
Seattle passed an ordinance in 2015 allowing drivers for Uber,
Lyft and other ride-hailing apps to unionize.  A federal judge
temporarily blocked that law on April 11 after the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and some conservative groups filed lawsuits against the
city.  Workers have also sued various gig economy companies to
seek overtime pay, reimbursement for expenses and other damages.
Lyft recently agreed to pay $27 million to settle a class-action
lawsuit brought by drivers in California.

Legislation and lawsuits might ensure that traditional labor laws
are applied to the gig economy.  But a few smaller companies, like
Hello Alfred, which dispatches people to do household chores, and
Managed by Q, which provides office maintenance and cleaning
services, are taking steps on their own, by treating workers as
employees.  They say that this lowers turnover and improves the
quality of their services.  Over time even bigger companies like
Uber, many of which lose money and rely on investors to keep
pouring in billions of dollars of capital, might find that it pays
to treat workers better and even make some of them employees.

But so far, experience with these companies shows that without the
legal protections and ethical norms that once were widely
accepted, workers will find the economy of the future an even more
inhospitable place.


* Blake Cassel Attorneys Discuss 2016 Pharma Class Action Rulings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Linley, Esq., and Jessica Lam, Esq., of Blake, Cassels &
Graydon LLP, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that the end of 2016
brought with it some good news for the defence in respect of
pharmaceutical class actions, including a successful defence
verdict in the first pharmaceutical product liability common
issues trial in Canada.  In 2016, Canadian courts also signalled a
willingness to embrace summary judgment as a potential tool for
early resolution of class proceedings and confirmed once again
that an innovator (brand name) manufacturer does not owe a duty of
care to generic users of the medicine.  Defendants also achieved
significant successes in resisting certification of proposed
pharmaceutical class actions, despite the frequent certification
of such actions in Canada.  The key decisions from 2016 in respect
of pharmaceutical class actions are briefly summarized below.

1. SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS A POTENTIAL TOOL IN CLASS PROCEEDINGS

Two decisions in 2016 show the Ontario courts embracing the
cultural shift called for by the Supreme Court of Canada in
Hryniak v. Mauldin, and the move away from the conventional trial,
in the interests of fairness and proportionality.

In Wise v. Abbott Laboratories Limited (Wise),the representative
plaintiff brought a proposed class action against Abbott
Laboratories (Abbott) alleging that AndroGel", a testosterone
replacement therapy for the treatment of hypogonadism
(testosterone deficiency) in men, caused serious cardiovascular
events, such as heart attacks and strokes, and that AndroGel was
sold by Abbott as a remedy for "LowT", despite having no
therapeutic benefits.  Abbott denied all claims of negligence and
brought a motion for summary judgment in advance of certification
to dismiss the action on a number of grounds including that the
plaintiff could not prove general causation, a constituent element
in all product liability claims.  Ultimately, Justice Perell of
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the defendant's
motion, concluding, among other reasons, that there was no genuine
issue requiring a trial because there was insufficient evidence of
general causation.

2016 also saw plaintiffs embracing summary judgment on the general
causation issue. In Levac v. James (Levac), the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice not only certified the action, but also granted
the plaintiff partial judgment against the defendant doctor.
While not a pharmaceutical case, the motion has potential
application in that context.  The action arose from an infectious
disease outbreak at a clinic where the defendant doctor
administered epidural injections.  The representative plaintiff
alleged that the doctor, who was personally colonized with the
bacteria, was responsible for the outbreak and was negligent
because he implemented substandard infection prevention and
control practices.

On the summary judgment motion, the court found that the doctor
owed a duty of care to class members, that he breached this duty
and that general causation had been established for all class
members.  On the evidence, there was no dispute that the doctor's
breach of the duty of care could be a source of harm to patients,
making the case appropriate for summary judgment.  The Ontario
Superior Court of Justice not only found that general causation
had been established for all class members, but that specific
causation had also been established for those class members who
were infected with the same bacteria as the doctor -- a finding
that was made in the absence of individual issues trials.

Both Wise and Levac suggest that we can expect to see greater use
of summary judgment motions in the pharmaceutical class action
context.

2. REJECTION OF INNOVATOR LIABILITY FOR GENERIC USE

In the 2016 decision in Brown v. Janssen (Brown), the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice confirmed Goodridge v. Pfizer Inc.
(Goodridge) -- that an innovator brand name drug manufacturer owes
no duty of care to consumers of generic versions of the drug
manufactured and sold by a generic competitor.  The decision is
one of the few cases in Canada to date to consider innovator
liability.

In Brown, the plaintiffs' proposed class action alleged that the
antipsychotic medicine Risperdal(R) caused gynecomastia, a
condition of male breast growth, and that the defendants failed to
adequately warn consumers of both Risperdal and generic
risperidone about the risk of developing gynecomastia.  The
plaintiffs pleaded that the defendants knew or ought to have known
that manufacturers of generic risperidone "would be bound by
Health Canada's regulations to reproduce exactly in the product
monographs for generic risperidone the safety data in the product
monographs for Risperdal, such that prescribers and consumers of
generic risperidone would necessarily be relying on safety data
presented by the defendants in the product monographs for
Risperdal."

The innovator defendants in Brown argued that Goodridge and other
cases had already refused to impose a duty of care on a
manufacturer for products manufactured by others, and that even if
the court wished to reconsider the question of innovator
liability, no such duty of care should be recognized.  Among other
arguments, the defendants argued that allowing such liability
would make brand name manufacturers de facto insurers for the
whole industry, and that this involved policy choices more
appropriately within the legislative domain.  The court in Brown
ultimately granted the defendants' request to strike all
allegations of innovator liability in the plaintiffs' amended
claim on the grounds that the plaintiffs' claims relating to
generic risperidone had no reasonable chance of success.

A similar victory in favour of innovators was also obtained this
past year at a trial in Quebec.  In Brousseau c. Laboratoires
Abbott ltee (Brousseau), the first pharmaceutical product
liability common issues trial in Canada (discussed below), the
Superior Court of Quebec affirmed that individuals who consumed
generic versions of a drug have no claim against the manufacturer
of the innovator drug under Quebec civil law.

3. OPPOSING CERTIFICATION

2016 also saw important defence verdicts in respect of proposed
class certification.  While pharmaceutical class actions are
frequently certified in Canada, three proposed class actions were
denied certification in 2016.  In Batten v. Boehringer Ingelheim
(Canada) Ltd. (Batten), the plaintiffs sought certification of a
class action related to the anticoagulant drug, Pradaxa(R). The
plaintiffs alleged that Pradaxa(R) carried the risk of excessive
bleeding and that Boehringer breached its duty to warn that there
was no antidote for the drug.  At the certification motion, the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected this claim, finding on
the evidence that there was no basis in fact to conclude that the
absence of an antidote was a danger in the ordinary use of the
medicine, and even if the absence of an antidote was a danger in
ordinary use, there was no basis in fact to conclude that the
absence of an antidote was a danger common to all class members.
The proposed common causation issue also failed the commonality
test because of the absence of a methodology to prove general
causation.  Accordingly, the court denied certification.

In Harrison v. Afexa Life Sciences Inc. (Harrison), the British
Columbia Supreme Court denied class certification in a case
involving the over the counter product Cold- Fx.  The plaintiff
alleged that the labelling, packaging and marketing of Cold-Fx
misled the proposed class of purchasers of the product into
believing that the product provided "immediate relief" of cold and
flu symptoms.  On the evidence, however, the court found that the
class definition was overly broad because not all of the Cold- Fx
products sold during the relevant time contained the alleged
misrepresentations.

Furthermore, not all purchasers of Cold-Fx would have purchased
the product for short term relief or because of the alleged
representations and not all were purchasers dissatisfied with the
product.  Moreover, the court found that the representative
plaintiff could not fairly and adequately represent the class
because she appeared to be no more than a placeholder and the
litigation plan for advancing the action was "boilerplate". The
plaintiff has appealed the decision.

In Baratto c. Merck Canada inc. (Baratto), the plaintiff sought
authorization to institute a class action for all persons residing
in Quebec who were prescribed Propecia(R) and/or Proscar(R) prior
to November 18, 2011 for the treatment of baldness.  The plaintiff
alleged that the defendant failed to adequately advise class
members of the health risks associated with the use of the
medications, including depression and erectile dysfunction.  The
Superior Court of Quebec refused to authorise the proposed class
action, concluding that the plaintiff's allegations were purely
hypothetical, including the fact that there were numerous
alternative possible causes for his problems.  The court further
held that an analysis of the evidence of proposed members of the
class could only be done on an individual basis, such that a class
action would be ill-suited to advance the rights of class members.
The plaintiff has appealed the decision.

The 2016 decisions in Batten, Harrison, and Baratto reaffirm that
certification of a pharmaceutical class action is not guaranteed
and that Canadian court will exercise an important gatekeeper
function at the certification stage.

Despite the welcomed decisions in Batten, Harrison, and Baratto,
the Nova Scotia Supreme Court certified a proposed class action
after allowing the plaintiffs leave to file supplemental evidence
on the identifiable class criterion.  In Sweetland v.
GlaxoSmithKline Inc., the plaintiffs alleged that Avandia(R), a
medication for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, caused
cardiovascular events including heart failure, heart attacks and
strokes, and that the defendants were liable for negligent design,
negligent distribution and marketing, and waiver of tort. At the
initial certification hearing in 2015, the court refused to
certify the action, but "in the interests of fairness", permitted
the plaintiffs to supplement evidence related to the identifiable
class criterion, and to file a revised list of common issues.
Furthermore, the court refused to dismiss the possibility of
compensation based upon waiver of tort at the certification stage,
and deferred the matter to the common issues trial.  At the second
certification hearing, the court held that it was satisfied that
the evidence provided by the plaintiff, including two affidavits
from individuals who were prescribed Avandia, remedied the
deficiencies noted in the first certification decision to
establish the existence of two or more class members.

Similarly in Dembrowski v. Bayer Inc., the Saskatchewan Court of
Queen's Bench, at the initial certification hearing, granted leave
to the plaintiff to file a revised litigation plan after finding
that the other certification criteria had been met.  At the second
certification hearing, the court certified the proposed action,
concluding that with some amendments, the second litigation plan
was sufficient to meet the certification criteria.

4. FIRST PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT LIABILITY COMMON ISSUES TRIAL IN
CANADA

A report of the defence successes of 2016 in pharmaceutical cases
would also be incomplete without reporting on the 2016 decision of
the Superior Court of Quebec in Brousseau.  As noted above,
Brousseau was the first ever decision of a Canadian court ruling
on the merits of a pharmaceutical product liability common issues
trial.

In Brousseau, the plaintiffs alleged that class members
experienced certain psychiatric reactions while taking the drug,
Biaxin(R), and that Abbott Laboratories failed to sufficiently
inform users of the risk of these reactions.  The Superior Court
of Quebec dismissed the action, concluding that the plaintiffs had
not met their burden of proof with respect to causation.  The
court held that the inclusion of side effects in the product
monograph was not proof that the manufacturer believed there to be
a causal link between the drug and the side effect and that the
mere possibility of a causal link (e.g., evidence of case reports)
was insufficient to prove general causation on a balance of
probabilities.  The plaintiffs requested an appeal of the
decision, which was rejected by the Quebec Court of Appeal.  The
decision highlights that once a product liability case is
certified, plaintiffs must still establish causation with credible
and convincing scientific and expert evidence at trial.

Summary

The defence can be encouraged by these decisions, which suggest
that certification of a pharmaceutical class action is not
guaranteed.  Where appropriate, the defence may also be encouraged
to take cases to a merits hearing -- either on a motion for
summary judgment or trial. Canadian courts have made clear that
plaintiffs must establish issues such as causation based on solid
scientific and expert evidence in order to be successful on the
merits.


* Class Actions Mulled v. UK Councils Over Term-Time Holidays
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Yorke and Luke Mintz, writing for The Daily Telegraph,
report that parents who face fines for taking children on term-
time holidays are to launch a legal class action against the
councils who misled them, a law firm has revealed.

Solicitors at Simpson Millar told The Daily Telegraph they are
preparing a group law suit against local authorities who allegedly
issued misleading guidance to parents which seemed to say it was
permissible to take children out of school without headteachers'
approval.

The disclosure comes days after the Supreme Court ruled parents
cannot take children on term-time holiday without the school's
authorisation, regardless of previous good attendance.

That decision had seemed to conclude a two-year legal battle
between businessman Jon Platt and the Isle of Wight Council, after
he refused to pay a GBP120 fine for taking his six-year-old
daughter to Disneyland Florida.

During Mr Platt's case, as many as 28 education authorities
relaxed their truancy policy -- despite explicit requests from
central government not to do so -- with several telling parents
they would not be prosecuted so long as the child's attendance was
above a given threshold.

Now those authorities are reviewing their policies to reflect the
Supreme Court ruling, meaning parents who were told last year that
they could book term-time holidays, may now be prosecuted for
taking them.

The councils involved said they had not intended to mislead and
were now reviewing their guidance pending Department for Education
clarification.

They include Wakefield Council, which said that 85 percent
attendance would be considered "regular"; Trafford, which
permitted 90 percent, and Derbyshire County Council, which said it
would accept 94 percent.

Patrick Campbell, of Simpson Millar, said parents now faced being
"punished retrospectively", adding councils had left the door open
to a wave of legal actions.

"This has created an unfair situation for parents who have sought
guidance from their local authority and have relied on that
guidance, only to be subsequently told that they could now be
prosecuted," he added.

"We have been contacted by a number of parents and are looking
into a potential class action."

The Department for Education said it had made its position clear
to councils throughout Mr Platt's legal battle, adding that it had
continually stated that "no child should be taken out of school
without good reason".

At the time of the High Court ruling last year, Mr Gibb also wrote
to councils and headteachers to advise that the High Court did not
establish a "hard and fast rule" on whether attendance over 90
percent was grounds for them to avoid prosecution.

He said that he expected councils to "refuse" parents asking for a
refund of previous fines they had been issued, adding that
children should only be taken out of school in "exceptional
circumstances".

"I am clear that we need to continue reducing absence, building on
the success schools and local authorities have already achieved,
to support attainment and ensure all pupils fulfil their
potential," he added.


* Class Action Costs Under BIC Between $70MM-$150MM Each Year
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Milloy, Director of Financial Services Policy at the
American Action Forum, reports that the fiduciary rule is the most
expensive regulatory action of 2016 and the second most expensive
non-environmental rule since 2005.

It has the potential to increase consumer costs by $46.6 billion,
or $813 annually per account, in addition to the $1500 in
duplicative fees for retirement savers that have already paid a
fee on their commission-based accounts.

Based on a minimum balance requirement of $30,000, the rule could
force 28 million Americans out of managed retirement accounts
completely.  Even with a minimum account balance of $5,000, over
13 million would lose access to managed retirement accounts.
Wealth management firms covered under the fiduciary rule will see
annual litigation costs up to $150 million as a result of class-
action lawsuits stemming from the Best Interest Contract
Exemption, in addition to the cost of wasted resources and
foregone opportunities due to the uncertainty of litigation.
Introduction

As we approach the originally-scheduled effective date of the
Department of Labor's (DOL) now delayed fiduciary rule, interested
parties should not lose sight of why this rule has faced so much
push back for the past several years.  The American Action Forum
(AAF) has previously written that the fiduciary rule will not only
reduce investors' access to investment advice and investors'
choice in investment products, but that it will also cost
investors upwards of $1500 in duplicative fees.  As more and more
financial companies announce their plans to either leave the
retirement advice market completely or draw down their advisory
business, it is important to drill down to what this rule and its
unintended consequences will really mean for consumers, especially
low and middle income consumers who benefit most from retirement
advice.

When the fiduciary rule was originally finalized in 2016, it was
(and still is) the most expensive regulation that year, with $31.5
billion in total costs and $2 billion in annual burdens. Although
the rule has not yet become effective, AAF research has found that
three major companies have left part of the brokerage business,
and six more are drawing down their business or switching to a
fee-based arrangement.  From these companies alone, reported
compliance costs have already topped $100 million, affecting
92,000 investment advisors, $190 billion in assets, and at least
2.3 million consumers.

Advocates for DOL's fiduciary rule argue that it is necessary to
prevent bad actors from acting in their own best interest instead
of that of their clients.  They argue that without it, consumers
will be cheated out of a portion of their retirement savings by
being conned into investments that don't work for them. On its
face, a fiduciary standard is widely supported throughout the
industry.  The problem with DOL's fiduciary rule is not the
requirement to act in a client's best interest, but the dissuasion
of commission-based accounts and the imposition of the Best
Interest Contract (BIC) Exemption, which opens up financial
advisors to the risk of a litigious clientele.

Despite its length and complexity, the fiduciary rule can be
broken down into two paths of compliance for advisors: 1) Moving
to a primarily fee-based model or 2) Entering into the BIC with
clients.  The consequences resulting from each of these options
are explored in detail below.

1. Moving to a primarily fee-based model

Created by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA), individual retirement accounts (IRAs) have become an
integral part of Americans' retirement saving strategies.  Based
on data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), by the end of
2014, 57.3 million Americans own at least one IRA all totaling
nearly $7.3 trillion in assets.

In 2011, a survey of 25.3 million IRA accounts found that a large
majority of IRA investors opted for a commission-based instead of
a fee-based arrangement, and that those investors with lower IRA
account balances preferred a commission-based arrangement at even
higher levels than those with higher account balances as seen in
the chart below.

Source Oliver Wyman Study, 2011

In a 2014 study, the Investment Company Institute (ICI) found that
nearly 23 percent of the 57.3 million Americans with IRAs have
balances less than $5,000, over 42 percent have less than $20,000,
and almost 74 percent have less than $100,000.

Source: ICI's IRA Investor Database

All of this data is important to the fiduciary rule's effects on
consumers because the fiduciary rule will force many investment
advisors to move away from a commission-based model to a fee-based
model in order to avoid any possibility of an apparent conflict of
interest.  In fact, some firms have already announced that they
are doing away with their commission-based IRAs entirely. This
presents two major problems for consumers.  First, fee-based
accounts are much more expensive for investors.  As Morningstar
explains, fee-based accounts yield upwards of 50 percent more
revenue for firms than commission-based accounts because "[f]ee-
based accounts are already under a fiduciary standard of care that
is defined by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC).  This SEC
fiduciary standard requires increased monitoring, legal liability,
and typically is accompanied with a higher service level than
commission-based accounts, so clients are charged more."  By way
of background, the reason DOL is involved in a developing a
fiduciary standard is because of its oversight of ERISA and the
retirement plans under it, which are the only ones covered by this
rule.

One study found that advisors earn .54 percent on commission-based
accounts versus 1.18 percent on fee-based accounts.  With nearly
$7.3 trillion of assets in IRAs, that's a difference between
consumers paying a total of $39.4 billion or $86 billion in fees
each year, an average of $813 per IRA account holder -- an
unaffordable amount for many.

The second major problem is that because fee-based accounts mean
increased monitoring, liability, and servicing, advisors will be
forced to require higher minimum account balances in order to
remain financially viable.  For example, Edward Jones will require
investors to have $100,000 in retirement assets to open a fee-
based IRA, whereas other firms will require minimum balances of
$20,000 or $30,000.  Looking back at the third chart above, even
with a minimum account balance requirement of $20,000 that leaves
over 42 percent of IRA investors will be forced out of managed
retirement accounts, and almost half if that minimum is increased
to $30,000.  Even with a minimum balance of just $5000, over 13
million accounts will fail to qualify for managed advice.

In 2013 the Retail Distribution Review initiative (RDR) was
implemented in the United Kingdom.  It's not an exact match of
DOL's fiduciary rule, in that it explicitly forbids commission-
based accounts, but it is a close comparison.  Since the RDR was
implemented, several studies have been conducted looking at its
effects on investment advisors and their clients.  Without getting
bogged down in the details because it is an imperfect comparison,
it would be remiss ignore them completely.

The UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) conducted a review in
2016 of the changes in the retirement advice market as a result of
the RDR.  One of the more telling findings is that "over the last
two years, the proportion of firms who ask for a minimum portfolio
of more than GBP100,000 has more than doubled, from around 13
percent in 2013 to 32 percent in 2015.  The FCA's recent survey of
advisors also supports this, suggesting that 45 percent of firms
very rarely advise customers on retirement income options if those
customers have small funds (i.e. less than GBP30,000) to invest."

Another review of the RDR's impact on the UK's financial advice
market conducted by the Cass Business School at the City
University London found that the enhanced requirements on advisors
will drive advisors out of the investment advice market
completely.  "Advisor numbers fell from 40,000 at the end of 2011
to 31,000 by the start of 2013: we find that the remaining
financial advisors are unduly optimistic about their own business
prospects in the RDR world."  Further, they found "that the
average advisor expects to garner around GBP1,500 from each of
roughly 150 clients to sustain the GBP220,000 of gross revenue
that they tell us they require to function as a business.  With
fees averaging approximately 1 percent of assets under advisory
this means that the average client will need to have around
GBP150,000 in investible assets on average."

In sum, the fiduciary rule will force many IRA investors into fee-
based accounts which, at a minimum, will noticeably increase the
amount they pay their advisor each year, and, at a maximum, will
cut them out of the investment advice market completely.
Considering that the IRAs with the lowest account balances will be
hit the hardest, it's a reasonable conclusion that the fiduciary
rule will end up hurting those low to middle income retirement
savers that it was intended to protect the hardest.

2. Entering into the BIC with clients

The second option presented to investment advisors by the
fiduciary rule is to enter into the BIC with their clients.  Like
the rule itself, on its face, the BIC sounds good -- a best
interest contract between advisor and advisee.  But in reality the
BIC will open the door to litigation, especially to class action
lawsuits. Specifically, the BIC exemption purports to "allow
entities such as registered investment advisors, broker-dealers,
banks and insurance companies . . . and their employees, agents
and representatives . . . that are ERISA or Code fiduciaries by
reason of the provision of investment advice, to receive
compensation that may otherwise give rise to prohibited
transactions as a result of their advice to plan participants and
beneficiaries, IRA owners and certain plan fiduciaries . . . "

In other words, the BIC exemption allows advisors to provide
investment advice which on its face may seem conflicted so long as
they enter into a contract with their client stating that it is in
fact in their best interest, and, if it's not, their client can
sue them for breach of contract.  And while it does allow for the
inclusion of mandatory arbitration clauses, the BICs cannot waive
the client's ability to file or participate in a class action
lawsuit.

In 2016 alone, nearly 4000 FINRA arbitration cases were filed by
consumers alleging some wrongdoing by their broker-dealers, yet
only 158 cases were decided in favor of the consumer, which means
many broker-dealers spent significant time and money defending
themselves, perhaps unnecessarily.  One could expect BIC
litigation to fall along the same lines, but with the added threat
of class action lawsuits and, at times, their resulting
settlements.

One study estimated the costs of class action lawsuits under the
BIC using historical restitution data from wealth management
firms, claims on implied errors and omissions insurance policies,
DOL monetary estimates, and previous settlements on retirement
plan class actions.  It found that the long-term costs for class
action lawsuits is between $70 million and $150 million each year
-- in addition to DOL's estimate of $1.5 billion in ongoing costs.
The study goes on to say that the near-term class action
settlements could exceed the long-term estimates by a multiple "as
firms try to figure out how to determine, demonstrate, and
document best interest."  Some strategic litigation could force
targeted investment advisors into some extremely costly
settlements -- not as a result of their malpractice, but as a
result of gray area in the law of the fiduciary rule and the BIC.
The same study estimates that near-term class action settlements
could decrease the operating margins on commission-based IRAs by
24 to 36 percent.

Strangely, proponents of the fiduciary rule seem to view the
litigation risk as a positive product of the rule.  Barbara Roper
of the Consumer Federation of America has been on record saying,
"That enforceable [Best Interest] Contract provides a hook for
litigation."  And AARP has said that the provision which bars the
ability to waive class action liability is "one among several
steps" that DOL is taking to "curb companies' efforts to shield
themselves . . . through the fine print."

In an effort to curb potential litigation costs, investment
advisors may purchase liability insurance.  DOL's cost estimates
pin the increase in premiums at approximately 10 percent, or $300
per year, but independent studies estimate that number to be much
higher.  In an Oxford Economics study, researchers found that the
potential cost of litigation stemming from the fiduciary rule was
the greatest concern to investment advisors, largely because it is
the area of the greatest unknown. Due to that uncertainly, the
study does not give an exact estimate of the increase in the cost
of insurance, but it does say, "importantly, from an economic
perspective, the full cost of all this may be far larger than the
ultimate amount spent on litigation -- although that could end up
being quite large as well.  The cost of the uncertainty caused by
the proposed rule could be far greater, as firms waste resources
and forgo opportunities because of the risk of litigation . . .
DOL assumes that Error and Omission insurance costs for some
representatives will increase by 10 percent.  This appears to be a
wild underestimation of the potential costs of litigation, and the
uncertainty it fosters as a result of the proposed rule."

Morningstar estimates that, in the short-term, class action
settlements could double the costs of the fiduciary rule for
firms.

Source: Morningstar

Conclusion

At the end of the day, the fact remains that the fiduciary rule is
the most expensive regulatory action of 2016 and the second most
expensive non-environmental rule since 2005. Even DOL's own
conservative compliance cost estimates are astronomical.

Based on the above data, the fiduciary rule has the potential to
increase consumer costs by $46.6 billion, or $816 annually per
account, in addition to the $1500 in duplicative fees for
retirement savers that have already paid a fee on their
commission-based accounts that move the same investments into a
fee-based account.  Worse, based on a minimum balance requirement
of $30,000, the fiduciary rule could force 28 million Americans
out of managed retirement accounts completely.  Add that to $150
million in annual litigation costs and operating margins reduced
by 24 to 36 percent, which will ultimately either be passed on to
consumers or force firms out of the market, decreasing the supply
of advice, and the fiduciary rule will end up doing a lot more
harm than good.  DOL's fiduciary rule is well-intended, but the
costs it imposes, especially to low- and middle-income consumers,
are too high to justify implementing the rule as it is currently
written.


* Construction Defects Bill Aims to Resolve Condo Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
TheDenverChannel.com reports that talks over issues "critical" to
a proposed bipartisan construction defects bill have pushed back a
hearing on the bill.

Supporters of HB1279 hope it will resolve complaints by builders
that Colorado laws make it too easy for condo associations to file
class action lawsuits against them that have led fewer affordable
condos being built in a tight housing market.

"So many of the projects that have the opportunity to be built
aren't being built because insurance rates are so high,"
Kathy Barstar of the Home Ownership Opportunity Alliance told
Nicole Brady on the Politics Unplugged.  "They are often finding
that their insurance costs are so high that they [developers]
can't make it work unless they are doing it at that significantly
higher price point which you see in Cherry Creek and various other
places."

Lakewood mayor Adam Paul says whatever changes are made,
homeowners still need to be protected.

"Let's get it taken care of.  Let's make sure that all of the
owners have the opportunity to understand what the issue might be.
Let them all weigh-in, get it fixed," Mr. Paul told Brady.  "Lets
keep it out of litigation.  Let's keep it out of court.  And we're
certainly here to make sure on the city's end that they're being
built right through our codes and our rules and regulations."


* Junk Fax Rule as Applied to Faxes Struck Down by D.C. Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Bianchi, Jr., Esq., and Michelle L. Dama, Esq., at Michael
Best & Friedrich LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
wrote that in 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
issued a rule that required faxes to contain an opt-out notice
even if the fax had been requested or solicited (as opposed to
being unsolicited), 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(a)(4). Accordingly,
under the FCC's rule, even when someone affirmatively agreed to
receive an advertisement via fax from another company, if the fax
did not contain a detailed opt-out notice, the faxing company
would be liable under the Junk Fax Prevention Act's amendment to
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Unsurprisingly, that rule
opened the door to a surge of litigation under the Junk Fax
Prevention Act. There were numerous class actions, seeking between
USD500 and USD1,500 per fax, in which the named plaintiff would
provide a fax number confirming a request for an advertisement via
fax, and upon receipt of the faxed ad, the individual or business
would sue the faxing company for failure to include a proper opt-
out notice.

In a move that should put a damper on such class actions, in a 2-1
decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck
down the FCC's rule requiring opt-out notices on solicited faxes,
even as to persons who have previously consented to receive faxes.
The majority noted that the question it was answering was "whether
the Act's requirement that businesses include an opt-out notice on
unsolicited fax advertisements authorizes the FCC to require
business to include an opt-out notice on solicited fax
advertisements." Based on the text of the statute, the majority
reasoned that Congress did not empower the FCC to regulate
solicited faxes. It held that "Congress drew a line in the text of
the statute between unsolicited fax advertisements and solicited
fax advertisements" and "it is the Judiciary's job to respect the
line drawn by Congress. . . " The dissent disagreed, instead
arguing that requiring opt-out notices on all fax ads, whether
solicited and unsolicited, was proper implementation of Congress's
ban on unsolicited fax ads because Congress had not explicitly
prohibited the FCC from doing so.

This ruling will now make pursuing class actions under the Junk
Fax Prevention Act's opt-out notice provision more difficult.
Given that a plaintiff now must show that the fax was unsolicited,
it will be difficult to argue that the case should be properly
pursued as a class action, as such showing would arguably require
an individualized inquiry making class status improper. This
ruling also brings an all too rare measure of common sense to the
Junk Fax Protection Act. Liability for advertisements the
recipient has given permission to send makes little sense, and the
D.C. Circuit seems to agree.


* Legislation Aims to Avert ADA Class Actions Against Businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oklahoman reports that legislation has been filed this year to
protect Oklahoma businesses from being sued because blind people
can't use a company's website.  That such a law is necessary is
sad, but true.

Nationally, there have been more than 240 lawsuits filed alleging
companies' websites are not compliant with the federal Americans
with Disabilities Act.  These mostly class-action lawsuits are
more legal shake-down than anything else.  The lawsuits can target
businesses even when ownership has tried to address problems, and
despite the fact there is little legal clarity regarding what
businesses are required to do.

Initially the ADA didn't apply to websites.  Subsequent court
rulings have found otherwise.  But those rulings have been
inconsistent.

As attorneys Lewis S. Wiener, a former senior trial lawyer with
the U.S. Department of Justice, and Alexander P. Fuchs noted in an
article for the website Law 360, there is a "a circuit split
regarding whether a website must have a nexus with a 'physical
place of public accommodation' to fall within the scope of the
ADA."

The typical way to address the needs of blind and visually
impaired individuals is to code a company's website so it works
with screen reader technology that reads content aloud.

But Messrs. Wiener and Fuchs write, "Even websites that may have
been designed initially to be compatible with screen reader
software may become inaccessible when new features are added or
the website is updated."

The Department of Justice was supposed to issue technical
guidelines specifying what it takes for business websites to
comply with the ADA.  Those guidelines were supposed to be
released in 2010, but they've been delayed until at least 2018.
Read all the recent editorials from The Oklahoman.

In short, it's not clear which companies are required to make
websites ADA-complaint.  It's not known with certainty what an
ADA-compliant website involves.  And even inadvertent problems
created by routine updates can leave companies exposed to
litigation.

That's an environment ripe for abuse, which is what has occurred.
The Wall Street Journal reported in November that of 40 nearly
identical cases that went before a single federal judge in the
Pittsburgh area, all but one were filed by a single law firm.

Of the roughly 240 such cases filed, most companies settled,
paying $10,000 to $75,000, "with the money typically going toward
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses," the Journal reported.

Two bills have been filed in our Legislature to reduce this legal
abuse and provide greater protection to companies acting in good
faith.

House Bill 1429 and Senate Bill 651 both require an individual to
notify an organization in writing of any alleged website
noncompliance with ADA requirements, and that notice must be
provided at least 120 days before filing a lawsuit.  If a business
promptly addresses problems and a lawsuit is filed anyway, the
bill mandates that the lawsuit be tossed and court costs and
reasonable attorney fees be awarded to the defendant.

SB 651 passed without opposition in the Senate.  HB 1429 passed
with overwhelming support in the House.  Support has been broadly
bipartisan.

While the needs of people with vision problems shouldn't be
ignored, neither should businesses be financially exploited for
failure to follow nonexistent guidelines.


* Lieff Cabraser Attorney Says FCALA to Protect Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Gueguen, writing for Northern California Record, report
that the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted 220-201 to
pass the Fairness In Class Action Litigation and Furthering
Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017, and one attorney is not
pleased to see the bill pass.

"The bill's name should be The Pro-Corruption, Price-Fixer Defense
Act, Protection Act," Eric Fastiff, an attorney at Lieff Cabraser
Heimann and Bernstein LLP, told the Northern California Record.
"The fact that the House passed it without holding a hearing,
without understanding what it was doing just proves that it was an
attempt by the Chamber of Commerce to buy off House members in
order to promote its pro-corruption agenda."

Mr. Fastiff is not happy with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

"The Chamber of Commerce is seeking to protect companies that are
fixing prices, foreign companies in particular," Mr. Fastiff said.
"And they're depriving U.S. small businesses and consumers from
recovering the money that is stolen from them from anti-trust
violations such as price fixing."

Congress.gov shows that the U.S. Senate has read the bill two
times and sent it to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Fastiff said he hasn't heard about any proposed state or local
government legislation coming into play in California because of
the bill.

"I don't see that at this time," he said.

Mr. Fastiff said the bill could adversely affect plaintiffs in
these types of cases.

"I think there's always the potential that cases can be removed to
federal court," Mr. Fastiff said.  "So a state case under the
Class Action Fairness Act can be removed often to federal court.
And if so, this bill will seriously undermine the ability of the
plaintiffs to recover funds that they normally would've been able
to recover under federal law or under state law."

The National Law Journal reported that "the Fairness in Class
Action Litigation Act of 2017 would make several changes designed
to reduce the number of class actions, particularly those that
critics say seek large payouts for speculative or nonexistent
injuries."

The National Law Journal also reported that the Fairness in Class
Action Litigation Act "also would tie attorney fees to the amount
of settlements, restrict who plaintiffs attorneys could represent
and halt discovery early on in the cases."


* More 401(k) Advisers Face Litigation Risk Under Fiduciary Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Iacurci, writing for Investment News, reports that a greater
number of advisers and firms servicing 401(k) plans and their
participants could be at risk of litigation in a few months' time,
when implementation of some provisions of the Labor Department's
fiduciary rule are set to kick in.

This is due to the details of the recently finalized delay to the
fiduciary rule issued by the Trump administration, as well as
nuances of the regulation and its interplay with federal
retirement law.

While the delay pushed off compliance with some aspects of the
rule until 2018, advisers will have to act as fiduciaries and
adhere to impartial conduct standards when giving investment
advice for a fee in retirement accounts come June 9.

That's significant for non-fiduciary advisers to 401(k) plans and
participants: They may take on fiduciary status in June, depending
on the nature of their advice, putting them more squarely in the
line of fire of the litigation enforcement mechanism that exists
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Investors would, in theory, be able to sue for breach of fiduciary
duty, similar to claims in excessive-fee lawsuits that have
targeted plan sponsors and financial services firms over the past
decade, said those with knowledge of such litigation.

To this point, advisers and their broker-dealers have largely
avoided 401(k) lawsuits alleging fiduciary breach, because proving
an adviser served as a fiduciary to a 401(k) plan is difficult
under current law.

"The ERISA litigation has been there and the risk of ERISA
litigation was always there," David Levine, principal at Groom Law
Group, said.  "The rule becomes applicable Jun. 9 and more people
could be in at that point."

A similar enforcement mechanism doesn't exist for retail
retirement investors in individual retirement accounts.  The best-
interest contract exemption, a provision of the fiduciary rule,
will give these investors the right to bring class-action
litigation against financial firms, though.  BICE is currently set
to come into force in January 2018.

The only enforcement that's currently available in the IRA market
are excise taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. S o,
come June, there will be an expanded pool of fiduciary advisers,
but relatively little by way of enforcement in the retail
retirement market, observers said.

For 401(k) advisers and non-fiduciary 401(k) service providers,
they will "have to do all the preparation [for the rule] they
anticipated" to reduce their litigation risk, albeit with an extra
60 days to do it, said Michael Hadley -- MLHADLEY@DAVIS-HARMAN.COM
-- a partner at Davis & Harman, a lobbying firm for financial
services organizations.

"In the 401(k) market, the class action plaintiffs' lawyers have
found 401(k)s as fertile ground for securing settlements, because
it is very hard to get rid of these cases early on," Mr. Hadley
said. "And the class-action plaintiff's lawyers know it."

Although more advisers and firms will be exposed to this risk, the
environment for litigation, which could pertain to investment
advice to a 401(k) plan or rollover recommendations to a 401(k)
participant, may not be as ripe as may seem from the outset, some
observers said.

That's largely because compliance with the DOL rule between Jun. 9
and the beginning of 2018 won't be too difficult, relatively
speaking, they said.

For example, the DOL's 60-day delay of the fiduciary rule
eliminated the need for certain disclosures associated with the
BICE, such as written fiduciary acknowledgement for clients.

So, the only thing that firms need to do to receive relief from
BICE (an exemption allowing for receipt of variable compensation,
otherwise prohibited by the rule) is adhere to impartial conduct
standards.  There are three factors involved: acting in a client's
best interest, receiving reasonable compensation and making no
misleading statements to clients.

Mr. Levine referred to this form of BICE compliance as BIC Ultra
Lite, and it's one route firms can take to protect themselves from
ERISA lawsuits.  "It's very, very simple. It's extremely short,"
he said.

Further, some brokerage firms have already moved to levelize
compensation for advisers in order to avoid running afoul of the
rule, he added.

And, since some of the more detailed parts of BICE won't come into
effect until next year, bringing class-action lawsuits under ERISA
will likely be more difficult during the transition period from
June to January 2018 when the broad principles-based impartial
conduct standards are the only applicable factor, said Andrew
Oringer, a partner at Dechert.

There will be less room for plaintiff's attorneys to sue firms for
"mistakes and footfaults" in technical compliance, he said.

"The mechanics and the plumbing [of the BICE] are getting put off.
And that's often where people bring claims," Mr. Oringer said.
"Those sort of laser-shot claims are going to be harder to make."


* Plaintiff-Style Aggregate Damages Play Key Role in Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine J. Galley, Erin E. McGlogan and Pierrick Morel, of
Cornerstone Research, in an article for Law360, report that
"Plaintiff-style" aggregate damages are commonly calculated for
securities class actions.  These estimates provide a plaintiffs'
view of the defendant's potential dollar exposure assuming the
plaintiffs prevail on the merits of their case.  Despite
criticisms of typical plaintiff-style aggregate damages, including
those made by several courts, they, along with aggregate damages
estimates incorporating defendant adjustments (typically
concerning class period and inflation) can play an important role
throughout the life cycle of a case, in particular when it comes
to settlement negotiations.

It is therefore useful to have information on the extent to which
these estimates may exceed the dollar amount of damages claims
submitted and approved to be paid if a case settles or if the
plaintiffs prevail on their allegations at trial.  Such data are
limited, however, because data for securities class actions that
settle are generally not publicly available and very few cases
reach trial and result in a verdict in favor of plaintiffs such
that damages are ultimately awarded.

This study identifies and analyzes two securities class actions
that relatively recently reached trial and resulted in a verdict
in favor of plaintiffs: In re Vivendi Universal SA Securities
Litigation and In re Household International Inc.  The data from
these cases show the extent to which aggregate damages estimates
can exceed approved damages claims, excluding the effect of
differences between the plaintiffs' allegations and the jury's
findings.  In Vivendi, the "approved claims rate" was 20 percent,
and for Household, the "approved claims rate" was 38 percent.
When applied to aggregate damages estimates for other cases, these
approved claims rates can provide an indication of the potential
damages exposure, which may be of interest to securities
litigators, their clients, and directors and officers insurers.

Calculation Of Approved Claims Rates

Aggregate damages estimates are likely to differ from the total
amount of approved claims resulting from any judgment in favor of
plaintiffs for a number of reasons.  As a foundational matter,
plaintiff-style aggregate damages estimates assume the plaintiffs
prevail on their initial allegations regarding class period and
the amount of inflation in the defendant company's shares during
the class period.  For this study, this difference is removed by
using the class period and amount of inflation from the jury
verdicts in Vivendi and Household in the calculation of aggregate
damages.

Differences between aggregate damages estimates and total approved
claims are also likely to occur because:

   1. The trading models used in aggregate damages estimates are
unreliable in that they do not provide an accurate estimate of
damaged shares;

   2. Not all damaged investors submit damages claims;

   3. Some claims may be rejected (e.g., because defendants
successfully rebut the presumption of reliance on the market
price); and

   4. There can be differences in damages methodologies
attributable to the court's determination of how damages will be
calculated for individual investors.

The analysis in this study measures the effect of these four items
by using publicly available information to calculate "approved
claims rate" as the ratio of approved damages claims to aggregate
damages estimates based on the jury verdicts.

Vivendi and Household

The total dollar amount of approved claims for Vivendi and
Household, according to judgments issued, was $41,082,476 and
$1,476,490,844, respectively.

For the aggregate damages estimates, as noted above, the class
period and amount of inflation in the defendant company's shares
at issue were based on the jury verdicts.

In Vivendi, the jury ruled that Vivendi's American depository
shares (ADS) (1) bought during the class period, between Oct. 30,
2000, and Aug. 13, 2002, and (2) held over the corrective
disclosure, Aug. 14, 2002, are eligible for damages. The jury
determined that the amount of inflation in Vivendi's ADS for each
day in the Vivendi class period ranged from $0 to $11 per ADS.

In Household, the jury ruled that (1) shares bought during the
class period, between March 23, 2001, and Oct. 11, 2002, and (2)
sold during or after the start of the corrective disclosure
period, beginning Nov. 15, 2001, and ending Oct. 10, 2002, were
eligible for damages.  The jury determined that the amount of
inflation in Household's shares for each day in the Household
class period reached a high of $23.94 per share.

The aggregate damages estimates for each matter are otherwise
calculated using methodologies typically applied by plaintiffs.
Plaintiff-style aggregate damages are usually estimated using
publicly available information -- such as the number of shares
available to be traded (float) during the class period and the
volume of shares traded each day -- along with a number of
assumptions and related adjustments.

Float is typically calculated for each day during the class period
as the number of shares outstanding less shares held by company
officers and directors. Other common adjustments include
subtracting estimated long-term holdings by larger institutional
investors and adding the number of shares comprising short
interest.  Float was calculated for both Vivendi and Household in
accordance with these typical calculations and adjustments.

Plaintiffs commonly use the calculated float as an input into
trading models, along with trading volume for the shares at issue.
Trading models purportedly estimate how many of the shares that
comprise daily trading volume are purchased for the first time
during the class period (and therefore become eligible for
damages) and whether and/or when those shares were sold.

One model commonly used by plaintiffs -- sometimes referred to as
the 80/20 two-trader model -- assumes that 20 percent of the
trading volume is attributable to 80 percent of shares, and the
remaining 80 percent of the trading volume is attributable to the
remaining 20 percent of shares. While simplifying assumptions such
as these generally render aggregate damages estimates unreliable,
as noted by various courts, these estimates are commonly used in
the context of settlement negotiations.

Using the calculated float, trading volume, the 80/20 two-trader
model, and the class period and amount of inflation per the jury
verdicts, aggregate damages estimates are calculated.  Comparing
the total dollar amount of approved claims for each case to the
aggregate damages estimates results in approved claims rates of 20
percent for Vivendi and 38 percent for Household.

Catherine Galley is a senior vice president in Cornerstone
Research's Los Angeles office. She developed the firm's financial
institutions practice, and has been active in the firm's
securities and corporate and government investigations practices
for more than 25 years. In addition, Galley has managed cases
involving breach of contract, corporate governance, valuation, and
auditor liability.

Erin McGlogan manages development initiatives for the firm's
practice areas encompassing financial institutions, finance, and
securities.  She is based in Cornerstone Research's Los Angeles
office, where she has over 10 years of experience consulting on
economic and financial issues in a variety of cases, including
securities, finance and financial institutions.

Pierrick Morel is a principal in Cornerstone Research's Los
Angeles office. He focuses primarily on matters relating to
securities, finance and financial institutions. Morel also has
experience with cases involving intellectual property, general
damages, breach of contract, bankruptcy, and forensic accounting.


* Sheffield Lake Council to Join Class Action Over Bill 331
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jon Wysochanski, writing for The Chronicle-Telegram, reports that
the Sheffield Lake council passed legislation on April 11 to join
a class-action lawsuit challenging Senate Bill 331, which was
signed into law in December.

Sheffield Lake Law Director David Graves said the bill, which was
passed by the Legislature during a lame-duck session, has been
dubbed the "Petland Bill" because it specifies that cities cannot
limit the outlets from which pet stores or retailers purchase dogs
and it also includes sections that prohibit bestiality and
cockfighting.

Mr. Graves said some municipalities are challenging the law on the
grounds that it violates the "one subject rule" because laws
cannot be passed that deal with more than one subject.  On its
face the legislation deals with animal issues, Mr. Graves said,
but tacked into it are an assortment of other regulations.

For example, the law includes portions that bar cities from
setting their own minimum wage laws and there is a section which
allows cell phone providers to erect towers in the public right-
of-way without the need for approval from municipalities.

The section dealing with cell phone towers is what many cities are
opposed to because the law allows towers up to 50 feet tall to be
placed anywhere in a right-of-way and local zoning departments
have no power to regulate the towers' placement.

"They snuck this other portion in which takes away our ability to
regulate cell phone tower technology in the public right-of-way,"
Mr. Graves said.  "Basically since they are designated a public
utility, they can put these towers up wherever they wanted to. The
state Legislature thought this was a good thing because this would
put the state on the forefront of 5G technology and high-speed
connectivity."

Mr. Graves said the law also appears to violate municipalities'
rights of home rule, and the more communities that join the
better.

"By us joining, it sends a clear message to our community and
residents that we are not going to stand for this type of
restriction on our home rule powers," Mr. Graves said.

The city will pay $3,000 to obtain the services of Walter
Haverfield LLP to join a suit that 32 other Ohio cities have
joined to challenge the law.  The law firm also is representing
Avon, Avon Lake and Oberlin.


* Trump Supreme Court Appointee to Affect Pending Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hurley at Reuters reports Neil Gorsuch, President Donald
Trump's appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court who was confirmed by
the Senate to the lifetime job on April 7 in a 54-45 vote, will
have an immediate impact on cases already pending before the
justices.

The nine-seat court has operated with only eight justices after
the death of conservative Antonin Scalia on Feb. 13, 2016, with
four liberals and four conservatives. Gorsuch's confirmation
restores a 5-4 conservative majority. The new justice could cast
the deciding vote in new cases before the court as well as some
cases already argued during the current term that ends in June.
The court could decide to hear fresh arguments in cases in which
they otherwise would be split 4-4.

Here is a list of five such cases in which Gorsuch could be
pivotal.

Religious rights: Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer

A case from Missouri to be argued on April 19 in which a church
contends the state violated the U.S. Constitution's First
Amendment guarantee of religious freedom by denying it funds for a
playground project because of a state ban on aid to religious
organizations.

Employee class-action lawsuits: Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis

A significant case for business and labor on whether companies can
head off costly class-action lawsuits by forcing employees to give
up their right to pursue work-related legal claims as a group in
court. An issue that has divided the court in the past, this case
is set to be argued in the next term, which starts in October.

Housing discrimination: Bank of America v. Miami

The eight-justice court appeared closely divided when it heard
arguments on Nov. 8 on whether the city of Miami could pursue
lawsuits accusing major banks of predatory mortgage lending to
black and Hispanic home buyers. The court may need to reargue the
case with Gorsuch on board to avoid a 4-4 split.

Cross-border shooting: Hernandez v. Mesa

A 4-4 split appeared possible when the court heard arguments in
this civil rights case on Feb. 21. The court has been asked to
revive a civil rights lawsuit filed by the family of a Mexican
teenager against a U.S. Border Patrol agent who fatally shot the
15-year-old from across the border in Texas in 2010.

Corporate liability: Jesner v. Arab Bank

In a case to be heard next term, the court agreed on April 3 to
consider reviving litigation that seeks to hold Arab Bank Plc
financially liable for militant attacks in Israel and the
Palestinian territories and accuses the Jordan-based bank of being
the "paymaster" to militant groups. The question of whether
companies can be held liable for actions overseas under a federal
law called the Alien Tort Statute is one the court also took up in
2013 but failed to decide.


                         *********


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. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. 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  * * *