CAR_Public/170425.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Tuesday, April 25, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 82



                            Headlines

90 HADDON AVENUE: Court Grants Reed's Bid for Conditional Cert.
ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Suit by Food Workers Union in Colo. Dismissed
AIR METHODS: "Parshall" Suit Challenges Merger Deal
ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Jordan Seeks to Certify Prisoners Class
ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE: Suit Over Junk Fax in Discovery Phase

ALLIANCE MMA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Strikes Schafer's Bid to Certify Class
ALPINE ACCESS: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Morse" Suit
AMERICAN CHEMICALS: Judge Okays Junk Fax Settlement for $1.55MM
AMETEK INC: Faces "Cox" Suit Over Groundwater Contamination

ANZ SECURITIES: High Court Hears Oral Arguments in Class Action
ANZ SECURITIES: Justice Gorsuch Less Sympathetic to Plaintiffs
ANZ SECURITIES: S.C. Tackles Time Limits Issue Under Section 13
ANZ SECURITIES: Several Justices Sympathetic to CALPERS Arguments
ANZ SECURITIES: Chief Justice Likely Swing Vote for Opt-Outs

ANZ SECURITIES: SC Justices Divided on Statue of Repose Issue
ASCEND FUNDING: Faces Class Action Over Solicitation Calls
AURORA BULL: Faces "Gabryszak" Suit Over FLSA, IMWL Breach
AVANGRID INC: Awaits Final Approval of Merger Suit Settlement
BANK OF THE OZARKS: Class Suit in Pre-Trial Discovery

BAXTER INT'L: Faces Saline Price Fixing Probe Amid Class Action
BCB BANCORP: Awaits Order on Bids in Suit to Recover $1MM in Fees
BERKS COUNTY, PA: Detained Immigrants File Class Action v. AG
BERKSHIRE HILLS: Settlement in Hampden Investor Suit Has Final OK
BERKSHIRE HILLS: Depositor's Class Action Underway

BIG LOTS: Court Certifies Class of Stockholders in "Willis" Suit
BIJOU-CENTURY: Faces "Carouba" Class Suit in California
BIOLASE INC: "Shulruff" Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
BLACKROCK INC: Faces "Baird" Suit over Retirement Plans
CAESARSTONE LTD: Defends 85 Injury Suits in Israel as of March 1

CAESARSTONE LTD: Defends Suit in Israel Central District Court
CAESARSTONE LTD: Settles Securities Class Suit in New York
CANADA: Suit Filed on Behalf of Developmentally Disabled Adults
CELESTICA INC: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Tossed
CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE: Removed "Espinosa" Suit to S.D. California

CENTRAL CREDIT: Class Certification Sought in "Czarnecki" Suit
CITIBANK: Reed Smith Attorney Discusses Arbitration Issue Ruling
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Court Consolidated 3 Class Suits
COLLIER COUNTY, FL: Immigrant Students to Join Class Action
CONAGRA: Judge Tosses Crunch 'N Munch Trans Fat Class Action

CREATIVE AIR: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over TCPA Violation
CURADEN AG: Faces "Lyngaas" Suit Over TCPA Violation
DELOITTE: Ontario Court Certifies Doc Reviewers' Class Action
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Driver Sues for Vehicle Expense Compensation
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Cal.

DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Court Tosses Consolidated Securities Suit
EL POLLO LOCO: Awaits OK of Settlement in Orange Cty., Cal. Suit
EL POLLO LOCO: Wins More Time to Respond to "Turocy" Amended Suit
ENRICH FINANCIAL: Aleksanian Sues Over False Advertisement
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: To Pay $300,000 to Plaintiffs' Counsel

EXPEDIA INC: Texas Cities Awarded $25MM in Hotel Tax Class Action
FBR & CO: Briefing on Bids to Dismiss "Gaynor" Suit to End in 2Q
FBR & CO: Waterford Appeals Denial of Bid to Amend Complaint
FCA US: "Sebastian" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2777
FCA US: "Warren" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2777

FEDERAL-MOGUL: To Defend Against Delaware Shareholder Action
FEDERAL-MOGUL: To Defend Against Michigan Shareholder Suit
FEDERAL WAY, WA: Faces Class Action Over Illegal School Zone
FIAT CHRYSLER: Seeks Dismissal of Clutch Defect Class Action
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Class Action Over Coal Waste Dump

FORD MOTOR: Kinnunen Sues Over Faulty Door Lock
FRESHLY INC: Removed "Johnson" Suit to East. District California
FRIENDS OF FREDDIE: Faces Class Action Over Sick Dogs
GENVEC INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
GOOGLE INC: Settles AdWords Advertisers' Class Action for $22.5MM

HEALTH NET: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
HSBC MORTGAGE: Judge Tosses Claims in Default Servicing Suit
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Pretrial Discovery Continues in Chieftain Suit
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Royalty Suit by Roderick Trust Now Concluded
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Underway in Solodyn Antitrust Suit

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Underway in Opana ER Antitrust Suit
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Motion to Dismiss Plumbers' Suit Underway
IMPAX LABORATORIES: 2 Junk Fax Suit Pending in Alabama
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Flooding Suit Obtains Class Action Status
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Must Face Price-Fixing Class Action

J2 GLOBAL: Class Certification Bid in Paldo Suit Underway
J2 GLOBAL: Appeal in Multi-District Litigation Underway
J2 GLOBAL: Final Class Action Settlement Approval Pending
J2 GLOBAL: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: 2nd Circuit Reinstates Claims in Investors' Case

JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Grants Class Certification in 401(k) Suit
LANNETT COMPANY: Faces FWK Holdings Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
LAMI AEROSPACE: Faces "Benchabane" Suit Over Sale to Sonaca
LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action
MAJOR LEAGUE: Players' Attorneys Want Antitrust Exemption Nixed

MARINA ST VINCENT: Wirrina Cove Berth Owners Files Class Action
MAZDA MOTOR: Traffic Alerts in Cars Don't Work, Lewand Says
MDL 2724: No Trial Yet in Generic Drug Pricing Antitrust Suit
MDL 2724: Operating Engineers' Suit Consolidated for Pre-Trial
MEMPHIS, TN: 6 More Victims Join Class Action Over Rape Kits Case

MIDLAND STATES: Faces "Rader" Suit Over Centrue Acquisition
MKS INSTRUMENTS: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
NASHVILLE, TN: Immigrant Detentions Illegal, Abriq Claims
NATURAL HEALTH: Discovery Cut-Off Date in "Ford" Extended
NL INDUSTRIES: Appeal in Santa Clara Action Remains Pending

NL INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend "Lewis" Class Suit in Illinois
NL INDUSTRIES: Still Defends Suits Over Use of Lead Pigments
NUVASIVE INC: Wants Judge to Stay Investor Class Action
O'CONNELL PROTECTION: Faces "Harris" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ODWALLA INC: Faces "Wilson" Class Suit in C.D. California

OMEGA FLEX: Missouri District Court Dismisses "George" Class Suit
P&M LIVE: Faces "Pino" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PACIFIC COAST: Final Hearing on "Welch" Accord Continued June 12
PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Wins Final Approval of Deal in Suit vs. Bank
PATH INC: May 25 Hearing for Initial Approval of $5.3M Accord

PROMETHEUS GLOBAL: Faces "Sullivan" Suit Over ADA Violation
QUANTA SERVICES: To Appeal Ruling in "Benton" Class Suit
SALEM COUNTY, NJ: Stevenson et al. Sue Over Inmates' Velcro Suits
SAN FRANCISCO: Transport Sys. Sued over Disability Discrimination
SANTANDER CONSUMER: SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments in Class Action

SCYNEXIS INC: Defends "Gibson" Stockholder Suit in New Jersey
SEAWORLD PARKS: Customers' Motion for Summary Judgment Granted
SOUTHERN COPPER: "Lacey" Class Action in Discovery
ST. BERNARD'S: "Citizen" Not Synonymous to "Resident", Court Says
STELLAR MANAGEMNENT: 60 Tenants File Class Action Over J-51 Fraud

STRAIGHT PATH: Says Zacharia Deal Subject to Definitive Agreement
TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: GTA Gamers Have Until May 8 to Amend Suit
THERANOS: Court Upholds Fraud Claims in Investor Class Action
THERAPEUTICSMD INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida

TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Discovery Still Ongoing in Blue Cross MDL
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Procedures Ongoing in Suit vs. JUA and TSP
U.S. METALS: Motion to Dismiss Smelter Class Action Challenged
UBER TECH: Shortchanged Drivers, "Van" Suit Claims
UBER TECH: Can't Compel Arbitration in Cancellation Fees Action

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Contractor Status
UFP TECHNOLOGIES: Has Gained $2.1MM From Polyurethane Foam Deal
UNITED STATES: Army Veterans Sue Over PTSD Discharge Status
UNITED STATES: Trump Administration Wants Visa Class Action Nixed
US COMMODITY: Suit by N.J. Carpenters Health Fund Remains Pending

US GASOLINE: Forex Class Suits vs. RBC Pending in U.S. and Canada
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Israel
VOX MEDIA: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Violation
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Appeal in "Roberts" Suit Underway
WELLS FARGO: $50MM Mortgage Fees Class Action Settlement Okayed

WESTERN HEALTH: Plaintiffs' Lawyers to Conduct Discoveries
WESTERN RANGE: Judge Dismisses Shepherds' Wage Class Action
YAHOO! INC: 43 Consumer Actions Filed over Security Incidents
ZAFGEN INC: Appeal From "Bessler" Suit Dismissal Heard in March

* Lanier-Hosted Fundraiser Casts Doubt About Tort Reform Bill
* Mintz Levin Attorneys Discuss Class Arbitration Issues
* Morningstar Explores Ways to Avert Class Action Liability


                            *********


90 HADDON AVENUE: Court Grants Reed's Bid for Conditional Cert.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Noel L. Hillman grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional collective action certification filed in the lawsuit
captioned WILLIAM REED, et al. v. 90 HADDON AVENUE RESTAURANT
INCORPORATED d/b/a KEG & KITCHEN, Case No. 1:16-cv-06226-NLH-JS
(D.N.J.).

The case seeks to proceed as a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 for alleged unpaid overtime
compensation and minimum wages to servers, bartenders, bussers,
and food runners, who worked at Keg & Kitchen.

The Court authorizes the mailing of the proposed notice to all
persons employed by Keg & Kitchen in positions of server,
bartender, busser, and food runner within three years of the date
of the mailing of the notice.  The Court directs Keg & Kitchen to
produce to the Plaintiffs a computer-readable data file (Microsoft
Word/Excel) containing the names, addresses, social security
numbers and available telephone numbers of all potential opt-in
Plaintiffs within 10 days of the date of this Order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OzhTTiO8


ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Suit by Food Workers Union in Colo. Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the
securities lawsuit titled United Food and Commercial Workers Union
v. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., No. 14-cv-01243-CMA-KMT
(U.S. District Court, D. Colo.), has been dismissed following
final approval of a settlement.

A class action lawsuit against ADES and certain of its current and
former officers was filed in May 2014 in the federal court in
Denver, Colorado alleging that ADES and other defendants
misrepresented to the investing public the Company's financial
condition and its financial controls to artificially inflate and
maintain the market price of ADES's common stock. In May 2016, the
parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this
litigation, and on June 30, 2016, the parties entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to resolve the action in
its entirety.

On February 10, 2017, the Company received an order and final
judgment that the lawsuit was settled, and the entire case has
been dismissed with prejudice.

The settlement agreement for this case contains no admission of
liability, and all of the defendants in this litigation have
expressly denied, and continue to deny, all allegations of
wrongdoing or improper conduct. The Company's insurance carriers
funded the full settlement in November 2016.

Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., is the holding entity for a
family of companies that provide emissions solutions to customers
in the coal-fired power generation and industrial boiler
processes.  Through its subsidiaries and joint ventures, the
Company is a leader in emissions control technologies and
associated equipment, chemicals and services.


AIR METHODS: "Parshall" Suit Challenges Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that challenging a merger valued
at $2.5 billion, Air Methods shareholders claim in a federal class
action in Wilmington, Del. that the offer of $43 a share by
American Securities is inadequate consideration.

Air Methods has three divisions, one of which "is the largest
provider of air medical transport services in the United States,"
according to the April 5 complaint.

The case is captioned, PAUL PARSHALL, On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION,
AARON D. TODD, C. DAVID KIKUMOTO, JOSEPH WHITTERS, RALPH J.
BERNSTEIN, MARK D. CARLETON, JEFFREY A. DORSEY, JOHN J. CONNOLLY,
MORAD TAHBAZ, CLAIRE M. GULMI, JESSICA GARFOLA WRIGHT, AMERICAN
SECURITIES LLC, ASP AMC INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC., and  ASP AMC
MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants. Case 1:17-cv-00383-UNA (D. Del.,
April 5, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     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
     Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
     Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
     Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
     Email: gms@rl-legal.com

          - and -

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RM LAW, P.C.
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Tel.: (484) 324-6800


ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Jordan Seeks to Certify Prisoners Class
---------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ROLANDO JORDAN, RONALD WARD,
and KENNETH ROLLINGCLOUD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DAVID GLADIEUX, ALAN COOK, and CHARLES HART,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00335-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), ask the Court to
certify this proposed class:

     All individuals held at the Allen County Jail between
     October 2014 and September 2016 practicing a Muslim or
     traditional Native American faith who have been forbidden
     from engaging in Muslim or traditional Native American
     communal worship and/or have been forbidden from keeping an
     article of Muslim or traditional Native American religious
     devotion.

David Gladieux is the Sheriff of Allen County, Indiana.

The action alleges unlawful and unconstitutional religious
discrimination against inmates practicing Muslim and traditional
Native American faiths at the Allen County Jail in Fort Wayne,
Indiana.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher C. Myers, Esq.
          David W. Frank, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES
          809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400
          Fort Wayne, IN 46802-2307
          Telephone: (260) 424-0600
          Facsimile: (260) 424-0712
          E-mail: cmyers@myers-law.com
                  dfrank@myers-law.com


ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE: Suit Over Junk Fax in Discovery Phase
----------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Junk
Fax Prevention Act is currently in the discovery phase, Alliance
HealthCare Services, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In November 2015, the Company was served with a lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio by Todd S.
Elwert, DC, Inc. The Complaint alleges violations of the Junk Fax
Prevention Act for allegedly sending an unsolicited advertisement
to Plaintiff which promoted commercial availability and/or quality
of the Company's services. The Plaintiff further alleges that it
is part of a class of similarly situated chiropractors who
received the blast fax, and as such, requested class
certification. The Company filed its response on December 17, 2015
and is currently in the discovery phase of the lawsuit.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself against
the lawsuit and currently believes the ultimate disposition of
these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its
consolidated financial statements.

Alliance HealthCare Services, Inc., is a national provider of
outsourced medical services, including radiology, oncology and
interventional.  The Company provides a full continuum of services
from mobile to comprehensive service line management and joint
venture partnerships, which can include one or more of the
following depending on the customer's needs: systems,
technologists to operate the systems, sales and marketing, patient
scheduling and pre-authorization, billing and payer management,
equipment maintenance and upgrades, overall management of services
and fixed-site operations, including outpatient clinics and
Ambulatory Surgical Centers.


ALLIANCE MMA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 18
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Alliance MMA, Inc. securities (AMMA) pursuant and/or
traceable to Alliance MMA's initial public offering on or about
October 6, 2016.  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Alliance MMA investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Alliance MMA class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1102.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants in connection with Alliance
MMA's initial public offering made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the condensed
consolidated financial statements for the three months ended June
30, 2016 could not be relied upon because of an error in
recognizing as compensation transfers of common stock by an
affiliate of Alliance MMA to individuals who were at the time of
transfer, or subsequently became, officers, directors or
consultants of Alliance MMA; (2) the condensed consolidated
financial statements for the six months ended June 30, 2016 could
not be relied upon because of an error in recognizing as
compensation transfers of common stock by an affiliate of Alliance
MMA to individuals who were at the time of transfer, or
subsequently became, officers, directors or consultants of
Alliance MMA; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about
Alliance MMA's business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis 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 16, 2017. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1102.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.

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

View source version on businesswire.com:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170417005666/en/


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Strikes Schafer's Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Janet T. Neff entered an order in the lawsuit titled LISA
J. SCHAFER individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00233-
JTN-ESC (W.D. Mich.), striking the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be stricken from
the record for the reason that Plaintiff has failed to comply with
this Court's Information and Guideline Practice for Civil Cases,
which requires a pre-motion conference before filing any
dispositive motions, Judge Neff opines.  In addition, the Court
finds that the Motion is premature.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=I2H9rF7o


ALPINE ACCESS: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Morse" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled CAROL MORSE, BECKY NELLOS,
SANDY MOROWITZ, and other similarly situated individuals v. ALPINE
ACCESS, INC., and SYKES ENTERPRISES, INC., jointly and severally,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00235-BKS-ATB (N.D.N.Y.), submit to the Court
their pre-discovery motion for conditional collective
certification and Court-supervised notice to potential opt-in
plaintiffs.

Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs move to
certify this class:

     All current and former hourly at-home customer service
     representatives employed by Alpine Access, Inc. and/or Sykes
     Enterprises, Inc. ("Defendants") at any time from February
     28, 2014 through the date of judgment in this case (the
     proposed "Collective").

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, L.L.C.
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com


AMERICAN CHEMICALS: Judge Okays Junk Fax Settlement for $1.55MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that junk
faxes may sound like a problem from the '90s -- but they can still
lead to large payouts for plaintiffs.

A Miami federal judge gave final approval to a $1.55 million
nationwide class action settlement for thousands of schools that
complained about receiving reams of unsolicited faxes advertising
Gorilla Glides, felt pads that go underneath chairs and tables to
protect floors.

The allegations came under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
which also covers robocalls and spam text messages.  Lawsuits
under the TCPA have increased dramatically in recent years, with
44 TCPA lawsuits filed in 2009 and 4,860 filed last year,
according to the Wall Street Journal.  The law provides for
recovery of up to $500 per fax.

Gorilla Glides maker American Chemicals & Equipment Inc. sent the
faxes every couple of weeks for more than a year, according to
class lawyer Arturo Martinez.  While most people probably don't
look at paper faxes nowadays, that doesn't make spam less of a
bother, he said.

"On the receiving end, people have it set up so you get them
through email, so you don't know what you're getting until you
actually open the email up and see that it's junk," said
Mr. Martinez of Wallen Hernandez Lee Martinez in Coral Gables. "So
the basis of all of this is the annoyance that people have to go
through to determine whether this is business-related or not."

The plaintiffs class, which includes nearly 14,000 school
districts and about 90,000 schools and companies, negotiated a
settlement in September just as the trial was set to begin. The
case had been "fully litigated," Wallen Hernandez partner Eric
Hernandez -- eric@whlmlegal.com -- said, including a contentious
discovery battle.

Because mass fax records are constantly purged, plaintiffs counsel
had to act quickly to get the information they needed.

"In this type of lawsuit, the biggest challenge discovery-wise is
getting evidence of the transmissions," Mr. Martinez said.  "Faxes
nowadays are sent electronically and the entities that actually
send the faxes do so in batches of thousands at a time."

Defense lawyers moved to stay discovery because of two pending
U.S. Supreme Court rulings, which they argued would lead to the
dismissal of the case: one on whether the plaintiffs suffered
actual injuries and one on offers of judgment.  The defense made a
$7,500 offer of judgment to the lead plaintiff, a Miami bartending
school that allegedly received five faxes, but the offer was
declined.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams denied the motion to stay in
December 2015, just four months after the case was filed, and
plaintiffs counsel started digging into the records.  They found
the Colorado-based company hired to send the faxes, WestFax, and
received from it all the invoices for transmissions.  American
Chemicals & Equipment also produced its own fax logs, and
plaintiffs counsel contacted a third company responsible for
handling opt-out requests from fax recipients.

"That reflected people opting out and sending notices to the
defendants requesting not to be sent further faxes," Martinez
said.

Just before the trial was set to start, Judge Williams directed
the parties to try to negotiate one last time, and they reached a
settlement that includes an injunction against sending unsolicited
faxes and a $1.55 million payout over five years. The settlement
resolves two lawsuits, one filed in Miami and the other in
Alabama.

Each class member will receive $500 per copy of a qualifying fax,
or up to $325 for claims submitted without copies.

Judge Williams approved about $517,000 in attorney fees and
$42,000 in costs for Martinez, Hernandez, their colleague Jermaine
Lee and New York co-counsel Aytan Bellin of Bellin & Associates,
and Jeffrey Eilender of Schlam Stone & Dolan.

The payouts resulting from TCPA lawsuits led defense attorneys to
tell the Wall Street Journal that the law's name should stand for
"Total Cash for Plaintiffs' Attorneys," arguing no one should
receive such high sums just because they received a handful of
faxes a year.  But recipients say the faxes are a nuisance, and
the Federal Communications Commission has logged more than 10,000
consumer complaints about junk faxes since late 2014, according to
the Journal's March article.

Defense attorneys in the Gorilla Glides case did not immediately
respond to a request for comment.  The case was defended by Blank
Rome attorneys Ana Tagvoryan -- ATagvoryan@BlankRome.com -- in Los
Angeles, Paul Sodhi in Fort Lauderdale and Jeffrey Rosenthal in
Philadelphia; Robert Brochin and Brian Ercole of Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius in Miami and David Guin of Guin, Stokes & Evans in
Birmingham, Alabama.


AMETEK INC: Faces "Cox" Suit Over Groundwater Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case captioned, Adam Cox and Ronald Cos, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Ametek, Inc., Thomas Deeney, Senior Operations LLC and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS
(S.D. Cal., March 27, 2017), brings this lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all others who resided in or owned a mobile home at
Greenfield, Starlight, and/or Villa Cajon, specifically:

"All persons who have resided or do now reside, and/or all
persons who have owned or do now own a mobile home, situated above
the contaminated groundwater plume, at Greenfield, Villa Cajon,
and/or Starlight mobile home parks."

The Plaintiff and the members of the Class have all suffered
injury in fact as a result of the exposure to harmful toxins to
their person and their property, which was the result of
Defendants' unlawful, intentional, and grossly negligent conduct,
says the complaint.  Despite knowledge of groundwater
contamination at extremely high levels, AMETEK made a cold,
calculated business decision to simply walk away without any
effort to clean up or remediate the groundwater contamination, the
complaint adds.

Ametek is an American global manufacturer of electronic
instruments and electromechanical devices.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Scott Summy, Esq.
   John P. Fiske, Esq.
   Celeste Evangelisti, Esq.
   BARON & BUDD, P.C.
   603 Coast Hwy, Suite G
   Solana Beach, CA 92075
   Telephone: (214) 521-3605
   E-mail: Fiske@BaronBudd.com

        - and -

   John H. Gomez, Esq.
   Deborah Dixon, Esq.
   GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS
   655 West Broadway, Suite 1700
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Telephone: (619) 237-3490
   E-mail: DDixon@GomezTrialAttorneys.com


ANZ SECURITIES: High Court Hears Oral Arguments in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antoinette Gartrell, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that
justices asked about the impact of a class action timeliness rule
on both investors and the lower courts during an April 17 oral
argument at the U.S. Supreme Court (Calif. Pub. Emp. Ret. Sys. v.
ANZ Securities, Inc., U.S., No. 16-373, 4/17/17).

The district courts could be flooded with "make-work" under the
defendant investment bank's argument, Justice Elena Kagan said.

The dispute concerns whether the filing of a class action stops
the clock on a three-year time limit set out in securities law
provisions governing when lawsuits must be filed.  The issue is
important to institutional investors who often opt out of
securities class litigation to bring their own individual suits.

The resolution depends on whether the high court's previous
tolling decision-- that the commencement of a class action
suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all would-be
class members -- applies.  The justices agreed to tackle the topic
two years ago in an unrelated case, but the parties settled their
differences before oral argument.

California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) opted out
of a class action and brought an individual suit in 2011 claiming
that the underwriters of $31 billion in Lehman Brothers Holdings'
debt offerings didn't disclose risks related to Lehman's exposure
to subprime mortgages in the years before its demise.

During arguments, CalPERS' attorney Thomas C. Goldstein of
Goldstein & Russell PC, Bethesda, Md., told the court that his
client's suit was, in essence, the same action as the class suit
because it involved the same allegations.

"The class action complaint, in the passive voice, brought the
action on our behalf, and then we just took control of it when we
opted out," he said.  "All that happens is we have different
lawyers," Mr. Goldstein said.  "There's no additional surprise,"
he said in assuring the justices that it was a mere formality that
"just involves more paperwork."

The April 17 oral argument took place on Justice Neil Gorsuch's
first day on the job.  During the arguments, Gorsuch focused on
the proper meaning of the term "action" found in the provision and
why the court shouldn't follow the traditional interpretation of
the word.

ANZ Securities Inc.'s attorney, Paul Clement --
paul.clement@kirkland.com -- a former U.S. solicitor general and
partner at Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, said that statutes of
repose, which limit civil liability, aren't subject to tolling.
It's only when investors wish to go outside of the class action to
get a "better deal," that they have to concern themselves with the
timeliness issue, he said.  "I'm sorry, 2011 is too late under the
plain terms of the statute," Clement said.

Washington lawyer Daniel S. Sommers -- dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
-- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, who represents investors in
class actions, told Bloomberg BNA that it's too difficult to
predict how the justices will rule, but said that it was worth
noting that five members of the court -- Justices Kagan, Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, John Roberts, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor -
- "expressed significant concerns about the practical implications
on investors of ANZ's position that investors must file a separate
action within three years of the issuance of a security in order
to protect their rights."

Mark R.S. Foster -- mfoster@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster
LLP, San Francisco, who represents public companies in securities
class actions, said in a statement that no matter how the justices
decide, it's unlikely that it will have a significant effect on
securities litigation over the long term.


ANZ SECURITIES: Justice Gorsuch Less Sympathetic to Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that New
Justice Neil Gorsuch's first foray into securities class action
law on the U.S. Supreme Court came on his first day on the bench
on April 17.  Though he did not tip his hand explicitly, he showed
less sympathy for plaintiffs than for defendants.

His predecessor, the late Antonin Scalia, usually expressed
similar preferences, so the court may be ready to take on class
action reforms again.

The case before the court, California Public Employees' Retirement
System v. ANZ Securities, dealt with a narrow issue of deadlines
for initiating litigation.  But it comes up when investors seek to
opt out of settlements and sue issuers individually for false
information in registrations.

The Securities Act of 1933 states that lawsuits cannot be filed
more than three years after the securities offering.  But citing a
1974 Supreme Court precedent American Pipe & Construction v. Utah,
CalPERS claims that deadline can be tolled or delayed while class
actions are under way.

"All manner of satellite litigation" could proliferate if
statutory deadlines are interpreted too strictly, Tom Goldstein of
Goldstein & Russell told the justices on behalf of the California
pension fund, the largest in the nation. Because of the complexity
of securities litigation, a three-year "statute of repose" limit
advocated by defendants is too short, Goldstein argued, and would
compel investor groups to file separate litigation early to
protect their rights to opt out of class actions.

But Paul Clement of Kirkland & Ellis disputed Goldstein's "parade
of horribles," noting that the three-year statute of repose has
been in place for several years in the Second Circuit, without an
avalanche of new litigation.

Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed especially hostile to Goldstein's
position, suggesting it was "an attack on statutes of repose
generally."

Justice Gorsuch asked Goldstein "where is the ambiguity" in the
Securities Act provision, suggesting he did not think tolling
should apply to the three-year limit.

Justice Gorsuch's views may not be surprising, given Justice
Gorsuch's description -- albeit years ago -- of class actions as a
"free ride to fast riches" for plaintiffs that needed to be reined
in.  Justice Gorsuch asked only one set of questions --fewer than
during the other two arguments earlier in the day. "Securities
fraud litigation imposes an enormous toll on the economy," Justice
Gorsuch wrote in a column for Legal Times while in private
practice in 2005.

Justice Elena Kagan, for her part, seemed sympathetic toward
plaintiffs on April 17, suggesting that the three-year limit could
stifle class action opt-outs.  "We're used to thinking that the
opt-out right is a very important part of class actions," Justice
Kagan said. "It's what saves them from a due process problem, that
people actually do get to say, 'I don't want any part of this.'"

The case before the court stems from the financial crisis of 2008.
CalPERS sued the bankrupt Lehman Brothers and ANZ Securities, one
of its underwriters, claiming false statements in registration
documents. The pension fund had been part of a class action, but
it opted out after a settlement was reached.

The timeline resulted in a conflict between statutory provisions
that impose a deadline on when such lawsuits must be filed. The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the three-
year deadline could not be put off. But the Second Circuit ruling
also said the issue was "ripe for resolution by the Supreme Court"
because of a circuit split over the issue.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned the high court that if the
Second Circuit is overruled, "the statute of repose in the
Securities Act, and presumably any other federal or state statute
of repose, may be circumvented by the simple expedient of filing a
complaint on behalf of a putative class."  That would expose
business defendants to liability long after "they are entitled to
peace," the brief added.  William Jay of Goodwin Procter was
counsel of record on the brief.

But Public Citizen, in a brief by Scott Nelson, said that imposing
a strict "statute of repose" would "significantly impair opt-out
rights of absent class members."


ANZ SECURITIES: S.C. Tackles Time Limits Issue Under Section 13
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Germaine, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on April 17 wrestled with language in a statutory time limit
on securities class actions, with the liberal members of the court
also expressing concerns about the policy implications of applying
a hard deadline to class members'
opt-out claims.

A full bench of nine justices heard arguments over whether a
three-year time limit on certain securities claims can be tolled
by the filing of a class action.  The appeal involves California
Public Employees' Retirement System, which had opted out of a
settlement class to pursue its own claims against several banks
that underwrote Lehman Brothers bond offerings, only to have its
claims dismissed on timeliness grounds.

The justices predictably focused on how to interpret time limits
set forth in Section 13 of the Securities Act of 1933.  That
section requires investors to bring claims over a securities
offering or a registration statement within one year of
discovering an alleged violation, but says that "in no event shall
any action" be brought more than three years after the security
was offered. The defendant banks have argued that the three-year
bar qualifies as a statute of repose that can't be tolled, while
CalPERS says otherwise.

"When I see the word 'action', I think of lawsuit, traditionally,
and 'claim' as the claims within the lawsuit.  And the laws often
distinguish between actions and claims.  The securities laws do,
routinely," said newly minted Justice Neil Gorsuch, according to a
transcript of the arguments.  "Here, why -- why shouldn't we
follow the plain language and the traditional understanding of the
term 'action?'"

The CalPERS case stems from a class action filed by another
retirement fund in June 2008 alleging that several dozen financial
firms -- including ANZ Securities Inc., Citigroup Global Markets
Inc. and HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. -- involved in underwriting
debt offerings from global investment bank Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc. were liable for false and misleading statements in
Lehman's registration statements.

When the litigation stalled, class member CalPERS filed its own
suit in 2011, which was later consolidated with the class claims.
When the proposed class reached a settlement later that year and
was certified for settlement purposes, CalPERS opted out to pursue
its claims individually.  But the district court dismissed the
pension fund's claims as untimely because they were not brought
within three years of the debt offerings.

CalPERS argued on appeal that the decision conflicted with the
Supreme Court's 1974 ruling in American Pipe & Construction Co. v.
Utah, which established that the filing of a putative class action
tolls the statute of limitations for all members of a proposed
class who make timely motions to intervene after a court denies
class certification.

The Second Circuit, however, found that the three-year time limit
in Section 13 constitutes a statute of repose and therefore
American Pipe tolling does not apply.

In the April 17 oral arguments, many justices focused on the
language of the statute, questioning, as Justice Gorsuch did,
whether Section 13's time limits apply to any lawsuit, even an
opt-out party bringing claims that were raised in a class action,
or if they merely apply to claims that could be common to both a
class action and individual litigation.

"Well, what does the term 'such action' mean?" Justice Samuel
Alito asked an attorney for CalPERS, Thomas C. Goldstein of
Goldstein & Russell PC.

Mr. Goldstein responded that the petitioners believe "action"
refers to "an action that is otherwise subject to the discovery
rule," requiring would-be plaintiffs to file actions within one
year of discovering a violation.

Some liberal justices posed similar questions to Kirkland & Ellis
LLP partner and famed appellate lawyer Paul D. Clement as he
argued for the underwriters.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Mr. Clement whether under his
theory, action would refer to a new complaint, "even though it's
asking for the same relief . . . by the same party?"

Mr. Clement replied that it would, but said the statute wouldn't
block claims from parties who filed motions to intervene in the
class action, as long as those motions were timely filed.

The liberal justices also probed Clement on the practical
consequences of interpreting Section 13 as a statute of repose
that can't be tolled.  Justice Elena Kagan suggested that adopting
that interpretation would harm small investors who wouldn't have
"the faintest idea" that they would need to file a timely motion
to intervene in order to protect their claims.

"So this is a rule that's kind of guaranteed to create make-work
for district courts, to be essentially irrelevant for large
investors, and for small investors to lose their claims," Justice
Kagan said.

But Mr. Clement disputed that such a ruling would create a "parade
of horribles," saying that in "almost four years of experience
with this rule in the Second Circuit," courts have seen few opt-
outs and limited practical consequences.

Not every justice appeared concerned with the policy implications
of the case.  As many predicted, Justice Gorsuch signaled he would
likely be keeping his focus on the statutory text when Goldstein
said that he didn't think courts would say a second complaint is
"a new action" if bilateral securities litigation is split into
two cases.

"Why not?" Justice Gorsuch asked.  "I mean, I don't like the
policy consequences, but as a matter of plain language, why
wouldn't we?"

But the case may not split evenly along the court's usual
ideological fault lines. Chief Justice John Roberts said at the
end of Mr. Clement's argument that there are "different levels of
repose," and suggested that as long as a claim is filed within
Section 13's time limit, the statute wouldn't give certainty to
companies facing litigation.

"I mean, the liability is the same if you have the class action,
including CalPERS, and, as it is, if you then have -- you're
facing the class action without CalPERS, but another CalPERS
suit," Chief Justice Roberts said.  "I'm not, you know, sure that
that increases your liability."

Mr. Clement disagreed, responding that both he and his clients
were "absolutely sure" it would increase liability "because they
know from experience that the only thing worse than having a class
action against you is having a class action and some individual
actions against you."

Lyle Roberts -- lroberts@cooley.com -- a partner at Cooley LLP who
provided pro bono assistance on an amicus brief in the case for
the Washington Legal Foundation, said Justice Roberts' questions
to Mr. Clement were perhaps the most interesting moment of the
arguments, and seemed to suggest that the chief justice was
sympathetic to the notion that there wouldn't be a burden on the
defendants if the time limit weren't enforced against opt-out
claims.

"My impression is it's going to be a close call either way," Lyle
Roberts said.  "It certainly looks like the justices were largely
showing their cards in their questions."

CalPERS is represented by Thomas C. Goldstein and Tejinder Singh -
- tsingh@goldsteinrussell.com -- of Goldstein & Russell PC and
Darren J. Robbins, Joseph D. Daley -- joed@rgrdlaw.com -- and
Thomas E. Egler -- tome@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

The underwriters are represented by Paul D. Clement, Jeffrey M.
Harris and Matthew D. Rowen of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and Victor L.
Hou and Jared Gerber of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.

The case is California Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ
Securities Inc. et al., case number 16-373, in the Supreme Court
of the United States.


ANZ SECURITIES: Several Justices Sympathetic to CALPERS Arguments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
the Supreme Court heard arguments on April 17 in a case brought by
CalPERS seeking to uphold a legal precedent on how much time
investors have to join or opt out of class-action lawsuits.
Related Content

Several justices seemed sympathetic to arguments raised by Thomas
C. Goldstein -- tgoldstein@goldsteinrussell.com -- partner at
Goldstein & Russell, attorney for the $316 billion California
Public Employees' Retirement System, Sacramento, that enforcing
strict deadlines for investors to file actions separate from
related class lawsuits on the same issues will "amount to a huge
amount of pointless paperwork" if investors feel the need to file
separate lawsuits. "There are practical implications," Justice
Sonia Sotomayor said.

"From the perspective of institutional investors, this case is of
enormous importance," said Daniel S. Sommers, partner and co-
chairman of Cohen Milstein law firm's securities group, in an
interview.  If the Supreme Court agrees with the defendants --
underwriters of Lehman Brothers debt offerings -- as well as the
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, which in 2013
interpreted securities law to mean strict deadlines, "investors
are going to have become much more proactive to protect their
rights."

A Supreme Court decision will be issued before the session ends in
late June.


ANZ SECURITIES: Chief Justice Likely Swing Vote for Opt-Outs
------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that at oral
arguments on April 17 at the U.S. Supreme Court in California
Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, the
justices seemed to fall into predictable camps -- with one crucial
-- and potentially dispositive -- exception.

The case, as you probably recall, presents the question of whether
the filing of a securities class action extends the statute of
repose as well as the statute of limitations.  Justices Samuel
Alito and Anthony Kennedy seemed skeptical that the time
limitation specified in the Securities Act of 1933 -- which says
that "in no event shall any such action be brought . . . more than
three years after the security was bona fide offered to the
public" -- can be read as anything but a defendant's right to be
free from new lawsuits after three years.  Justice Neil Gorsuch
suggested strict adherence to the text of the statute. (Justice
Clarence Thomas was silent.)

On the court's liberal wing, Justice Stephen Breyer was tough to
read, but Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor
appeared to support a loose reading of the Securities Act's time
limitation.  The practical consequences of a strict three-year
time limit, they suggested, could be a flood of protective filings
that would swamp trial judges' dockets or else an unintended
restriction on the rights of shareholders who thought they were
covered in class actions.  Justices Ginsberg and Kagan said it's
not even clear that the Securities Act provision is meant to be a
statute of repose.

You've surely noted which justice I haven't yet mentioned. Yep:
the Chief, John Roberts.  With the usual caveat that oral
arguments are not necessarily a reliable indicator of how cases
will be decided, Chief Justice Roberts could well be the swing
vote to extend time limits for class members who want to sue on
their own.

The chief justice was mostly quiet when CalPERS lawyer Thomas
Goldstein of Goldstein & Russell argued that because a class
action against Lehman debt underwriters asserted the same
Securities Act claims as a separate CalPERS suit filed more than
three years after the debt offerings, "the class complaint . . .
which was filed within a year, brought the action on our behalf."
Goldstein told the justices that if they held otherwise, big
pension funds like his client would be forced to file placeholder
complaints or motions to intervene in pending class actions in
order to protect their right to opt out later on.

The only reason there hasn't already been a flood of protective
filings, Mr. Goldstein said, is that investors' lawyers tend not
to file Securities Act suits in a rising stock market.  Chief
Justice Roberts asked him to explain; Mr. Goldstein said that
investors can only recover damages for securities that lose value
after their public offering. That scenario, Goldstein said, has
been rare in recent years.

The chief justice stayed out of the fray when Justices Ginsburg,
Kagan and Sotomayor peppered underwriters' counsel Paul Clement of
Kirkland & Ellis with questions about whether the Securities Act
time limit is really a statute of repose and, if so, exactly what
actions it bars.  Mr. Clement reiterated his central point: The
Supreme Court said in 1991's Lampf, Pleva v. Gilbertson that the
three-year Securities Act time limit is a statute of repose and
said in 2014's CTS v. Waldburger that statutes of repose cannot be
tolled -- so, under the court's own precedent, CalPERS can't get
around the absolute three-year time bar. "A statute of repose
means repose," Clement said. "Its defining feature is that it's
not subject to tolling or estoppel rules."

That statement got the chief justice's attention.  "No," he said.
"There's different levels of repose." Goldstein's theory, Chief
Justice Roberts said, is that a statute of repose gives defendants
a right to be free from unannounced liability -- but because a
class action already exposes the defendant to liability to future
opt-outs, the statute of repose doesn't bar later-filed individual
suits by putative class members.  When a class action has been
filed, Roberts said to Clement, "There aren't going to be any more
surprises. You know what's on the table.  That's repose."

Mr. Clement responded that repose means no new actions and no
exposure to additional liability.  The chief justice countered
that it's not clear to him that opt-outs from a class action
subject defendants to new liability.

This late exchange between Justice Roberts and Mr. Clement could
be the most important moment of the case -- assuming that the
Supreme Court wants to answer the big question of whether class
actions extend the statute of repose for investors who are part of
the class.  Interpreting repose as the right to be free from
additional exposure, rather than additional lawsuits, would allow
the Supreme Court to bypass complications like the interplay
between the Rules Enabling Act and the federal civil procedure
rules for class actions and competing due process rights of
plaintiffs and defendants.

Of course, Justice Roberts could just have been livening up the
last quarter-hour of a long day at the Supreme Court.  Justice
Roberts could end up agreeing with the conservative justices that
the statutory language of the Securities Act bars individual suits
filed outside of the three-year time window, regardless of whether
a class action is on file.  Or the court could decide the case on
the specific facts and hold CalPERS suit was untimely because it
was not, strictly speaking, an opt-out from the class action.

But if the chief justice sides with the liberal wing to preserve
plaintiffs' rights, we may have to start to revise conventional
wisdom about the Roberts Court.


ANZ SECURITIES: SC Justices Divided on Statue of Repose Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua D. Yount, Esq. -- jdyount@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown,
in an article for Mondaq, reports that on April 17, the Supreme
Court heard oral argument in CalPERS v. ANZ Securities, a case
that asks whether a plaintiff asserting violations of Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933 can file suit after the three-year
outer limit for such suits has passed, if a class action
encompassing the plaintiff's claims was timely filed and remained
pending.  The answer to that important question, which has divided
the federal courts of appeals, will tell defendants facing suit
over the issuance of securities whether the Securities Act's
three-year repose period is a real protection against belated
lawsuits or simply a limited protection that dissolves once a
timely class action is filed.  The April 17 argument suggested the
Court, too, may be divided about how to resolve this debate.

CalPERS is an individual suit by a state pension fund against
underwriters for certain debt securities issued by Lehman
Brothers.  The suit was brought more than three years after the
issuance of the securities.  But, at the time, a timely putative
class action asserting similar claims was pending.  CalPERS was
dismissed, and the dismissal was affirmed, because the suit was
filed outside the three-year period of repose established by
Section 13 of the Securities Act and Second Circuit precedent
(Police & Fire Retirement System of Detroit v. IndyMac MBS, Inc.,
721 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2013)) precluded any tolling of that repose
period.

In the Supreme Court, CalPERS challenged that ruling on several
grounds.  It argued that its suit was not barred because the class
action was timely and its suit simply followed from the claims
raised in the class action.  CalPERS also contended that the class
action tolling rule for statutes of limitations established in
American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974),
should apply to Section 13's restriction on suits filed more than
three years after issuance of the relevant securities --
notwithstanding Supreme Court precedents holding that equitable
tolling does not apply to statutes of repose (CTS Corp. v.
Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175 (2014)) and that the three-year
restriction in Section 13 was a repose period inconsistent with
tolling (Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson,
501 U.S. 350 (1991)).  CalPERS finally asserted that, without
tolling, opt-out rights would become illusory and courts would be
flooded with suits by individual class members concerned about
Section 13.

Defendants pointed to the contrary Supreme Court precedent.  They
noted that courts in the Second Circuit have not been inundated
with protective suits.  And they explained that applying tolling
would incentivize big investors to free-ride off of class actions
for years and then opt-out of settlements to claim a greater
recovery than other investors.

Much of the oral argument focused on the meaning of the word
"action" in the relevant part of Section 13--"In no event shall
any such action be brought to enforce a liability created under
[Section 11] more than three years after the security was bona
fide offered to the public."  Justices Gorsuch and Alito pressed
counsel for CalPERS on the argument that its individual suit
should not be treated as a new "action" for purposes of Section 13
because it mirrored the previously filed class action.  Justice
Gorsuch made the textual point that traditionally "action" means
"lawsuit" and is not the same as "claim." Justice Alito seemed to
doubt that Congress could have intended the less straightforward
reading favored by CalPERS.  Justice Breyer's questioning of both
sides also concentrated on whether "action" could somehow refer to
a timely class action encompassing claims presented in a later
individual suit by a class member.

Justice Kagan, meanwhile, suggested that the term "action" might
have multiple meanings, making it appropriate to consider the
practical consequences of defendants' position.  Chief Justice
Roberts similarly asked about different "levels of repose,"
raising the possibility that the repose period established by
Section 13 merely precludes "new liability."  Based on this
approach, an individual suit might not add to the potential
liability asserted by the class action when the individual claims
were part of the class action.  As counsel for defendants pointed
out, the approaches described by Justice Kagan and the Chief
Justice cannot be squared with the text of Section 13, Supreme
Court precedents in this area, or the reality that individual
suits like the one filed by CalPERS are new suits by new parties
that increase a defendant's potential liability.

Another big topic focused on the practical consequences of
enforcing Section 13's repose period against individual suits
despite a timely filed class action. Justices Sotomayor, Breyer,
and Ginsburg all expressed concern about how defendants' approach
would work in practice.  Of particular concern was the burden that
lower courts might face when numerous individual putative class
members file papers to protect themselves from the repose period.
Counsel debated whether those concerns had merit, with
respondents' counsel noting that courts in the Second Circuit have
not seen an epidemic of such filings.

Perhaps of greatest interest to class action observers more
generally, Justice Kennedy worried that CalPERS's position would
invoke Rule 23 to override a legal right to repose (i.e., a
substantive defense) in violation of the Rules Enabling Act.
Justice Kagan, by contrast, worried that defendants' position
could undermine the opt-out right created by Rule 23.  Justice
Kagan also probed whether Section 13 actually is a statute of
repose rather than a discovery-rule cut-off. And Justice Ginsburg
asked whether American Pipe tolling was really equitable tolling.

With oral argument suggesting that the Justices could be closely
divided, a confident prediction of how the Court will rule is not
possible.  But it would seem difficult for the Court to rule for
CalPERS unless it departs from the plain meaning of Section 13 and
retreats from its prior decisions in Waldburger and Lampf.  We
will see in June.

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal
practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown
Practices").  The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and
Mayer Brown Europe -- Brussels LLP, both limited liability
partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown
International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in
England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC
303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown
JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia;
and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with
which Mayer Brown is associated.  "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer
Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in
their respective jurisdictions.


ASCEND FUNDING: Faces Class Action Over Solicitation Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that  a Huntington Beach man has filed a class-action
against a business funding company over allegations of unwanted
solicitation calls.

Joseph Menichiello, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a complaint on April 4 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against
Ascend Funding LLC and Does 1 through 10 alleging that they
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in November
2016, he started receiving calls from the defendant to his
cellular telephone attempting to promote its services without his
consent. The plaintiffs holds Ascend Funding LLC, and Does 1
through 10 responsible because the defendants allegedly used an
automatic telephone dialing system and called the plaintiff even
though his number has been registered on the National Do-Not-Call
List.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks up to $1,500 in
damages for each call and any other relief that the court deems
just and proper. He is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Adrian R.
Bacon and Meghan E. George of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC
in Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 8:17-cv-00609


AURORA BULL: Faces "Gabryszak" Suit Over FLSA, IMWL Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Dmitri Gabryszak and Julie Carlock, on behalf of themselves and
all others plaintiffs similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Aurora
Bull Dog Co., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02224 (N.D. Ill., March
22, 2017), seeks to recover wages and overtime for violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Defendant misclassified Plaintiffs as a tip-credit employee,
says the complaint.  Plaintiffs were employed as servers for
Aurora Bull Dog.

Defendant Aurora Bull Dog Co. is an Illinois corporation owning
and operating several restaurants known as "Bulldog Ale
House".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   David Fish, Esq.
   Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
   John Kunze, Esq.
   The Fish Law Firm
   200 E 5th Ave Suite 123
   Naperville, IL 60563


AVANGRID INC: Awaits Final Approval of Merger Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avangrid, Inc., awaits final approval of its settlement to resolve
a purported class action lawsuit challenging its acquisition of
UIL Holdings Corporation, according to the Company's March 10,
2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "On February 27, 2015, a complaint was filed in
Connecticut state court against us, UIL, its board of directors
and others related to our acquisition of UIL.  The complaint is a
class action filed on behalf of all UIL shareowners.  The
complaint generally alleges that UIL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareowner value in
negotiating and approving the acquisition, and that we, UIL,
and/or Morgan Stanley aided and abetted the UIL Board's alleged
breaches."

"On November 30, 2015, the plaintiffs and the defendants executed
a binding Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, that sets forth the
terms on which the parties have agreed to settle the consolidated
action.  The settlement terms do not include any change in the
acquisition consideration but only additional disclosures relating
to information included in our Registration Statement on Form S-4
filed with the SEC, which was declared effective on November 12,
2015, additional confirmatory discovery, and plaintiffs' counsel
fees.  The parties have agreed on the fees and submitted the
unopposed settlement and dismissal to the Court on August 26,
2016."

On November 4, 2016, the Court issued its preliminary approval of
the settlement, there were no objections to the settlement, and on
January 30, 2017, the Court held a final settlement hearing. A
final decision is pending.

The Company says it cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this
matter.

Avangrid, Inc., formerly Iberdrola USA, Inc., is a New York
corporation headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut.  AVANGRID is
a diversified energy and utility company with more than $30
billion in assets and operations in 26 states. The Company
operates regulated utilities and electricity generation through
two primary lines of business.  Avangrid Networks includes eight
electric and natural gas utilities, serving 3.1 million customers
in New York and New England.  Avangrid Renewables operates 6.5
gigawatts of electricity capacity, primarily through wind power,
in states across the United States.


BANK OF THE OZARKS: Class Suit in Pre-Trial Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------
Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit are now engaged in pre-trial discovery and have
agreed to participate in non-binding mediation regarding the
plaintiff's claims.

On December 19, 2011, the Company and Bank were named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the
Circuit Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas, Division III, styled
Robert Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk vs. Bank of the
Ozarks, Inc. and Bank of the Ozarks.

On December 20, 2012, the Bank was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of
Pulaski County, Arkansas, Ninth Division, styled Audrey Muzingo v.
Bank of the Ozarks. Subsequently, counsel for the plaintiffs in
the Walker case and counsel for the plaintiff in the Muzingo case
have reached an agreement whereby Ms. Muzingo is now considered a
member of the class in the Walker case.  The complaint challenges
the manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the policies
related to the posting order of payments.  In addition, the
complaint alleges violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.  The complaint seeks to have the case certified by
the court as a class action for all Bank account holders located
in the State of Arkansas similarly situated, and seeks (1) a
declaratory judgment as to the wrongful nature of the Bank's
overdraft fee policies, (2) restitution of overdraft fees paid by
the plaintiffs and the putative class as a result of the actions
cited in the complaint, (3) disgorgement of profits as a result of
the alleged wrongful actions, (4) unspecified compensatory and
statutory or punitive damages, and (5) pre-judgment interest,
costs, and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

The Company and the Bank filed a motion to dismiss and to compel
arbitration pursuant to the terms of the consumer deposit account
agreement, which was denied by the trial court.

The Company and the Bank appealed the trial court's ruling to the
Arkansas Supreme Court on an interlocutory basis.  The Arkansas
Supreme Court recently affirmed the trial courts' decision to deny
the Company and Bank's motion to compel arbitration, finding that
there was no mutual agreement or obligation to arbitrate under the
terms of the subject deposit account agreement.

The Company and Bank filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with
the Supreme Court of the United States requesting that the Supreme
Court of the United States review the Arkansas Supreme Court's
decision, but that request was denied.  The parties are now
engaged in pre-trial discovery and have agreed to participate in
non-binding mediation regarding the plaintiff's claims.

Bank of the Ozarks provides a wide range of retail and commercial
banking services.


BAXTER INT'L: Faces Saline Price Fixing Probe Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Thomas, writing for CNBC.com reports that Baxter
International said one of its employees received a grand jury
subpoena in a case about intravenous saline pricing and sales.

Baxter said on April 14 the subpoena, obtained by federal
investigators, is "pursuant to a criminal investigation." It calls
for the employee to produce documents and testimony related to
pricing, shortages of Baxter's intravenous solutions "and
communications with competitors regarding the same," the company
said.

Baxter disclosed in February that the New York attorney general
had asked for information about its business practices in the IV
saline industry, and a class action lawsuit filed last year
accused the pharmaceutical company of participating in a
conspiracy of sorts to "fix" saline solution prices.

Revenues in the company's so-called fluid systems segment, which
includes the intravenous saline sales being called into question,
was $2.3 billion last year, representing slightly more than 25
percent of total sales.

The health-care company said in the April 14 SEC filing that it is
cooperating with this latest criminal investigation.


BCB BANCORP: Awaits Order on Bids in Suit to Recover $1MM in Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BCB Bancorp, Inc., awaits decisions on the parties' motions for
summary judgment pending in the lawsuit seeking to recover
$1,000,000 in fees from insurance carriers, according to the
Company's March 13, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company, as the successor to Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., and in its
own corporate capacity, was a named defendant in a shareholder
class action lawsuit, Kube v. Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., et al., filed
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, Chancery
Division, General Equity (the "Action").

On September 21, 2015, the court entered an Order and Final
Judgment ("Judgment"), whereby the Stipulation of Settlement
("Stipulation") agreed to by the plaintiff class, the Company and
the remaining defendants was approved.

Pursuant to the Stipulation, the plaintiff class's counsel
reserved the right to seek an award of counsel fees and litigation
expenses ("Fees Motion"). The maximum amount which may be awarded
as a result of the Fees Motion is $1,000,000.00. The plaintiff
class's counsel has made a Fee Motion to the court seeking a final
award of counsel fees and litigation expenses of approximately
$1,000,000.00. The Company and the remaining defendants have
vigorously opposed that motion. It is anticipated that the court
will schedule a hearing date for the Fee Motion in March 2017.

The Company and the other defendants in the Action ("Plaintiffs")
brought an action ("Carrier Suit") against Progressive Insurance
Company ("Progressive"), the Directors' and Officers' Liability
insurance carrier for Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., at the time of its
merger with the Company on July 6, 2010, and Colonial American
Insurance Company ("Colonial"), the Directors' and Officers'
Liability insurance carrier for the Company at the time of the
merger. The Carrier Suit seeks, among other claims,
indemnification, payment of and/or contribution toward the above
settlement, payment of and/or contribution toward the above award
of interim attorney's fees to the plaintiff class's counsel,
payment of and/or contribution toward any future award of
attorney's fees to the plaintiff class's counsel, and
reimbursement of the attorney's fees and defense costs incurred by
the Plaintiffs in defending the Action and pursuing the Carrier
Suit. Progressive made a motion to dismiss the Carrier Suit in
2014. The Plaintiffs opposed that motion. That motion was
administratively terminated by Order of the court, dated December
3, 2014.  By Order of the court, dated December 3, 2014, the
Plaintiffs' motion to file an Amended Complaint was granted.

On or about January 6, 2015, Progressive again made a motion to
dismiss the Carrier Suit. The Plaintiffs opposed that motion. That
motion was denied by oral decision on October 22, 2015, and by
written Order, dated January 20, 2016.

A Mediation session ("Mediation") was held on March 11, 2015,
among the parties. Following the Mediation, the Plaintiffs and
Colonial agreed to settle the Plaintiffs' claims against Colonial
for $1,750,000.00. A Settlement Agreement and Release, dated June
30, 2015, was entered into by the Plaintiffs and Colonial. The
Plaintiffs received the settlement amount of $1,750,000.00 from
Colonial on July 9, 2015.

The Plaintiffs and Progressive did not settle their respective
claims at the Mediation. The Carrier Suit continues with respect
to these parties. Initial discovery has been exchanged between the
parties.

By Order of the court, dated August 10, 2016, the parties were
granted permission to serve and file motions for summary judgment
by November 9, 2016. Prior to consideration of these motions, a
Settlement Conference was scheduled before the court on November
16, 2016. The Plaintiffs and Progressive did not settle their
respective claims at that Settlement Conference.

The parties have filed motions for summary judgment. These motions
were returnable before the court on December 5, 2016. A decision
on these motions has not been received from the court to date. All
discovery has been stayed until disposition of these motions.

The Company says the Plaintiffs are vigorously pursuing full
recovery.

BCB Bancorp, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation established in
2003, and is the holding company parent of BCB Community Bank.
The Company has not engaged in any significant business activity
other than owning all of the outstanding common stock of BCB
Community Bank.  The Company's executive office is located in
Bayonne, New Jersey.


BERKS COUNTY, PA: Detained Immigrants File Class Action v. AG
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Dent, writing for Billy Penn, reports that a judge granted a
temporary restraining order, which means the women and children in
this lawsuit cannot be deported while they wait for a hearing that
has been scheduled for May 19.

With options dwindling and deportation considered "imminent," four
families being held for nearly two years at the infamous Berks
Family Residential Center have filed a class action lawsuit
against U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions, seeking release based on a
special immigration status granted to their children.

The lawsuit, filed on April 17 in the Eastern District Court of
Pennsylvania by Philly lawyer Michael Edelman and Berks County
lawyers Bridget Cambria and Carol Anne Donohoe, is to some extent
a last-ditch option in a saga dating back 20 months -- with at
least one child who's learned to walk and talk while in custody
there.  It comes immediately after legal action concerning the
families' asylum requests was denied US Supreme Court review,
potentially opening them up for the completion of deportation
hearings.

The women and children in the lawsuit, as well as dozens of others
held at the Berks County detention center, came to America in fall
2015 from Central American countries like El Salvador and
Honduras, seeking asylum.  They were originally held in Texas and
then transported to Berks County, which has one of just three
federal detention centers in the nation for undocumented women and
children. The four mothers and their children in the lawsuit have
asked for and been denied new asylum hearings, with a court ruling
last year they didn't even have the right to sue.

As they've waited for the court process -- and had their
deportation proceedings stayed -- the children have been able to
apply for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status.  Four children,
unnamed in the lawsuit, have been granted the status, which aids
in the process of getting a green card.  Ms. Cambria said it's
unheard of for children with SIJ status to be deported.

But a petition for Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to
rescind the deportation hearing against the children was denied in
February.  ICE, according to the lawsuit, claimed the children had
been subject to "expedited removal" when they entered the country,
and the application to rescind doesn't hold up.

"We've hit a point where removal is imminent," Ms. Cambria said.

In addition to granting release of the children, the lawsuit also
seeks to release the mothers, who would then be allowed to stay in
the country as their children continue to go through the legal
process.

Meanwhile, the detention center remains controversial.  A federal
judge in 2015 in California ruled children couldn't be held in
detention centers for more than 20 days.  Governor Tom Wolf has
said he wants it to be closed, and the center has had licensing
issues.  The New York Times did a story on the center when several
women being held underwent a hunger strike last fall.

According to the lawsuit, one of the children, who is 3 years old,
came to America from Honduras with his mother, Wendy Amparo
Osorio-Martinez, fleeing gang violence and sexual violence.
Ms. Osorio-Martinez's son has spent half his life in the detention
center and learned to walk and talk there.

The other children and mothers in the lawsuit have similar
stories.

"You wouldn't send them back to a country where they've dealt with
this harm," Ms. Cambria said.  "In these cases, these four
children all have approved status.  They're just simply waiting
for their green cards. And Immigration has said they want to
deport them."


BERKSHIRE HILLS: Settlement in Hampden Investor Suit Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the trial court has
entered an Order and Final Judgment in the Hampden Bancorp, Inc
shareholder litigation giving final approval to a settlement
agreed to among all parties.

On February 12, 2015, Berkshire Hills was served with a complaint
in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for Hampden County against
Hampden Bancorp, Inc. ("Hampden"), the Directors of Hampden and
the Company, in connection with a pending transaction through
which Hampden was acquired by Berkshire Hills on April 17, 2015
(the "Hampden shareholder litigation"). The complaint was filed by
an individual Hampden shareholder and alleged that (i) the
directors of Hampden breached their fiduciary duties to its
stockholders by, among other things, failing to take steps
necessary to obtain a fair and adequate price for Hampden's common
stock, (ii) Hampden and its directors failed to disclose material
facts in its proxy solicitation materials for its shareholder vote
to approve the transaction set forth in the Merger Agreement, and
(iii) the Company knowingly aided and abetted Hampden's directors'
breach of fiduciary duty.

On December 14, 2016, the trial court entered an Order and Final
Judgment in the Hampden shareholder litigation giving final
approval to a settlement agreed to among all parties. Pursuant to
this settlement, all claims on behalf of all possible class action
claimants against all defendants have been dismissed with
prejudice and the Hampden shareholder litigation has been fully
resolved. No portion of any settlement consideration to be
distributed to class action claimants in the Hampden shareholder
litigation has been contributed by Berkshire Hills or any insurer
on its behalf.


BERKSHIRE HILLS: Depositor's Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend a class action lawsuit by a depositor in the
District of Massachusetts.

On April 28, 2016, Berkshire Hills and Berkshire Bank were served
with a complaint filed in the United States District Court,
District of Massachusetts, Springfield Division. The complaint was
filed by an individual Berkshire Bank depositor, who claims to
have filed the complaint on behalf of a purported class of
Berkshire Bank depositors, and alleges violations of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act and certain regulations thereunder,
among other matters.

On July 15, 2016, the complaint was amended to add purported
claims under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The
complaint seeks, in part, compensatory, consequential, statutory,
and punitive damages. Berkshire Hills and Berkshire Bank deny the
allegations contained in the complaint and are vigorously
defending this lawsuit.

Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. is headquartered in Pittsfield,
Massachusetts. Berkshire is a Delaware corporation and the holding
company for Berkshire Bank and Berkshire Insurance Group, Inc.


BIG LOTS: Court Certifies Class of Stockholders in "Willis" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael H. Watson entered an opinion and order in the
lawsuit titled Alan Willis v. Big Lots, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:12-cv-00604-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), granting the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and certifying this class:

     All persons who purchased the common stock of Big Lots, Inc.
     between March 2, 2012 and August 23, 2012, and who were
     damaged thereby.  Excluded from the Class are defendants,
     the officers and directors of the Company, members of their
     immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
     successors or assigns and any entity in which defendants
     have or had a controlling interest.

City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System and Teamsters
Local 237 Additional Security Benefit Fund are appointed as class
representatives and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is appointed
as class counsel.

The Defendants' motion for leave to file a sur-reply is denied.

The Court directs the parties to submit an agreed-upon form of
notice, a joint proposal for dissemination of the notice and the
timeline for opting out of the action within 21 days of the date
of entry of the Opinion and Order.  The Plaintiffs must bear the
costs of the notice.

Judge Watson also advised the counsel for both parties that
citations in all further briefing must include a reference to the
ECF entry where the exhibit can be found.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Nu7ruDAv


BIJOU-CENTURY: Faces "Carouba" Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Bijou-Century,
LLC.  The case is captioned Joseph Carouba, Olivia Doe, and Does 1
- 100, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated v.
Bijou-Century, LLC, Case No. CGC 17 558142 (Cal. Super. Ct., April
12, 2017).

Bijou-Century, LLC operates an adult entertainment club located at
816 Larkin St, San Francisco, California, 94109. [BN]

BIOLASE INC: "Shulruff" Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Charles Shulruff has dismissed with prejudice his claims
against BIOLASE, Inc., according to the Company's March 10, 2017,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On February 24, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Dr. Charles Shulruff v. Biolase, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02533, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  The case alleged that the Company violated
the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and other
related Illinois state statutes, by sending unsolicited marketing
communications via fax machine to a Chicago dentist, Dr. Shulruff.
The plaintiff and his counsel sought to certify a nation-wide
class of comprised of other dentists who received the same or
similar faxes from BIOLASE.  BIOLASE responded to the case on
April 14, 2016 and denied liability on all claims.  BIOLASE also
denied that class certification was appropriate.  After initial
document discovery and fact gathering, BIOLASE filed a petition
with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") for
"retroactive waiver" of some of the TCPA violations alleged by
Shulruff.  The FCC granted the petition, which significantly
weakened plaintiff's case.  BIOLASE then demonstrated to
plaintiff's counsel the individualized nature of the fax messages
at issue, arguing that class certification was highly unlikely
from the data.

Based on these events, BIOLASE and Dr. Shulruff entered into a
nominal settlement agreement, and in December 2016 Dr. Shulruff
dismissed his claims with prejudice.  The potential class action
claims were dismissed without prejudice, and BIOLASE is unaware of
any remaining viable class allegations on these facts.

BIOLASE, Inc., is a medical device company that develops,
manufactures, markets and sells laser systems in dentistry and
medicine and also markets, sells, and distributes dental imaging
equipment, including cone beam digital x-rays and CAD/CAM intra-
oral scanners.


BLACKROCK INC: Faces "Baird" Suit over Retirement Plans
-------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a former employee of the largest private money manager in the
world says in a federal class action in San Francisco, that the
company violated ethics rules by putting employees' investments
into company-run funds to rack up fees and boost profits.

In a class action filed in the Northern District of California on
April 5, Charles Baird says BlackRock placed its employees'
retirement money into layers of funds managed by BlackRock,
racking up fees and costing retirees an estimated $60 million.

"Plan participants were subjected to higher hidden fees through
excessive fund layering, where one BlackRock fund invests in a
rabbit hole of other BlackRock funds," Baird says in the
complaint. "In this layering scheme, each BlackRock fund charges
additional fees to employee investors and those unnecessary layers
of fees cannibalize the returns of the employee."

Blackrock is relatively new to the asset-management sector, but it
has quickly ascended to a prominent position in the industry with
about $5.1 trillion in assets under its purview -- making it the
world's largest asset manager.

Guided by its CEO and founder Larry Fink, BlackRock began
organically and through acquisitions and savvy investing grew
quickly over 25 years into one of the more formidable Wall Street
firms.

Baird worked at Barclays, a major multinational bank headquartered
in London, from 2000 until 2009.  In 2009, BlackRock acquired
Barclays Global Investors unit for about $13.5 billion. The unit
included the exchange trade fund unit, I Shares, which has become
increasingly popular as an investment tool.

Baird continued working for BlackRock through 2016, according to
the complaint.  Shortly before filing the class action, Baird says
he investigated the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan and
discovered that it was underperforming funds of a similar caliber
offered by Vanguard and other similar financial institutions.

"For example, despite charging a 500 to 871 percent premium,
BlackRock's Low Duration Bond Fund has underperformed Vanguard's
alternative over ten, five, three, and one year horizons," Baird
says in the complaint.

The reason for this is not poor money management, according to
Baird, but because BlackRock wants to funnel their own employees'
investments through a series of their funds so it can charge fees
that drive company revenues.

This practice amounts to corporate self-dealing and is a violation
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Baird says
in the 43-page complaint.

Baird seeks orders to require BlackRock to set up a trust where
the ill-gotten gains are placed to the benefit of retirees; an end
to BlackRock using its funds as part of its retirement savings
package; and the removal of those responsible for implementing the
program.

BlackRock did not return an email seeking comment by press time.

Baird is represented by Nina Wasow of Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman
and Wasow based in Oakland, California.

Charles Baird, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan,
Plaintiffs, vs. BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A.;
BlackRock, Inc.; The BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee; Jason
Herman, named Plan Sponsor; John and Jane Does 1-40, Members of
the BlackRock Retirement Committee; The Administrative Committee
of the Retirement Committee; John and Jane Does 1-20, Members of
the Administrative Committee of the Retirement Committee; The
Investment Committee of the Retirement Committee; John and Jane
Does 21-40, Members of the Investment Committee of the Retirement
Committee; each an individual, and John and Jane Does 41-60, each
an individual, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01892-SK (N.D. Cal.,
April 5, 2017).

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Nina Wasow, Esq.
     Todd Jackson, Esq.
     FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP
     383 4th Street, Suite 201
     Oakland, CA 94607
     Tel: (510) 269-7998
     Fax: (510) 269-7994
     E-mail: nina@feinbergjackson.com
             todd@feinbergjackson.com

          - and -

     Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
     Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
     1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
     Suite 500, West Tower
     Washington, D.C. 20005
     Tel: (202) 408-4600
     Fax: (202) 408-4699
     E-mail: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com
             myau@cohenmilstein.com


CAESARSTONE LTD: Defends 85 Injury Suits in Israel as of March 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 1, 2017, Caesarstone Ltd. was a party to 85 pending
bodily injury lawsuits in Israel alleging exposure to silica dust,
according to the Company's March 13, 2017, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "Since 2008 and through March 1, 2017, 110
claims were filed against us in Israel with respect to alleged
bodily injuries caused to 107 fabricators as a result of their
exposure to silica dust during the fabrication of our products:
one claim was filed in 2008, two in 2009, four in 2010, seven in
2011, seven in 2012, eight in 2013, 28 in 2014 (representing 29
injured persons), 19 in 2015  (representing 16 injured persons),
31 in 2016 (representing 30 injured persons and include one
lawsuit filed by NII [Israeli National Insurance Institute] with
respect to a settled lawsuit) and 3 in 2017 through March 1, 2017.
We were named by these lawsuits directly or as third-party
defendants by fabricators or their employees in Israel, by the
injured successors, by the State of Israel, by the NII or by
others."

"As of March 1, 2017, we were party to 85 pending bodily injury
lawsuits in Israel out of these claims. Such pending lawsuits were
filed with respect to 85 persons alleged to be injured and include
lawsuits filed by the NII for subrogation of compensation paid or
to be paid by the NII to certain injured persons, one lawsuit
where the claimant applied for class certification, and one appeal
that was filed in connection with a judgment granted in one of the
lawsuits, as further detailed below."

"As of March 1, 2017, three lawsuits that were filed against us in
Israel since 2008 have been dismissed, five lawsuits have been
settled between us, the claimants, their employer, if any, and the
State of Israel, and  16 lawsuits were settled between us and
other defendants and the claimants but are still pending between
us and the distributors."

"We have received one pre litigation notice in Australia, as
further detailed below. We have also received six demand letters
on behalf of certain other fabricators in Israel or their
employees alleging that they contracted illnesses as a result of
fabricating our products. Each of the claims in Israel named other
defendants, such as fabricators that employed the plaintiffs, the
State of Israel -- the Labor Supervision Department, distributors
of our products and insurance companies and insurance brokers.
Various arguments are raised in the claims, including, among
others, product liability arguments and failure to provide
warnings regarding the risks associated with silica dust generated
by the fabrication of our products."

"Most of the claims in Israel do not specify a total amount of
damages sought, as the plaintiff's future damages are intended to
be determined at trial. A claim filed with the Magistrate's Court
in Israel is limited to a maximum of NIS 2.5 million
(approximately $650,000) plus any fees, and among the 85 pending
claims filed against us as of March 1, 2017 in Israel, 60 claims
were filed in the  Magistrate's Court. A claim filed in the
District Court in Israel is not subject to such limitation. As a
result, there is uncertainty regarding the total amount of damages
that may ultimately be claimed."

"In November 2015 we entered into an agreement with the State of
Israel, with the consent of our insurance carriers, under which we
agreed with the State to cooperate, subject to certain terms, with
respect to the management of the individual claims that have been
filed and claims that may be submitted during a certain time
period (other than NII claims) and on the apportionment between us
of the total liability of us and the State, if found, in such
claims. The initial term of this agreement expired and we expect
it to be renewed. We are also seeking to enter into agreements
with most of our distributors in Israel with respect to their
participation in compensation to claimants."

"Israeli law, as well as the law of other jurisdictions,
recognizes joint and several liability among co-defendants in
civil suits. In cases where co-defendants are found liable the
plaintiff is entitled to collect all damages from only one of the
liable defendants. Thus, even if we are found only partially
liable for a plaintiff's damages, the plaintiff may seek to
collect all their damages from us, requiring us to collect
separately from our co-defendants their allocated portion of the
damages. If defendants are insolvent or we are unsuccessful in
collecting their portion of the damages for any other reason (for
instance, if they are not insured), we may incur damages beyond
the damages for which we are liable."

Caesarstone Ltd. is a manufacturer of high-quality engineered
quartz surfaces sold under its premium Caesarstone brand.
Although the use of quartz is relatively new, it is the fastest
growing material in the countertop industry and continues to take
market share from other materials, such as granite, manufactured
solid surfaces and laminate.


CAESARSTONE LTD: Defends Suit in Israel Central District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Caesarstone Ltd. continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit pending in the Central District Court in Israel, the
Company said in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 13, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "A lawsuit by a single plaintiff and a motion
for its class certification were filed against us in April 2014 in
the Central District Court in Israel. The plaintiff claims to be
the owner of a fabrication plant and to have contracted silicosis
as a result of fabricating our products. In connection therewith,
the plaintiff claims that we did not provide adequate warnings
regarding the risks and protection measures required with respect
to fabrication of our products, which he claims to be greater than
the risk associated with the fabrication of natural stones, and
that we intentionally or negligently hid and did not warn about
the high risk and irreversible damages that may occur to the
persons processing our products and misled the fabricators in
Israel by comparing the hazards related to the fabrication of our
products to those associated with the fabrication of natural
stones. The plaintiff claims that we did not act as a reasonable
manufacturer, violated applicable laws and Israeli standards,
committed an assault, acted negligently and are liable under the
Israeli Law for Liability for Defective Products, 1980. The
plaintiff also claims that our products are a 'dangerous item'
under the Israeli Tort Ordinance, 5728-1968 and, therefore, the
plaintiff claims that the burden of proof falls on us to prove
that there was no carelessness for which we are liable in
connection with our products. The plaintiff claims that by our
wrongful conduct we violated the plaintiff's freedom to choose
whether to be exposed to the risks associated with the fabrication
of our products."

"The plaintiff alleges that, if the lawsuit is recognized as a
class action, the claim against us is estimated to be NIS 216
million (approximately $56 million), calculated by claiming
damages of NIS 18,000 ($4,668) for each individual who worked in
fabrication workshops in Israel in fabrication or administrative
roles and who have been exposed to dust generated by the
fabrication of our products. The plaintiff claims that there are
12,000 such individuals who worked at 400 fabrication workshops in
Israel, each of which employed 10 fabricators and five
administrative persons, with one rotation during the relevant
period. In addition, such claim includes an unstated sum in
compensation for special and general damages, such as medical
disability, functional disability, pain and suffering, medical
expenses, medical and nursing assistance, which will require proof
and quantification for each injured person in the purported class
action. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to compel us to
notify the alleged group (and potential members of the group) and
each individual about the risks, recommending that they undertake
a medical examination and assert their rights."

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

Caesarstone Ltd. is a manufacturer of high-quality engineered
quartz surfaces sold under its premium Caesarstone brand.
Although the use of quartz is relatively new, it is the fastest
growing material in the countertop industry and continues to take
market share from other materials, such as granite, manufactured
solid surfaces and laminate.


CAESARSTONE LTD: Settles Securities Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Caesarstone Ltd. enters into an agreement to settle a putative
class action lawsuit brought in New York on behalf of purchasers
of its securities, according to the Company's March 13, 2017, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "On August 25, 2015, a purported purchaser of
our ordinary shares filed a proposed class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
asserting, among other things, that we and two of our officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, by allegedly making
false and misleading statements about our business. The complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of purchasers of
our securities between March 25, 2013 and August 18, 2015. On
January 15, 2016, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint that asserted similar claims, but that seeks
damages on behalf of purchasers of our securities between February
12, 2014 and August 18, 2015. On February 26, 2016, we filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 20, 2016, the
court issued an opinion granting in part our motion to dismiss."

On January 30, 2017, the company entered into an agreement in
principle with the lead plaintiffs to settle the case. The
settlement is subject to the completion of definitive
documentation and approval of the court. The Company's insurance
carriers have agreed to pay the settlement amount and the related
expenses.

Caesarstone Ltd. is a manufacturer of high-quality engineered
quartz surfaces sold under its premium Caesarstone brand.
Although the use of quartz is relatively new, it is the fastest
growing material in the countertop industry and continues to take
market share from other materials, such as granite, manufactured
solid surfaces and laminate.


CANADA: Suit Filed on Behalf of Developmentally Disabled Adults
---------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Richmond, writing for The London Free Press, reports that a
class-action suit launched on behalf of developmentally disabled
Ontario residents is targeting a social service system that's run
like a game of chance, the lead lawyer says.

"Sometimes it is like a lottery.  It is no way to run a system of
care," Jody Brown -- jbrown@kmlaw.ca -- of Koskie Minsky in
Toronto said on April 18. "Families' lives are on hold."

The law firm has launched a class action suit on behalf of
developmentally disabled adults in Ontario awaiting services
funded by the province, an issue that has suddenly come under the
spotlight in Southwestern Ontario.

The lawsuit is another sign the Liberal government isn't
listening, London West New Democrat MPP Peggy Sattler said.

"It seems that the only way the citizens of Ontario can get action
is to basically shame them," Ms. Sattler said.

The suit seeks $100 million from the province in damages for
negligence and another $10 million in punitive damages for the
lack of services.

Wait lists for services are "indeterminate and administered in an
ad-hoc, inconsistent and unreasonable manner, denying eligible
recipients statutory benefits which are necessary for their basic
daily human needs and safety," says the statement of claim that
contains allegations not yet debated in court.

"Adults may spend years on the . . . wait lists, requiring family
members or other caregivers to provide the necessary services or
supports, or going without such services," the statement of claim
says.

The delays and denial of service can cause developmentally
disabled adults pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss
of the basic necessities of life, damage to their dignity and
physical health, depression and new disorders, the statement of
claim says.

The legal pressure for action comes on the heels of recent
political and public pressure on the province.

In late March, Ms. Sattler raised similar issues in the
legislature about Ontario adults with complex medical needs and
held a news conference in London highlighting four cases.

One of those cases involved Alex Cha, a London man with cerebral
palsy, on the wait list at Participation House for more than 10
years and reliant on his aging mother for most of his care.

A story in The London Free Press on April 18 detailed the family's
struggles and worries.

"I'm open to anything that gets more attention from the
government.  If it helps people, I'm all for it," Jin Cha, Alex's
sister, said about the lawsuit for developmentally disabled adults
on April 18.

It's unknown how many adults in Ontario would be represented by
the lawsuit, Brown said.

The representative plaintiff in the claim is Briana Leroux, a 19-
year-old Timmins resident who needs help 24 hours a day, seven
days a week.

Until she turned 18, the province provided services through the
Ministry of Children and Youth Services, the statement of claim
says. On her 18th birthday, "all services . . . were arbitrarily
and unreasonably discontinued."

She was approved for developmental services by a regional office
and put on a wait list without any estimate of how long she would
wait.


CELESTICA INC: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities class action lawsuits were dismissed
in January 2017, according to Celestica Inc.'s March 13, 2017,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "Commencing in 2007, securities class action
lawsuits were brought against us and certain of our officers, a
director and Onex in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "District Court"), alleging
violations of United States federal securities laws. In 2015, a
settlement of the consolidated class action lawsuits was reached
and the District Court granted final approval of the settlement in
July 2015. The settlement payment to the plaintiffs was paid by
our liability insurance carriers in 2015. In 2007, parallel class
proceedings were initiated against us and our former Chief
Executive and Chief Financial Officers in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice."

These proceedings were finally dismissed on January 16, 2017, with
no payments by the defendants.

Celestica Inc. was incorporated in Ontario, Canada.  Prior to its
incorporation, the Company is an IBM manufacturing unit that
provided manufacturing services to IBM for more than 75 years.  In
1993, the Company began providing electronics manufacturing
services to non-IBM customers.  In October 1996, the Company was
purchased from IBM by an investor group led by Onex Corporation.
The Company delivers innovative supply chain solutions globally to
customers in the Communications (comprised of enterprise
communications and telecommunications), Consumer, Diversified
(comprised of aerospace and defense, industrial, healthcare, smart
energy and semiconductor equipment), Servers and Storage end
markets.


CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE: Removed "Espinosa" Suit to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Charish Espinosa, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Does 1 through 100
inclusive and Center for Excellence in Higher Education Inc. d/b/a
California College of San Diego, Inc., Case No. 37-02017-00006352-
CU-OE-CTL, filed on April 12, 2017, was removed on April 13, 2017,
from the Superior Court of California County of San Diego to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00744-
MMA-KSC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

Center for Excellence in Higher Education Inc. is an Indiana-based
nonprofit organization that supports free-market ideas in higher
education. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
      CAPSTONE LAW APC
      1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 556-4811
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
      E-mail matthew.bainer@capstonelawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Aaron T. Winn, Esq.
      DUANE MORRIS LLP
      750 B Street, Suite 2900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 744-2200
      Facsimile: (619) 744-2201
      E-mail atwinn@duanemorris.com


CENTRAL CREDIT: Class Certification Sought in "Czarnecki" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Czarnecki moves the Court to certify the class described in
the lawsuit entitled SALLY CZARNECKI, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES, LLC,
and SYNCHRONY BANK, Case No. 2:17-cv-00400 (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiff states.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016
U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations
omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice.
Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiff notes.  In dicta, the
Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a
class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter
judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification
motion.  Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need
not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different
if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's
individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the
court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.").

As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the
parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary
paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single
page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative
and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N4KjeSIE

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


CITIBANK: Reed Smith Attorney Discusses Arbitration Issue Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley L. Shively, Esq., of Reed Smith, in an article for Mondaq,
wrote that in a unanimous decision released April 6, 2017, the
California Supreme Court held an arbitration agreement that waives
the right to public injunctive relief in any forum is contrary to
state public policy and therefore unenforceable. McGill v.
Citibank, No. S224086 (April 7, 2017).  The Court also held that
public injunctive relief remains a remedy available to a private
plaintiff under the state's consumer protection statutes.

CASE BACKGROUND

In 2011, Plaintiff Sharon McGill filed a putative class action
against her credit card company alleging causes of action for
violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code
Sec. 1750 et seq. ("CLRA"), Unfair Competition Law, Business and
Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq. ("UCL"), and the False
Advertising law, Business and Professions Code Sec. 17500 et seq.
("FAL").  She sought money damages, restitution, and injunctive
relief.

Applying an arbitration provision in her Citibank account
agreement, the California Court of Appeal had held that the lender
was entitled compel the plaintiff to arbitrate all claims --
including claims for injunctive relief under the CLRA and UCL. The
California Supreme Court reversed on April 13, and remanded to the
Court of Appeal the question of whether the remainder of the
arbitration provision was enforceable.

THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT'S HOLDINGS AND RATIONAL

Arbitration Agreements That Waive Right To Pursue Public
Injunctive Relief In Any Forum Are Unenforceable

In oral argument, the parties agreed that McGill's arbitration
provision "purports to preclude [her] from seeking public
injunctive relief in arbitration, in court, or in any forum."
McGill, No. S224086, slip op at 8 (Cal. April 6, 2017).  The
question before the California Supreme Court was thus "whether the
arbitration provision is valid and enforceable insofar as it
purports to waive McGill's right to seek public injunctive relief
in any forum." Id. (emph. orig.).

The Supreme Court rejected Citibank's argument that a California
rule precluding enforcement of McGill's right to request public
injunctive relief in any forum would be preempted by the FAA. The
FAA requires courts to place arbitrations agreements on "equal
footing with other contracts." Id. at 15 (quoting Concepcion, 563
U.S. at 339)). The U.S. Supreme Court qualified that statement,
however, with a "savings clause," which "permits arbitration
agreements to be declared unenforceable 'upon such grounds as
exist in law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.'"
Id.

Under the savings clause, the California Supreme Court found, a
law established for a public reason cannot be contravened by a
private agreement and arbitration agreements which purport to do
so may be invalidated. Id. (citing Civ. Code Sec. 3513). "A
provision in any contract . . . that purports to waive, in all
fora, the statutory right to seek public injunctive relief under
the UCL, the CLRA, or the [FAL] is invalid and unenforceable under
California law. The FAA does not require enforcement of such a
provision, in derogation of this generally applicable contract
defense, merely because the provision had been inserted into an
arbitration agreement. To conclude otherwise would, contrary to
Congress's intent, make arbitration agreements not merely 'as
enforceable as other contracts, but . . . more so." Id. at 16
(citing Prima Paint, 338 U.S. at 404 n.12).

Proposition 64 Does Not Apply To Claims For Public Injunctive
Relief

The Court also appears to have found that a plaintiff who
otherwise meets the standing requirements of California's
Proposition 64 -- a private individual who as "suffered injury in
fact and has lost money or property as a result of" a violation of
the CLRA, UCL, or FAL -- may seek public injunctive relief without
satisfying the statutory requirements for class certification.

Voters passed Proposition 64 in 2004 to amend California's
Business and Professions Code and limit lawsuits under the statute
to members of the public who have suffered injury and lost money
or property due to the alleged statutory violation. See, e.g.,
Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17204.  Proposition 64 additionally
authorized injured individuals to "pursue representative claims or
relief on behalf of others only if [he or she] meets the standing
requirements . . . and complies with" California's class action
requirements found in Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
See, e.g., id. Sec. 17203.

In McGill, the Court found that "requests to enjoin future
wrongful business practices that will injure the public" need not
satisfy the requirements for class certification. McGill, slip op
at 13.  The Court reasoned that "representative claims" do not
include claims that seek public injunctive relief, but rather
include only claims that seek monetary remedies, such as
disgorgement or restitution, on behalf of others. Id.  The Court
relied on its 2000 opinion in Kraus v. Trinity Management
Services, which defined a "representative action" to mean a "UCL
action that is not certified as a class action in which a private
person is the plaintiff and seeks disgorgement and/or
restitution." Id. (citing 23 Cal.4th 116, 121 (2000)). In light of
that definition, the Court reasoned voters who passed Proposition
64 just a few years later likely interpreted "representative
claims" to mean those claims seeking monetary relief on behalf of
others.  Voters were not attempting to limit claims like McGill's
that seek public injunctive relief. Id.

WHAT'S NEXT

The ramifications of the decision will play out over the next
several years as we wait to see whether federal courts in
California will fall in line with the state Supreme Court or
separately find that the FAA preempts claims for public injunctive
relief.  Regardless, the Court's decision in McGill raises
immediate questions as to the validity and enforceability of
arbitrations provisions contained in consumer contracts and will
almost certainly result in an expansion of consumer litigation.
Businesses will need to review the language of consumer contracts
to determine whether arbitration provisions waive the right to
pursue public injunctive relief altogether.


COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Court Consolidated 3 Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued
an order, dated February 3, 2017, consolidating three putative
securities class actions.

The Company said, "On October 5, 2016 and October 27, 2016, two
putative securities class action complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased our
common stock during the period between February 25, 2016 and
September 30, 2016. On November 18, 2016, a different plaintiff
filed a third putative securities class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased our
common stock during the period between February 27, 2015 and
September 30, 2016. The complaints collectively name us and
certain of our current and former officers as defendants and
allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, based on allegedly false or misleading statements related
to potential violations of the FCPA, our business, prospects and
operations, and the effectiveness of our internal control over
financial reporting and our disclosure controls and procedures.
The plaintiffs collectively seek awards of compensatory damages,
among other relief, and their costs and attorneys' and experts'
fees."

Cognizant is one of the world's leading professional services
companies, transforming customers' business, operating and
technology models for the digital era.


COLLIER COUNTY, FL: Immigrant Students to Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brett Murphy, writing for Naples News, reports that two students
will join six other immigrant children whose federal lawsuit
claims that Collier County schools illegally kept them and
hundreds of others from enrolling in high schools.

In a federal court hearing on April 18, senior staff lawyer for
the Southern Poverty Law Center Michelle Lapointe told a judge she
plans to add the two to the complaint as soon as possible.

Both sides met in the Fort Myers courthouse to set deadlines for
evidence sharing.

The lawsuit accuses the Collier County school system of preventing
immigrant children from enrolling in high schools because of their
place of birth.  The suit claims the students were directed to an
English language program that costs money and offers no credits
toward a diploma.

The school system violated federal and state laws by denying
access to public education to recently arrived immigrant teenagers
with limited English skills, according to the complaint filed on
behalf of the six immigrant children who said they were not
allowed to enroll last year.

Federal and state law mandate that schools offer children in their
jurisdiction, regardless of immigration status, access to free
public education.

Neither side has specified whether the students in this case are
undocumented, nor does that have any bearing on the case.

The school district has argued in past filings that students were
not blocked but were redirected to comparable programs in the
school system that would provide better educational opportunities
than regular high school.

The SPLC, an Alabama-based national civil rights advocacy group,
filed the lawsuit a year ago.  Ms. Lapointe is seeking class-
action status for the case.  She has said in past court filings
that at least 300 students have been negatively affected by the
school board's policy.

These latest two additions, who as of now, like the other
plaintiffs, are anonymous, give credence to the class
certification, she said after the April 18 hearing.

"It shows the district has an ongoing policy of denying (English
language learners) enrollment in high school," Ms. Lapointe said.
"That's significant and troubling."

But attorneys for the school district say there's little to
suggest these two additional students will have any bearing on
whether a class action will be approved.

"We don't know if they're 5 (years old) or 25," said Jim Fox, a
lawyer for the schools, after the hearing on April 18.  "It's so
abstract at this point."


CONAGRA: Judge Tosses Crunch 'N Munch Trans Fat Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Suevon Lee and Steven Trader, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge on March 31 tossed a putative class
action against ConAgra alleging its Crunch 'n Munch popcorn
violates California's unfair competition law by containing
artificial trans fat, ruling the claims are preempted by federal
law.

As the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Congress have
determined partially hydrogenated oil -- a food additive with
artificial trans fat content -- can be used and marketed in food
products, Troy Walker's putative class claims under California law
are preempted by federal statute, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S.
White said.

The judge dismissed the case with prejudice and denied leave to
amend, saying Mr. Walker already received the opportunity to file
a first amended complaint and that further amendment would be
futile.

"Here, ConAgra has carried that burden" of showing how the state
laws are preempted, Judge White said, citing two recent decisions
from his district involving ConAgra and Nestle USA Inc. that held
similar trans fat "use" claims were barred by conflict preemption.

Mr. Walker in his April 2016 first amended complaint alleged that
the use of partially hydrogenated oil in Crunch 'n Munch was
unfair within the meaning of California's unfair competition law
because it allows ConAgra to reap more profits than if it used
safer natural fats, and also unlawful since PHO is generally
considered unsafe.

Mr. Walker, a frequent consumer of the caramel popcorn, alleged
that partially hydrogenated oil is an extremely harmful food
additive that causes heart disease and cancer, among other
illnesses.  He sought to represent a class of people who bought
Crunch 'n Munch on or after Jan. 1, 2008.

The California resident first brought suit in June 2015, alleging
ConAgra falsely markets Crunch 'n Munch as free of trans fat by
using the phrase "0g trans fat per serving" on its label,
deceiving consumers into buying a product that harms their health.
He said that although there are safe, low-cost alternatives to
partially hydrogenated oil, ConAgra chose not to use safe
alternatives in Crunch 'n Munch in order to drive up profits at
the expense of consumers' health.

In March 2016, the court had dismissed with prejudice
Mr. Walker's mislabeling claims as preempted by the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act and also said he failed to state a claim for his use
claims but allowed him to amend those.

In its motion to dismiss the amended suit, ConAgra argued that the
amended claims can't hold under controlling federal law.  The FDA
has said partially hydrogenated oil can be used and marketed in
food products until June 18, 2018, while the Consolidated
Appropriations Act precludes claims based on PHO use, it argued.

Judge White was convinced by the preemption argument, noting the
recent Northern District decisions in Backus v. ConAgra Foods and
Backus v. Nestle USA Inc.

"In particular, despite the guidance provided by those prior
cases, plaintiffs still have provided no basis for this court to
conclude that 'the FDA meant to reference general, broadly
applicable state laws, such as those on which [plaintiff's] use
claims are predicated, as opposed to statutory provisions
specifically applicable to PHOs,'" he wrote.

Representatives for Mr. Walker and ConAgra didn't immediately
return requests for comment on April 17.

Mr. Walker is represented by Gregory Weston --
greg@westonfirm.com -- and David Elliott of The Weston Firm.

ConAgra is represented by Allen Brooks Gresham II --
bgresham@mcguirewoods.com -- Angela M. Spivey --
aspivey@mcguirewoods.com -- Laura E. Coombe and Richard Trent
Taylor of McGuireWoods LLP.

The case is Troy Walker v. ConAgra Foods Inc., case number 4:15-
cv-02424 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


CREATIVE AIR: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a Huntington Beach consumer claims an air solution
company unlawfully contacted her for marketing purposes.

Denise Menichiello, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a complaint on April 5 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against
Creative Air Solutions Inc. and Does 1 through 10 alleging that
they violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that she
received numerous calls from the defendant within a 12-month
period soliciting its services beginning in October 2016.  She
claims she did not have an established business relationship nor
gave prior written consent to defendants to administer such calls.
She alleges her privacy was invaded.

The plaintiffs hold Creative Air Solutions Inc. and Does 1 through
10 responsible because the defendants allegedly failed to
establish and implement reasonable practices and procedures to
advertise its products to effectively prevent telephone
solicitation.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks up to $1,500 in
damages for each call and any other relief that the court deems
just and proper. S 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 Central District of California Case
number 8:17-cv-00613


CURADEN AG: Faces "Lyngaas" Suit Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Brian Lyngaas, D.D.S., individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Curaden AG,
Curaden USA Inc and John Does 1-12, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
10910-MAG-MKM (E.D. Mich., March 22, 2017), seeks statutory
damages, injunctive relief, compensation and attorney's fees for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff did not expressly invite or give permission to anyone to
send any advertisement from Defendants through facsimile, says the
complaint.

Curaden is engaged in selling oral care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
   Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
   Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC
   134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 100
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 658-5500

        - and -

   Richard Shenkan, Esq.
   Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC
   6550 Lakeshore St.
   West Bloomfield, MI 48323
   Tel: (248) 562-1320
   Email: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com


DELOITTE: Ontario Court Certifies Doc Reviewers' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monkhouse Law on April 18 disclosed that a class action against
Deloitte involving document reviewers has been certified by the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, subject to Court approval of
amendments to the proposed class definition and the replacement of
the representative plaintiff.  The action alleges that document
reviewers working for Deloitte were misclassified as independent
contractors and are employees.  The claim seeks compensation for
unpaid vacation, unpaid statutory holiday pay and unpaid overtime.

The proposed class consists of 418 lawyers who were doing document
review at Deloitte since Deloitte purchased the document review
company ATD Inc.

The decision is a significant step forward for misclassified
workers who do not have the same protections as employees. Justice
Belobaba considered the changing employment landscape noting that
companies are increasingly labelling employees as self-employed in
an effort to reduce operating costs.  Justice Belobaba also
clarified that having two jobs does not mean that a worker is not
an employee.

Putative Class Counsel seeks a new representative plaintiff for
this action to be viable. If you worked as a document reviewer for
Deloitte and are interested in becoming a representative plaintiff
please contact Andrew Monkhouse at -- andrew@monkhouselaw.com --
or David Fogel at -- dfogel@lmkalwyers.com  If a new
representative Plaintiff is not found by June 12, 2017, the action
will be dismissed.

"This certification motion shows that employers who misclassify
employees as contractors can have substantial liability towards
those workers, no matter what the contract says," said Andrew
Monkhouse.  "The case is a reminder that even the largest
companies in Canada are subject to the same laws relating to the
treatment of their workers."

Sam Marr and David Fogel said that the decision "reflects the
economic realities of workers in today's economic climate" and "it
would be a loss to all workers if a new representative plaintiff
is not found resulting in the dismissal of this action."

None of the allegations have been proven in court, and Deloitte
denies liability.

A copy of the decision of Justice Belobaba dated April 13, 2017,
is available at https://is.gd/kvpbbt

A copy of the Amended Statement of Claim is available at
https://is.gd/2q0dK1


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Driver Sues for Vehicle Expense Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Madison-St Clair Record, reports
that a Domino's Pizza delivery driver has filed a class action
lawsuit alleging his employer did not compensate delivery drivers
for vehicular wear and tear or gas.

Shiloh resident Jesse Tourville, for himself and all others
similarly situated, filed a complaint on April 11 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against MBR
Management Corporation.

He alleges the Domino's Pizza franchisee, which operates 80
Domino's franchises in Illinois and Missouri, violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law and Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege he and other
delivery drivers were not compensated for vehicular wear and tear,
gas and other driving-related expenses.  Mr. Tourville, who worked
at the Troy location, alleges he and others paid "out-of-pocket"
expenses of $13.38 per hour to provide, operate and maintain their
vehicles, losing approximately $1.43 each hour they worked on-the-
road.

The plaintiffs allege MBR Management failed to compensate at least
the tipped minimum wage rate for each hour worked on-the-road and
failed to properly reimburse delivery drivers' expenses including
cost for gasoline, vehicle depreciation, insurance, maintenance
and repairs.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek all available
compensatory damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, cost
and any further relief the court deems just, necessary and proper.

They are represented by Jeremiah Frei-Pearson -- jfrei-
pearson@fbfglaw.com -- Todd S. Garber and Chantal Khalil --
ckhalil@fbfglaw.com -- of Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson
and Garber LLP in White Plains, N.Y., and C. Ryan Morgan of Morgan
and Morgan PA in Orlando, Fla.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case
number 3:17-cv-00373


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dynavax Technologies Corporation continues to defend itself
against a consolidated securities lawsuit in California, according
to the Company's March 13, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On November 18, 2016, two substantially similar securities class
action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and two of its
executive officers, in Soontjens v. Dynavax Technologies
Corporation et al., ("Soontjens") and Shumake v. Dynavax
Technologies Corporation et al., ("Shumake"). The Soontjens
complaint alleges that between March 10, 2014 and November 11,
2016, the Company and certain of its executive officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, in connection with statements related to
HEPLISAV-B. The Shumake complaint alleges violations of the same
statutes related to the same subject, but between January 7, 2016
and November 11, 2016. The plaintiffs in both actions are seeking
an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 17, 2017, these two actions and all related actions
that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred to, the District
Court were consolidated into a single case entitled In re Dynavax
Technologies Securities Litigation. On January 31, 2017, the court
appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Lead plaintiff's
deadline to file a consolidated amended complaint was March 17,
2017.

Dynavax Technologies Corporation is a clinical-stage immunotherapy
company focused on leveraging the power of the body's innate and
adaptive immune responses through toll-like receptor stimulation.
The Company's current product candidates are being investigated
for use in multiple cancer indications, as a vaccine for the
prevention of hepatitis B and as a disease modifying therapy for
asthma.


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Court Tosses Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dynavax Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California approved the
settlement and entered a final order and judgment dismissing with
prejudice a consolidated securities lawsuit.

On June 18, 2013, the first of two substantially similar
securities class action complaints was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its former executive officers. The second was filed
on June 26, 2013. On August 22, 2013, these two complaints and all
related actions that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred
to, the District Court were consolidated into a single case
entitled In re Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation. On
September 27, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. On November 12, 2013, lead plaintiff filed his
consolidated class action complaint (the "consolidated
complaint"), which named a former director of the Company as a
defendant in addition to the Company and the former executive
officers identified in the two prior complaints (collectively, the
"defendants"). The consolidated complaint alleged that between
April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company and certain of its
executive officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in
connection with statements related to the Company's product,
HEPLISAV-B, an investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine. The
consolidated complaint sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and other costs.

On September 7, 2016, the parties signed the Stipulation of
Settlement, which provides for a payment of $4.5 million by the
defendants, of which the Company is responsible for $4.1 million,
and results in the dismissal and release of all claims against the
defendants in connection with the securities class action, upon
final court approval. The settlement will be paid for by the
Company's insurance carriers.

On February 6, 2017, the Court approved the settlement and entered
a Final Order and Judgment dismissing the case with prejudice.

Dynavax Technologies Corporation is a clinical-stage immunotherapy
company focused on leveraging the power of the body's innate and
adaptive immune responses through toll-like receptor stimulation.
The Company's current product candidates are being investigated
for use in multiple cancer indications, as a vaccine for the
prevention of hepatitis B and as a disease modifying therapy for
asthma.


EL POLLO LOCO: Awaits OK of Settlement in Orange Cty., Cal. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., awaits approval of its settlement of
a putative class action lawsuit commenced in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Orange, according to the
Company's March 10, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 28, 2016.

On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, against El Pollo Loco, Inc., on behalf of all putative
class members (all hourly employees from 2010 to the present)
alleging certain violations of California labor laws, including
failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal
periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage
statements. The putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies
include compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
disgorgement of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
No specific amount of damages sought was specified in the
complaint.

The parties have executed a Stipulation of Class Settlement and
Release which has been submitted for court approval.

The Company says purported class actions alleging wage and hour
violations are commonly filed against California employers, and
the Company fully expects to have to defend against similar
lawsuits in the future.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Costa Mesa, California.  The Company's activities
are conducted principally through its indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary, El Pollo Loco, Inc., which develops, franchises,
licenses and operates quick-service restaurants under the name El
Pollo Loco(R).  The restaurants, which are located principally in
California but also in Arizona, Nevada, Texas, and Utah,
specialize in flame-grilled chicken in a wide variety of
contemporary Mexican-influenced entrees, including specialty
chicken burritos, chicken quesadillas, chicken tortilla soup,
Pollo Bowls and Pollo Salads.


EL POLLO LOCO: Wins More Time to Respond to "Turocy" Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Daniel Turocy v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 8:15-cv-01343 (C.D. Cal.), Judge David O. Carter granted
the Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response To
Consolidated Third Amended Complaint and Set Briefing Schedule,
filed by Defendants El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., Freeman Spogli &
Co., Laurance Roberts, Stephen J. Sather, Trimaran Capital
Partners, Trimaran Pollo Partners, L.L.C., Edward J. Valle.

Plaintiffs Dr. Richard Levy, Peter Kim, Ron Huston, Robert W.
Kegley, Sr., Samuel Tanner filed the Consolidated Third Amended
Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws on April
17.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
consolidated securities lawsuit pending in California, the Company
said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December
28, 2016.

Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 8:15-cv-01343) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015,
and Ron Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 8:15-cv-01710) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on October 22, 2015.
The two lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs
and class counsel.  A consolidated complaint was filed on January
29, 2016, on behalf of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly
situated, alleging violations of federal securities laws in
connection with Holdings common stock purchased or otherwise
acquired and the purchase of call options or the sale of put
options, between May 1, 2015 and August 13, 2015 (the "Class
Period"). The named defendants are Holdings; Stephen J. Sather,
Laurance Roberts, and Edward J. Valle (collectively, the
"Individual Defendants"); and LLC, Trimaran Capital Partners, and
Freeman Spogli & Co. (collectively, the "Controlling Shareholder
Defendants").

Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in 2014 and early
2015, Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor costs in
California and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of such
rising costs, removed a $5 value option from our menu, which
resulted in a decrease in value-conscious store traffic.
Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings
and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false
and misleading statements that concealed the effect that these
factors were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings
stock continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices. As
a result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class
allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of
Holdings' stock during the Class Period. In addition, Plaintiffs
allege that the Individual Defendants and Controlling Shareholder
Defendants had direct involvement in, and responsibility over, the
operations of Holdings, and are presumed to have had, among other
things, the power to control or influence the transactions giving
rise to the alleged securities law violations. In both cases,
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs
and expenses (including attorneys' fees).

On July 25, 2016, the Court issued an order granting, without
prejudice, Holdings' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint for
failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend
their complaint, and filed an amended complaint on August 22,
2016.

Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims
asserted.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Costa Mesa, California.  The Company's activities
are conducted principally through its indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary, El Pollo Loco, Inc., which develops, franchises,
licenses and operates quick-service restaurants under the name El
Pollo Loco(R).  The restaurants, which are located principally in
California but also in Arizona, Nevada, Texas, and Utah,
specialize in flame-grilled chicken in a wide variety of
contemporary Mexican-influenced entrees, including specialty
chicken burritos, chicken quesadillas, chicken tortilla soup,
Pollo Bowls and Pollo Salads.


ENRICH FINANCIAL: Aleksanian Sues Over False Advertisement
----------------------------------------------------------
Lolita Aleksanian and Alen Issagholian, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Enrich Financial,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02359 (C.D. Cal., March 27,
2017), is brought against the Defendant to stop Defendant's
practice of falsely advertising its services and to obtain redress
for a nationwide class of consumers who changed position, within
the applicable statute of limitations period, as a result of
Defendant's false and misleading advertisements.

Defendant is a corporation with principal place of business in
Connecticut and state of incorporation in California and is
engaged in the business of providing credit repair services,
credit card and loan settlement, and representation for collection
matters.

Defendant represents that it will provide credit repair services,
credit card and loan settlement, and representation for collection
matters when this is in fact false. Defendant misrepresented and
falsely advertised to Plaintiff and others similarly situated
consumers these services.  Plaintiff and others similarly situated
purchased or attempt to purchase these services. In so doing,
Defendant has violated California consumer protection statutes,
the complaint asserts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
   Meghan E. George, Esq.
   Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
   21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
   Woodland Hills, CA 91367
   Tel: 877-206-4741
   Fax: 866-633-0228
   Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
          mgeorge@toddflaw.com
          abacon@toddflaw.com


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: To Pay $300,000 to Plaintiffs' Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------
Envision Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 8-K filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, that the
information contained in the Current Report is being furnished
pursuant to an order of the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, providing notice of certain payments (for a total of
$300,000) made by the Company to plaintiffs' counsel in
satisfaction of claims related to the Merger.

On December 14, 2016, the Delaware Court entered an order,
pursuant to a stipulation, dismissing with prejudice as to the
named plaintiff only the action entitled Brian Anderson v. William
A. Sanger, et al., C.A. No. 12561-CB (the "Delaware Action"), in
which certain stockholders of Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc.
("Envision Holdings") had asserted claims of breach of fiduciary
duty against the former directors of Envision Holdings, and claims
of aiding and abetting those breaches of fiduciary duty against
Barclays PLC, in connection with the merger of Envision Holdings
and AmSurg Corp. (the "Merger"). The claims had been asserted on
behalf of a purported class of all stockholders of Envision
Holdings excluding the defendants and their relatives,
representatives and affiliates (the "Proposed Class"), but the
Delaware Court made no ruling on certification of the Proposed
Class, and any claims of members of the Proposed Class (other than
the named plaintiffs) were dismissed without prejudice by the same
order. The Delaware Court retained jurisdiction to determine an
anticipated application by plaintiff in the Delaware Action for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with claims
that plaintiff believed were mooted by disclosures made in a
supplemental Form S-4 filed on October 7, 2016 and the definitive
joint proxy statement/prospectus filed on October 21, 2016.

On February 7, 2017, plaintiffs in the Delaware Action and in
another action entitled Eric Voth, et al. v. Envision Healthcare
Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-02213-MEH, filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (the
"Federal Court"), asserting federal disclosure claims in
connection with the Merger, which had also been dismissed with
prejudice as to the named plaintiffs only and without prejudice as
to all members of the proposed class in that action, agreed with
defendants that Envision Healthcare Corporation, as successor to
Envision Holdings, would pay a total of $300,000 to plaintiffs'
counsel in both actions in satisfaction of all plaintiffs' claims
for attorneys' fees and expenses.

On March 2, 2017, the Delaware Court entered an order, pursuant to
a stipulation, providing that notice of these payments be given
through the filing of this Form 8-K. Neither the Delaware Court
nor the Federal Court has been asked to review, and neither court
will pass judgment on, the agreed payment of plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and expenses.


EXPEDIA INC: Texas Cities Awarded $25MM in Hotel Tax Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vidya Kauri, writing for Law360, reports that online travel
companies including Expedia Inc. and Hotels.com that were slapped
with an $84 million judgment for underpaying hotel occupancy taxes
in various Texas cities should now pay an additional $25 million
to attorneys representing the cities, a magistrate judge
recommended on April 17.

In a report to a Texas federal court, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth Chestney recommended awarding less than the $43 million
in fees that attorneys for more than 170 Texas municipalities
requested shortly after their victory in April 2016.  That win
came in a class action initiated by San Antonio a decade earlier,
which the cities say resulted in "the largest judgment" that any
local government has won to recover hotel occupancy taxes.  The
fee request represented a base "lodestar" amount of approximately
$10.8 million with a multiplier of four, as permitted by the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure for class counsel.

The 16 online travel companies in the suit contested the fees
sought, arguing that the lodestar should be should be lower and
not increased by a multiplier, that a large portion of paralegal
time being claimed was really clerical in nature, and that the
class counsel's hourly rates far exceeded prevailing rates.

However, Judge Chestney said that even though the plaintiffs'
paralegals did perform "many purely clerical tasks," the travel
companies were overstating the amount of time attributed to such
activities.

The court should reduce plaintiffs' paralegal time by 15 percent
and, based on the "extraordinary results" and substantial monetary
award that class counsel obtained, the court should grant a
lodestar amount of just a little more than $10 million with a
multiplier of 2.5, Judge Chestney recommended.

"Hotel-occupancy litigation is a specialized type of litigation,
as evidenced by the fact that there are only a handful of Texas
published opinions in this area," she said.  "The court takes
judicial notice of lead and co-counsel's exceptional
qualifications."

The decadelong class action has involved extensive discovery, more
than 80 witnesses, lengthy motions for cross-judgment and a
monthlong jury trial.  The parties also spent years filing post-
trial motions and calculating unpaid taxes owed before the court's
final judgment was entered, and then they engaged in further
"considerable . . . motion practice" until the final judgment was
amended, according to court records.

Judge Chestney also recommended that the court grant most of the
class counsel's request for $1.77 million in expenses from the
common fund for photocopying charges, postage, messenger services,
the cost of travel to deposition locations and fees for experts
and consultants.  Many of these expenses, except those incurred
for meals, were reasonable and necessary, Judge Chestney said,
recommending that each plaintiff bear equally the award for $1.75
million in nontaxable litigation expenses.

Counsel for the plaintiffs declined to comment.

A representative for the online travel companies could not be
reached for comment.

The cities are represented by Ferdinand F. Fischer III of the Law
Office of Trey Martinez Fischer, Gary Cruciani, Michael P. Fritz
and Steven D. Wolens of McKool Smith PC, Michael Debs Bernard of
Bracewell LLP, Frank Herrera Jr. of The Herrera Law Firm Inc. and
Patrick J. O'Connell of O'Connell & Soifer LLP.

The travel companies are represented by Deborah S. Sloan, Emmanuel
E. Ubinas -- eeubinas@jonesday.com -- and James Paul Karen of
Jones Day, Leslie J. Strieber III, Ricardo G. Cedillo and Mark W.
Kiehne of Davis Cedillo & Mendoza Inc., Elizabeth B. Herrington --
beth.herrington@morganlewis.com -- and Tedd M. Warden --
tedd.warden@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Jeffrey A. Rossman -- jrossman@freeborn.com -- of Freeborn &
Peters LLP, Stacy R. Horth-Neubert of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher &
Flom LLP, and Brian S. Stagner and Stacy S. Russell --
stacy.horth-neubert@skadden.com -- of Kelly Hart & Hallman PC.

The case is City of San Antonio, Texas, et al. v. Hotels.com LP,
case number 5:06-cv-00381, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas.


FBR & CO: Briefing on Bids to Dismiss "Gaynor" Suit to End in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on the Defendants' motions to dismiss a consolidated
securities lawsuit involving a subsidiary is expected to be
completed by the second quarter of 2017, FBR & Co. disclosed in
its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 13, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On January 5, 2017, the complaints filed in November 2015 and May
2016 naming MLV & Co. LLC (a Company subsidiary) as a defendant in
putative class action lawsuits alleging claims under the
Securities Act in connection with the offerings of Miller Energy
Resources, Inc. ("Miller") have been consolidated.  The Master
Consolidated Complaint, styled Gaynor v. Miller et al., is pending
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, and, like its predecessor complaints, continues to
allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act
against nine underwriters for alleged material misrepresentations
and omissions in the registration statement and prospectuses
issued in connection with six offerings (February 13, 2013; May 8,
2013; June 28, 2013; September 26, 2013; October 17, 2013 (as to
MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged aggregate offering
price of approximately $151 million. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement of certain
costs and expenses.

Although MLV is contractually entitled to be indemnified by Miller
in connection with this lawsuit, Miller filed for bankruptcy in
October 2015 and this likely will decrease or eliminate the value
of the indemnity that MLV receives from Miller. Briefing on the
defendants' motions to dismiss is ongoing and expected to be
completed by the second quarter of 2017.

FBR & Co. is a full-service investment banking and institutional
brokerage firm with a deep expertise and focus on the equity
capital markets.  Since the founding of certain predecessor
companies, the Company has grown from a boutique investment bank
with primary expertise in financial institutions into a full-
service U.S. investment bank for middle-market companies.


FBR & CO: Waterford Appeals Denial of Bid to Amend Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs appeal the denial of their motion to file a third
amended complaint in the lawsuit styled Waterford Township Police
& Fire, Retirement System v. Regional Management Corp., et al.,
FBR & Co. said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 13, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On January 30, 2017, the Court in the previously disclosed
putative class action lawsuit of Waterford Township Police & Fire,
Retirement System, vs. Regional Management Corp. et al. denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended complaint, which would
have revived claims previously dismissed on March 30, 2016.

On March 1, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Regional
Management continues to indemnify all of the underwriters,
including FBR Capital Markets & Co., pursuant to the operative
underwriting agreement.

FBR & Co. is a full-service investment banking and institutional
brokerage firm with a deep expertise and focus on the equity
capital markets.  Since the founding of certain predecessor
companies, the Company has grown from a boutique investment bank
with primary expertise in financial institutions into a full-
service U.S. investment bank for middle-market companies.


FCA US: "Sebastian" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2777
-------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Albert Sebastian individually,
and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FCA
U.S., LLC, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Robert Bosch GmbH, and
Robert Bosch LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00085 filed on January 13,
2017, was transferred on April 11, 2017, from the District of
California Southern to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-02027-EMC to the proceeding.

The Case is consolidated in multidistrict litigation No. 2777.

Plaintiff Albert Sebastian alleges violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

The Defendants operate the American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles N.V., an Italian controlled automobile manufacturer.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Casey Jr., Esq.
      Ethan T. Litney, Esq.
      Gayle Meryl Blatt, Esq.
      Jeremy Keith Robinson, Esq.
      Wendy M. Behan, Esq.
      CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT AND PENFIELD LLP
      110 Laurel Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 238-1811
      Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
      E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
              elitney@cglaw.com
              gmb@cglaw.com
              jrobinson@cglaw.com
              wbehan@cglaw.com

FCA US: "Warren" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2777
----------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled R.D. Warren, individually, and
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FCA
U.S., LLC, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Robert Bosch GmbH, and
Robert Bosch LLC, Case No. 7:17-cv-00059 filed on January 13,
2017, was transferred on April 11, 2017 from the District of
Northern Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3 3:17-cv-02026-EMC to the proceeding.

The Case is consolidated in multidistrict litigation No. 2777.

Plaintiff Albert Sebastian alleges violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

The Defendants operate the American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles N.V., an Italian controlled automobile manufacturer.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher B. Hood, Esq.
      Taylor Christopher Bartlett, Esq.
      Travis Edward Lynch, Esq.
      William Lewis Garrison Jr., Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC
      2224 1st Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 326-3336
      Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
      E-mail: chood@hgdlawfirm.com
              taylor@hgdlawfirm.com
              tlynch@hgdlawfirm.com
              lewis@hgdlawfirm.com

         - and -

      K Stephen Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON AND TUCKER, P.C.
      2229 First Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203-4203
      Telephone: (205) 252-3535
      Facsimile: (205) 252-3536


FEDERAL-MOGUL: To Defend Against Delaware Shareholder Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Icahn Enterprises L.P. and Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P. said in
their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2016, that Federal-Mogul intends to defend against the
stockholder litigation in Delaware.

On September 6, 2016, Icahn entered into an agreement and plan of
merger with Federal-Mogul pursuant to which, and upon the terms
and subject to the conditions thereof, Icahn commenced a cash
tender offer (the "Federal-Mogul Tender Offer") to acquire all of
the issued and outstanding shares of Federal-Mogul's common stock
not already owned by Icahn for a purchase price of $9.

On September 29, 2016, September 30, 2016, October 12, 2016 and
October 19, 2016, respectively, four putative class actions,
captioned Skybo v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12790, Lemanchek v.
Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12791, Raul v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A.
No. 12821 and Mercado v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12837, were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against
the Board, Icahn Enterprises L.P. and certain of its affiliates,
including Parent and the Offeror (the "Icahn Defendants"), and, in
the case of Raul, Federal-Mogul. The complaints allege that, among
other things, the Board breached its fiduciary duties by approving
the proposed Merger Agreement, that the Icahn Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to the minority stockholders and/or aided
and abetted the Board's breaches of its fiduciary duties, as well
as alleging certain material misstatements and omissions in the
Schedule 14D-9. The complaints allege that, among other things,
the then-Offer Price was inadequate and, together with that the
Merger Agreement, was the result of a flawed and unfair sales
process and conflicts of interest of the Board and the Special
Committee, alleging that the Special Committee and Federal-Mogul's
management lacked independence from the Icahn Defendants. In
addition, the complaints allege that the Merger Agreement contains
certain allegedly preclusive deal protection provisions, including
a no-solicitation provision, an information rights provision and a
matching rights provision. Among other things, the complaints
sought to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, as well as award costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.  The Raul and Mercado
complaints further seek to rescind the transaction or award
rescissory damages, or (in the case of Raul) award a quasi-
appraisal remedy in the event that the transaction was
consummated, as well as award money damages.

On October 28, 2016, all four actions were consolidated under the
caption In re Federal-Mogul Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
C.A. No. 12790-CB (the "Delaware Action").  On February 3, 2017,
an order was entered requiring plaintiffs to file their amended
complaint by March 6, 2017.

Federal-Mogul believes that the claims in the Delaware Action are
without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.


FEDERAL-MOGUL: To Defend Against Michigan Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Icahn Enterprises L.P. and Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P. said in
their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2016, that Federal-Mogul intends to defend against the
stockholder litigation in Michigan.

On September 6, 2016, Icahn entered into an agreement and plan of
merger with Federal-Mogul pursuant to which, and upon the terms
and subject to the conditions thereof, Icahn commenced a cash
tender offer (the "Federal-Mogul Tender Offer") to acquire all of
the issued and outstanding shares of Federal-Mogul's common stock
not already owned by Icahn for a purchase price of $9.

On October 5, 2016, a putative class action captioned Sanders v.
Federal-Mogul Holdings Corporation et al., C.A. No. 16-155387 was
filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County of the State of
Michigan against the Company, the Board and the Icahn Defendants
(the "Michigan Action"). The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Board breached its fiduciary duties and that
Federal-Mogul and the Icahn Defendants aided and abetted the
Board's breaches of its fiduciary duties, as well as alleging
certain material misstatements and omissions in the Schedule 14D-
9. The complaint alleges that, among other things, the then-Offer
Price was unfair and the result of an unfair sales process that
included conflicts of interest.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the Merger Agreement
contains certain allegedly preclusive deal protection provisions,
including a no-solicitation provision, an information rights
provision and a matching rights provision. Among other things, the
complaint sought to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the
Merger Agreement, or, in the event that the transactions were
consummated, rescind the transactions or award rescissory damages,
as well as award money damages and costs, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees.

On February 10, 2017, an order was entered providing that
plaintiff shall have through March 6, 2016, to file his First
Amended Complaint.

Federal-Mogul believes that the claims in the Michigan Action are
without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.


FEDERAL WAY, WA: Faces Class Action Over Illegal School Zone
------------------------------------------------------------
Raechel Dawson, writing for Federal Way Mirror, reports that one
company, two Tacoma residents and a Federal Way resident are suing
the city of Federal Way in a class-action lawsuit for ticketing
drivers in a school zone they say is illegal for a span of seven
years.

Attorney Alexander S. Kleinberg --
akleinberg@eisenhowerlaw.com -- with Eisenhower Carlson PLLC,
claims the city owes an estimated $3.9 million to the plaintiffs
and others affected.  Approximately 9,000 people were ticketed
between 2009-13, according to a past report. It is unknown how
many were ticketed between 2014 and present day.

The lawsuit was filed in December with declarations being made
this month.

The plaintiffs listed in the suit, Jimmy Dewberry and Todd
Scheidegger of Tacoma, Marilyn P. Gary of Federal Way, and Dickson
Company, each received speeding tickets in the Saghalie school
zone for going more than 20 mph.

Their tickets were issued by photo enforcement cameras or police
officers.  Each had to pay between $210-$250 for the tickets.

Mr. Kleinberg wrote the school zone is illegal because it is more
than 300 feet from Saghalie Middle School.  Citing Washington
state law, RCW 46.61.440(2), he states the law limits where school
zones can be created and that they "(a) may be created on a
highway bordering a marked school; and (b) may extend three
hundred (300) feet from the border of the closest school
property."

The Saghalie school zone, however, extends two blocks from the
school, or approximately 1,000 feet. It is located on 21st Avenue
Southwest.

"The payments that plaintiffs and the class members made to the
defendants . . . for speeding in the Saghalie school zone were
induced by fraud and deceit and/or by misrepresentations of rights
available to citizens," the lawsuit states.  "Plaintiffs and
members of the class lacked knowledge of facts upon which to
protest payment and/or made these payments under duress,
compulsion, or mistake."

City spokeswoman Cathy Schrock said the city does not comment on
pending litigation and that city officials believe the Saghalie
school zone is legal and are "participating in litigating that
fact."

This isn't the first time city officials have had to defend the
Saghalie school zone.

In 2014, municipal court judges Dave Larson and Rebecca Robertson
ruled the area in question was a legal school zone after seven
defendants challenged their tickets.

The defendants brought a 2013 Federal Way Mirror article with them
that reported the city dropped the speeding ticket of Stephen
Cramer after he showed the then-pro tem judge a map.  The map
showed that the middle school was, in fact, more than 1,000 feet
from where Cramer was ticketed.

But the judges in the 2014 case said it was legal under state law
RCW 46.61.440(1), as there is no provision requiring that the
school speed zone be within 300 feet of a school boundary.

In fact, they said the crosswalk was built in 1995 after a child
was struck and killed by a car in that area.

In addition to the monetary restitution, the plaintiffs request an
injunction ordering the city of Federal Way remove all school zone
signs, markings and photo enforcement cameras from the "school
zone," as well as prohibit calling the area a school zone "absent
a change in controlling state law that provides for such."


FIAT CHRYSLER: Seeks Dismissal of Clutch Defect Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy and Suevon Lee, writing for Law360, report that Fiat
Chrysler on April 17 urged a California federal judge to rule in
its favor in a lawsuit over an alleged clutch defect in certain
Dodge Dart vehicles, saying that the proposed class has provided
no evidence of an actual defect.

All the car owners' claims focus on an alleged defect in the
clutch system of manual transmission Darts for model years 2013
and 2014, but the two named plaintiffs have only managed to show
that their vehicles needed repairs after about two years of
driving.  Just because part of a car needs to be fixed after being
driven tens of thousands of miles doesn't mean there's a defect,
FCA US LLC said in its summary judgment motion.

"The failure of a product to last forever is not a defect because
to hold otherwise would mean that 'a manufacturer would no longer
be able to issue limited warranties, and product defect litigation
would become as widespread as manufacturing itself,'" the company
said, citing the Ninth Circuit's decision earlier this year in
Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co.

The two named plaintiffs, Carlos Victorino and Adam Tavitian, have
said that the alleged defect makes the internal and external seals
in the clutch master cylinder ineffective at keeping debris from
prematurely wearing down the seals.  They've also said that the
alleged defect might cause other problems, such as an inability to
shift gears and difficulty bringing vehicles to a stop.

Mr. Victorino bought a 2014 Dart in March of that year, and in
January 2016, he noticed that the gears weren't "catching"
properly when he attempted to shift.  He took his vehicle to a
local dealership, where technicians determined that the clutch was
"worn out" and attributed the problem to "normal wear and tear."
They did not note a defect, contamination or degraded seals.  At
the time, Mr. Victorino's Dart had been driven 34,351 miles, FCA
said.

The repairs cost Mr. Victorino $1,165, which he asked FCA to
cover. He claimed it should be covered by a January 2016 voluntary
customer service action that covered repairs related to
plasticizer leaching from a hose.  FCA denied the request because
the repair was done because the clutch was worn out, not due to an
issue with the seals or hose.

Mr. Tavitian bought his 2013 Dart in November 2012 and took it to
a local dealership in July 2014, complaining that the clutch was
sticking and his vehicle was failing to shift gears.  While his
Dart was at the dealership, it was discovered that he had removed
its odometer and replaced it with one that showed 28,697 fewer
miles than it should've.  The actual mileage was 42,075 miles.

He paid $298 for the fix and sought reimbursement, claiming it was
covered by the January 2016 customer service action.  FCA denied
his application only because of the odometer tampering, since
without that, the repair would've been covered.

All the evidence shows is that the two men drove their Darts for
almost two years before experiencing a problem with the clutch,
FCA said.  When asked for evidence and facts to back up their
argument, Messrs. Tavitian and Victorino only said that the clutch
needed repairs, the company added.

In November, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel refused to
dismiss the case, saying that there was a "plausible inference"
that FCA knew about the alleged defect and tried to hide it.

The plaintiffs could not be reached for comment on April 18.

FCA is represented by Edwin M. Boniske and William M. Low of Higgs
Fletcher & Mack LLP and by Kathy W. Wisniewski, Stephen A. D'Aunoy
and Thomas L. Azar Jr. of Thompson Coburn LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jordan L. Lurie, Tarek H. Zohdy,
Cody R. Padgett and Karen L. Wallace of Capstone Law APC.

The case is Victorino, et al., v. FCA US LLC, case number 3:16-cv-
01617, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Class Action Over Coal Waste Dump
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Beveridge, writing for Observer-Reporter, reports that
residents of a Fayette County village have filed a federal class-
action lawsuit against FirstEnergy Corp. and others claiming they
are being subjected to dangerous chemicals from fugitive dust that
leaves a large coal waste dump along the Monongahela River.

The plaintiffs from LaBelle filed the lawsuit on April 14 seeking
relief in the form of health monitoring from the corporation, as
well as NRG Energy Inc. and Matt Canestrale Contraction Inc. of
Belle Vernon, the court record indicates.

"I think the people that live there in LaBelle are being
completely ignored and have been poisoned for some time, and it's
not going to stop," said their attorney, Louise R. Caro of
Philadelphia.  "That dust is not contained, and with the weather,
wind, LaBelle is always getting inundated with this dust."

The lawsuit claims the residents have been subjected to dust from
the 506.7-acre site that includes lead, arsenic, cadmium and
chromium.  The site dates to 1903, when it was owned by Vesta Coal
Co., a subsidiary of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.  It quickly
became the largest coal-preparation processing site in the world,
the lawsuit states.

The owners of the site went bankrupt in the 1990s before
Canestrale entered into a contract in 1995 to purchase the
processing company's assets.  Canestrale also entered into a
consent agreement with the state Department of Environmental
Protection in 1997 that outlined its duties to reclaim and close
the site, the lawsuit contends.

Canestrale reclaimed the site with coal ash generated at power
plants operated by First Energy of Akron, Ohio, and NRG Energy of
Princeton, N.J., Caro stated in the lawsuit.

"The pile covers a large hill that looms high over the town of
LaBelle, Pennsylvania," she stated in the records.

"The coal ash is sent by open, uncovered barge to the prep site
and then by open, uncovered truck up to the refuse site."

Caro said such an operation should not have been conducted so
close to homes.

FirstEnergy spokeswoman Stephanie Walton said Pennsylvania
promotes the use of coal ash to close and reclaim legacy mine
property, and that thousands of acres of land have been
successfully reclaimed with the material across the state.

"No material from FirstEnergy power plants is currently being
beneficially used at LaBelle," Ms. Walton said.

She said FirstEnergy is reviewing the lawsuit.

Material from the Mitchell Power Plant in Union Township and
Hatfield's Ferry Power Station in Greene County were used in
LaBelle.

The plaintiffs are identified in the lawsuit as Holly Rice and
children, Rudolf and Yma Smith, Gary J. and Kimberly Kuklish,
George and Ursula Markish and Darrel and Gina Redman.

They are seeking more than $5 million in damages.


FORD MOTOR: Kinnunen Sues Over Faulty Door Lock
-----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that faulty door-lock assemblies
prevent Ford Edge and Flex drivers from locking any doors and pose
a significant safety risk for those models as well as the Lincoln
MKT and MKX, a class claims in Detroit federal court.

The lead plaintiff is Roger Kinnunen, and the defendant is Ford
Motor Co.

The case is captioned, ROGER KINNUNEN, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant. Case No. 2:17-cv-11053-AC-EAS(E.D. Mich. April 4,
2017).

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     E. Powell Miller, Esq.
     Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
     Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
     THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
     950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
     Rochester, MI 48307
     Telephone: (248) 841-2200
     E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
             ssa@millerlawpc.com
             dal@millerlawpc.com

          - and -

     Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
     Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
     Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
     MCCUNEWRIGHT AREVALO LLP
     555 Lancaster Avenue
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Telephone: (610) 200-0581

          - and -

     Richard D. McCune, Esq.
     David C. Wright, Esq.
     MCCUNEWRIGHT AREVALO LLP
     3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
     Ontario, CA 91761
     Telephone: (909) 557-1250


FRESHLY INC: Removed "Johnson" Suit to East. District California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Kyle Johnson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Freshly, Inc., Case No.
SCV0039098 filed on April 12, 2017, was removed on April 13, 2017,
from the Placer County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00773-MCE-CKD to the
proceeding.

Freshly, Inc. provides freshly prepared meals online. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
      4100 Newport Place Drive, Suite 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 706-6464
      Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
      E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Steven A. Ellis, Esq.
      GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
      601 S. Figueroa St., 41st Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 426-2500
      Facsimile: (213) 623-1673
      E-mail: sellis@goodwinlaw.com


FRIENDS OF FREDDIE: Faces Class Action Over Sick Dogs
-----------------------------------------------------
Lisa Irizarry, writing for Newsday, reports that a Middle Island
pet rescue under investigation by the state attorney general's
office was hit with a lawsuit on April 17 alleging that sick dogs
are being put up for adoption and that fake pet medications are
being distributed.

Miller Place attorney Vesselin Mitev said in a telephone interview
that he filed the suit on April 17 against Friends of Freddie Pet
Rescue in State Supreme Court in Suffolk, on behalf of himself and
three other Long Islanders.

Mr. Mitev said that soon after he and the other plaintiffs adopted
dogs there, the canines were found to have illnesses and problems
ranging from pneumonia to parasites. One of their animals died,
according to the lawsuit.

A representative from Friends of Freddie was not immediately
available for comment on April 17.

Mr. Mitev, who adopted his Lab mix, Percival, from Friends of
Freddie, stated in the lawsuit that the Middle Country Road
facility is a "public nuisance" that should be closed because some
of the health problems are contagious.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, claims that to
"induce" adoptions, prospective "parents" were provided phony
preventive medications to guard against certain health issues. Mr.
Mitev said that when Percival came down with a cough, Mr. Mitev
was given purported medicine by workers at the facility.  He said
he learned through his vet that the medicine was actually a
mixture of herbs and water.

Another plaintiff, Kenneth Harsch Jr., 28, of Medford, said in a
telephone interview on April 17 that he adopted his Chiweenie -- a
Chihuahua-Dachsund mix -- around Thanksgiving of last year when
the dog was 6 months old.

"When I got him home, he was coughing and would have to lay down a
lot," Mr. Harsch said.  He said he got the same medication from
the facility and added, "My vet didn't even know what it was."

Mr. Harsch said the dog was diagnosed by the vet with advanced
pneumonia, kennel cough and parasites.

Unspecified damages are being sought in the lawsuit, and
Mr. Mitev said he is seeking others who have had problems with the
facility to join the legal action.

Friends of Freddie Rescue also is the subject of an investigation
by the state attorney general's office.  A spokeswoman for the
AG's office said the probe was ongoing.  She has declined to
provide information about the nature of the investigation or when
it started.

Two of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit -- Kristen Addiss, 27, of
Port Jefferson, and Kim Kondak, 39, of Shirley -- said in
interviews with Newsday that they reported to the attorney
general's office their experience with sick dogs they adopted from
the rescue.

After the attorney general's investigation was revealed, Beth
Matthews, a volunteer at Friends of Freddie, said she was aware of
the probe but said it had to do with paperwork and questions about
whether the facility has kept proper records as a nonprofit
operation.

Ms. Matthews, who said there were about 70 dogs being housed at
the shelter, acknowledged there had been complaints of sick
animals but she said such reports come with taking in rescue dogs
that could come from all over the country. She said they can
appear healthy and have an illnesses develop weeks later.  She
said it was also possible some of the new owners did not take care
of their dogs properly after they left the shelter.


GENVEC INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on April 17 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of holders of GenVec, Inc.
("GenVec") (NASDAQ:GNVC) common stock in connection with the
proposed acquisition of GenVec by Intrexon Corporation and
Intrexon GV Holding, Inc. (collectively, "Intrexon") announced on
January 24, 2017 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against GenVec,
its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Intrexon, is captioned
Parshall v. GenVec, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00338-GMS (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl-
legal.com; or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On January 24, 2017, GenVec entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Intrexon.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, GenVec shareholders will receive 0.297 shares of
Intrexon common stock, plus one contingent payment right (the
"Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a
registration statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17,
2017.  The Registration Statement, which recommends that GenVec
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits
material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an
informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction,
including material information with respect to GenVec's financial
projections, the analyses performed by GenVec's financial advisor,
and potential conflicts of interest.  The Complaint seeks
injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders
of GenVec common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 16, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed 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.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York,
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com--
regularly prosecutes securities fraud, shareholder corporate, and
shareholder derivative litigation on behalf of shareholders in
state and federal courts throughout the United States.


GOOGLE INC: Settles AdWords Advertisers' Class Action for $22.5MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP on April 18 disclosed that Google
Inc. and a proposed class of AdWords advertisers, represented by
the law firm of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, on April 18
disclosed that they have reached a proposed $22.5 million
settlement of claims related to Google's placement of their ads on
parked domains and error pages.

Plaintiffs alleged that from July 11, 2004 through March 31, 2008,
Google failed to disclose to its AdWords customers that it placed
their ads on websites known as parked domains and error pages.
Parked domains are websites with little or no content, and error
pages are websites that users visit when they enter an
unregistered address into their web browser.  Google denied these
allegations.

"We are gratified by this excellent result for millions of AdWords
advertisers," said Noah Schubert of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe,
Lead Counsel for the Class, "It has been a hard-fought nine-year
case including an important victory in the Ninth Circuit."

On March 9, 2017, U.S. District Court Judge Edward J. Davila
granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.  If the
settlement is finally approved, Google will pay $22.5 million into
a settlement fund. Under its terms, class members who submit
claims will receive payment in proportion to the amount they spent
on ads on parked domains and error pages during the class period.

If, during the period from July 11, 2004 through March 31, 2008,
you were a United States resident who had a Google AdWords account
and were charged for clicks on advertisements appearing on parked
domains or error pages, you are a class member and may be entitled
to a settlement payment.

For additional information about the settlement and to claim your
payment, visit the settlement website at
www.AdWordsClassAction.com or contact the settlement administrator
toll-free by phone at 844-798-3628 or by email at
claims@adwordsclassaction.com

Class Counsel may also be reached by contacting Noah Schubert at
the law firm of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe by phone at 415-788-
4220 or by email at adwords.settlement@sjk.law.

                 About Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe has extensive experience prosecuting
claims on behalf of shareholders, employees, and consumers against
corporate defendants across the nation.  It also represents
investors in shareholder derivative actions against corporate
directors and officers.


HEALTH NET: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sacramento employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a class action complaint alleging that Health Net of
California failed to pay their California hourly employees the
correct amount of overtime wages and allegedly failed to provide
their California employees with meal and rest periods as required
by California law.  The Health Net of California class action
lawsuit, Case No. 34-2017-00210560, is currently pending in the
Sacramento County Superior Court for the State of California.

According to the lawsuit filed in Sacramento County Superior
Court, Health Net of California allegedly paid their hourly
employees non-discretionary incentive wages.  The class action
lawsuit further alleges the incentive wages earned by health
insurance company's employees should have been included in the
employees' hourly rates for the purposes of paying their employees
the correct overtime pay during their employment with the company.
As a result of the allegedly illegal overtime calculations
conducted by Health Net of California, the class action complaint
alleges other hourly employees working for the company in
California were also not correctly paid all their overtime wages.
The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of backpay for Health
Net's California hourly employees.

Additionally, the lawsuit also seeks payment relating to alleged
missed meal and rest breaks because allegedly Health Net of
California did not have a policy to provide their hourly employees
thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their fifth
(5th) hour of work.

If you would like to know more about the Health Net of California
lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw today by
calling (800) 568-8020.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with
offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los
Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act.  If you need help in
collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being
wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims,
contact one of their attorneys today.


HSBC MORTGAGE: Judge Tosses Claims in Default Servicing Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that on March 30, 2017, Judge Karas of the
Southern District of New York dismissed multiple claims in a
putative nationwide class action challenging default servicing
activities.  In the case, Tardibuono-Quigley v. HSBC Mortgage
Corp., the plaintiff sued her lender (HSBC) and mortgage servicer
(PHH) to contest charges she claimed were wrongly assessed to her.
Tardibuono-Quigley v. HSBC Mortgage Corp., 2017 WL 1216925
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2017).  The Court dismissed all claims against
PHH, but permitted one state statutory claim and one contract
claim to continue against HSBC.

After the plaintiff defaulted on her monthly payment obligations,
PHH began ordering property inspections and periodic broker price
opinions (BPOs) as permitted by her security agreement.  The
plaintiff alleged that PHH and HSBC colluded to charge her for
these services when they were not needed, misled her by presenting
monthly mortgage statements that omitted material information and
by presenting a security agreement that mislead her as to when
charges would be levied, breached the security agreement, and were
unjustly enriched through collection of the allegedly unnecessary
fees.

HSBC and PHH filed separate motions to dismiss.  The court first
dismissed the plaintiff's RICO claims as to both defendants.  It
held that the substantive RICO claim was deficient for failure to
allege actionable predicate acts of mail or wire fraud:  the
plaintiff alleged no misrepresentation in any monthly statements
she received, and her contention that property inspection and BPO
services were not needed amounted only to a breach of contract
claim, not one for fraud.  Because plaintiff's substantive RICO
claim failed, the court dismissed her RICO conspiracy claim along
with it.

With respect to the plaintiff's cause of action for deceptive
conduct under New York General Business Law Sec. 349, the court
held that no claim was stated as to allegedly misleading monthly
statements, concluding as a matter of law that no reasonable
consumer would be misled by the monthly statements (which
separately described the property inspections as "AUTO PPTY
INSPEC" and the BPOs as "Assessed Expense - BPO COST").  The court
allowed the plaintiff's claim that the security agreement was
misleading to continue against HSBC, but dismissed the claim
against PHH because it was not a party to the agreement.

The court found that the plaintiff stated a cognizable claim
against HSBC for ordering property inspections and BPOs that were
not necessary, but again dismissed the claim against PHH because
it was not a party to the contract.  Finally, because it concluded
that a written contract governed the dispute, the court dismissed
the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim against both HSBC and PHH.

Goodwin partners Tom Hefferon and Joe Yenouskas represent PHH in
the Tardibuono-Quigley case.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Pretrial Discovery Continues in Chieftain Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pretrial discovery continues in the class action lawsuit initiated
by Chieftain Royalty Company, according to Hugoton Royalty Trust's
March 10, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In December 2010, a royalty class action lawsuit was filed against
XTO Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in
Coal County District Court, Oklahoma. XTO Energy removed the case
to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The
plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from
royalty payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent
efforts to secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and
its constituents, and demand an accounting to determine whether
they have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests.

The case was certified as a class action in April 2012. XTO Energy
filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals on April 26, 2012, which was granted on June 26,
2012. The court reversed the certification of the class and
remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

A non-binding mediation occurred September 1, 2016, but was
unsuccessful. Pretrial discovery continues.

XTO Energy has informed the trustee that it believes that XTO
Energy has strong defenses to the Chieftain lawsuit and intends to
vigorously defend its position. However, XTO Energy has informed
the trustee that it is cognizant of other, similar litigation. As
these cases develop, XTO Energy will assess its legal position
accordingly. If XTO Energy ultimately makes any settlement
payments or receives a judgment against it in Chieftain, XTO
Energy has advised the trustee that it believes that the terms of
the conveyances covering the Trust's net profits interests require
the Trust to bear its 80% share of such settlement or judgment
related to production from the underlying properties.
Additionally, if the judgment or settlement increases the amount
of future payments to royalty owners, XTO Energy has informed the
trustee that the Trust would bear its proportionate share of the
increased payments through reduced net proceeds. In the event of
any such settlement or judgment, the trustee intends to review any
claimed reductions in payment to the Trust based on the facts and
circumstances of such settlement or judgment.

Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the laws
of Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered
into on December 1, 1998 between XTO Energy Inc. (formerly known
as Cross Timbers Oil Company), as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A.,
as trustee.  Southwest Bank is now the trustee of the Trust.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Royalty Suit by Roderick Trust Now Concluded
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Wallace B. Roderick Revocable
Living Trust, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc. is now concluded, Hugoton
Royalty Trust said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

In September 2008, a royalty class action lawsuit was filed
against XTO Energy styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living
Trust, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny
County, Kansas. The case was removed to federal court in Wichita,
Kansas. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken
post production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from
wells located in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Colorado; later reduced to
Kansas. The case was certified as a class action in March 2012.
XTO Energy filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals on April 11, 2012, which was granted on
June 26, 2012. The court reversed the certification of the class
and remanded the case back to the trial court for further
proceedings. The case was previously stayed pending a final
decision from the Kansas Supreme Court on the Fawcett v. OPIK
appeal. Following the decision in Fawcett, the Judge in Roderick
ordered new briefing on the pending motions. In its pleadings, the
plaintiff had alleged damages in excess of $40 million.

On June 22, 2016, plaintiffs' Second Motion for Class
Certification was denied. In light of the denied certification,
the plaintiff moved to dismiss the case. A dismissal order has
been signed and the case is now concluded.

Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the laws
of Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered
into on December 1, 1998 between XTO Energy Inc. (formerly known
as Cross Timbers Oil Company), as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A.,
as trustee.  Southwest Bank is now the trustee of the Trust.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Underway in Solodyn Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in
the Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Actions and trial is set for March
22, 2018.

From July 2013 to January 2016, 18 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, as well as by
certain direct purchasers, against manufacturers of the brand drug
Solodyn(R) and its generic equivalents, including the Company.

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers
Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this
Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30,
2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort
Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and
Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride)
Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015, Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. On April 8, 2015, the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be
transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or
consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The original
complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only against
defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint asserting claims against the Company and the
other generic defendants.

On April 16, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On May 1,
2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the
action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be
coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The
original complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only
against defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint asserting claims against the Company
and the other generic defendants.

On January 25, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed
a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.  On February 11, 2016, the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action to
be transferred to the District of Massachusetts to be coordinated
or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings.

The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged in
anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing frivolous
patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen
Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements
with several generic manufacturers, including the Company, to
delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state
and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution. On August 14, 2015, the Court
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaints. Discovery is ongoing. Trial
is set for March 22, 2018.

Impax is a specialty pharmaceutical company applying formulation
and development expertise, as well as our drug delivery
technology, to the development, manufacture and marketing of
bioequivalent pharmaceutical products, commonly referred to as
"generics," in addition to the development, manufacture and
marketing of branded products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Underway in Opana ER Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in
the Opana ER(R) Antitrust Class Actions and no trial has been
scheduled.

From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and end-payor (indirect) purchasers,
as well as by certain direct purchasers, against the manufacturer
of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and the Company.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge
20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff
withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re-
filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company
d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delay
generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and
federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints were
filed on May 4, 2015 by direct purchaser plaintiffs and end-payor
(indirect) purchaser plaintiffs.

On July 3, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaints, as well as the complaints of the
"Opt-Out Plaintiffs" (Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc.,
HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, Rite Aid Corporation
and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.).

On February 1, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The parties agreed that CVS Pharmacy, Inc. would be
bound by the court's ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss
the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints.

On February 10, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the end-payor purchaser plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint, and denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated amended
complaint. The end-payor purchaser plaintiffs have filed a second
consolidated amended complaint and the Company has moved to
dismiss certain state law claims.

On February 25, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints, with leave to amend.
The Opt-Out Plaintiffs and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. have filed amended
complaints and the Company has filed its answer.

Impax is a specialty pharmaceutical company applying formulation
and development expertise, as well as our drug delivery
technology, to the development, manufacture and marketing of
bioequivalent pharmaceutical products, commonly referred to as
"generics," in addition to the development, manufacture and
marketing of branded products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Motion to Dismiss Plumbers' Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that defendants' joint motion
to dismiss the complaint in the case filed by Plumbers' Local
Union No. 690 Health Plan remains pending.

On December 30, 2015, Plumbers' Local Union No. 690 Health Plan
and others similarly situated filed a class action against several
generic drug manufacturers, including the Company, in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of
Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division, alleging that the Company and
others violated the law, including the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection law, by inflating the Average
Wholesale Price ("AWP") of certain generic drugs. The case has
since been removed to federal court in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. By virtue of an
amended complaint filed on March 29, 2016, the suit has been
amended to comprise a nationwide class of third party payors that
allegedly reimbursed or purchased certain generic drugs based on
AWP and to assert causes of action under the laws of other states
in addition to Pennsylvania. On May 17, 2016, this case was
stayed. On January 18, 2017, the Company, along with the other
defendants, filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint.

On February 5, 2016, Delaware Valley Health Care Coalition filed a
lawsuit based on substantially similar allegations in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of
Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division that seeks declaratory
judgment. On May 20, 2016, this case was stayed pending resolution
of the federal court action.

Impax is a specialty pharmaceutical company applying formulation
and development expertise, as well as our drug delivery
technology, to the development, manufacture and marketing of
bioequivalent pharmaceutical products, commonly referred to as
"generics," in addition to the development, manufacture and
marketing of branded products.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: 2 Junk Fax Suit Pending in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that on January 31, 2017,
Plaintiff Family Medicine Pharmacy LLC filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated against the Company alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005 (the "Telephone Consumer Protection Act").

On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff Medicine To Go Pharmacies, Inc.
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated against the Company alleging violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Impax is a specialty pharmaceutical company applying formulation
and development expertise, as well as our drug delivery
technology, to the development, manufacture and marketing of
bioequivalent pharmaceutical products, commonly referred to as
"generics," in addition to the development, manufacture and
marketing of branded products.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Flooding Suit Obtains Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Kennedy, writing for Pensacola News Journal, reports that a
judge has granted class action status to a lawsuit filed by
Cantonment residents against International Paper Co. over flooding
in 2014.

The lawsuit stems from claims that residents in the Bristol Park,
Bristol Woods, Bristol Creek and Ashbury Hills neighborhoods were
inundated with excessive floodwaters during the April 29, 2014,
storm that damaged much of Escambia and Santa Rosa counties.

The plaintiffs claim IP failed to remediate an unused dam that
burst during the storms and caused widespread damage in the
neighborhoods, according to court filings.

IP spokeswoman Janice Holmes said the company's policy is to not
comment on ongoing litigation.

The plaintiffs' lead attorney, James Kauffman with Washington,
D.C., firm Bailey and Glasser, said neither he nor his plaintiffs
had comments on the proceedings.

The most recent court filings in the case show that Judge M. Casey
Rodgers approved class status certification in late March, meaning
the case is now considered class action.  Lawyers for IP filed a
motion asking the court to reconsider.  Class action lawsuits
allow a group of plaintiffs with similar complaints to sue the
defendant as a single group.

The plaintiffs' claims center on the Kingsfield Road Dam, which
court documents show sits on IP property.

The documents state the company stopped using the dam in 2012 and
instead routed wastewater through a pipeline to wetlands around
Perdido Bay.  The plaintiffs claim the company failed to maintain
the dam after it discontinued using it.

During flooding in 2014, the dam overflowed and burst, rushing
water into Elevenmile Creek and around homes in the plaintiffs'
neighborhoods, which are about 2 miles downstream.

Eight plaintiffs are named in court filings, but the affected area
includes 317 homes that could be brought into the lawsuit under a
class action case, according to testimony from one of the
plaintiffs' expert witnesses, a property appraiser in the area.

The order making the suit class action came after a three-day
hearing in which both sides presented expert testimony and
evidence related to the case.

IP took issue with the class ruling on the basis that each
plaintiff's issues were different, saying one ruling would not
encompass all of the issues.

The company's attorneys also claim there is no way to prove the
dam breaking caused the damage to the homes since much of the rest
of the county also sustained damages in what the Federal Emergency
Management Agency has called a 500-year flood.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Must Face Price-Fixing Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Chung, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on April 17 declined to halt a class action lawsuit against
several containerboard manufacturers, which could now face trial
on claims of price fixing by tens of thousands of buyers and
nearly $12 billion in potential damages.

The justices left in place a federal judge's certification of the
antitrust class action against manufacturers including
International Paper Co, Weyerhaeuser Co, and Georgia-Pacific LLC.
The companies argued that individually negotiated pricing regimes
with the buyers should preclude class action certification.

The defendants make containerboard, a heavy stock paper used to
produce a variety of cardboard products, from shipping containers
to takeout pizza boxes.  Several containerboard or cardboard
product buyers, including Minnesota-based floor care product maker
Kleen Products LLC, filed suit in Chicago federal court in 2010
alleging the manufacturers violated U.S. antitrust law.


J2 GLOBAL: Class Certification Bid in Paldo Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Northern District of
Illinois has not yet addressed class certification in the lawsuit
by Paldo Sign and Display Co.

On January 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Co. filed an amended
complaint adding two j2 Global affiliates and a former employee as
additional defendants in an existing putative class action pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(the "Northern District of Illinois") (No. 1:13-cv-01896). The
amended complaint alleged violations of the TCPA, the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and
common law conversion, arising from an indirect customer's alleged
use of a j2 Global affiliate's systems to send unsolicited
facsimile transmissions. The j2 Global affiliates filed a motion
to dismiss the ICFA and conversion claims, which was granted. The
Northern District of Illinois also dismissed the former employee
for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On August 23, 2013, a second plaintiff, Sabon, Inc. was added. On
March 7, 2016, the j2 Global affiliates moved for summary judgment
on all remaining claims. The summary judgment motions are pending.
The Northern District of Illinois has not yet addressed class
certification.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a provider of
Internet services.


J2 GLOBAL: Appeal in Multi-District Litigation Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the appeal in a multi-
district litigation pending in the Northern District of Illinois
remains pending.

On October 16, 2013, a j2 Global affiliate entered an appearance
as a plaintiff in a multi-district litigation pending in the
Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:12-cv-06286). In this
litigation, Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC ("UMS"), a company
with rights to assert certain patents owned by the j2 Global
affiliate, has asserted five j2 Global patents against a number of
defendants. While claims against some defendants have been
settled, other defendants have filed counterclaims for, among
other things, non-infringement, unenforceability, and invalidity
of the patents-in-suit.

On December 20, 2013, the Northern District of Illinois issued a
claim construction opinion and, on June 13, 2014, entered a final
judgment of non-infringement for the remaining defendants based on
that claim construction. UMS and the j2 Global affiliate filed a
notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit on June 27, 2014 (No. 14-
1611). The appeal is pending.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a provider of
Internet services.


J2 GLOBAL: Final Class Action Settlement Approval Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Los Angeles court
will consider final approval of a class action settlement in early
2017.

On June 23, 2014, Andre Free-Vychine ("Free-Vychine") filed a
putative class action against two j2 Global affiliates in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles
("Los Angeles Superior Court") (No. BC549422). The complaint
alleged two California statutory violations relating to late fees
levied in certain eVoice(R) accounts. Free-Vychine sought, among
other things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himself
and a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons.

On August 26, 2014, Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. ("LEO") and IV
Pit Stop, Inc. ("IV Pit Stop") filed a separate putative class
action against the same j2 Global affiliates in Los Angeles
Superior Court (No. BC555721). The complaint alleged three
California statutory violations, negligence, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and various other common
law claims relating to late fees levied on any of the j2 Global
affiliates' customers, including those with eVoice(R) and
Onebox(R) accounts. LEO and IV Pit Stop sought, among other
things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and
a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons.

On September 29, 2014, the Los Angeles Superior Court related and
consolidated both cases for discovery purposes.

On March 13, 2015, a third amended complaint was filed in the case
brought by LEO, which no longer included IV Pit Stop as a
plaintiff but added Christopher Dancel ("Dancel") as a plaintiff.

On June 26, 2015, the case filed by Free-Vychine was dismissed
pursuant to a settlement agreement. On October 7, 2015, the
parties in the case brought by LEO and Dancel reached a tentative
class-based settlement.

On September 12, 2016, the Los Angeles Superior Court certified
the class for settlement purposes only and provided its
preliminary approval of the settlement. The court will consider
final approval of the settlement in early 2017.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a provider of
Internet services.


J2 GLOBAL: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Pending
---------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the motion for judgment
on the pleadings in the lawsuit by Davis Neurology, P.A. is fully
briefed and pending before the court.

On January 21, 2016, Davis Neurology, P.A. filed a putative class
action against two j2 Global affiliates in the Circuit Court for
the County of Pope, State of Arkansas (58-cv-2016-40), alleging
violations of the TCPA. The case was ultimately removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (No.
4:16-cv-00682).

On June 6, 2016, the j2 Global affiliates filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings. That motion is fully briefed and
pending before the court.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a provider of
Internet services.


JPMORGAN CHASE: 2nd Circuit Reinstates Claims in Investors' Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Gorta, writing for Law360, reports that investors asked
the Second Circuit to reinstate class allegations on April 18 that
JPMorgan Chase & Co. employees aided and abetted Bernie Madoff's
Ponzi scheme, saying even though the investors were net winners in
the fraud, they had legitimate claims that were not time-barred.

U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl had tossed the 2014 proposed
class action by Richard Friedman and Carla Hirschorn in May 2016,
saying their claims were barred under a five-year statute of
repose that expired in December 2013.  The investors said at a
hearing on April 18 that JPMorgan turned a blind eye to Madoff's
shenanigans and instead of shutting Madoff down, joined in for its
own enrichment.

Lance Gotthoffer of Chaitman LLP told the three-judge panel that
JPMorgan was "one of the few profiteers" in Madoff's massive
swindle, saying there was a "20-year criminal alliance between
America's largest bank and America's largest crook."

"JPMorgan profited greatly from the amounts of money Madoff and
his collaborators kept in the bank, and JPMorgan actually took
steps to further what Madoff was doing, and Madoff made statements
publicly that senior people at JPMC knew exactly what he, Madoff,
was doing," Mr. Gotthoffer said.  "If you look at all the facts,
there is a control relationship between JPMorgan, which was
Madoff's lender, Madoff's clearinghouse . . . We sought to hold
JPMorgan liable as a control person."

When asked whether the lower court tossed the claims because the
plaintiffs were net winners, Mr. Gotthoffer said the case was not
dismissed on damages grounds since his clients still had valid
claims -- although subordinate to those of net losers -- to
payments for loss of beneficial use of their money.

John F. Savarese -- JFSavarese@wlrk.com -- of Wachtell Lipton
Rosen & Katz, arguing for JPMorgan, told the panel that there is
no allegation JPMorgan "somehow directed the fraud or ran the
fraud" or any federal claim.

Mr. Savarese said the untimely complaint seeks damages based on
numbers that were recorded on account statements from Madoff
invented to convince clients they were making money.
Mr. Savarese said that an earlier class action based only on
actual losses put the plaintiffs on notice in 2010 or 2011 that
they were not similarly situated to the net-loser class.

"What my friend [Gotthoffer] is trying to do is give legal force
and effect, and indeed to insist that JPMorgan must give legal
force and effect, to completely made-up numbers that were
arbitrarily and fictitiously invented by Madoff," Mr. Savarese
said.

An operative complaint, lodged in New Jersey federal court in
October 2014, claims JPMorgan "deliberately turned a blind eye to
Madoff's and [his defunct brokerage's] crimes and, instead of
shutting Madoff down in the early 1990s . . . made the
institutional decision, for its own enrichment, to join in
Madoff's crimes."

The 10-count suit includes claims for securities law violations,
embezzlement, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and
racketeering under federal and New Jersey law. The complaint names
bank executive John Hogan and retired client relationship manager
Richard Cassa as individual defendants alongside JPMorgan.

U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton affirmed a magistratical
ruling that "the bulk" of the many-headed Madoff legal controversy
took place in New York, and granted JPMorgan's request to transfer
the suit.

In its motion to change venue, the bank characterized the
plaintiff investors as "net winners" in the Madoff fiasco who
"already profited from the fraud and are now seeking to recover
additional fake profits that they claim they are owed."  The bank
also argued the investors had filed in New Jersey to avoid Second
Circuit precedent that would bar their suit.

In September 2015, the bank moved to dismiss the suit, doubling
down on its arguments that the investors were seeking to recover
more fake profits and that there was an "array" of Second Circuit
decisions holding the claims are governed by the Exchange Act's
statute of repose, which cannot be tolled, making the claims are
time-barred.

In their opposition, the investors argued that the judge should
instead look to Third Circuit precedent and allow tolling of the
statute of repose under the 1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in
American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah.

Judge Koeltl sided with the bank, ruling that the court was not
obligated to apply the law of the filing court when it comes to
federal claims.

Arguments in the Second Circuit began about an hour on April 18,
after an evacuation sent attorneys, judges, staff and spectators
tramping down the fire stairs and outside to mill about in sun-
filled Foley Square for 20 minutes or so. The district executive
told Law360 that the evacuation was a fire drill.  The Fire
Department City of New York confirmed there were no calls to the
building on April 18.

Counsel for JPMorgan declined to comment outside court.

Mr. Gotthoffer, representing the investors, said simply, "We shall
see."

U.S. Circuit Judges Rosemary S. Pooler, Richard C. Wesley and
Susan L. Carney sat on the panel for the Second Circuit.

The investors are represented by Helen Davis Chaitman and Lance
Gotthoffer of Chaitman LLP.

JPMorgan is represented by John F. Savarese, Stephen R. DiPrima
-- SRDiPrima@wlrk.com -- Emil A. Kleinhaus -- EAKleinhaus@WLRK.com
-- and Noah B. Yavitz of Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz.

The case is Friedman et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., case
number 16-1913, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Grants Class Certification in 401(k) Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge in
Manhattan has granted class certification to a lawsuit by JPMorgan
Chase & Co employees accusing the bank of breaching its duties by
mismanaging workers' 401(k) retirement funds.

In a decision posted on April 17, U.S. District Judge Vernon
Broderick said plaintiffs have shown that a class action would be
superior to individual lawsuits and that essential questions in
the case can be resolved on a group basis.


LANNETT COMPANY: Faces FWK Holdings Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Lannett Company,
Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sandoz, Inc., and Novartis AG.

The case is captioned FWK Holdings, L.L.C., 1199SEIU National
Benefit Fund, American Federation Of State, County And Municipal
Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan, Cesar
Castillo, Inc., Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare
Trust Fund, and Cesar Castillo, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Lannett Company, Inc., Mylan
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sandoz, Inc., and Novartis AG, Case No.
2:17-cv-01665-CMR (E.D. Penn., April 12, 2017).

The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company in the
United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff FWK Holdings, L.L.C.is represented by:

      David P. Germaine, Esq.
      Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
      VANEK VICKERS & MASINI PC
      55 West Monroe St Ste 3500
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 224-1500
      Facsimile: (312) 224-1510
      E-mail: dgermaine@vaneklaw.com
              jvanek@vaneklaw.com

         - and -

      David S. Nalven, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      One Main Street 4th Fl.
      Cambridge, MA 02142
      Telephone: (617) 482-3700
      E-mail: davidn@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Hae Sung Nam, Esq.
      Joshua Saltzman, Esq.
      Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq.
      Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      E-mail: hnam@kaplanfox.com
              jsaltzman@kaplanfox.com
              rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com
              rkaplan@kaplanfox.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey Campisi, Esq.
      SHARKEY & CAMPISI
      188 Eagle Rock Ave., P.O. Box 419
      Roseland, NJ 07068

Plaintiffs 1199seiu National Benefit Fund; American Federation of
State, County And Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health &
Security Plan; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare
Trust Fund are pro se plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff Cesar Castillo, Inc. is represented by:

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP PC
      1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (917) 438-9189
      E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

The Defendant Lannett Company, Inc. is represented by:

      Gerald E. Arth, Esq.
      Ryan T. Becker, Esq.
      FOX ROTHSCHILD O'BRIEN & FRANKEL LLP
      2000 Market St., 10th Fl.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103-3291
      Telephone: (215) 299-2000
      Facsimile: (215) 299-2150
      E-mail: garth@foxrothschild.com
              rbecker@foxrothschild.com

         - and -

      Chul Pak, Esq.
      Jeffrey C. Bank, Esq.
      WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PC
      1301 Ave of Americas 40th Fl.
      New York, NY 10019-6022
      Telephone: (212) 999-5800
      E-mail: cpak@wsgr.com
              jbank@wsgr.com

The Defendant Sandoz, Inc. is represented by:

      Laura S. Shores, Esq.
      ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
      601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
      Washington, DC 20001
      Telephone: (202) 942-5000
      E-mail: laura.shores@apks.com

         - and -

      Margaret A. Rogers, Esq.
      Saul P. Morgenstern, Esq.
      ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
      250 West 55th Street
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 836-7830
      E-mail: margaret.rogers@apks.com
              saul.morgenstern@apks.com


LAMI AEROSPACE: Faces "Benchabane" Suit Over Sale to Sonaca
-----------------------------------------------------------
Madjid Benchabane, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lami Aerospace, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01100 (E.D. Mo., March 27, 2017) is
brought against the Defendant for violation of the Securities
Exchange Act arising out of the Board's attempt to sell the
Company to Sonaca S.A. through its subsidiaries Sonaca USA Inc.

The complaint says Defendants' acts were flawed because (1) LMI's
actual enterprise value was much higher than the final agreed upon
$14.00 per share; (2) conflicts of interest infested the Board's
deliberations; (3) Defendant Daniel G. Korte orchestrated the
entire transaction with Bernard Delvaux and then recused himself
to try to dispel the appearance of impropriety; (4) the hollow go-
shop period was designed to be and was purposefully ineffective.

Defendant Daniel G. Korte ("Korte") has served as a Director of
the Company since August 2014 and had originally joined the
Company as Chief Executive Officer in March 2014.

Bernard Devlaux is the representative of Sonaca S.A.

Hollow go-shop period is a "No Solicitation" provision barring the
Board and any Company personnel from attempting to procure a price
in excess of the amount offered by Sonaca, after the ending of the
thirty day go-shop period.

LMI Aerospace, Inc., headquartered in St. Charles, Missouri, is a
supplier of structural assemblies, kits, and components and a
provider of design engineering services for the aerospace and
defense markets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
   Carey, Danis & Lowe
   8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100
   St. Louis, MO 63105
   Tel: (314) 678-1064
   Fax: (314) 721-0905
   Email: jrosemergy@careydanis.com

        - and -

   Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
   Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq.
   Levi & Korsinsky LLP
   733 Summer Street, Suite 304
   Stamford, CT 06901
   Tel: (212) 363-7500
   Fax: (212) 363-7171


LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on
April 18 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Lion Biotechnologies, Inc. ("Lion Biotechnologies" or the
"Company") (LBIO).  Investors who purchased the Company's shares
between November 14, 2013 and April 10, 2017 inclusive (the "Class
Period") are encouraged to contact the firm in advance of the June
13, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class
Period, click https://is.gd/BfA0ZT to participate.  In addition,
we encourage you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall, of
Goldberg Law PC, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.goldberglawpc.com/,or by email at
info@goldberglawpc.com.

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Lion
Biotechnologies violated federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading public statements.  On April 10,
2017, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission found that
between September 2013 and March 2014, the Company's former CEO,
Manish Singh, misled investors by commissioning over 10 internet
publications and 20 widely distributed emails promoting Lion
Biotechnologies to potential investors that purported to be
independent from the Company, when they were actually paid
promotions.  When this news was announced to the public, the stock
price of Lion Biotechnologies dropped, causing investors harm.

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.


MAJOR LEAGUE: Players' Attorneys Want Antitrust Exemption Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a panel of Ninth Circuit
judges on April 18 appeared unwilling to reject Supreme Court
precedent deeming Major League Baseball exempt from antitrust
laws, despite arguments that the exemption is based on a lie.

Fighting the dismissal of a suit alleging a conspiracy to fix
Minor League players' pay, attorney Samuel Kornhauser argued the
judicial branch's invented antitrust exemption for baseball is
based on the false premise that the league is not engaged in
interstate commerce.

"It's not 1922 when baseball was struggling," Mr. Kornhauser told
three Ninth Circuit judges on April 18.  "We are not bound by that
decision if circumstances have changed."

Mr. Kornhauser was referring to the 1922 Supreme Court ruling,
Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of
Professional Baseball Clubs, which declared professional baseball
exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Subsequent Supreme Court rulings blindly followed that precedent
despite its obvious flaws, Mr. Kornhauser argued, adding the
Sherman Antitrust Act contains no specific carve-out for baseball,
as it did for labor unions, farm coops and insurance.

"How are we not constrained by that?" U.S. Circuit Judge Mary
Murguia asked, referring to high court rulings upholding the
exemption. "The Supreme Court decision saying otherwise is not to
be recognized?"

Mr. Kornhauser replied by quoting 18th-century British Justice
William Blackstone, a historian of common law, who wrote judges
should not uphold precedential rulings that are "most evidently
contrary to reason" when the prior decisions are "manifestly
absurd or unjust."

Mr. Kornhauser represents a class of Minor League players looking
to overturn a 2015 ruling dismissing their antitrust class action
against MLB team owners and Commissioner Bud Selig.

Lead plaintiff Sergio Miranda sued MLB in December 2014, claiming
the teams conspire to suppress Minor League players' pay and
restrict their ability to work for other teams in violation of
antitrust laws.

Representing MLB and its clubs, attorney John Keker --
jkeker@keker.com -- of Keker & Van Nest said U.S. District Judge
Haywood Gilliam got it right when he dismissed the class action in
September 2015.

"There is no reasonable dispute that the antitrust exemption
applies to the business of baseball," Mr. Keker said.

In his 2015 ruling, Judge Gilliam acknowledged the Minor Leaguers'
persuasive argument that MLB teams "should not be afforded carte
blanche to restrict the pay and mobility of Minor League players,"
but he found only Congress and the Supreme Court possess the power
to alter baseball's "singular and historic exemption from
antitrust laws."

Judge Gilliam also concluded that he was bound by the Ninth
Circuit's January 2015 ruling in City of San Jose v. Comm'r of
Baseball, which held the antitrust exemption applies broadly to
the "business of providing public baseball games for profit
between clubs of professional baseball players."

Mr. Kornhauser contended that case involved a separate issue --
the attempted relocation of the Oakland A's -- and did not address
uniform player contracts that suppress Minor League players' wages
and limit their mobility.

The class attorney cited massive profits for MLB team owners as
evidence of the league's unfair practices.  It earned nearly $10
billion in revenue in 2016, and each of its 30 teams was valued on
average at $744 million in 2013, according to Forbes.

"You don't need to protect billionaires when you've got tens of
thousands of Minor League baseball players living on $3,000 a
year," Mr. Kornhauser said.

The average Major League player earns more than $4 million per
year, according to a 2015 study by the Associated Press.
Meanwhile, most Minor Leaguers earn $3,000 to $7,500 annually and
receive no overtime pay, despite routinely working 50 to 75 hours
a week during the five-month championship season, according to
Miranda's class action complaint.

Responding to Mr. Kornhauser's contention that no Supreme Court
ruling has explicitly dealt with the issue of Minor League
players, Chief Ninth Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas asked, "Why
aren't those activities part of the game of baseball?"

Mr. Kornhauser cited a 2014 ruling from the Southern District of
New York, Laumann v. National Hockey League, which held that
because broadcasting games on TV is an interstate industry by
nature, it falls outside of baseball's antitrust exemption.  In
his brief, Mr. Kornhauser called that ruling an example of how
some courts "continue to nibble away at the supposed all-
encompassing business of baseball exemption."

"The Federal Baseball decision was the wrong law," Mr. Kornhauser
concluded.  "There's not a single word saying 'baseball' in the
Sherman Antitrust Act."

The three circuit judges -- Thomas, Murguia and Ferdinand
Fernandez -- took the arguments under submission, giving no signal
of their willingness to deviate from Supreme Court precedent on
baseball's antitrust exemption.


MARINA ST VINCENT: Wirrina Cove Berth Owners Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Renato Castello, writing for The Advertiser, reports that Berth
owners at the Wirrina Cove marina have launched a class action
against its operator questioning the expenditure of more than $1
million and accusing its owner of using their money for "its own
benefit".

The District Court ordered the owner of the Marina St Vincent to
submit new audited financial statements after about 30 berth
owners lodged civil action claiming a breach of contract over
alleged failings of the company to account for its spending.

At the centre of their concerns -- lodged in a March 17 statement
of claim sighted by The Advertiser -- is that controlling company
New Wave Aerospace has used money for purposes "other than"
operating and maintaining the marina as per the lease agreements.

They also claim that it had not provided audited statements of its
expenditure.

Their claim catalogues $1.08 million in disputed expenditure,
including $280,000 on marina dredging, $240,000 for "major works",
$91,500 for landscaping, and $225,000 in management fees.

"The defendant has had and received to its own use and benefit
amounts paid by the plaintiffs as outgoings," the claim says.

"The amounts were paid by the plaintiffs in the mistaken belief
that the defendant would apply them to outgoings in accordance
with the provisions of the underleases.

"The outgoings collected by the defendant must be used for the
purposes of the operation and maintenance of the marina and not
for any other purpose.

"The defendant has and continues to be in breach of its
underleases and has evinced an unequivocal intention not to be
bound by the underleases."

The berth owners have long-term leases and pay a proportion of
expenses based on the size of the berths.

New Wave Aerospace took over management of the marina in September
2014 after the collapse of previous operator ICA (SA).

It has no connection with the Wirrina Cove Resort, which is
independently operated.

Berth owners state that New Wave Aerospace "has not at any time"
produced financial statements for the marina expenditure "which
comply with accounting standards".

Among remedies sought are an order for the release of all
documents relating to Marina's operation for the past three
financial years not including 2016/17, for New Wave Aerospace to
pay back money it "wrongly received", damages for breach of
contract and court costs.

Head plaintiff Trevor Gadd and New Wave Aerospace director Steve
Marks declined to comment.


MAZDA MOTOR: Traffic Alerts in Cars Don't Work, Lewand Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Mazda sells 2016 models with real-time, live traffic alerts that
don't work, consumers claim in a federal class action in Santa
Ana, Calif.

The case is captioned, EDWARD LEWAND, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MAZDA MOTOR OF
AMERICA, INC., a California corporation, Defendant. Case 8:17-cv-
00620(C.D. Cal., April 5, 2017).

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

     Tina Wolfson, Esq.
     Bradley K. King, Esq.
     AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
     1016 Palm Avenue
     West Hollywood, CA 90069
     Tel: (310) 474-9111
     Fax: (310) 474-8585
     E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
             bking@ahdootwolfson.com


MDL 2724: No Trial Yet in Generic Drug Pricing Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that no trial has been
scheduled in the case, In re Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Class
Action.

From March 2016 to October 2016, 21 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers against
manufacturers of generic digoxin and doxycycline and the Company
alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of
these generic products.

On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
June 9, 2016.

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare
Trust, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff Pipe Trade Services MN, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 25, 2016, Plaintiff Edward Carpinelli, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami
Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff Nina Diamond, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff The City of Providence, Rhode Island,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a
Kinney Drugs, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Philadelphia Federation of Teachers
Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff United Food & Commercial Workers and
Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff Ottis McCrary, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff C‚sar Castillo Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33 Health
and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health
and Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff United Here Health, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff Valerie Velardi, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 19, 2016, several indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a
motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
transfer and consolidate the actions in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Judicial Panel
ordered the actions consolidated in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and ordered that the actions be renamed "In re
Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation".

On January 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed two consolidated class
action complaints. With respect to doxycycline, the plaintiffs
dropped their allegations against the Company. The Company's
response to the digoxin class action complaint was due on March
28, 2017. No trial date has been scheduled.

Impax is a specialty pharmaceutical company applying formulation
and development expertise, as well as our drug delivery
technology, to the development, manufacture and marketing of
bioequivalent pharmaceutical products, commonly referred to as
"generics," in addition to the development, manufacture and
marketing of branded products.


MDL 2724: Operating Engineers' Suit Consolidated for Pre-Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 30
BENEFITS FUND v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC. et al., Case No. 2:17-
cv-00205 (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Cynthia M Rufe on April 10 entered
Pretrial Order No. 12 that the cases, already assigned to this
court's calendar, shall be made part of in re: Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, 16-md-2724, for
coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings.

It is further ordered that, effective this date, all cases that
are filed directly into the MDL pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 1
shall list on the civil cover sheet with the related case
designation the generic drug(s) upon which suit is brought.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company is defending
against the class action lawsuit captioned as, International Union
of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund v. Impax
Laboratories, Inc. et al.

On January 13, 2017, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated against manufacturers of generic
lidocaine/prilocaine and the Company alleging a conspiracy to fix,
maintain and/or stabilize prices of this generic drug.

Impax is a specialty pharmaceutical company applying formulation
and development expertise, as well as our drug delivery
technology, to the development, manufacture and marketing of
bioequivalent pharmaceutical products, commonly referred to as
"generics," in addition to the development, manufacture and
marketing of branded products.


MEMPHIS, TN: 6 More Victims Join Class Action Over Rape Kits Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Askin, writing for WMC Action News 5, reports that six more
rape victims have joined the class action lawsuit against City of
Memphis over the backlog of rape kits.

The Sexual Assault Task Force said progress is being made to end
the backlog.

"The whole thing has been a disaster, and the city needs to stop
and recognize that these victims are hurting," attorney Daniel
Lofton said.

Lofton represents several rape victims still fighting for justice
after more than 12,000 rape kits were left on shelves untested for
years.

He said there are now more than 40 women who have joined the class
action lawsuit against the city for $10 million. He said more
women are still considering joining the suit.

"For each one of them, it's kind of a slap in the face to find out
that hey, all this time, they've waited and they were kind of
waiting for nothing," Lofton said.

City leaders and advocates said progress is being made.

"12,375 is what we started with, and of those so far, 62 percent
have been to the lab," Deborah Clubb, Sexual Assault Task Force,
said.

That means the city still needs to ship off 625 rape kits to a lab
for testing.  Ms. Clubb said police and prosecutors have been
meeting every week to discuss progress on the project.

"With the DNA, police and prosecutors have been able to take 42 of
these rapist to court," Ms. Clubb said.

She said they're seeing numerous convictions.  For example,
Jacquet Moore was convicted in December for raping a woman 17
years ago.

Lofton said he is working to try to have a hearing regarding the
lawsuit sometime next month.


MIDLAND STATES: Faces "Rader" Suit Over Centrue Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Midland States Bancorp, Inc., is facing a putative class action
lawsuit challenging its proposed acquisition of Centrue Financial
Corporation, according to the Company's March 10, 2017, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On January 26, 2017, the Company announced that it entered into a
merger agreement with Centrue Financial Corporation, pursuant to
which the Company has agreed to acquire Centrue and its banking
subsidiary, Centrue Bank.

Centrue, Midland, Merger Sub and the individual members of the
Centrue board of directors have been named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed by an alleged shareholder of
Centrue in the Circuit Court of LaSalle County, Illinois: Rader v.
Battles, et al., Case No. 17L16 (filed February 3, 2017). The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of
Centrue breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
entering into the merger agreement and that Centrue, Midland and
Merger Sub aided and abetted those alleged fiduciary breaches.
Plaintiffs claim, among other things, that Centrue's board of
directors failed to ensure that Centrue's shareholders would
receive maximum value for their shares, utilized preclusive
corporate and deal protection terms to inhibit an alternate
transaction and failed to conduct an appropriate sale process, and
that Centrue's largest shareholder and its representative on
Centrue's board of directors exerted undue influence to force a
sale of Centrue at an unfair price. The action seeks a variety of
equitable and injunctive relief including, among other things,
enjoining the consummation of the merger, directing the defendants
to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is
in the best interests of Centrue shareholders and awarding
plaintiff its costs and attorneys' fees.

The defendants believe that the claims in these lawsuits are
wholly without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. It is
possible other potential plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits
challenging the proposed transaction.

The Company says the outcome of the pending and any additional
future litigation is uncertain. If any case is not resolved, the
lawsuit(s) could prevent or delay completion of the merger and
result in substantial costs to Midland and Centrue, including any
costs associated with the indemnification of directors and
officers that are not covered by insurance. One of the conditions
to each party's obligation to close the merger is that no order,
injunction or decree issued by any court or agency of competent
jurisdiction or other legal restraint or prohibition preventing
the consummation of the merger or any of the other transactions
contemplated by the merger agreement shall be in effect. As such,
if plaintiffs are successful in obtaining an injunction
prohibiting the completion of the merger or the bank merger on the
agreed-upon terms, then such injunction may prevent the merger
from being completed, or from being completed within the expected
timeframe. The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that
remains unresolved at the time the merger is completed may
adversely affect the combined company's business, financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Midland States Bancorp, Inc., an Illinois corporation formed in
1988, is a diversified financial holding company headquartered in
Effingham, Illinois.  The Company's banking subsidiary, Midland
States Bank, an Illinois state-chartered bank formed in 1881, has
branches across Illinois and in Missouri and Colorado, and
provides a broad array of traditional community banking and other
complementary financial services, including commercial lending,
residential mortgage origination, wealth management, merchant
services and prime consumer lending.


MKS INSTRUMENTS: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
MKS Instruments, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint in the Newport Corporation Shareholder
Litigation, remains pending.

The Company said, "On March 9, 2016, a putative class action
lawsuit captioned Dixon Chung v. Newport Corp., et al, Case No. A-
16-733154-C, was filed in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada
on behalf of a putative class of stockholders of Newport for
claims related to the Merger Agreement between us, Newport, and by
and among the Company, PSI Equipment, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub"). The complaint, filed on
March 9, 2016, named as defendants us, Newport and Merger Sub, and
certain then-current and former members of Newport's former board
of directors. The complaint alleges that the named directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by
agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process,
which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, and by agreeing
to unfair deal protection devices. The complaint also alleges that
we, Newport, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the named directors'
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks
injunctive relief, including to enjoin or rescind the Merger
Agreement, monetary damages, and an award of attorneys' and other
fees and costs, among other relief.

On March 25, 2016, the plaintiff in the Chung action filed an
amended complaint, which adds certain allegations, including that
the preliminary proxy statement filed by Newport on March 15, 2016
(the "Proxy") omitted material information. The amended complaint
also names as defendants us, Newport, Merger Sub, and then-current
members of Newport's board of directors."

"Also on March 25, 2016, a second putative class action complaint
captioned Hubert C. Pincon v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-
16-734039-B, was filed in the District Court, Clark County,
Nevada, on behalf of a putative class of Newport's stockholders
for claims related to the Merger Agreement. The complaint names as
defendants us, Newport, and Merger Sub and the then-current
members of Newport's former board of directors. It alleges that
the named directors breached their fiduciary duties to Newport's
stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and
unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration,
by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices, and by omitting
material information from the Proxy. The complaint also alleges
that we, Newport, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the named
directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The
complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin or rescind
the Merger Agreement, and an award of attorneys' and other fees
and costs, among other relief.

"On April 14, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate the Pincon and Chung actions and appointed counsel in
the Pincon action as lead counsel. Also on April 14, 2016, the
Court granted plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery and
scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' anticipated motion for a
preliminary injunction for April 25, 2016. On April 20, 2016,
plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the hearing on their
anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction and notified the
Court that they did not presently intend to file a motion for a
preliminary injunction regarding the Merger Agreement. On April
22, 2016, the Court vacated the hearing on plaintiffs' anticipated
motion for a preliminary injunction. In August, plaintiffs
completed the expedited discovery that the Court ordered.

"On October 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
captioned In re Newport Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Case
No. A-16-733154-B, in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on
behalf of a class of Newport's stockholders for claims related to
the Merger Agreement. The complaint names as defendants us,
Newport, and the then-current members of Newport's former board of
directors. It alleges that the named directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to sell
Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to
inadequate and unfair consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal
protection devices, and by omitting material information from the
Proxy. The complaint also alleges that we and Newport aided and
abetted the named directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary
duties. The complaint seeks monetary damages, including pre- and
post-judgment interest. On December 9, 2016, both we and the
Newport defendants filed motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the motions to dismiss on January 13, 2017. On
February 3, 2017, we and the Newport defendants filed their reply
briefs in support of their motions to dismiss. A hearing on the
motions to dismiss was held on February 15, 2017.

"We believe that the claims asserted in the amended complaint have
no merit and we intend to defend vigorously against these claims."

MKS Instruments, Inc. is a global provider of instruments,
subsystems and process control solutions that measure, control,
power, deliver, monitor and analyze critical parameters of
advanced manufacturing processes to improve process performance
and productivity.


NASHVILLE, TN: Immigrant Detentions Illegal, Abriq Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a class claims in a federal lawsuit in Nashville, Tenn., that
the Nashville-area government and sheriff are illegally detaining
hundreds of immigrants in exchange for cash payments from
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Lead plaintiff Abdullah Abriq says in a lawsuit filed on April 7,
in Nashville federal court that he immigrated to the United States
on a student visa and has never been arrested or convicted of a
crime, but was nevertheless taken into custody by ICE agents on
April 6.

"On April 6, 2017, ICE took custody of the plaintiff pending civil
removal proceedings," the complaint states. "On April 6, 2017, ICE
transferred custody of the plaintiff to the defendants at the
Davidson County Jail location on Harding Place in Nashville,
Tennessee."

Abriq sued Davidson County Sheriff Daron Hall and the Metropolitan
Government of Nashville and Davidson County on behalf of a
proposed class of immigrants illegally held there, alleging
violations of Fourth Amendment and due process rights.

"For the past five years, the defendants have illegally used
Davidson County facilities to detain at least detain hundred, and
likely thousands, of immigrants in return for monetary payments
from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Immigration and
Customs Enforcement," the lawsuit states. "The defendants'
unlawful seizure of ICE administrative detainees is
unconstitutional and poses serious and continuing harms to the
detainees."

According to the complaint, the Metro Nashville government
contracted with ICE from 2007 to 2012 for "pre-custodial law
enforcement functions and post-custodial immigration detention
functions."

Under the deal, the Davidson County Sheriff's Office allegedly
agreed to take custody of ICE administrative detainees for $61 per
day for each detainee.

After a backlash that included a lawsuit against the local
government, its Metro Council allowed the agreement to expire in
2012, but Abriq claims Sheriff Hall has continued to hold
administrative detainees for ICE in exchange for federal dollars.

"The defendants have taken custody of, and detained, thousands of
administrative detainees over the past five years. This reflects
an ongoing custom, policy, and practice of the DCSO to take
custody of administrative detainees illegally for ICE in return
for cash payments, despite actual knowledge that no lawfully
approved [agreement] has been in place since 2012," the complaint
states.

Abriq claims himself and other class members are "being held
against their will in a local jail without any written contractual
standards in place to protect them."

"It is not a crime for a removable alien to be present in the
United States. Accordingly, removal proceedings are a civil
matter, not a criminal one," the lawsuit states.

Abriq seeks a court order stopping the Metro Nashville government
and Sheriff Hall from continuing to hold ICE administrative
detainees without lawful authority, like the agreement that
expired in 2012. The proposed class is represented by Anthony
Orlandi of Branstetter Stranch and Elliot Ozment, both in
Nashville.

"The defendants had no power to seize these plaintiff[s] in the
first place. They have no power to hold them now," the complaint
states.

The sheriff's department said in a statement that it believes its
actions are lawful.

"The Nashville-Davidson County Sheriff's Office has been housing
ICE/federal inmates since an Inter-Governmental Service Agreement
(IGSA) was approved by the Metropolitan Council more than 20 years
ago (1996)," it said. "We believe this gives the sheriff's office
authority to continue the practice of housing ICE/federal inmates.
If the plaintiff's lawsuit is successful, it will result in the
immediate removal of ICE inmates from Davidson County; it will not
stop removals. This will create an even greater hardship on local
immigrant families."


NATURAL HEALTH: Discovery Cut-Off Date in "Ford" Extended
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Robert Ford v. Natural Health Trends Corp. et al.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00255 (C.D. Cal.), Judge Terry J Hatter, Jr.,
approved a Stipulation to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date.

The Court set these dates:

     Deadline to amend pleadings         06/16/2017
     Plaintiffs' motion for class
        certification                    06/30/2017
     Defendants' opposition to
        motion for class certification   08/25/2017
     Plaintiffs' reply in support of
        motion for class certification   10/20/2017
     Fact discovery deadline             05/04/2018
     Expert opening reports              06/15/2018
     Expert rebuttal reports             07/18/2018
     Expert discovery deadline           08/15/2018
     Summary judgment motions            09/16/2018
     Opposition to summary
        judgment motions                 11/14/2018
     Replies in support of
        summary judgment motions         12/14/2018

The final pre-trial conference scheduled for August 21, 2017 at
10:00 a.m. is vacated and rescheduled for August 31, 2018 at 10:00
a.m.

Natural Health Trends Corp. has filed an answer to the
consolidated securities lawsuit pending in California, according
to the Company's March 10, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "In January 2016, two putative securities class
action complaints were filed against us and our top executives in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California: Ford v. Natural Health Trends Corp. and Li v. Natural
Health Trends Corp. On March 29, 2016, the court consolidated
these actions, appointed two Lead Plaintiffs, Messrs. Dao and
Juan, and appointed the Rosen Law Firm and Levi & Korsinsky LLP as
co-Lead Counsel for the purported class. Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on April 29, 2016. The consolidated
complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between March 6,
2015 and March 15, 2016 under (i) Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against
Natural Health Trends Corp., Chris T. Sharng, and Timothy S.
Davidson, and (ii) Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against Chris T. Sharng, Timothy S. Davidson, and George K.
Broady."

"The consolidated complaint alleges, inter alia, that we made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the legality
of our business operations in China, including running an
allegedly illegal multi-level marketing business. The consolidated
complaint seeks an indeterminate amount of damages, plus interest
and costs. We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
on June 15, 2016 and a reply in support of our motion to dismiss
on August 22 2016. On December 5, 2016, the Court denied our
motion to dismiss. On February 17, 2017, we filed an answer to the
consolidated complaint."

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

Natural Health Trends Corp. is an international direct-selling and
e-commerce company headquartered in Rolling Hills Estates,
California. Subsidiaries controlled by the Company sell personal
care, wellness, and "quality of life" products under the "NHT
Global" brand.  The Company's wholly-owned subsidiaries have an
active physical presence in these markets: North America; Greater
China, which consists of Hong Kong, Taiwan and China; South Korea;
Singapore; Malaysia; Japan; and Europe.  The Company also operates
in Russia and Kazakhstan through its engagement with a local
service provider.


NL INDUSTRIES: Appeal in Santa Clara Action Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc.'s appeal from the denial of its motion for a
new trial in the Santa Clara Action remains pending, according to
the Company's March 10, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "In one of these lead pigment cases, in April
2000 we were served with a complaint in County of Santa Clara v.
Atlantic Richfield Company, et al, (Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-00-CV-788657)
brought by a number of California government entities against the
former pigment manufacturers, the LIA and certain paint
manufacturers.  The County of Santa Clara sought to recover
compensatory damages for funds the plaintiffs had expended or
would in the future expend for medical treatment, educational
expenses, abatement or other costs due to exposure to, or
potential exposure to, lead paint, disgorgement of profit, and
punitive damages.  In July 2003, the trial judge granted
defendants' motion to dismiss all remaining claims.  Plaintiffs
appealed and the intermediate appellate court reinstated public
nuisance, negligence, strict liability, and fraud claims in March
2006."

"A fourth amended complaint was filed in March 2011 on behalf of
The People of California by the County Attorneys of Alameda,
Ventura, Solano, San Mateo, Los Angeles and Santa Clara, and the
City Attorneys of San Francisco, San Diego and Oakland.  That
complaint alleged that the presence of lead paint created a public
nuisance in each of the prosecuting jurisdictions and sought its
abatement.  In July and August 2013, the case was tried.  In
January 2014, the Judge issued a judgment finding us, The Sherwin
Williams Company and ConAgra Grocery Products Company jointly and
severally liable for the abatement of lead paint in pre-1980
homes, and ordered the defendants to pay an aggregate $1.15
billion to the people of the State of California to fund such
abatement. In February 2014, we filed a motion for a new trial,
and in March 2014 the court denied the motion.  Subsequently in
March 2014, we filed a notice of appeal with the Sixth District
Court of Appeal for the State of California and the appeal is
proceeding with the appellate court. NL believes that this
judgment is inconsistent with California law and is unsupported by
the evidence, and we will defend vigorously against all claims."

"The Santa Clara case is unusual in that this is the second time
that an adverse verdict in the lead pigment litigation has been
entered against NL (the first adverse verdict against NL was
ultimately overturned on appeal). We have concluded that the
likelihood of a loss in this case has not reached a standard of
"probable" as contemplated by ASC 450, given (i) the substantive,
substantial and meritorious grounds on which the adverse verdict
in the Santa Clara case will be appealed, (ii) the uniqueness of
the Santa Clara verdict (i.e. no final, non-appealable verdicts
have ever been rendered against us, or any of the other former
lead pigment manufacturers, based on the public nuisance theory of
liability or otherwise), and (iii) the rejection of the public
nuisance theory of liability as it relates to lead pigment matters
in many other jurisdictions (no jurisdiction in which a plaintiff
has asserted a public nuisance theory of liability has ever
successfully been upheld).  In addition, liability that may
result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated, as NL continues to
have no basis on which an estimate of liability could be made, as
discussed above. However, as with any legal proceeding, there is
no assurance that any appeal would be successful, and it is
reasonably possible, based on the outcome of the appeals process,
that NL may in the future incur some liability resulting in the
recognition of a loss contingency accrual that could have a
material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial
position and liquidity."

NL Industries, Inc., was organized as a New Jersey corporation in
1891 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.  The Company is
primarily a holding company and operates in the component products
industry through its majority-owned subsidiary, CompX
International Inc.  The Company operates in the chemicals industry
through its noncontrolling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.


NL INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend "Lewis" Class Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit initiated by Lewis, et al., in Illinois, according
to the Company's March 10, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

In June 2000, a complaint was filed in Illinois state court,
Lewis, et al. v. Lead Industries Association, et al (Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division,
Case No. 00CH09800.)  Plaintiffs seek to represent two classes,
one consisting of minors between the ages of six months and six
years who resided in housing in Illinois built before 1978, and
another consisting of individuals between the ages of six and
twenty years who lived in Illinois housing built before 1978 when
they were between the ages of six months and six years and who had
blood lead levels of 10 micrograms/deciliter or more.  The
complaint seeks damages jointly and severally from the former
pigment manufacturers and the LIA to establish a medical screening
fund for the first class to determine blood lead levels, a medical
monitoring fund for the second class to detect the onset of latent
diseases and a fund for a public education campaign.  In April
2008, the trial court judge certified a class of children whose
blood lead levels were screened venously between August 1995 and
February 2008 and who had incurred expenses associated with such
screening.  In March 2012, the trial court judge decertified the
class.

In June 2012, the trial court judge granted plaintiffs the right
to appeal his decertification order, and in August 2012 the
appellate court granted plaintiffs permission to appeal.  In March
2013, the appellate court agreed with the trial court's rationale
regarding legislative requirements to screen children's blood lead
levels and remanded the case for further proceedings in the trial
court.  In July 2013, plaintiffs moved to vacate the
decertification.  In October 2013, the judge denied plaintiffs'
motion to vacate the decertification of the class.  In March 2014,
plaintiffs filed a new class certification motion.

In April 2015, a class was certified consisting of parents or
legal guardians of children who lived in certain "high risk" areas
in Illinois between August 18, 1995 and February 19, 2008, and
incurred an expense or liability for having their children's blood
lead levels tested.

NL Industries, Inc., was organized as a New Jersey corporation in
1891 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.  The Company is
primarily a holding company and operates in the component products
industry through its majority-owned subsidiary, CompX
International Inc.  The Company operates in the chemicals industry
through its noncontrolling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.


NL INDUSTRIES: Still Defends Suits Over Use of Lead Pigments
------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that it continues to defend
lawsuits arising from use of lead-based paints.

The Company said: "Our former operations included the manufacture
of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint.  We, other
former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-
based paint (together, the "former pigment manufacturers"), and
the Lead Industries Association (LIA), which discontinued business
operations in 2002, have been named as defendants in various legal
proceedings seeking damages for personal injury, property damage
and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-
based paints.  Certain of these actions have been filed by or on
behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing
authorities and school districts, and certain others have been
asserted as class actions.  These lawsuits seek recovery under a
variety of theories, including public and private nuisance,
negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strict
liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action,
aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk
contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and
misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection
statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims."

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs.  To the extent the plaintiffs seek
compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages
are generally unspecified.  In some cases, the damages are
unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law.
A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or
withdrawn.  Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial
stages.  Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary
judgment rulings or a trial verdict in favor of either the
defendants or the plaintiffs.

The Company said: "We believe that these actions are without
merit, and we intend to continue to deny all allegations of
wrongdoing and liability and to defend against all actions
vigorously.  We do not believe it is probable that we have
incurred any liability with respect to all of the lead pigment
litigation cases to which we are a party, and liability to us that
may result, if any, in this regard cannot be reasonably estimated,
because:

   * we have never settled any of the market share, intentional
     tort, fraud, nuisance, supplier negligence, breach of
     warranty, conspiracy, misrepresentation, aiding and
     abetting, enterprise liability, or statutory cases,

   * no final, non-appealable adverse verdicts have ever been
     entered against us, and

   * we have never ultimately been found liable with respect to
     any such litigation matters, including over 100 cases over a
     twenty-year period for which we were previously a party and
     for which we have been dismissed without any finding of
     liability."

"Accordingly, we have not accrued any amounts for any of the
pending lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation cases filed
by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public
housing authorities and school districts, or those asserted as
class actions. In addition, we have determined that liability to
us which may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated
because there is no prior history of a loss of this nature on
which an estimate could be made and there is no substantive
information available upon which an estimate could be based."

NL Industries, Inc., was organized as a New Jersey corporation in
1891 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.  The Company is
primarily a holding company and operates in the component products
industry through its majority-owned subsidiary, CompX
International Inc.  The Company operates in the chemicals industry
through its noncontrolling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.


NUVASIVE INC: Wants Judge to Stay Investor Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Martin O'Sullivan, Kat Greene and Jeff Overley, writing for
Law360, report that NuVasive Inc. has urged a California federal
judge to pause an investor class action alleging that the surgical
device developer damaged shareholders by concealing a kickback
scheme, saying discovery should stop until the Ninth Circuit rules
on the company's bid to decertify the class of investors.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller in March certified a class
of NuVasive investors alleging the company falsely claimed
compliance with federal laws on Medicare and Medicaid
reimbursements.  NuVasive, which is appealing the order to the
Ninth Circuit, on April 17 said that the appellate court would not
issue its ruling and potentially decertify the investor class
until after discovery had ended in district court, posing a
possible waste of time and money.

"In order to avoid the very real potential that the parties will
expend an exorbitant amount of money conducting discovery in a
case that may well not proceed, and to avoid tying up the time of
dozens of individuals, an immediate stay should be issued pending
resolution of the petition," NuVasive said.

The complaint, originally filed in August 2013, accused NuVasive
and its officers -- CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors
Alexis V. Lukianov and former CFO Michael J. Lambert -- of
violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making deceptive
statements to investors and the public.

The suit claimed the company repeatedly assured investors it was
complying with federal laws about claims to Medicare and Medicaid
reimbursements.  But the company revealed in a quarterly report
that it had been subpoenaed by the U.S. Department of Justice for
alleged fraud on its Medicare and Medicaid claims.

The news of the investigation spurred a 12 percent drop in the
stock's price, dropping it $3.28 to $22.84 by the market's close
July 31, 2013.  Investors allegedly bought the stock at prices
that were artificially inflated by the company's repeated
assurances that it was complying with federal reimbursement laws.

NuVasive in July 2015 announced that it would pay nearly $14
million to the DOJ to settle claims that it had violated the False
Claims Act by promoting off-label uses of spinal fusion products
for Medicare patients and dispensing kickbacks through a
supposedly independent medical society.

Judge Miller's certification order covers a class of investors who
bought NuVasive securities between Oct. 22, 2008, and July 30,
2013.

Counsel for the investors did not immediately respond to requests
for comment.

NuVasive and Lambert are represented by Robert W. Brownlie --
robert.brownlie@dlapiper.com -- Noah A. Katsell --
noah.katsell@dlapiper.com -- and Kellin M. Chatfield --
kellin.chatfield@dlapiper.com -- of DLA Piper. Lukianov is
represented by Christopher H. McGrath and Raymond W. Stockstill
-- beaustockstill@paulhastings.com -- of Paul Hastings LLP.

The investors are represented by Michele S. Carino, Jeremy A.
Lieberman, Jennifer Pafiti, Cheryl D. Hamer and Emma Gilmore of
Pomerantz LLP and Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

The district court case is Brad Mauss et al. v. NuVasive Inc. et
al., case number 3:13-cv-02005, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

The appeal is Popov et al. v. NuVasive Inc., case number
17-80055, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


O'CONNELL PROTECTION: Faces "Harris" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Harris, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. O'Connell Protection Services, LLC and James
O'Connell, Case No. 2:17-cv-02226 (E.D.N.Y., April 12, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing intelligence and
expert advice. [BN]

Joseph Harris is a pro se plaintiff.


ODWALLA INC: Faces "Wilson" Class Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Odwalla, Inc.,
The Coca-Cola Company, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive.   The
case is captioned Stephen Wilson, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. Odwalla, Inc., The
Coca-Cola Company, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:17-cv-02763 (C.D. Cal., April 11, 2017).

The Defendants own and operate a beverages company in California.
[BN]

Stephen Wilson is a pro se plaintiff.


OMEGA FLEX: Missouri District Court Dismisses "George" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri
dismissed the putative class action lawsuit entitled George v.
Powercet Corporation, et al., Omega Flex, Inc. said in its Form
10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
13, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

A putative class action case had been filed against the Company
and other parties in U.S. District Court in the Western District
of Missouri, titled George v. Powercet Corporation, et al.
However, that case was dismissed by the court in December 2016.

Omega Flex, Inc. is a leading manufacturer of flexible metal hose,
and is currently engaged in a number of different markets,
including construction, manufacturing, transportation,
petrochemical, pharmaceutical and other industries.


P&M LIVE: Faces "Pino" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Pino, On behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. P&M Live Poultry Inc., Mike Lee, Tsuan Ching Lee, and
Doe Peter, Case No. 1:17-cv-02206 (E.D.N.Y. April 11, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a poultry farm located at 13162
Avery Ave, Flushing, NY 11355. [BN]

Juan Carlos Pino is a pro se plaintiff.


PACIFIC COAST: Final Hearing on "Welch" Accord Continued June 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
The final hearing for the approval of Pacific Coast Oil Trust's
settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit filed by Thomas
Welch and Ralph Berliner is continued until June 12, 2017, the
Trust said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2016.

On July 1, 2014, Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy
Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and
others.

The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the
Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and the
prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement that
became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the
prospectuses issued thereto. The complaint states that the
plaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims under
the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that both such registration
statements contained numerous untrue statements of material facts
and omitted material facts.  The plaintiff seeks class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission on
certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court
may deem just and proper.

On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a second putative class
action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast
Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC
and others.  The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims and
makes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as are
made in the Welch complaint. In November 2014, the Welch and
Berliner actions were consolidated into a single action.

On December 8, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to settle the
consolidation action. On September 14, 2016, the Court entered an
order granting preliminary approval of the settlement, and set a
hearing for March 2, 2017 to determine whether to grant final
approval of the settlement and enter final judgment. On March 2,
2017, the final approval hearing was continued until June 12,
2017.

The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against
any liability or expense it might incur in connection with the
consolidated action.

Pacific Coast Oil Trust is a statutory trust formed in January
2012 under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to a Trust
Agreement among Pacific Coast Energy Company LP, as trustor, The
Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee, and
Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Delaware Trustee.

The Trust was created to acquire and hold net profits and royalty
interests in certain oil and natural gas properties located in
California for the benefit of the Trust unitholders. On May 8,
2012, the Trust and PCEC entered into a Conveyance of Net Profits
Interests and Overriding Royalty Interest (the "Conveyance"),
pursuant to which PCEC conveyed to the Trust the net profits
interests ("Net Profits Interests") and a royalty interest
("Royalty Interest"), which are collectively referred to herein as
the "Conveyed Interests," in certain oil and natural gas
properties located onshore in California (the "Underlying
Properties").


PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Wins Final Approval of Deal in Suit vs. Bank
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of the State of Oregon gave final approval of
the settlement of the class action lawsuit involving the Pacific
Continental Bank, according to Pacific Continental Corporation's
March 13, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On August 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit ("Class
Action") was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for
the County of Multnomah on behalf of individuals who placed money
with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland (collectively,
"Berjac"). The Berjac entities merged and the surviving company,
Berjac of Oregon, is currently in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Class
Action complaint, which has been amended several times, currently
asserts three claims against PCB, Fred "Jack" W. Holcomb, Holcomb
Family Limited Partnership, Jones & Roth, P.C., and Umpqua Bank,
as defendants. The lawsuit asserts that PCB is jointly and
severally liable for materially aiding or participating in
Berjac's sales of securities in violation of the Oregon Securities
Law. Claimants seek the return of the money placed with Berjac of
Oregon and Berjac of Portland, plus interest, and costs and
attorneys' fees. The current version of the complaint seeks $100
million in damages from all defendants.

On August 28, 2015, the court-appointed bankruptcy trustee for
Berjac of Oregon filed an adversary complaint ("Trustee's
Lawsuit") in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon
alleging that The Company, The Bank, Umpqua Bank, Century Bank and
Summit Bank provided lines of credit that enabled continuation of
the alleged Ponzi scheme operated by Berjac of Oregon and the two
partners of the pre-existing Berjac general partnerships, Michael
Holcomb and Gary Holcomb. The Company acquired Century Bank on
February 1, 2013. The Trustee's Lawsuit was transferred from the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon (Eugene Division).

In addition to seeking an award of punitive damages, the trustee
is asserted fraudulent transfer law and unjust enrichment in an
effort to recover payments made by Berjac to Century Bank and PCB.
Among other claims for relief, the trustee is sought the
disgorgement of monies advanced to the Holcomb Family Limited
Partnership by Century Bank and returned to the estate by court
order following the post-petition cash collateral hearing, and of
monies received by PCB from the proceeds of the sale of stock held
by the Holcomb Family Limited Partnership and securing one of the
lines of credit previously held by Century Bank. The trustee also
asserted a claim for alleged aiding and abetting of breaches of
duties owed to Berjac. The complaint in the Trustee's Lawsuit
indicated the range of damages sought by the trustee which
included, among other claims for relief, an award of punitive
damages not to exceed $10 million, recovery of payments associated
with allegedly fraudulent transfers totaling up to approximately
$55.3 million, including up to $20.7 million from Century Bank and
up to $7.7 million from PCB.

On November 16, 2016, the U.S. District Court judge stayed all
deadlines in the Trustee's Lawsuit and all parties were ordered to
participate in a judicial settlement conference. The judicial
settlement conference sessions were held on February 18, 2016 and
April 20, 2016. At the April 20, 2016, settlement conference, PCB
reached a tentative settlement of the Class Action and the
Trustee's Lawsuit. Per the December 2, 2016 Trustee's Motion and
Notice of Intent to Settle and Compromise Adversary Proceeding
("Motion"), and subsequently ordered by District Court Judge Aiken
on December 6, the settlement and compromise between PCB and the
Trustee was to be deemed effective without further order within 23
days unless a written objection to the Trustee's Motion was filed
and served on the Trustee. No written objection was filed, and PCB
is informed that no written objection was served on the Trustee.
Accordingly, final approval of the settlement of the Trustee's
Action was effective December 29, 2016. The state Circuit Court
gave final approval of the settlement of the Class Action at a
hearing on January 6, 2017.

The Company says the settlement is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on PCC's financial condition.

Pacific Continental Corporation is an Oregon corporation and
registered bank holding company headquartered in Eugene, Oregon.
The Company was organized on June 7, 1999, pursuant to a holding
company reorganization of Pacific Continental Bank, its wholly
owned subsidiary.  The Company's principal business activities are
conducted through the Bank, an Oregon state-chartered bank with
deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.


PATH INC: May 25 Hearing for Initial Approval of $5.3M Accord
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Twitter, Instagram and other app makers look likely to pay
$5.3 million to settle class action  in San Francisco, that they
uploaded Apple device users' personal data without consent.

A motion for preliminary approval of the consolidated class action
settlement was filed on April 3, night.

The five-year-old litigation stretches back to March 2012 when
lead plaintiff Marc Opperman sued Apple and 17 app developers for
allegedly letting companies swipe users' address book data from
iPhones and other devices without permission.

The eight settling app makers include Twitter, Instragram, Yelp,
Foursquare, Foodspotting, Gowalla, Kik Interactive and Kong
Technologies, which acquired the social media app Path.

The settlement does not resolve claims against Apple, which denied
culpability for allowing apps to access users' contact lists
during a hearing in November 2016. A ruling on Apple's motion for
summary judgment is still pending.

Last July, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar certified a nationwide
class of 480,000 Apple device users for claims against Apple and
Path.

In September, Tigar refused to dismiss claims against Yelp,
finding the crowd-sourcing business review app failed to
explicitly disclose its intent to upload users' contact data.

The proposed $5.3 million fund will cover all aspects of the
settlement, including administering claims, incentive awards for
class representatives and attorneys' fees, according to the motion
for preliminary settlement approval.

Class members will receive payments as electronic credits for
Amazon.com, or as physical postcard checks for individuals who do
not shop on Amazon "because sending physical checks to all
claimants would be cost prohibitive," according to the motion.

Potential class members will be notified of the settlement through
a website, direct emails and "promoted tweet" advertisements on
Twitter, according to the motion for tentative approval.

Lead class counsel David Given, of Phillips Erlewine Given &
Carlin, did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment on
April 4.

A hearing on the motion for preliminary settlement approval is
scheduled for May 25 in San Francisco.

The case is captioned, MARC OPPERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PATH,
INC., et al., Defendants. Case 3:13-cv-00453-JST (N.D. Cal. April
3, 2017).

Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     David M. Given, Esq.
     Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq.
     PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
     39 Mesa Street, Suite 201
     The Presidio
     San Francisco, CA   94129
     Tel: 415-398-0900
     Fax: 415-398-0911
     Email: dmg@phillaw.com
            nac@phillaw.com

          - and -

     James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
     Michael J. von Loewenfeldt, Esq.
     Frank Busch, Esq.
     KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP
     100 Spear Street, 18th Floor
     San Francisco, CA  94105
     Tel:  415-371-8500
     Fax:  415-371-0500
     Email: wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com
            myl@kerrwagstaffe.com
            busch@kerrwagstaffe.com

Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel:

     Carl F. Schwenker, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CARL F. SCHWENKER
     The Haehnel Building
     1101 East 11th Street
     Austin, TX 78702
     Tel: (512) 480-8427
     Fax: (512) 857-1294

Plaintiffs' Steering Committee:

     Jeff Edwards, Esq.
     EDWARDS LAW
     The Haehnel Building
     1101 East 11th Street
     Austin, TX 78702
     Tel: (512) 623-7727
     Fax: (512) 623-7729

          - and -

     Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
     GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
     Tower 56
     126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 905-0509
     Fax: (212) 905-0508


PROMETHEUS GLOBAL: Faces "Sullivan" Suit Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Sullivan Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Prometheus Global Media LLC, Case No. 1:17-
cv-02582 (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Prometheus Global Media LLC operates a media company located at
340 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10173. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


QUANTA SERVICES: To Appeal Ruling in "Benton" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Quanta Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Quanta is in the process
of appealing a ruling in the case, Lorenzo Benton v. Telecom
Network Specialists, Inc., et al.

In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom
Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Quanta
retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to the
terms of Quanta's sale of TNS in December 2012. Benton seeks to
represent a class of workers that includes all persons who worked
on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS retained
through numerous staffing agencies. The plaintiff class in this
matter is seeking damages for unpaid wages, penalties associated
with the failure to provide meal and rest periods and overtime
wages, interest and attorneys' fees.

In September 2015, the trial court certified the class as to
workers from the various staffing companies at issue. In January
2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion filed by
the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint employer of the
class members and that it failed to provide adequate meal and rest
breaks and failed to pay overtime wages.

Quanta believes this decision is not in line with controlling law,
is in the process of appealing and continues to contest liability
in this matter.

Quanta Services, Inc. (Quanta) is a leading provider of specialty
contracting services, offering infrastructure solutions primarily
to the electric power and oil and gas industries in the United
States, Canada and Australia and select other international
markets.


SALEM COUNTY, NJ: Stevenson et al. Sue Over Inmates' Velcro Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that four people who spent time at the county jail in Salem, New
Jersey, claim in a federal class action in Camdem, N.J. that their
genitals were routinely exposed during their stays because they
were unnecessarily strip-searched or classified as suicidal.

The April 6 complaint says Salem County routinely classifies
detainees as suicidal "for no apparent reason."  When this
happens, the detainee is given what the complaint calls a "turtle
suit," held together with Velcro instead of zippers, buttons,
belts or buckles.

But the onetime detainees suing Salem say the Velcro on these
suits is so worn out that they are useless at keeping the suits
closed. Any person wearing such a garment thus has their breasts
or genitals on full display, according to the complaint.

The class says Salem denies privacy to its detainees for no
penological purpose, strip-searching them multiple times per day,
and conducting these searches in public settings or locations
where cameras broadcast the searches to other locations in the
jail.

In the case of the female lead plaintiff, a camera in her cell
"transmitted images of her exposed in her turtle suit."  She says
her twice- or three-times daily strip searches also "occurred in
her cell, which had a glass window where other detainees and male
COs could view her being subject to these cavity/strip searches."

One of the male lead plaintiffs says he was transferred to the
Salem jail from a stint at Cumberland County that was without
incident.  He says he was forced to stand completely naked in
front of 10 other supposedly suicidal detainees while being
admitted to a closed custody unit.

Just one of the four named plaintiffs does not describe improper
placement on suicide watch. This man says he faced very public
cavity searches, however, for each of the 10 times he was brought
to court and whenever he reported for kitchen duty.

The kitchen searches occurred, according to the complaint, despite
the fact that all kitchen utensils were secured such that they
could not be removed from the kitchen.

Representing the class is William Riback of Haddonfield.

The case is captioned, Dana Clark Stevenson and Mark Hendricks and
Kenneth Fuqua and Darius Snead, individually and on behalf of a
class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The County of
Salem, Defendant, Case No. 1:33-av-00001 (D. N.J., April 6, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class:

     Carl D. Poplar, Esq.
     1010 Kings Highway S.
     Building One
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Phone 856.216.9979
     Fax 856.216.9970

          - and -

     Kevin P. McCann, Esq.
     Shanna McCann, Esq.
     CHANCE & MCCANN, LLC
     201 W. Commerce St Ext
     Bridgeton, NJ 08302
     Phone 856 451 9100
     Fax 856 455 5227

          - and -

     William Riback, Esq.
     WILLIAM RIBACK, LLC
     132 Haddon Avenue
     Haddonfield, NJ 08033
     Tel: 856-857-0008


SAN FRANCISCO: Transport Sys. Sued over Disability Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a class in San Francisco accused the Bay Area's public
transit system on April 5, of denying disabled persons full and
equal access by failing to properly maintain, repair and clean
elevators "soiled" with human waste.

Lead plaintiff Senior and Disability Action says the Bay Area
Rapid Transit District, or BART, has for decades provided "vastly
inferior" service to disabled riders.

"This class action seeks to end the systemic civil rights
violations committed by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
District (BART) against people with mobility disabilities who use
wheelchairs, walkers, and other mobility aids, and who rely on
elevators or escalators in order to access BART's stations and
services," the 34-page complaint states.

The suit claims disabled riders constantly encounter broken and
soiled elevators, out-of-order escalators and non-functioning
accessible fare gates. It also accuses BART of failing to provide
adequate notice of elevator outages, accessible paths of travel,
transportation alternatives and evacuation plans for those with
mobility challenges.

BART responded in a statement on April 5, that it shares in the
goal of ensuring accessible public services and understands
hardships faced by disabled riders. The transit agency cited a
$16.3 million escalator and elevator improvement program currently
underway, adding it has also devoted $190 million to improve
access for downtown San Francisco stations.

Since October 2015, BART has had more than 2,500 elevator outages
during normal operating hours, according to agency data cited in
the complaint.

The disability rights advocates say the vast majority of outages
are due to a "consistent failure to adequately maintain the
accessible features" and that the agency also fails to provide
"effective, reliable, or well-publicized alternate accessible
transportation" for disabled riders.

BART claims most elevator outages are due to an ongoing floor
replacement project, set to be completed in May 2017. It says the
project, "while time-consuming, results in a much more sanitary
environment and prolongs the period of time between outages and
major overhauls."

But the disabled rights advocates say that when elevators do
function properly, they are often contaminated by the presence of
human feces or urine. This forces disabled riders to go to another
station or "roll through human waste" to reach their final
destination, the plaintiffs claim.

"This is an especially repugnant prospect for users of manual
wheelchairs, whose hands, arms, and clothes inevitably come in
contact with the wheels of their wheelchairs," the complaint
states.

Despite hiring extra crews and offering overtime to help keep
stations clean, BART said its riders "continue to unacceptably
experience the impact of the homeless crisis." BART is working
with local agencies to address the issue, adding that it is one of
the only transit systems in the nation with a full-time crisis
intervention training coordinator and community outreach liaison
to work on those issues.

The transit agency also says it provides a shuttle service for
disabled patrons when station elevators are out of service. But
the plaintiffs argue that the service is not well publicized, and
that riders are not informed how long they will have to wait for
it.

In 1998, BART settled a previous disability rights class action --
Cupolo v. BART -- by vowing to replace or rehab defunct elevators,
perform regular maintenance and repairs, distribute reliable
information on elevator outages and execute a rigorous system for
elevator inspections and cleanings.

Under that plan, elevators were to be cleaned twice per day, and
janitors were to clean fouled elevators within 30 minutes of being
informed of a problem.

"Although conditions temporarily improved following this
settlement, BART has since allowed the condition of its elevators
and other accessibility features, as well as its policies and
practices regarding access for people with mobility disabilities,
to return to their pre-Cupolo conditions," the complaint states.

BART does offer a text alert service for elevator outages, but the
agency often fails to provide updated and accurate information,
which forces disabled riders to be late for work meetings,
appointments and social engagements, according to the suit.

The lawsuit accuses the public transit system of violating the
Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act and state
anti-discrimination laws.

The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction to place BART under the
supervision of an independent monitor to ensure full and adequate
implementation of a plan to maintain accessible accommodations for
disabled passengers.

Other plaintiffs named in the suit include the Independent Living
Resource Center of San Francisco, Concord resident Pi Ra, and
Oakland resident Ian Smith.

The plaintiffs are represented by Rebecca Williford of Disability
Rights Advocates in Berkeley and Jimmy Kim of Legal Aid At Work in
San Francisco.

"We share the frustration of the Disability Rights Advocates legal
group, but are disappointed our program of capital improvement is
being met with litigation," BART said in a statement.
"Nonetheless, we hope to again work together in the future as we
value the perspective of people with disabilities both from within
our own employee community and the cities we serve."

With a $1.24 billion operating budget and an average of 440,000
rides a week, BART manages 46 stations and more than 100 miles of
above-ground and subterranean train tracks, including the Transbay
Tube, which runs under and across the San Francisco Bay.

The case is captioned, SENIOR AND DISABILITY ACTION, on behalf of
its members and all others similarly situated; INDEPENDENT LIVING
RESOURCE CENTER OF SAN FRANCISCO; PI RA, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated; and IAN SMITH, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAN FRANCISCO BAY
AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT and GRACE CRUNICAN, in her official
capacity as General Manager of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid
Transit District, Defendants. Case 3:17-cv-01876-VC (N.D. Cal.
April 5, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Michelle Caiola, Esq.
     DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
     675 Third Avenue, Suite 2216
     New York, New York 10017
     Telephone: (212) 644-8644
     Facsimile: (212) 644-8636
     E-mail: mcaiola@dralegal.org

          - and -

     Rebecca Williford, Esq.
     Sean Betouliere, Esq.
     DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
     2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor
     Berkeley, California 94704-1204
     Telephone: (510) 665-8644
     Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
     E-mail: rwilliford@dralegal.org
             sbetouliere@dralegal.org

          - and -

     Jinny Kim, Esq.
     Rachael Langston, Esq.
     LEGAL AID AT WORK
     180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600
     San Francisco, California 94104
     Telephone: (415) 864-8848
     Facsimile: (415) 593-0096
     E-mail: jkim@legalaidatwork.org
             rlangston@legalaidatwork.org


SANTANDER CONSUMER: SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Chung, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on April 18 appeared skeptical of widening the scope of who
can be subject to a federal law targeting debt collectors' abusive
practices by including those who buy debt, sometimes for pennies
on the dollar.

The justices heard oral arguments in a proposed consumer class
action lawsuit against Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc over
allegations it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  A
lower court had dismissed the case brought by four Maryland
residents who had defaulted on car loans.

That law typically applies to entities whose primary purpose is
debt collection for others, not to lenders who give out and
collect their own loans, such as banks or full-service finance
companies.

The justices, both liberal and conservative, appeared concerned
that players in the debt collection industry could evade the law
merely by buying the debt, but suggested that the statute is not
as elastic as the plaintiffs in the case view it.

"Just look at the language," liberal Justice Elena Kagan told the
plaintiffs' lawyer, Kevin Russell.  "Can you come up with a
sentence that points to your reading?"

"I acknowledge that may not be the first interpretation that leaps
to mind," Russell replied.

Companies that buy delinquent debt from the original lenders and
then try to collect it from the borrowers are becoming a fast-
growing segment of the multibillion-dollar debt collection
industry.  Debt buyers made $4.4 billion in revenue in 2015,
according to legal papers.

The plaintiffs filed the class action in 2012 in federal court
accusing Santander of violations of the debt collection law
including misrepresenting debt loads and bypassing debtors'
lawyers.

Their debts had been sold to Santander, a Dallas-based consumer
finance company specializing in car loans, owned in part by a
subsidiary of Banco Santander, the euro zone's second-largest bank
by market value. Santander then tried to collect on the loans.

The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld the lawsuit's dismissal last March, saying the law applied
only to debt collectors, and Santander became a creditor when it
purchased the loans.

The U.S. Congress enacted the law in 1977 to regulate debt
collectors, who might be less concerned about future business with
the customer than original lenders and therefore willing to use
abusive practices or harassment to recoup the money.

When conservative Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that as a
debt collector Santander has less incentive to maintain goodwill,
Santander's attorney Kannon Shanmugam countered that the company
is not the kind of "fly-by-night" operation the law targets, and
it might seek to sell other financial products to the clients.

Russell told the justices that the 4th Circuit decision could be
used by companies that service debt to avoid the law by buying the
defaulted loans. In court papers, the plaintiffs also said that
increasingly common large debt buyers might try to evade the law
by diversifying their businesses to ensure their primary purpose
is not debt collection.

The plaintiffs were supported by a group of 28 states, including
Oregon and Florida, and the District of Columbia, which said in
legal papers that consumers see no difference between debt buyers
and debt collectors and should be protected from unscrupulous
tactics by both.


SCYNEXIS INC: Defends "Gibson" Stockholder Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
SCYNEXIS, Inc., is defending a purported stockholder class action
lawsuit initiated in New Jersey, according to the Company's March
13, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On March 8, 2017, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against SCYNEXIS and certain of its current and former
officers, captioned Gibson v. Scynexis, Inc., et al.  The action
was filed on behalf of a putative class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities (1)
pursuant or traceable to its IPO, or (2) on the open market
between May 2, 2014, and March 2, 2017.  It asserts claims for
violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class.

The Company believes that the claims lack merit and intends to
defend the litigation vigorously.

SCYNEXIS, Inc., is a drug development company committed to the
development and commercialization of novel anti-infectives to
address significant unmet therapeutic needs.  The Company is
developing its lead product candidate, SCY-078, as a novel oral
and intravenous (IV) drug for the treatment of several fungal
infections, including serious and life-threatening invasive fungal
infections.  SCY-078 is a novel and structurally distinct
triterpenoid glucan synthase inhibitor that has been shown to be
effective in vitro and in vivo against a broad range of Candida
and Aspergillus species, including drug-resistant strains.
Candida and Aspergillus species are the fungi responsible for
approximately 85% of all invasive fungal infections in the United
States (U.S.) and Europe.


SEAWORLD PARKS: Customers' Motion for Summary Judgment Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, Braden Campbell, Emily Field, Joyce Hanson and
Matthew Perlman, writing for Law360, report that a Florida federal
court on April 17 ruled against SeaWorld in a class action over
its automatic renewal of annual passes, finding the theme park
breached the contracts and violated the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act by renewing during the one-year term and collecting
unauthorized payments after the contracts expired.

Tampa-based U.S. District Judge Mary S. Scriven, who last month
granted class certification to a class of customers from Florida,
Texas, Virginia and California, where SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment Inc. operates theme parks, found in a 15-page order
in favor of the customers' motion for summary judgment, while
denying SeaWorld's motion for partial summary judgment on the
breach of contract claim.

In reaching her decision, she rejected SeaWorld's arguments that
either it committed no "act" because the EZ Pay contracts
"automatically" renewed or, alternatively, that it could not have
committed a breach because the contracts had expired by the time
the disputed payments were collected. She also found that the
company's various affirmative defenses did not preclude a finding
of liability.

"SeaWorld's failure to terminate the contract unquestionably goes
to the 'essence' of the contract," Judge Scriven said. "Plaintiffs
bargained for a one-year pass, not a pass of indefinite duration.
And it is undisputed that plaintiffs suffered damages in the form
of unauthorized charges. Although those charges may have occurred
after the contract expired, they are 'damages flowing from the
breach.'"

In his December 2014 complaint, lead plaintiff Jason Herman said
he bought two one-year passes to SeaWorld Orlando and Busch
Gardens in Tampa in March 2013.  After 11 subsequent monthly
payments, he noticed that SeaWorld was still charging his credit
card in March 2014.  The suit included claims for breach of
contract and for violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act,
based on SeaWorld's automatic withdrawal of payments.

According to Herman, SeaWorld's contract -- which wasn't available
on his initial email receipt or the pass -- specified that it
would only automatically renew and continue charging for yearly
passes that weren't paid in full in less than a year, but he
finished paying for the tickets by February.

SeaWorld's move for partial summary judgment argued that if the
court sided with the theme park's interpretation of the contract,
then the customers' claim failed because they were obligated to
make the additional monthly payments, and if the court sided with
the customers' interpretation, the claim failed because the
contract had terminated by the time the alleged breach occurred.

The customers filed a summary judgment motion of their own in
September, arguing their interpretation of the renewal provision.
Then, in their Oct. 6 response to SeaWorld's bid for partial
summary judgment, they renewed that stance and also argued that
the contract was still in effect when the alleged breaches took
place.

"The EZ Pay contract's payment period began with a down payment on
the date of purchase and, if the customer timely made all
payments, concluded on the date 11 months later when the customer
made the 12th and final payment the contract required," the
response said.  "Automatic renewal therefore took place
approximately 11 months into the life of the contract, while it
was still in effect."

SeaWorld countered that the customers have ignored material facts
in asserting that the theme park automatically renewed their one-
year EZ Pay passes. Disputing this supposed fact, SeaWorld
objected that the customers repeatedly misstate the terms of the
contract because the EZ Pay contract says the contract will renew
automatically and does not say that SeaWorld has a unilateral
right to renew.

"Only the plaintiffs -- and not SeaWorld -- have the contractual
right to terminate the contract's auto-renewal provision,"
SeaWorld argued.

Judge Scriven said SeaWorld was right that, under contract law, it
could not have renewed the contracts without the customers'
consent, but she also said the customers accurately pointed out
that "is precisely why SeaWorld breached the renewal provision.

"A breach, by definition, is an unauthorized act," the judge said.

She also said that with its claim that it had not committed an
act, SeaWorld overlooked that a contract can be breached by a
failure to perform.

Class counsel declined comment on April 18, and a representative
for SeaWorld did not immediately respond to an inquiry.

SeaWorld is represented by Colin C. Deihl --
colin.deihl@FaegreBD.com -- Ann E. Prouty --
ann.prouty@FaegreBD.com -- and Thomas W. Carroll --
thomas.carroll@FaegreBD.com -- of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP and
Christopher T. Hill of Hill Rugh Keller & Main PL.

The plaintiffs are represented by Paul R. Fowkes and Ryan C.
Hasanbasic -- Ryan@DispartiLaw.com -- of Disparti Fowkes &
Hasanbasic PA and James E. Felman and Katherine E. Yanes --
kyanes@kmf-law.com -- of Kynes, Markman & Felman PA.

The case is Herman et al. v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment Inc.,
case number 8:14-cv-03028, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.


SOUTHERN COPPER: "Lacey" Class Action in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned, Carla Lacey and Barbara Siegfried, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders of
Southern Copper Corporation, and derivatively on behalf of
Southern Copper Corporation, is in discovery, Southern Copper
Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

A purported class action derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery was served on the Company and its Directors in
February 2016 relating to the 2012 capitalization of 99.999% of
MGE by Controladora de Infraestructura Energetica Mexico, S.A. de
C.V., an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico (the "CIEM
Capitalization"), the Company's entry into a power purchase
agreement with MGE in 2012 (the "MGE Power Purchase Agreement"),
and the 2012 restructuring of a loan from the Company's Mexican
Operations to MGE for the construction of two power plants to
supply power to the Company's Mexican operations (the "MGE Loan
Restructuring"). The action purports to be brought on behalf of
the Company and its common stockholders. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the CIEM Capitalization, the MGE Power
Purchase Agreement and the MGE Loan Restructuring were the result
of breaches of fiduciary duties and the Company's charter.

The Company has filed a response denying these allegations and is
currently in the discovery process.

Southern Copper Corporation is one of the largest integrated
copper producers in the world.


ST. BERNARD'S: "Citizen" Not Synonymous to "Resident", Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Jonker, Esq. -- ajonker@mauricewutshcer.com -- of Maurice
Wutscher LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that
"citizen" is not synonymous with "resident" under the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), such that the class action
lawsuit at issue could not be remanded to state court under CAFA's
"local controversy" exception but rather should remain in federal
court.

A copy of the opinion in Tammy Hargett v. St. Bernard's Hospital
Inc, et al is available at:

      http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/17/04/171339P.pdf

The plaintiff was injured in a car accident and received treatment
at a hospital, which required her to assign her Medicaid
beneficiary rights to it.  The hospital later contracted with a
service provider to pursue any claims the plaintiff may have had
against the responsible driver in lieu of collecting a reduced but
certain payment from Arkansas Medicaid.

The plaintiff sued the hospital and the service provider on behalf
of a class of "Arkansas-Medicaid beneficiaries," asserting that
their attempt to recover under an assignment of the plaintiff's
rights violated Arkansas law and that thousands who had been
treated across the state of Arkansas had been similarly damaged.

The defendants removed the case to federal court under CAFA.  The
plaintiff moved to remand under CAFA's local controversy
exception, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(4), and the trial court agreed that
more than two-thirds of the proposed class were citizens of the
state.  The trial court noted that the plaintiff should amend to
the complaint to assert that the class consisted of citizens
rather than residents.  The plaintiff amended the complaint as
instructed and the trial court ordered the case remanded to state
court. The defendants sought permission to appeal, which was
granted.

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit noted that the CAFA issue at hand
was novel: how does the "resident" versus "citizen" distinction
that appears in 28 U.S.C. 1332 play out in the local controversy
exception?

The Appellate Court provided its five guiding principles behind
its reasoning.  First, the Eighth Circuit noted, CAFA provides
broad diversity jurisdiction over class actions and the local
controversy exception is narrow so that, once the defendant
establishes the CAFA jurisdictional requirements, it is the
plaintiff's burden to establish the local controversy requirements
and any doubt should be resolved against the plaintiff.

Second, the Eight Circuit held, the terms "citizen" and "resident"
must be differentiated as citizenship requires permanency and
residency does not require "an intent to make a place a home."  A
person can be a resident of multiple states but a citizen of only
one.  Thus, the Court held, residency is insufficient to establish
citizenship for diversity jurisdiction.

Third, the Appellate Court noted, a court must assume that
Congress intended to apply the accumulated, settled meanings of
terms under common law unless the statute states otherwise.  Here,
the Eighth Circuit assumed Congress intended to use the common law
meaning of the term "citizen" in CAFA.

Fourth, at least one other ruling in the Seventh Circuit had
addressed the issue of the meaning of "citizen" versus "resident"
and had reached the same conclusion.

Fifth, the Eighth Circuit noted, citizenship may be established by
either defining the class as citizens (as opposed to residents) or
by providing sound evidence of citizenship during class discovery,
but cannot be based on "guesswork."  The Appellate Court explained
that the trial court erred by allowing the plaintiff to amend her
class definition, which the Eighth Circuit deemed "guesswork," and
wrongly resolved the doubt in the plaintiff's favor.

The Appellate Court further pointed out that the trial court did
not have the authority to permit the plaintiff to amend the
complaint as the class definition prior to removal must include
only local citizens in order for the local controversy exception
to apply, and cited to section 1332(d)(7) which requires that for
the local-controversy exception to apply, "class citizenship must
be determined as of the date of the pleading giving federal
jurisdiction."

The Eighth Circuit concluded by pointing out that the plaintiff's
lack of citizenship allegations did not defeat the district
court's jurisdiction because the defendants pleaded in the notice
of removal that the plaintiff was an Arkansas citizen, which was
sufficient for federal jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the trial court's remand order was reversed and the
appeal was returned to the trial court for further proceedings.


STELLAR MANAGEMNENT: 60 Tenants File Class Action Over J-51 Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Marsh, writing for New York Post, reports that nearly 60
tenants of the major Manhattan landlord Stellar Management have
filed a class-action lawsuit saying the company has reaped
millions in tax breaks while illegally gouging residents.

The Manhattan Supreme Court suit says Stellar claims tax benefits
under the J-51 program but then doesn't abide by rent-
stabilization limits.

"In one especially heinous example, Stellar Management re-
stabilized an illegally deregulated unit at a rental amount 257
percent higher than at which it had previously been registered,"
according to a press release by the nonprofit Housing Rights
Initiative.

The group says Gov. Cuomo should do more to crack down on J-51
fraud.  The program gives developers tax benefits in exchange for
updating apartment buildings.

A spokesman for Stellar said, "We have serious concerns about the
validity of both the merits and motivations underlying this suit
and will vigorously defend against these claims."


STRAIGHT PATH: Says Zacharia Deal Subject to Definitive Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Straight Path Communications Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the
quarter period ended January 31, 2017, that its $9.45 settlement
of the Zacharia Action remains subject to entering in a definitive
agreement and court approval.

On November 13, 2015, a putative shareholder class action was
filed in the federal district court for the District of New Jersey
against Straight Path Communications Inc., and Davidi Jonas and
Jonathan Rand (the "individual defendants"). The case is captioned
Zacharia v. Straight Path Communications, Inc. et al., No. 2:15-
cv-08051-JMV-MF, and is purportedly brought on behalf of all those
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock
between October 29, 2013, and November 5, 2015. The complaint
alleges violations of (i) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 of the
Exchange Act against the Company for materially false and
misleading statements that were designed to influence the market
relating to the Company's finances and business prospects; and
(ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants for wrongful acts by controlling persons. The
allegations center on the claim that the Company made materially
false and misleading statements in its public filings and
conference calls during the relevant class period concerning the
Company's spectrum licenses and the prospects for its spectrum
business.

The complaint seeks certification of a class, unspecified damages,
fees, and costs. The case was reassigned to Judge John Michael
Vasquez on March 3, 2016. On April 11, 2016, the court entered an
order appointing Charles Frischer as lead plaintiff and approving
lead plaintiff's selection of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead
counsel and Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP as liaison
counsel. On June 17, 2016, lead plaintiff filed his amended class
action complaint, which alleges the same claims. The defendants
filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint on August 17, 2016;
the plaintiff opposed that motion on September 30, 2016, and the
defendants filed their reply brief in further support of their
motion to dismiss on October 31, 2016.

On March 7, 2017, the Company and lead plaintiff in Zacharia v.
Straight Path Communications Inc. et al., No. 2:15-cv-08051-JMV-MF
(D.N.J.), entered into a binding memorandum of understanding to
settle the putative shareholder class action and dismiss the
claims that were filed against the defendants in that action.
Under the agreed terms, the Company will provide for a $2.25
million initial payment (the "Initial Payment") and a $7.2 million
additional payment (the "Additional Payment"). The Initial Payment
will be paid into an escrow account within 15 days following
preliminary court approval of the settlement, and will be fully
covered by insurance policies maintained by the Company.  The
Additional Payment of $7.2 million will be paid within 60 days
after the closing of a transaction to sell the Company's spectrum
licenses as specified in the Consent Decree with the Federal
Communications Commission dated January 11, 2017 (the "Consent
Decree"), or, in the event that the Company pays the non-transfer
penalty specified in the Consent Decree, within 60 days after that
payment is paid.  In any event, the Additional Payment will be
payable no later than December 31, 2018. The settlement remains
subject to entering in a definitive agreement and court approval.

Straight Path Communications Inc., a Delaware corporation, was
incorporated in April 2013. Straight Path owns 100% of Straight
Path Spectrum, Inc. and Straight Path Ventures, LLC, and 84.5% of
Straight Path IP Group, Inc.  Straight Path Spectrum, LLC, holds
fixed and mobile wireless spectrum. Straight Path Ventures is
developing next generation wireless technology for 39 GHz.
Straight Path IP Group owns intellectual property primarily
related to communications over the Internet, and the licensing and
other businesses related to this intellectual property.


TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., awaits ruling on its motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in
Massachusetts, according to the Company's March 13, 2017, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "In January 2016 and March 2016, two securities
class action lawsuits were filed against us, our chief executive
officer, our former chief operating officer and our former chief
financial officer, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. In May 2016, the court consolidated the
two lawsuits and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. The
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in July
2016 and filed a second consolidated amended complaint in August
2016. The second amended complaint is brought on behalf of an
alleged class of those who purchased our common stock between
March 5, 2015 and September 8, 2015, and alleges claims arising
under Sections 10 and 20 of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning IGNITE2. The complaint
seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs."

"In October 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint in its entirety, which plaintiffs have opposed. That
motion is pending. We believe we have valid defenses against these
claims, and will engage in a vigorous defense of such litigation."

Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company using our proprietary chemistry
technology to create novel antibiotics for serious and life-
threatening multidrug-resistant infections.  The Company is
developing its lead product candidate, eravacycline, a fully
synthetic fluorocycline, as an intravenous, or IV, and oral
antibiotic for use as a first-line empiric monotherapy for the
treatment of resistant and multidrug-resistant infections,
including multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: GTA Gamers Have Until May 8 to Amend Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, Brian Amaral and Brandon Lowrey, writing for
Law360, report that a California federal judge on April 17 again
dismissed a putative class action alleging gamers were tricked
into buying "Grand Theft Auto V" before its online multiplayer
mode launched, ruling the alleged delay didn't harm gamers'
wallets, but allowed "one final amendment" of the suit.

Before a hearing in downtown Los Angeles, U.S. District Judge
Virginia A. Phillips issued a written tentative ruling granting
Take-Two Interactive Software Inc.'s motion to dismiss named
plaintiffs Bruce McMahon and Christopher Bengston's proposed class
action alleging the company falsely touted GTA V's online
functionality the day it hit the market, even though it knew the
feature wouldn't be available for two weeks.  Judge Phillips had
previously dismissed the suit with prejudice only to see the Ninth
Circuit award the plaintiffs an extra life and revive the claims.

Judge Phillips wrote on April 17 that the plaintiffs' complaint
itself acknowledged that the price of the game did not drop from
its $59.99 launch price until over a month after it was on sale
-- and so even if the plaintiffs had waited to buy the game until
the multiplayer mode was available, they wouldn't have saved any
money.

The judge noted that the plaintiffs had alleged they "perhaps"
wouldn't have bought the game if they knew the true multiplayer
launch date, but rejected the "speculative, half-hearted
allegation" as not plausible.  Nonetheless, Judge Phillips wrote
she would allow an amended complaint to be filed.

At the hearing, Rex Sofonio -- rex@sofoniolaw.com -- of Sofonio &
Associates, representing the plaintiffs, told the judge his
clients would take the opportunity to amend their complaint to
flesh out their claims that had they known the multiplayer
wouldn't be immediately available, they would have held off on
buying the game entirely due to a new generation of gaming
consoles -- the Playstation 4 and Xbox One -- being released only
months after GTA V.

Jeffrey S. Jacobson -- jjacobson@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye
& Warren LLP, representing Take-Two, told Judge Phillips that GTA
V wasn't even available on those new consoles for a full year
after it was released.

"If these plaintiffs want to allege they would have waited a year,
that's fine, but I've been troubled by the class aspect of this .
. .  They plead themselves further and further into idiosyncrasy,"
he said. "It will never be a class action; it can't be given the
way they've alleged it."

Judge Phillips made her tentative ruling her final ruling, and
ordered the plaintiffs to file their amended complaint by May 8.

Messrs. McMahon and Bengston filed suit in Riverside County
Superior Court in October 2013, weeks after GTA V was released.
They alleged that the game's package, which included a thick white
center stripe with the phrase "Featuring Grand Theft Auto Online"
in black all-capital letters, led them and other gamers to believe
they'd be able to play online immediately.

The duo alleged that had they known otherwise, they wouldn't have
paid $59.99 or possibly even bought the game at all.  Not only did
the package include false advertising, but Take-Two acted
negligently and breached its warranty, according to the complaint.

In January 2014 Judge Phillips dismissed the suit, finding the
game's packaging never specifically promised the online feature
would be available immediately or guaranteed a date by which the
feature would be ready.

In February 2016, the Ninth Circuit revived the case, finding that
Judge Phillips abused her discretion by failing to give the gamers
a chance to amend their complaint.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey Lawrence of The Law
Offices of Jeffrey R. Lawrence, Rex Sofonio of Sofonio &
Associates and James R. Hawkins of James Hawkins PC.

Take-Two is represented by Lee. S. Brenner --
lbrenner@kelleydrye.com -- Jeffrey S. Jacobson, James B. Saylor --
jsaylor@kelleydrye.com -- and Michael C. Lynch --
mlynch@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.

The case is Bruce McMahon et al. v. Take-Two Interactive Software
Inc. et al., case number 5:13-cv-02032, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.


THERANOS: Court Upholds Fraud Claims in Investor Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman disclosed that a U.S. District Judge on April 19
upheld fraud claims brought in an investor class-action lawsuit
against Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes and Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani,
allowing the lawsuit to continue for the proposed class of
Theranos investors represented by Hagens Berman.

The order given on Apr. 18, 2017, by U.S. Magistrate Judge
Nathanael M. Cousins stated, "Here, plaintiffs list the specific
newspaper articles that were part of the advertising campaign
touting Theranos' technology . . . The Court finds these
allegations to be reasonably specific and plausibly state a claim
for fraud." Defendants have 14 days to answer the complaint.

"We're pleased that the court saw through the smoke and mirrors of
Theranos' extensive marketing tactics that duped investors into
placing their bets on Holmes and her company," said
Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.  "Theranos'
promises were built on false statements, and we look forward to
bringing this case on behalf of the thousands of investors who
believed what they were told."

If you purchased Theranos securities, directly or through a third-
party, from July 29, 2013 through Oct. 5, 2016, contact Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. For more information visit:

https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/Theranos

or contact Reed Kathrein, one of the firm's partners on the case,
by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing Theranos@hbsslaw.com.

The complaint filed Nov. 28, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, states that Theranos and its
officers set in motion a publicity campaign to raise billions of
dollars for Theranos and themselves, and to induce investors to
invest in Theranos, all the while knowing that its "revolutionary"
blood test technology was essentially a hoax.

Rather than being ready for commercial use, the finger-prick
technology had not passed regulatory or other third-party
scrutiny, was inaccurate and could only be run on a few of the
hundreds of promised tests, the suit states.  Theranos has now
shut down all of its laboratories, and Walgreens has severed its
ties to the company. As a result, investments of more than half a
billion dollars raised since 2013 appear to have been lost,
according to the firm.

At the crux of the court's decision of upholding the investor case
against Theranos was a finding that while plaintiffs did not
directly purchase their securities from defendants, claims made by
Theranos, Holmes and Balwani constituted fraud.  "The elements of
fraud, which give rise to the tort action for deceit, are (a)
misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or
nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or 'scienter'); (c)
intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable
reliance; and (e) resulting damage," the order cites.

                    About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities.
The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs'
Hot List eight times.


THERAPEUTICSMD INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on April 18
disclosed that a class action complaint was filed against
TherapeuticsMD, Inc. (NYSE MKT: TXMD) in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.  The complaint is brought on
behalf of all purchasers of TherapeuticsMD securities between July
7, 2016 and April 9, 2017, for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by TherapeuticsMD's officers and
directors.  TherapeuticsMD operates as a women's health care
product company.  One of the company's lead product candidates is
known as TX-004HR.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/therapeuticsmd-inc

TherapeuticsMD Accused of Misleading Investors About Its Clinical
Program

According to the complaint, on July 7, 2016, the company announced
that it had filed its New Drug Application ("NDA") for TX-004HR
with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") seeking
approval of TX-004HR for the treatment of moderate to severe
dyspareunia.  The company subsequently stated that it was making
excellent progress and that it was encouraged by its positive
pivotal Phase 3 Rejoice Trial designed to assess the safety and
efficacy of TX-004HR.  The complaint alleges that the company
failed to inform investors that its NDA submission was deficient
and was not supported by the complete TX-004HR clinical program,
which would likely cause a delay of the FDA's potential approval
of the NDA.

On April 10, 2017, TherapeuticsMD issued a press release revealing
that, as part of its ongoing review of the NDA, the FDA
"identified deficiencies that preclude discussion of labeling and
postmarketing requirements/commitments at this time."  The company
further stated that the letter did not specify the deficiencies
and that the company was not aware of the nature of the
deficiencies.  TherapeuticsMD noted that the FDA had previously
set a target date of April 9, 2017, for communicating to the
company proposed labeling and postmarketing requirements and
commitments.  On this news, TherapeuticsMD's stock fell $1.50 per
share, or nearly 20%, to close at $6.20 per share on April 10,
2017.

TherapeuticsMD Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney
Leonid Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or
via the shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law.  The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped
its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves
and the companies in which they have invested.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Discovery Still Ongoing in Blue Cross MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in an antitrust multidistrict
litigation against Blue Cross Blue Shield, Triple-S Management
Corporation said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

Triple-S Salud, Inc. ("TSS"), is a co-defendant with multiple Blue
Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) in a
multi-district class action litigation entitled In re Blue Cross
Blue Shield Association Antitrust Litigation, filed on July 24,
2012. The plaintiffs allege that the exclusive service area (ESA)
requirements of the Primary License Agreements with the Blue Plans
violate antitrust laws. The plaintiffs in these suits seek
monetary awards and, in some instances, injunctive relief barring
ESAs. Those cases have been centralized in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Prior to
centralization, motions to dismiss were filed by several plans,
including TSS. The parties have filed several pleas and presented
their position in argumentative hearings before the court in
connection with the motion to dismiss, which was ultimately
dismissed without prejudice by the court.

On April 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed suit in the United States
District Court of Puerto Rico, which the Company believes does not
preclude TSS' jurisdictional arguments. The Company has joined
BCBSA in vigorously contesting these claims. Discovery is ongoing.

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

Triple-S Management Corporation is one of the most significant
players in the managed care industry in Puerto Rico, serving
approximately 1,017,000 members, with a 25% market share in terms
of premiums written in Puerto Rico for the nine-month period ended
September 30, 2016.  The Company has the exclusive right to use
the Blue Cross and Blue Shield name and mark throughout Puerto
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Costa Rica, the British Virgin
Islands and Anguilla and over 50 years of experience in the
managed care industry.  The Company offers a broad portfolio of
managed care and related products in the Commercial, Medicaid and
Medicare markets.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Procedures Ongoing in Suit vs. JUA and TSP
---------------------------------------------------------------
Procedures are ongoing in a matter involving the Joint
Underwriting Association in Puerto Rico and involving a subsidiary
of Triple-S Management Corporation, according to the Company's
March 10, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On August 19, 2011, plaintiffs, purportedly a class of motor
vehicle owners, filed an action in the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico against the Puerto Rico
Joint Underwriting Association (JUA) and 18 other defendants,
including Triple-S Propiedad (TSP), alleging violations under the
Puerto Rico Insurance Code, the Puerto Rico Civil Code, the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the
local statute against organized crime and money laundering. JUA is
a private association created by law to administer a compulsory
public liability insurance program for motor vehicles in Puerto
Rico (CLI). As required by its enabling act, JUA is composed of
all the insurers that underwrite private motor vehicle insurance
in Puerto Rico and exceed the minimum underwriting percentage
established in such act. TSP is a member of JUA.

In this lawsuit, entitled Noemi Torres Ronda, et al v. Joint
Underwriting Association, et al., plaintiffs allege that the
defendants illegally charged and misappropriated a portion of the
CLI premiums paid by motor vehicle owners in violation of the
Puerto Rico Insurance Code. Specifically, they claim that because
the defendants did not incur in acquisition or administration
costs allegedly totaling 12% of the premium dollar, charging for
such costs constitutes the illegal traffic of premiums. Plaintiffs
also claim that the defendants, as members of JUA, violated RICO
through various inappropriate actions designed to defraud motor
vehicle owners located in Puerto Rico and embezzle a portion of
the CLI premiums for their benefit.

Plaintiffs seek the reimbursement of funds for the class amounting
to $406,600 treble damages under RICO, and equitable relief,
including a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment barring
defendants from their alleged conduct and practices, along with
costs and attorneys' fees. Discovery has been completed.

Since 2011, TSP has been defending this claim and, jointly with
other defendants, has filed several pleas in connection with the
certification of the class and the dismissal of the claim. On
December 17, 2015, three defendants filed a joint motion informing
the court that said defendants are conducting negotiations to
settle the claim and requested a 60-day period in other to
continue the negotiations.  Subsequently, the term to continue
negotiations was extended until April 17, 2016. On April 22, 2016,
plaintiff and the negotiating defendants filed a stipulation of
settlement and release which is subject to approval of the court.
TSP and the non-settling defendants have objected the filed
settlement. Procedures are ongoing.

Triple-S Management Corporation is one of the most significant
players in the managed care industry in Puerto Rico, serving
approximately 1,017,000 members, with a 25% market share in terms
of premiums written in Puerto Rico for the nine-month period ended
September 30, 2016.  The Company has the exclusive right to use
the Blue Cross and Blue Shield name and mark throughout Puerto
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Costa Rica, the British Virgin
Islands and Anguilla and over 50 years of experience in the
managed care industry.  The Company offers a broad portfolio of
managed care and related products in the Commercial, Medicaid and
Medicare markets.


U.S. METALS: Motion to Dismiss Smelter Class Action Challenged
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wichert, writing for Law360, reports that Carteret,
New Jersey, residents on April 16 shot back at three companies
looking to sink a putative class action in New Jersey federal
court accusing them of causing environmental contamination at a
defunct smelting plant, rejecting their argument that the lawsuit
failed to put each business on notice of the claims against it.
The residents urged the court to deny a motion to dismiss from
U.S. Metals Refining Co., Freeport-McMoRan Inc. and Amax Realty
Development Inc., saying that the complaint is "sufficiently
specific" as to what each company allegedly did and that detailed
factual allegations are not required at such an early stage of the
litigation.

"The complaint reasonably suggests that all of the defendants
owned land and operated the smelter from which pollutants were
released," according to the residents' brief.  "When read
sensibly, and as a whole, the complaint adequately notifies the
defendants of the claims against them.

"Notice pleading standards do not require plaintiffs to articulate
with precision 'how each defendant was involved in smelting,
processing, refining, casting,' etc., as defendants demand," the
brief states.  "The details of defendants' processes are the
subject of fact and/or expert discovery, and it cannot
realistically be expected for plaintiffs to know such details of
defendants' inner workings at this stage of the litigation."

The lawsuit -- filed on Jan. 30 in New Jersey state court and
later removed to federal court by the defendants -- alleges that
the residents and their properties have been exposed to toxic and
hazardous substances as a result of the smelting operations. Those
materials include lead, arsenic and other contaminants, the
lawsuit states.

The contamination causes a decline in the residents' property
values, deprives them of the free use and enjoyment of their
properties and puts them at an increased risk of developing
serious health problems, according to the lawsuit.

The named plaintiffs are Leroy and Betty Nobles, and Juan and
Betsy Duarte and their minor child, identified in the lawsuit as
N.D.

According to the defendants' corporate disclosure statements filed
in the case, U.S. Metals Refining is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Cyprus Amax Minerals Co., which also owns 100 percent of the stock
of Amax Realty Development.  Cyprus Amax is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Freeport-McMoRan Corp., which in turn is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Freeport-McMoRan Inc., according to the
statements.

In their motion to dismiss, the three companies asserted that the
lawsuit fails to specify the alleged conduct of each business and
instead lumps the parties together.

The businesses claimed that each company is in a different
position with respect to the facility and the alleged acts span
more than 100 years, but the factual allegations and the legal
theories in the complaint are improperly asserted against
"Defendants" as a group.

The companies argued that the complaint only differentiates
between the defendants in a section titled "Parties."

That section states that U.S. Metals Refining operated the plant
from the early 1900s until about 1991 and that Freeport-McMoRan
acquired U.S. Metals Refining and its smelter operations. The
section also claims that Amax owned or operated a portion of the
site during the time in which the contaminants were released.

"Such a 'group pleading,' which 'lumps defendants together,' fails
to provide each defendant fair notice of the claims asserted
against it," according to the companies' brief.

But the residents countered on April 16, saying that the
defendants' "group pleading" argument lacks merit because they are
related entities that each allegedly caused the contamination.

"'Group pleading' is only disfavored when unrelated defendants are
'lumped' together with resulting confusion as to which parties are
responsible for which actions.  However, parties may be grouped
into terms such as 'defendants' and still have proper notice under
Rule 8(a) when plaintiffs assert their claims against all
'defendants' for their related conduct," according to residents'
brief.

"Here there is no basis at all for confusion amongst the
defendants," the residents said.  "Plaintiffs have pled that a
mere three interrelated entities each owned and operated a
particular piece of land and a smelter which caused the release of
harmful contaminants into one contiguous class area, thereby
giving rise to plaintiffs' claims."

If the court identifies a defect in the complaint, however, the
residents asked that they be allowed to amend the pleadings.

Counsel for the parties could not immediately be reached for
comment on April 17.

The residents are represented by Steven J. German --
SGerman@germanrubenstein.com -- of German Rubenstein LLP.

The companies are represented by David R. Kott --
dkott@mccarter.com -- of McCarter & English LLP.

The case is Juan Duarte et al. v. U.S. Metals Refining Co., case
number 2:17-cv-01624, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.


UBER TECH: Shortchanged Drivers, "Van" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that in the latest in a string of lawsuits over the way Uber does
business, a Los Angeles driver has accused the company of lining
its pockets after it charges users more and pays drivers less for
rides.

In the federal class action filed on April 3, Uber driver Sophono
Van claims that Uber manipulates the software in its app to
calculate the "upfront" fare prices it displays to users based on
a longer and slower route to a user's destination. Meanwhile, Uber
displays a shorter and quicker route to drivers.

This results in Uber charging users more than it lets on to
drivers, so that it can keep the extra money instead of paying it
out to them, according to Van.

"This case represents a shocking example of an active, extensive,
methodical scheme implemented worldwide specifically to defraud
drivers," he said in his 23-page complaint.

Uber's upfront pricing system, which it launched last year,
calculates a user's total fare before, instead of after, a ride.

According to Van, Uber assures both users and drivers that the
upfront fare price is calculated using a base fare plus a per-mile
and per-minute charge for the estimated time and distance of the
ride.  The company, he says, makes it seem as though the full fare
is paid to drivers, minus service and booking fees.

Van says that he and his fellow drivers wouldn't have worked for
Uber had they known they weren't getting paid according to the
actual fare, or would have demanded higher pay based on those
fares.  But they had no way of knowing that Uber was bilking them
out of money that rightfully belonged to them, he says.

"The manipulation of prices . . . is clever and sophisticated," he
said in his complaint. "It is clear that the Uber defendants'
deception was a purposeful, well-planned scheme to deceive drivers
and users."

Van seeks to certify a class of all Uber drivers who have worked
in California, including those for UberPool, UberX, Uber Select,
Uber Black and Uber SUV.

He wants unspecified damages, and temporary and permanent
restraining orders barring the company from charging deceptive
upfront fare prices.

He is represented by Daniel Miller of the Wilshire Law Firm in Los
Angeles. Miller could not be reached for comment on April 5.

An Uber spokesperson declined to comment.

The case is captioned, SOPHANO VAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. RASIER, LLC., a
Limited Liability Company; RASIER-CA, LLC., a Limited Liability
Company; and UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a corporation; DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case 2:17-cv-02550-DMG-JEM
(C.D. Cal., April 4, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff Sophano Van:

     Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     Daniel B. Miller, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, California 90010
     Tel: (213) 381-9988
     Fax: (213) 381-9989


UBER TECH: Can't Compel Arbitration in Cancellation Fees Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News, reports that
denying Uber's motion to compel arbitration of phony cancellation
fees it charges riders, a federal judge called the company's
notice process of waiving the right to sue "deficient."

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg found on April 17 that lead
plaintiff Julian Metter showed he never agreed to Uber's terms of
service and its arbitration agreement, because the terms of
service alert was blocked by the keypad on Metter's smartphone.

"Although the terms of service alert seems designed to put a
registrant on inquiry notice of Uber's terms of service and to
alert the registrant that registration will amount to affirmative
assent to those terms, the keypad obstruction is a fatal defect to
the alert's functioning," Judge Seeborg wrote in a 13-page order.
"That defect turns what would be a sufficient notice process into
a deficient one."

Mr. Metter sued in November 2016 on behalf of a proposed class of
Uber riders, claiming the company doesn't tell riders it might
charge a cancellation fee.

Uber sought to compel arbitration, claiming Mr.  Metter agreed to
its terms of service and waived his right to sue when he
registered his account.

Mr. Metter replied that a pop-up keypad prompting him to enter his
credit card information obstructed the terms of service alert.

Uber countered that Metter would have seen the alert had he
scrolled to the bottom of the screen.

Judge Seeborg didn't buy that argument, noting that Uber "never
explains why Metter would have scrolled down to find a terms of
service alert he was not otherwise aware of, especially when the
registration and payment screen neither instructed him to scroll
down nor presented any reason for him to do so."

"Uber's assertions . . . are not sufficient to obviate any dispute
of fact as to whether Metter was on notice of Uber's terms of
service and thereby assented to them," Judge Seeborg wrote.
"Metter's declaration that he never saw the terms of service alert
is credible and consistent with the functioning of the Uber app."

Mr. Metter's attorney Glenn Danas --
Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com -- of Capstone Law in Los Angeles,
said in an email on April 18 that he is pleased with the ruling.

"We look forward to litigating our client's claims in court," he
added.

Judge Seeborg's ruling contrasts with a ruling he issued in
January in a similar case, Michael Cordas v. Uber Technologies,
Inc., which claimed that users had their rides automatically
canceled and were charged cancellation fees for them.

Michael Cordas, the lead plaintiff, also claimed he never saw the
terms of service alert when he signed up for Uber.  But Judge
Seeborg took issue with Mr. Cordas' failure to identify a reason
why he hadn't seen it and granted Uber's motion to force
arbitration, finding the company's notice process sufficient.

Uber is represented by William Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- with
Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco, who did not return a request
for comment late on April 17.

An Uber representative declined to comment.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Contractor Status
------------------------------------------------------------
Fatima Hussein, writing for IndyStar, reports that Uber
Technologies can add another class-action lawsuit to its growing
list of legal entanglements.  In this case, a Hamilton County Uber
driver challenges the notion that he is a contractor, as opposed
to an employee of the San Francisco-based tech firm.

Clinton Price, an Uber driver since 2014, claims that the company
"has taken, and continues to take, unfair advantage of financially
struggling Uber Drivers by misclassifying them as "Independent
Transportation Providers" (i.e., independent contractors), when
they are employees."

Being classified as an employee over a contract worker would give
Uber drivers such as Price the right to a minimum wage, overtime
and benefits.

The lawsuit is before a federal judge in the Southern District of
Indiana.  Uber has filed a motion to dismiss Price's case.  Judge
Sarah Evans Barker has yet to rule on the motion.  Company
officials have declined to comment on the suit.

Mr. Price alleges, in a 43-page complaint filed in March, that
Uber should treat its drivers as employees since it requires them
to submit banking, residence, background and Social Security
information. It also requires drivers to register their vehicle
with the company.

"If you tally up all the time," said Paul B. Maslo, the
plaintiff's attorney, "these workers are not even making minimum
wage."

"Uber controls in terms and conditions of employment from what to
wear to what route to take, to setting customer fares and Uber's
fee.  Uber has the authority to hire, fire and discipline Uber
Drivers," according to court documents.

Compounding legal troubles

Mr. Price's lawsuit is one of an increasing number of complaints
against the $60 billion company, ranging from claims of routinely
tolerated sexual harassment, to claims that the company is spying
on drivers for its competitor, Lyft.

Among other employment violations, Mr. Price alleges that he and
other Uber drivers qualify as employees under the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act's six-factor test determining employment,
which includes: the degree of control exercised by the alleged
employer, the extent of the investments of the worker, the degree
to which the worker's opportunity for profit and loss is
determined by the alleged employer, the skill required of the job,
the permanency of the relationship and the extent to which work
performed is integral to the alleged employer's business.

Mr. Price's lawyer states that he earned an effective wage of
$4.52 an hour, and "when expenses are taken into account,
Mr. Price's hourly wage is significantly lower."  He also states
that Uber is deceptive in its tipping policy.

He is not alone in that sentiment.

Most recently, the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission
granted a petition by the city's Independent Drivers Guild to
create a rule that would require ride-hailing services to add in-
app tipping.

Also in a recent proposed class-action federal lawsuit filed in
the Central District of California, plaintiffs claim Uber has
devised a "clever and sophisticated" scheme in which it
manipulates navigation data used to determine "upfront" rider fare
prices while secretly short-changing the driver.

Locally, another lawsuit was filed in the Southern District
against Uber last June by William Scroggins over the company's
lack of a tipping mechanism.  Mr. Maslo represented Scroggins in
his case, which was ultimately dismissed.

Robert Brookins, a professor of labor law at Indiana University
Robert H. McKinney School of Law, said there are an increasing
number of lawsuits being filed by contract workers, namely Uber
drivers, alleging that they are employees.

The problem, he says, is that there is not a concrete legal
precedent on the issue.

"There are cases out there that give general standards,"
Mr. Brookins said, "but that issue is decided on a case-by-case
basis considering the circumstances."

Mr. Brookins added that while contract workers like Uber drivers
could benefit from unionization efforts, it is an inherently
difficult task when drivers largely work part time and have other
forms of work to make ends meet.

In 2015, Seattle passed an ordinance forcing drivers of the ride-
sharing app to join the Teamsters union.

Uber and Lyft both filed lawsuits, along with the Chamber of
Commerce, arguing that the National Labor Relations Act does not
allow independent contractors the right to unionize.

District Judge Robert Lasnik issued the temporary restraining
order, siding with Uber and Lyft.

Economic impacts of contract work

These cases point to a larger issue of worker rights in the
future, as more work becomes contract or "gig" based, says Timothy
Bond, a labor economics professor at Purdue University.

Mr. Bond says that Uber's business model relies on circumventing
cab rules that make taxi rides so expensive.

"One of main ways they (Uber) are more successful is in
undercutting prices, keep wages low and providing no benefits --
so those price savings are going to be passed back onto the
consumer," Mr. Bond said.

A Harvard Business Review story exploring the benefits and
downsides of gig economy work states that "there are many more
people willing to be Uber drivers than taxi drivers, in part
because they can control when and how much they work."

"Stay-at-home parents, retired people, the elderly, students, and
people with disabilities now have more options to work as much as
they want, and when, where, and how they want, in order to
generate income, develop skills, or pursue a passion."

Mr. Bond added that it would be exceptionally difficult for Uber
drivers and gig workers to unionize, since "there are a whole
bunch of people who are willing to jump in full time."

He says the economy will see an increase in gig work as skilled
workers depart the workforce and are not being replaced.

"It's not a rosy picture," he said.

Mr. Maslo, Price's attorney, said he hopes that as more people
take on driving for Uber, they consider opting out of the
company's arbitration agreement.

"It must be done in the first 30 days of signing up and requires
one email," he said.  "It's absolutely critical that they opt out
if they want to challenge the company."


UFP TECHNOLOGIES: Has Gained $2.1MM From Polyurethane Foam Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
UFP Technologies, Inc., has recorded a gain of $2.1 million, which
represents the full settlement amount it received from a class
action lawsuit filed against polyurethane foam suppliers,
according to the Company's March 10, 2017, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

The Company was a participant in a class action lawsuit against a
number of polyurethane foam suppliers ("Defendants") that recently
reached settlement. The suit was filed to recover damages and
obtain injunctive relief for Defendants' alleged violations of the
federal antitrust laws with respect to the fixing of prices of
polyurethane foam sold from January 1, 1999 through August 2010.
The Company recorded a gain of approximately $2.1 million during
the year ended December 31, 2016, which represents the full
settlement amount received. The settlement amount is recorded as
"Material overcharge settlement" in the operating income section
of the Consolidated Statements of Income.

UFP Technologies, Inc., is an innovative designer and custom
converter of foams, plastics, composites and natural fiber
materials, providing solutions to customers primarily within the
medical, automotive, consumer, electronics, industrial, and
aerospace and defense markets.  The Company converts these
materials using laminating, molding, and fabricating manufacturing
technologies.  The Company's raw materials primarily consist of
polyethylene and polyurethane foams, sheet plastics, pulp fiber,
cross-linked polyethylene and reticulated polyurethane foams,
fabric and foam laminates, and natural fiber materials.


UNITED STATES: Army Veterans Sue Over PTSD Discharge Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kent Pierce, writing for WTNH, reports that Iraq and Afghanistan
combat veterans deserve a chance to change their discharge status
if they suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, according to
a lawsuit.  That class-action suit was filed in federal court on
April 17 against the Secretary of the Army.

"I spent 14 months in Iraq, expecting that I was going to be blown
up," said Army veteran Stephen Kennedy at the April 17 press
conference announcing the suit.  He came home from his deployment
in one piece, "but that feeling never went away.  I was still
waiting for the I.E.D. with my name on it to go off and I was
always on the lookout."

That feeling led to drinking, cutting, fighting, and thoughts of
suicide.  The Army told him it did not have the resources to treat
him, so it kicked him out with a less-than-honorable discharge.

The trouble with that kind of discharge from the Army is that it
means Mr. Kennedy was denied access to benefits, like the help
needed to deal with what he now knows was PTSD.  Mr. Kennedy is
now part of a class action lawsuit brought by Yale Law School's
Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization.

"We are here to demand that the Army finally grant Mr. Kennedy and
thousand of other like him the honorable discharge he's earned,"
said Yale Law student Catherine McCarthy.

The same group filed a similar suit a couple years ago on behalf
of Vietnam veteran Conley Monk of West Haven.  His PTSD symptoms
got him a less-than-honorable discharge from the Marines.  The
Yale suit got then-Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to write a
memo changing the discharge status for Mr. Monk and 4 other
veterans.

"The Hagel memo worked for me," said Mr. Monk.  "I am a prime
example.  My discharge was changed after 45 years."

The Yale students studied lots of cases of soldiers trying to get
their discharges upgraded and they found the Hagel memo was
mentioned in a few of them, but they say it was not applied as it
was supposed to be.  This lawsuit is intended to fix that.

"These veterans developed complications as a direct result of
their service, and we're using the symptoms as a justification for
taking away their benefits and labeling their service as less than
honorable," Mr. Kennedy said.

Mr. Kennedy is one of only two named plaintiffs, but the law
students think this lawsuit could affect as many as 60,000
veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.


UNITED STATES: Trump Administration Wants Visa Class Action Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelcee Griffis, writing for Law360, reports that President Donald
Trump's administration has asked to shake off a suit over his now-
halted travel bans brought by immigrants who said the executive
orders unnecessarily and unconstitutionally disadvantaged them by
disrupting visa processing.

The government told a Washington federal court on April 14 that
the proposed class of immigrants can't prove the orders hurt them
and that they aren't entitled to relief, especially because the
immigrants weren't visa holders.

"The nonresident, unadmitted alien plaintiffs are not entitled to
judicial review, and their petitioning relatives cannot
demonstrate any cognizable injury fairly traceable to the Order
unless and until their alien relatives have been found eligible
for a visa and denied a waiver," the motion said.

The case is just one of many related to Trump's now-revoked
Jan. 27 executive order, which suspended the entry of travelers
and immigrants from seven Muslim countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya,
Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen -- for 90 days and froze the U.S.
refugee program, among other measures.  Its successor, issued on
March 6 after the Ninth Circuit struck down the ban's first
version, was put on hold due to other court rulings

The immigrants had argued that the government wrongly revoked
visas and stopped visa processing pursuant to the first order,
which they said kept families apart and created physical hardships
as well as emotional anguish.

"Plaintiffs and proposed class members are suffering both
emotionally and financially from these separations and from the
existing lack of certainty and transparency in the immigrant visa
process" caused by the executive order, according to an earlier
motion by the plaintiffs.

However, the government contended in its April 14 motion to
dismiss that the president has been given broad authority to
regulate immigration and that the now-halted bans were narrowly
tailored for a national security interest.

"That suspension enables this Administration to most effectively
review the Nation's screening and vetting procedures to ensure
they adequately detect terrorists," the filing said.

The immigrants previously characterized the measures as a "blanket
ban" and said the president exceeded his power that should have
been constrained within "constitutional limits." Trump is allowed
to regulate immigration regarding any individual alien or a subset
of aliens but not an entire nationality, according to a February
motion by the plaintiffs.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice declined to comment on
April 17.

Counsel for the plaintiffs could not be immediately reached for
comment on April 17.

The plaintiffs are represented Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid and
Matt Adams of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, among
others.

The government is represented by Chad A. Readler and Stacey I.
Young of the U.S. Justice Department.

The case is Ali, et al. v. Trump, et al., case number 17-cv-00135,
in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.


US COMMODITY: Suit by N.J. Carpenters Health Fund Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit titled New Jersey Carpenters
Health Fund v. NovaStar Mortgage, ET AL., remains pending, the
United States Commodity Index Funds Trust said in its Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND V. NOVASTAR MORTGAGE, ET AL., is
a putative class action lawsuit involving six different NovaStar
offerings in which Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC served as one of
the underwriters. Plaintiff alleges that the offering documents
were materially misleading because they failed to disclose that
NovaStar, which originated or acquired the loans backing the
certificates, "systematically disregarded" its lending guidelines.
In rulings in March 2011 and March 2012, the district court
dismissed the action with prejudice, but in 2013, the 2nd Circuit
reversed in part and vacated in part those rulings, reviving the
action. In a ruling in February of 2015, the lower court further
ruled that all six offerings are now at issue, and ordered the
Plaintiff to file a third amended complaint. The amount of losses
or potential liability in these matters is not known.

The United States Commodity Index Funds Trust is a Delaware
Statutory Trust formed on December 21, 2009. The Trust is a series
trust formed pursuant to the Delaware Statutory Trust Act and is
organized into four separate series.  As of December 31, 2016, the
Trust includes the United States Commodity Index Fund, a commodity
pool formed on April 1, 2010 and first made available to the
public on August 10, 2010, the United States Copper Index Fund, a
commodity pool formed on November 26, 2010 and first made
available to the public on November 15, 2011, the United States
Agriculture Index Fund, a commodity pool formed on November 26,
2010 and first made available to the public on April 13, 2012, and
the USCF Canadian Crude Oil Index Fund, which is currently in
registration, and has not commenced operations.


US GASOLINE: Forex Class Suits vs. RBC Pending in U.S. and Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Several putative class actions regarding foreign exchange trading
involving RBC Capital Markets, LLC, are pending in the U.S. and
Canada, United States Gasoline Fund, LP, and United States 12
Month Oil Fund, LP, said in their Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On October 8, 2013, the Companies' general partner, United States
Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF"), entered into a Futures and Cleared
Derivatives Transactions Customer Account Agreement with RBC
Capital Markets, LLC ("RBC Capital" or "RBC") to serve as UGA's
and USL's futures commission merchant ("FCM"), effective October
10, 2013. This agreement requires RBC Capital to provide services
to UGA and USL, as of October 10, 2013, in connection with the
purchase and sale of Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related
Investments that may be purchased or sold by or through RBC
Capital for UGA's and USL's accounts. For the period October 10,
2013 and after, the Companies pay RBC Capital commissions for
executing and clearing trades on behalf of UGA and USL.

Various regulators are conducting inquiries regarding potential
violations of law by a number of banks and other entities,
including RBC, regarding foreign exchange trading. Since 2015, RBC
is a named defendant, along with many other entities, in pending
putative class actions in the U.S. and Canada regarding foreign
exchange trading.

Based on the facts currently known, the Company says the ultimate
resolution of these collective matters is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on RBC.

The United States Gasoline Fund, LP ("UGA") is a Delaware limited
partnership with its main business office in Oakland, California.
UGA is a commodity pool that issues limited partnership interests
traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc.  UGA operates pursuant to the terms
of the Second Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
Partnership dated as of March 1, 2013 (as amended from time to
time, the "LP Agreement"), which grants full management control to
its general partner, United States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF").


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
purported shareholder class action lawsuit pending in Israel,
according to the Company's March 10, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2017.

The Company said: "On May 12, 2015, a new class action complaint
was filed against us in Israel alleging similar claims as the
dismissed Israeli class action and alleging that Israeli
shareholders were deprived of due process in the U.S. class action
settlement proceedings. We are opposing the new class action and
plaintiff's class certification motion on substantially the same
grounds on which the previous case was dismissed. The court held a
pretrial hearing on that motion on May 19, 2016 at which it
requested additional information including expert reports, a
position paper from the Israel Securities Authority ("ISA") and
further briefing. In July 2016, the ISA submitted a position paper
supporting our position regarding applicable law. Other requested
information has also now been submitted, but the court has not yet
ruled."

VeriFone Systems, Inc., is a global leader in payments and
commerce solutions.  The Company provides expertise and solutions
that add value at the retail point-of-sale and enable innovative
forms of commerce.  For 35 years, the Company has been a leader in
designing, manufacturing, marketing and supplying a broad range of
innovative payment solutions, including customer payments
acceptance, connectivity between merchants and financial
institutions, as well as security and comprehensive payment and
commerce services.


VOX MEDIA: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Sullivan Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Vox Media, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-02581
(S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Vox Media, Inc. operates a digital media company in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Appeal in "Roberts" Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the case, Raymond Roberts v. Weight Watchers
International, Inc., remains pending, Weight Watchers
International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On January 7, 2016, an OnlinePlus member filed a putative class
action complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County, asserting class claims for breach of
contract and violations of the New York General Business Law.

On February 5, 2016, the Company removed the case to the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York.

On March 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
alleging that, as a result of the temporary glitches in the
Company's website and app in November and December 2015, the
Company has: (1) breached its Subscription Agreement with its
OnlinePlus members; and (2) engaged in deceptive acts and
practices in violation of Section 350 of the New York General
Business Law. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified actual,
punitive and statutory damages, as well as his attorneys' fees and
costs incurred in connection with this action.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 6, 2016. The
plaintiff filed his opposition papers on June 9, 2016 and the
Company filed its reply papers on June 23, 2016. The Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss on November 14, 2016.

On November 16, 2016, the plaintiff filed a timely notice of
appeal of the Court's decision and on January 31, 2017, the
plaintiff filed its brief in support of appeal. The Company's
opposition brief was due to be filed on April 5, 2017. The Company
believes that the plaintiff's appeal is without merit and will be
denied in due course.

Weight Watchers is a commercial provider of weight management
services, operating globally through a network of Company-owned
and franchise operations.


WELLS FARGO: $50MM Mortgage Fees Class Action Settlement Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Lane, writing for Housing Wire, reports that borrowers who had
a mortgage serviced by Wells Fargo between May 6, 2005 and July 1,
2010 will soon receive their share of a $50 million settlement
stemming from allegations that Wells Fargo overcharged borrowers
for Broker Price Opinions during that period.

The settlement, which was initially announced in October, stems
from a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo that claimed that
the bank violated the law by charging borrowers more than the
amount Wells Fargo paid for BPOs.

The lawsuit claimed that Wells Fargo charged certain borrowers
between $95 and $125 for the BPOs, instead of the typical cost of
$50 or less.

According to details provided by the plaintiffs' attorneys, the
lawsuit is now finalized, as the settlement received final
approval from U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the
Northern District of California.

Now that the settlement is finalized, each of the nearly 290,000
members of the class will automatically receive a check for their
portion of the settlement within 60 days.

According to the law firm of Baron & Budd, which represented the
plaintiffs, the average payout per borrower will be roughly $120 -
- more than double the fee markup each plaintiff paid.

Wells Fargo said in October, and again in a statement to
HousingWire on April 17, that it believes it did nothing wrong,
but chose to settle the suit anyway.

"We believe our practices related to Broker Price Opinions were
proper and disagree with the claims in the lawsuit, but we agreed
to settle the matter to avoid further litigation," a Wells Fargo
spokesperson said in a statement to HousingWire.

The settlement applies to any borrower who had a mortgage serviced
by Wells Fargo during the time period referenced and paid the
elevated price for the BPO, the lawyers said.

Borrowers who qualify do not need to make a claim for their share
of the settlement funds. A check will be mailed to class members
at their last known address in Wells Fargo's records, the
attorneys state.

"For nearly five years, our partners Dan Alberstone and Roland
Tellis and their team, worked tirelessly to secure this
considerable settlement," said Russell Budd, president and
managing shareholder of Baron & Budd.  "The settlement they
secured sends a powerful message that class action cases can
provide meaningful, tangible recovery to hundreds of thousands of
class members. I'm very pleased to know that our plaintiffs will
receive compensation soon."


WESTERN HEALTH: Plaintiffs' Lawyers to Conduct Discoveries
----------------------------------------------------------
Diane Crocker, writing for The Western Star, reports that lawyers
representing the 1,043 people who had their medical records
inappropriately accessed by a former Western Health employee will
conduct discoveries with some managers at the health authority.

The people, part of a class-action lawsuit against the health
authority, had their files accessed between June 2011 and May
2012.  The breach was made public in August 2012.

It's been over two years since Newfoundland Supreme Court Justice
William Goodridge, case management judge on the lawsuit, ruled the
plaintiffs had grounds to proceed to a class action.

The plaintiffs are represented by Bob Buckingham Law and Brothers
and Associates Law Office.

On April 17, Bob Buckingham said while there's not a lot to report
on the case, it is proceeding.

"It's not that we're just sitting there at all," he said by phone
from his St. John's office.

Mr. Buckingham said the lawyers for both sides are committed to
moving the matter forward, but class actions can take some time to
complete.

Mr. Buckingham said both sides have retained experts, who are
working on reports, and there has been an exchange of
documentation and material.

He added some discoveries with Western Health managers have
already been completed.

Mr. Buckingham said the discoveries are a "fact-finding process."

The closed interviews take place outside of the courtroom and
allow the lawyers to ask questions on certain issues, as to what
transpired and what may be important to the case.

Mr. Buckingham said the next step in the case will be the exchange
of the expert reports and then discovery of the experts.

There has still been no indication from the plaintiffs what they
are seeking in damages.  Mr. Buckingham said that is still being
explored and the people involved have been asked to summarize
their issues and experiences and what they consider damages.  This
could vary from one to another and could see the plaintiffs being
put into categories.

There has also been no discussion on whether or not the matter can
be settled out of court.

Mr. Buckingham said it's likely to be a while before the matter
returns to court.

Timeline

Aug. 1, 2012
Western Health goes public with the information that 1,043
people's medical records had been inappropriately accessed between
June 2011 and May 2012 and an employee had been fired.

Aug. 18, 2012
Barbara Hynes files a class-action lawsuit against Western Health
in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador in Corner Brook.

Aug. 24, 2012
A second class action is filed naming both Western Health and
Donna Colbourne, the employee responsible for the privacy breach,
as defendants.  Valerie Dyke and Catherine Allen-Vater are listed
as the representative plaintiffs.

Feb. 8, 2013
A case management meeting is held in Newfoundland Supreme Court in
Corner Brook.

April 25, 2013
Donna Colbourne is charged under the Personal Health Information
Act.

Sept. 12, 2013
Donna Colbourne is removed as a defendant in the class action, and
the two lawsuits are combined into one.

Nov. 29, 2013
Donna Colbourne pleads not guilty and the matter is set for trial
in provincial court.

Dec. 5, 2013
A certification hearing on the class action is postponed.

Feb. 6 and 7, 2014
The certification hearing on the class action is heard by Justice
William Goodridge in Newfoundland Supreme Court in Corner Brook.

April 30, 2014
Donna Colbourne changes her plea to guilty and a sentencing
hearing is set for Aug. 26.

Sept. 11, 2014
Donna Colbourne is fined $5,000.

Nov. 17, 2014
Justice William Goodridge rules the matter can proceed as a class-
action lawsuit.


WESTERN RANGE: Judge Dismisses Shepherds' Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Peruvian shepherds who claim that they are woefully underpaid must
amend their claims against a sheep company and the Western Range
Association, a federal judge ruled.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Jones granted the' motions to dismiss
on April 13, finding lead plaintiff Abel Cantaro Castillo's class
action is not subject to federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Cantaro and Alcides Inga Ramos, both of Peru, both working
legally with visas, filed suit last year against the Western Range
Association, El Tejon Sheep Company, and its owner, Melchor
Gragirena.

The association hired Mr. Cantaro through the H-2A visa program in
2007, and paid him and his fellow shepherds an average of only $1
to $2 per hour, far less than minimum wage, he said in the
lawsuit.

Mr. Cantaro says he and other shepherds were on call 24 hours a
day seven days a week and subject to state and federal minimum
wage laws.

The Nevada minimum wage is $7.35 an hour, Mr. Cantaro says the
shepherds were paid an adverse effect wage rate each month, in
violation of Nevada law.

The monthly adverse effect wage rate is a weighted hourly average
for field and livestock workers that the U.S. Department of
Agriculture publishes each year. The average is based on the
department's quarterly wage survey.

The Western Range Association and the El Tejon and Gragirena
ranches in California and Nevada all moved to dismiss the federal
claims.

In response, Mr. Cantaro filed an amended complaint that addressed
only Nevada's minimum wage laws, plus failure to pay wages due
upon termination, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Mr. Cantaro originally sought more than $10 million in unpaid
wages for the class over six years, but Jones ruled that Nevada's
two-year statute of limitations applies.

In the amended complaint, Mr. Cantaro said the shepherds were owed
$3.3 million over two years, but Jones said that amount does not
meet the requirements of the U.S. Class Action Fairness Act.

The Western Range Association and its co-defendants subsequently
filed motions to dismiss the federal class action, for failure to
state a claim.

Jones granted the motions due to a lack of subject matter, and
gave Mr. Cantaro 30 days to file an amended complaint.

Mr. Cantaro is represented by Alexander Hood of Denver-based
Towards Justice, which did not respond to email and phone requests
for comment on April 17.


YAHOO! INC: 43 Consumer Actions Filed over Security Incidents
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that approximately 43 putative consumer
class action lawsuits have been filed to date against the Company
in U.S. federal and state courts, and in foreign courts, relating
to the security incidents.

The Company said, "On September 22, 2016, we disclosed that a copy
of certain user account information for approximately 500 million
user accounts was stolen from Yahoo's network in late 2014 (the
"2014 Security Incident"). The Company believes the user account
information was stolen by a state-sponsored actor. The user
account information taken included names, email addresses,
telephone numbers, dates of birth, hashed passwords (the vast
majority with the "bcrypt" hashing algorithm) and, in some cases,
encrypted or unencrypted security questions and answers. Our
forensic investigation indicates that the stolen information did
not include unprotected passwords, payment card data, or bank
account information. Payment card data and bank account
information are not stored in the system that the investigation
found to be affected. We have no evidence that the state-sponsored
actor is currently in or accessing the Company's network."

"On December 14, 2016, we disclosed that, based on our outside
forensic expert's analysis of data files provided to the Company
in November 2016 by law enforcement, we believe an unauthorized
third party stole data associated with more than one billion user
accounts in August 2013 (the "2013 Security Incident"). We have
not been able to identify the intrusion associated with this
theft, and we believe this incident is likely distinct from the
2014 Security Incident. For potentially affected accounts, the
user account information stolen included names, email addresses,
telephone numbers, dates of birth, hashed passwords (using the MD5
algorithm) and, in some cases, encrypted or unencrypted security
questions and answers. The stolen information did not include
passwords in clear text, payment card data, or bank account
information.

"In November and December 2016, we disclosed that our outside
forensic experts were investigating the creation of forged cookies
that could allow an intruder to access users' accounts without a
password. Based on the investigation, we believe an unauthorized
third party accessed the Company's proprietary code to learn how
to forge certain cookies. The outside forensic experts have
identified approximately 32 million user accounts for which they
believe forged cookies were used or taken in 2015 and 2016 (the
"Cookie Forging Activity"). We believe that some of this activity
is connected to the same state-sponsored actor believed to be
responsible for the 2014 Security Incident. The forged cookies
have been invalidated by the Company so they cannot be used to
access user accounts.

"To date, approximately 43 putative consumer class action lawsuits
have been filed against the Company in U.S. federal and state
courts, and in foreign courts, relating to the Security Incidents.
The plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of users,
generally claim to have been harmed by the Company's alleged
actions and/or omissions in connection with the Security Incidents
and assert a variety of common law and statutory claims seeking
monetary damages or other related relief.

In addition, a putative stockholder class action has been filed
against the Company, and certain current officers of the Company,
asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and seeking class certification, unspecified
damages, interest, and an award of attorney's fees and costs.

Four stockholder derivative actions have also been filed
purportedly on behalf of the Company against current and former
directors and officers.

Additional lawsuits and claims related to the Security Incidents
may be asserted by or on behalf of users, partners, shareholders,
or others seeking damages or other related relief.

Yahoo! Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a
guide to digital information discovery, focused on informing,
connecting, and entertaining users through its search,
communications, and digital content products.


ZAFGEN INC: Appeal From "Bessler" Suit Dismissal Heard in March
---------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on the Plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of the
lawsuit styled Aviad Bessler v. Zafgen, Inc. and Thomas E. Hughes,
was held in March, according to the Company's March 10, 2017, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On October 21, 2015, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, against the Company and Thomas E.
Hughes, captioned Aviad Bessler v. Zafgen, Inc. and Thomas E.
Hughes, No. 1:15-cv-13618. An amended complaint was filed on
February 22, 2016. The amended complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading
statements and omissions regarding the Company's clinical trials
for its drug beloranib. The lawsuit seeks, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages in connection with the Company's
allegedly inflated stock price between June 19, 2014 and October
16, 2015, as a result of those allegedly false and misleading
statements, as well as punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

On April 7, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On August 9, 2016, the District Court granted
the motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with
prejudice. On August 12, 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and, on January 5, 2017, the
parties completed briefing in connection with the appeal. The
hearing on the plaintiffs' appeal was held on March 7, 2017.

The Company says it is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of
this action and therefore cannot estimate possible losses or
ranges of losses, if any.

Zafgen, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to
significantly improving the health and well-being of patients
affected by metabolic diseases including type 2 diabetes and
obesity.  The Company is focused on developing novel therapeutics
that treat the underlying biological mechanisms through the
methionine aminopeptidase 2, or MetAP2, pathway.


* Lanier-Hosted Fundraiser Casts Doubt About Tort Reform Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that a party scheduled
in Houston is spreading anguish among tort-reform supporters who
worry that Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina will split with
fellow Republicans to block bills designed to diminish the power
of class-action lawyers, curb medical malpractice suits and open
the books on asbestos settlements.

Texas attorney Mark Lanier is co-hosting a fundraiser for Graham
on April 20, spreading talk among conservatives that Graham has
allied himself with plaintiff attorneys who have a huge financial
incentive to block bills that sailed through the House of
Representatives earlier this year.  Sen. Graham sits on the Senate
Judiciary Committee, which is split 11-9 between Republicans and
Democrats.  If he defects -- or even leads Chairman Chuck Grassley
to think he's going to defect -- the committee would be stuck in a
tie and the bills could die in committee.

It's not an outlandish scenario.  Sen. Graham is a former Air
Force attorney who worked as a trial lawyer before being elected
to the Senate in 2002. He boasts in his memoir about convincing a
jury to award $5 million to a college student who was left
paralyzed after a drunken car accident.  "A courtroom is where the
lowliest victim should find justice and the highest wrongdoer
receive just punishment," Sen. Graham wrote.  "That's what makes
the law a noble profession, its impartiality and fairness."

Trial lawyers also are an important economic force in South
Carolina, and Sen. Graham has accepted large donations from firms
including $33,551 from Motley Rice and $43,350 from Harrison
White, according to Opensecrets.org.

The House last month passed the Fairness in Class Action
Litigation Act, which would make it harder for lawyers to win
quick settlements by tightening the requirements for certifying a
class of plaintiffs and pegging legal fees to the amount of money
distributed instead of the theoretical value of a settlement.
Another bill would make it easier to obtain sanctions against
lawyers for pursuing frivolous cases.  A third would require
bankruptcy trusts that pay benefits to asbestos plaintiffs to open
their records to the public, making it harder for lawyers to
obtain money by suing companies under conflicting theories about
how their client was exposed to asbestos.

By sponsoring a fundraiser for Graham in Texas, Mr. Lanier raises
questions about whether the South Carolina Republican will support
these bills in the Senate.  Mr. Lanier describes himself as a
"lifelong Republican" but has won billions of dollars in jury
verdicts over Vioxx, hip implants and other products.  He told
Texas Lawyer he "may better be positioned than a lot of plaintiff
lawyers to catch the ear of Republicans" and convince them
litigation rules should be left to state and local courts.

An invitation for the event says seats are priced from $100 to
$5,400. It is co-hosted by Kenneth Starr, the former special
prosecutor who bedeviled President Bill Clinton but who also has
worked on high-profile plaintiff cases.  The event also features
Texas Republican Congressmen Ted Poe and Mike McCaul.

Plaintiff lawyers are working hard to portray the reform bills as
undermining trial by jury, even though they address practices
lawyers use almost exclusively to obtain larger settlements and
fees in federal courts. Class actions rarely go to trial, for
example, and the bulk of asbestos payments are also worked out in
settlements and through bankruptcy trusts.

In an e-mail to potential attendees reported by Texas Lawyer,
Lanier said "no Republican is as solid on the right to a fair jury
trial as Senator Lindsey Graham." Graham nevertheless voted in
favor of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, a major reform
that pushed many class actions into federal court where corporate
defendants feel procedures are more in their favor.

But Graham's memoir leaves little doubt about how he feels about
jury trials generally.

"Justice isn't delivered by an elite, by experts, by the high and
mighty," he wrote. "A jury of your peers decides. Courtrooms are
sacred places in a free society, where every citizen stands equal
under the law."


* Mintz Levin Attorneys Discuss Class Arbitration Issues
--------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert A. Samberg, Esq., -- GASamberg@mintz.com -- of Mintz,
Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., in an article for
The National Law Review, reports that "Class arbitration" -- the
utilization of a class action mechanism in an arbitration
proceeding -- is considered by some to be the unicorn of ADR;
desirable but elusive.  Another view is that it is the
Frankenstein's monster of ADR -- an anomalous hybrid of disparate
parts that comprise a disconcerting and ultimately nonviable
creation.  And so let us ask, is "class arbitration" an oxymoron?
Should it be viable given the essential nature of arbitration?
And whither the emperor's jurisprudential clothes?

We will explore various questions concerning "class arbitration"
in a series of posts concerning the concept, its theoretical
roots, the current state of the law, implementation of the
mechanism, the significance and effects of a class arbitration
award, etc.

The United States Supreme Court has noted certain difficulties in
trying to graft the codified and procedurally demanding judicial
class action mechanism onto the relatively informal, flexible and
presumably streamlined private dispute resolution process of
arbitration.  And the Justices have voiced reservations concerning
the nature of "class arbitration."  But the Supreme Court has not
squarely addressed the question of whether a class arbitration
mechanism is fundamentally fatally incompatible with the private
contractual nature of arbitration or otherwise nonviable.
The Dilemmas

Every arbitration is essentially the creation of a private
bilateral agreement.  As such, one wonders how a group of non-
contracting persons can be made parties to a private proceeding if
they have not, or the contracting adverse party has not, or both
have not, agreed to that.  Conversely, how can a contracting
party, who agreed to arbitrate certain disputes between it and a
contract counter-party, be compelled to do so also against non-
contracting, non-participating "class" members?

Moreover, what would be the effect of an eventual arbitral award
in such circumstances? Would it bind non-contracting parties, non-
participating parties, and non-consenting (unwilling) parties?
And would it be subject to vacatur under FAA
Sec. 10(a)(4) because the arbitrator will have exceeded his power,
which derives solely from the underlying arbitration agreement?

1. The Class Action Mechanism is a Creature of Codified Public Law

A class action is a complex litigation protocol, created and
described by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (and 28 U.S.C. ch. 114, Secs.
1711-15.) The principal purpose of the class action mechanism is
"the efficiency and economy of litigation." Gen. Tel. Co. v.
Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 159 (1982).  In addition to judicial
economy, other justifications for it have included the following:
(i) it provides a convenient and economical means of disposing of
similar lawsuits; (ii) it spreads litigation costs among numerous
litigants with similar claims; and (iii) protects a defendant from
inconsistent obligations. U.S. Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S.
338, 402-03 (1980).

The class action rules may cause persons to become members of a
litigating class, and thus parties to a litigation, without their
affirmative consent and without the consent of their adversary.
"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 . . . was 'designed to allow
an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and
on behalf of the individual named parties only.' Califano v.
Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700-01 (1979)." American Express Co. v.
Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S.Ct. 2304, 2309 (2013).  And, as
the law of the land, all litigants and potential litigants are
subject ab initio to the potential employment of this mechanism;
it is part of the judicial litigation landscape.

However, neither Rule 23 nor any codified law like it applies to
arbitrations.

2. Commercial Arbitration is a "Creature of Contract"

It is an "overarching principle" that "[commercial] arbitration is
a matter of contract." Italian Colors, 133 S.Ct. at 2309; AT&T
Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 1745 (2011);
see, Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 67, 130
S.Ct. 2772 (2010).  The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") requires
the enforcement of such private contractual arrangements.
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S.
614, 625 (1985).  And the courts are required to "rigorously
enforce" arbitration agreements according to their terms, Dean
Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 221 (1985), "including
terms that 'specify with whom [the parties] choose to arbitrate
their disputes,' Stolt-Nielsen, v. Animal Feeds Int'l Corp. 559
U.S. 662 683 [(2010)]. . . ." Italian Colors, 133 S.Ct. 2309.

Hence, an agreement to arbitrate can in principle be invoked only
by and among persons who are mutually bound by it. On the premise
that commercial arbitration is an ADR method whose wellspring is a
bilateral agreement, in principle, only (a) the parties to an
arbitration agreement and (b) others who are deemed by law to be
bound by that agreement, may be compelled or permitted to
arbitrate.

Indeed, the mutual promises that comprise a bilateral arbitration
agreement establish the jurisdiction of the arbitral panel with
respect to the parties and the subject matter of the proceeding,
identify the procedures to be employed, and constitute the basis
for enforcing any resulting award. For example, "it is the
language of the contract that defines the scope of disputes
subject to arbitration." EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. at
289, citing Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S.
52, 57 (1995).

Yet "class arbitration," by its nature, (a) would give arbitrators
jurisdiction over persons who are not parties to or deemed bound
by that agreement, (b) would compel a contracting party to engage
in a private dispute resolution proceeding against strangers to
the agreement on which the proceeding is founded, and (c) would
bind both the contracting parties and such strangers to an award,
and the preclusive effects of that award, issued in a proceeding
in which some or all did not agree to participate and from which
there are few practical means of appeal.

The Supreme Court Has Reservations Regarding "Class Arbitration"

The Supreme Court has occasionally noted reservations concerning
the compatibility of the class action mechanism with the
arbitration process. See, e.g., Concepcion, 563 U.S. at 343, 131
S.Ct. at 1748; Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U.S. at 686; Italian Colors, 133
S.Ct. at 2319.

For example, Justice Scalia observed that "requiring the
availability of class-wide arbitration interferes with fundamental
attributes of arbitration and thus creates a scheme inconsistent
with the FAA." Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at 1748. Indeed, the Court
has indicated that the notion of "class arbitration" is
confounding, in part because of the inconsistencies between the
formalities and public aspects of class actions and the
informality and privacy of arbitration.  See, e.g., Concepcion,
131 S.Ct. at 1750-51; Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U.S. at 687.  Thus, while
considering the enforceability of a class action waiver in an
arbitration clause, the Supreme Court has noted various
characteristic differences between a bilateral arbitration and a
class action.  See, e.g., Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at 1750-51; Stolt-
Nielsen, 559 U.S. at 687; Italian Colors, 133 S.Ct. 2304 (2013).
For example, while one of the attractive aspects of arbitration is
that the parties are free to create an ADR process of their own
choosing in an arbitration agreement, see, e.g., Mastrobuono, 514
U.S. at 57, a class action is necessarily formulaic and strictly
follows prescribed procedural rules.

The Court has also implied in dictum that it was concerned that
"the arbitrator's award no longer purports to bind just the
parties to a single arbitration agreement, but adjudicates the
rights of absent parties as well." Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U.S. at 686.
(But the Court did not elaborate on this, nor make it the basis
for decision.)
Unanswered Questions

Recent decisions by the Supreme Court have largely concerned the
enforceability of a purported waiver of class arbitration in a
contractual arbitration clause. While expressing reservations
about the notion of "class arbitration," the Court has not
grappled with the question of whether it is ultimately an
untenable oxymoron.  Perhaps ideally, the question would be
presented to the Court in the form of a challenge to the
enforceability of a class arbitration award.  But the Court has
not been presented with such a case, and it has not had occasion
to address the question of the jurisprudential viability of class
arbitration.  Accordingly, the Court's pertinent decisions thus
far have implicitly assumed that class arbitration is indeed a
viable mechanism.  But many questions require judicial answers
before we can confidently conclude whether "class arbitration"
indeed has jurisprudential clothes and is sustainable.


* Morningstar Explores Ways to Avert Class Action Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nevin E. Adams, Esq., in an article for NAPA, reports that
Morningstar's response to the Labor Department's request for
proposal contains an intriguing proposal of its own -- one that it
says "could promote a best interest standard in lieu of using a
private right of action framework."

In addition to comments largely supportive of the fiduciary
regulation and its implications for investors and the industry,
Morningstar took advantage of the opportunity to comment on the
Labor Department's proposed delay of the applicability date of the
fiduciary rule to put forth a notion of a better way to ensure
that financial institutions comply with the new standards,
"instead of using a private right of action."

Specifically, Morningstar has pitched the notion of:

   -- collecting data on all clients' portfolios across several
objective factors;

   -- quantifying whether these portfolios aligned with a best
interest standard of advice; and

   -- using this large set of data to identify and remediate
issues.

For example, Morningstar says that each client's portfolio could
be scored on key factors such as:

   -- Investment quality, which could be measured using a
quantitative fund rating, and expenses at the security, portfolio,
and plan level.

   -- Asset allocation and "fit to goal," which could be evaluated
based on portfolio efficiency and distance from a risk-based
benchmark.

   -- The value of advice, which could be evaluated based on key
factors such as whether an advisor considered risk tolerance and
capacity, human capital, goals, other income sources, and dynamic
withdrawal strategies in designing a client's investment strategy.

Big Data

The proposal explains that a third party that evaluated the
aggregate data from thousands of portfolios could ensure that a
financial institution's advisors consistently acted in clients'
best interests.  Moreover, that "prudent process such as the one
described, combined with aggregate account-level data, could show
that each investment, each portfolio, and each plan is within
acceptable bounds for every investor advised by a firm," and could
also validate that any investment, portfolio, or plan that is "out
of bounds" has been brought into compliance through corrective
action.

Morningstar goes on to explain that systems such as this could ".
. . replace the likely or potentially skewed samples used in
lawsuits or standard audits, which sample a subset of accounts"
and provide, via a "big-data audit," a positive affirmation of
compliance.  "That is, instead of having a financial institution
responding to a lawsuit by 1) proving that the class of plaintiffs
did not receive conflicted advice and 2) that if so, their
experience was an exception, the financial institution would pre-
emptively prove full compliance."

The proposal states that using such data and analytics, every
investor's account would be scored to identify those that are
outliers or nonconforming to investor needs in terms of investment
quality, portfolio fit and planning value.  "Provided there was a
standard of prudence and reasonableness, a financial institution
could at any time provide that its entire book of business was
either compliant or being brought into compliance."

Litigation Costs

Indeed, whatever benefits may result from the new fiduciary
regulation, expanded litigation is a near certainty.  Morningstar
has estimated that the expenses from class action lawsuits
stemming from the Best Interest Contract Exemption could range
from approximately $70 million to $150 million annually, "adding
an increase in compliance costs of about 5%-10% using the
department's estimates," while noting that they "could be quite a
bit higher in the near term as firms adjust to the rule and set up
systems to determine, demonstrate, and document best interest
recommendations."

"The idea of substituting an audit for the potential class action
liability is an idea definitely worth exploring," noted American
Retirement Association CEO Brian Graff.  "Frankly, any idea that
is a substitute for the likely crippling impact of class action
liability is worth exploring."


                         *********


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  * * *