CAR_Public/170517.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Wednesday, May 17, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 98



                            Headlines

ADVANTAGE RN: Faces "Howell" Suit Alleging Non-payment of OT Work
AK STEEL: Still Defends Antitrust Class Actions vs. Steel Makers
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Partially Dismisses Auto Insureds' Suit
ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Hearing on Class Suit Pact Set for May 30
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: "Edgar" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation

ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Motion to Dismiss JAVELIN Merger Suit Pending
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Still Faces TCPA Violation Class Action
AXA EQUITABLE: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "O'Donnell" Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Pender Appeals W.D.N.C. Ruling 4th Cir.
BANNER HEALTH: "Etter" Sues Over Refusal to Provide Coverage

BRITISH AIRWAYS: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in "Dover" Suit
BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Amended Complaint Filed
BUCCANEERS LIMITED: Cin-Q Auto Appeals Ruling to Eleventh Circuit
BURLINGTON COAT: Cal. App. Remands Cashiers' Suit
CABLE NEWS: 11th Cir. Affirms Order Dismissing "Perry"

CANADIAN SOLAR: Still Defends Class Action Suit in Ontario Court
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: McCabe Appeals "Aranda" Suit Ruling to 7th Cir.
CITIZENS TELECOM: Suit Over Internet Service Sent to Arbitration
CMS ENERGY: Settlement of Kansas and Missouri Cases Pending
CNA FINANCIAL: 401(k) Plus Plan Litigation in Early Stages

COMENITY CAPITAL: Ordered to Respond to Interrogatories
CONCHA Y TORO: Appeal in California Class Suit Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Order in "Korolshteyn" Suit to 9th Cir.
DG HOSPITALITY: "Bracy" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, Cal. Laws
DIGITALGLOBE INC: Faces "Assad" Suit Over Merger with MacDonald

DISH NETWORK: Seeks Judgment or New Trial in Krakauer Suit
DISH NETWORK: Still Defends Suit by Heskiaoff et al.
DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM LLC: Davis Neurology Files Appeal to 8th Cir.
DYNAMEX OPERATIONS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Delivery Drivers' Suit
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss San Onofre Suit Pending

EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit Pending
ELI LILLY: Still Faces 3 Actos Class Suits in Canada
ELI LILLY: Oral Argument in "Strafford" Appeal in Late 2017
ELI LILLY: Settlement Framework Reached over Cymbalta Claims
ELI LILLY: Still Faces 495 Byetta(R) Product Liability Lawsuits

ELI LILLY: Defendant in 530 Axiron(R) Product Liability Lawsuits
ELI LILLY: Still Faces 60 Cialis Product Liability Lawsuits
ELI LILLY: Defendant in Insulin Pricing Litigation
ENEL AMERICAS: Still Defends Class Action by Garzon Residents
ENEL AMERICAS: Class Action vs. Codensa Subsidiary Still Ongoing

ENSIGN GROUP: Agreement Reached in Class Action
ERIE INDEMNITY: Motions to Dismiss Beltz II Lawsuit Pending
FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Putative Class Action Suits Ongoing
FRANK & ISRAEL: Comprehensive Health Alleges TCPA Violation
G WILLI-FOOD: Settles Israeli Class Suits on Improper Marketing

G WILLI-FOOD: N.Y. Securities Class Action Settled at Sept. 23
GEO GROUP: Seeks 10th Cir. Review of Decision in "Menocal" Suit
GOLDEN FLAKE: Faces "Fullerton" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
GOOGLE INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Abu Maisa Class Suit
HASAKI RESTAURANT: Appeals From S.D.N.Y. Opinion in "Yu" Suit

HAWTHORN BANK: Missouri Ct. Affirms Ruling in Overdraft Fees Suit
HEART TO HEART: Faces "Hollis" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
HSBC MORTGAGE: New York Court Partially Dismisses RICO Suit
HUB GROUP: Subsidiary Still Faces Christian Lubinski Class Suits
IDAHO: High Court Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Educ. Funding

INSPERITY INC: Suit over Worksite Employee 401(k) Plan Pending
INVUITY INC: California Stockholder Class Action Underway
ITURAN LOCATION: Monopoly Abuse Suit Awaits Class Cert. Ruling
JACKSON NATIONAL: Faces "Nofsinger" Suit Over "Surrender Charges"
JENKINS WAGNON: Bids to Dismiss FDCPA Suit Denied

JOHN DAVID: "Calixtro-Calixtro" Alleges Breach of H-2A Program
JP MORGAN: Faces "Musthaler" Suit Alleging False Advertising
JUMEI INTERNATIONAL: Shareholder Complaint Dismissed
KBR INC: Faces "Denenberg" Securities Suit Over Bribery Scandal
KELSEY-HAYES: 6th Cir. Affirms Injunction in Retiree Suit

KITOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Wants 2015 Case Parties to Negotiate
KITOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Wants 2017 Case Parties to Negotiate
KITOV PHARMACEUTICALS: May 18 Pre-Trial Conference Set in NY Case
KITOV PHARMACEUTICALS: San Mateo, Calif. Cases Consolidated
L3 TECHNOLOGIES: June 30 Final Hearing on Consumer Suit Pact

L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Court to Hear Securities Suit Pact on Aug. 10
L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Putative Class Suit on 401(k) Plan
LABORATORY CORP: Still Faces Lawsuit on Lab Test Order Changes
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Face Sandusky Class Action Lawsuit
LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends Florida CCPA Class Action Suit

LABORATORY CORP: Bloomquist Class Action Lawsuit Still Ongoing
LABORATORY CORP: "Bouffard" Lawsuit in North Carolina Underway
LOWER MERION, PA: School District Tax Increase Injunction Upheld
MARBLECAST OF MICHIGAN: Garner Properties Files Suit Under TCPA
MARIETTA MEMORIAL: Court Partially Grants Prelim. Injunction

MARRIOTT HOTEL: McCray Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Circuit
MEAD JOHNSON: Stockholder Class Suit in Illinois Underway
MEAD JOHNSON: Faces 4 Purported Stockholder Suits in Delaware
MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: Arbitration OK'd in Delivery Drivers' Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of CROA Suit

NAVIOS MARITIME: ADS Action Still Active in N.Y. District Court
NEW JERSEY, USA: Carson Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to Third Circuit
PAT WILLIAMS: "Johnson" Suit Alleges Non-payment of Travel Time
PAYPAL INC: Perkins Appeals Decision in "Zepeda" Suit to 9th Cir.
PAYPAL INC: "Ezeude" Suit Alleges Ponzi Scheme by Traffic Monsoon

PETROCHINA CO: Class Suits on PRC Investigation Fully Dismissed
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Still Faces Securities Class Action
PHILIP MORRIS: ADESF Class Suit in Brazil vs. Unit Still Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Public Prosecutor's Class Action vs. Unit Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Unit Still Defends in C. Letourneau Class Action

PHILIP MORRIS: Unit Still Defends in Conseil Quebecois Lawsuit
PHILIP MORRIS: Kunta Case Still Pending in Winnipeg, Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Still Ongoing in Adams Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Expects No Activity in "Semple" Case in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Expects No Activity in "Dorion" Case in Canada

PHILIP MORRIS: Still Defends in McDermid Class Action in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Still Defends Bourassa Class Action in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity on S. Jacklin Class Action at Mar. 31
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Aikens" Suit
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces "Garcia" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

RHODE ISLAND: Wins Summary Judgment in Disableds' FAPE Suit
RITE AID: 3rd Cir. Has Jurisdiction Over Lipitor Appeals
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Hansen" Suit Transferred to W.D. Okla.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Dee" Suit Over Recalled Note7 Devices
SEADRILL LIMITED: N.Y. Class Action Suit Deemed Closed in 2016

SEATTLE GENETICS: Faces Securities Class Action
SELECT COMFORT: Class Action Appeal Underway
SLING MEDIA: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Heskiaoff" Suit
SONUS NETWORKS: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Drop Securities Suit
STANDARD INSURANCE: "Woods" Class Settlement Has Prelim Approval

SUCCESS AGENCY: Faces "Florio" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
SUNRUN INC: Justin Hall Files Suit Alleging Corrupt Practices
SUNRUN INC: Faces "Fink" Suit Alleging Securities Act Violation
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bank Faces Campbell and Neal Suit
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Campbell et al. Suit v. Gap Dismissed

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Faces "Kincaid" Class Suit
TENET HEALTHCARE: Lead Plaintiffs File Consolidated Amended Suit
TENET HEALTHCARE: Awaits Class Certification Ruling in "Maderazo"
TETRAPHASE PHARAM: Massachusetts Court Dismisses Securities Suits
TEXAS: 5th Cir. Remands Suit vs. HHSC Over EPSDT

TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS: Downs, Zou Win Partial Summary Judgment
TWENTIETH CENTURY: Suit Over "Empire" Filming Partially Dismissed
ULTRATECH INC: Shareholder Class Action on Veeco Merger Underway
WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Arbitrator Finds Unit Liable in FLSA Suit

* NEW CASE SUMMARY: Bought Milk Antitrust






                            *********


ADVANTAGE RN: Faces "Howell" Suit Alleging Non-payment of OT Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY HOWELL, an individual on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADVANTAGE RN LLC; an Ohio
limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00883-JLS-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 1, 2017), accuses
Defendants of (1) failing to pay all overtime wages and (2)
failing to timely pay all wages owing at the termination of
employment under the California Labor Code.

Defendant is in the business of health care staffing.  Plaintiff
Emily Howell is a citizen of Massachusetts who was employed by
Advantage as a travel nurse in San Diego, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
     Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
     HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
     595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 303
     Pasadena, CA 91101
     Phone: 626) 808-4357
     Fax: (626) 921-4932
     E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
             kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com


AK STEEL: Still Defends Antitrust Class Actions vs. Steel Makers
----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation continues to defend itself, among
other steel manufacturers, in purported class actions related to
antitrust law violations, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

In September and October 2008 and again in July 2010, several
companies filed purported class actions in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against nine
steel manufacturers, including the Company.  The case numbers for
these actions are 08CV5214, 08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633,
08CV5700, 08CV5942, 08CV6197 and 10CV04236.

On December 28, 2010, another action, case number 32,321, was
filed in state court in the Circuit Court for Cocke County,
Tennessee.

The defendants removed the Tennessee case to federal court and in
March 2012 it was transferred to the Northern District of
Illinois.

The plaintiffs in the various pending actions are companies that
purport to have purchased steel products, directly or indirectly,
from one or more of the defendants and they claim to file the
actions on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased steel
products for delivery or pickup in the United States from any of
the named defendants at any time from at least as early as January
2005.  The complaints allege that the defendant steel producers
have conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict output
and to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high prices
for steel products in the United States.

In March 2014, the Company reached an agreement with the direct
purchaser plaintiffs to tentatively settle the claims asserted
against the Company, subject to certain court approvals.
According to that settlement, the Company agreed to pay US$5.8 to
the plaintiff class of direct purchasers in exchange for the
members of that class to completely release all claims.

The Company said, "We continue to believe that the claims made
against us lack any merit, but we elected to enter the settlement
to avoid the ongoing expense of defending ourselves in this
protracted and expensive antitrust litigation."

The Company provided notice of the proposed settlement to members
of the settlement class.  After several class members received the
notice, they elected to opt out of the class settlement.

Following a fairness hearing, on October 21, 2014 the Court
entered an order and judgment approving the settlement and
dismissing all of the direct plaintiffs' claims against the
Company with prejudice as to the settlement class.

In 2014, the Company recorded a charge for the amount of the
tentative settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class and
paid that amount into an escrow account, which has now been
disbursed in accordance with the order that approved the
settlement.

On March 3, 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the indirect plaintiffs' amended complaint on the grounds
that the plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing.

On April 4, 2017, the indirect plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration.

The Company stated, "Because we have been unable to determine that
a potential loss in this case for the indirect plaintiffs is
probable or estimable, we have not recorded an accrual for this
matter. If our assumptions used to evaluate a probable or
estimable loss for the indirect plaintiffs prove to be incorrect
or change, we may be required to record a charge for their
claims."

AK Steel Holding Corporation, through its subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation, produces flat-rolled carbon, stainless, and
electrical steels and tubular products in the United States and
internationally.  It was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
West Chester, Ohio.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Partially Dismisses Auto Insureds' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Amy A. Richard Caputo of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted in part and
denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss in the case
captioned, SAMANTHA SAYLES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-CV-01534 (M.D. Pa.).

Plaintiff Samantha Sayles was insured under an auto insurance
policy issued by Defendant Allstate Allstate Insurance Company.
The Policy provided for, inter alia, first-party medical expense
benefits up to $5000 per person. On December 11, 2015, Sayles was
involved in a motor vehicle accident within the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania in which she sustained numerous physical injuries.
Sayles was treated by medical providers for these injuries. On May
20, 2016, Allstate sent a letter to Sayles's counsel, Charles
Kannebecker refusing to pay Sayles's medical benefits until the
physical examination was completed.

Sayles claims that the Policy's examination requirement violates
the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.
Because Allstate did not petition a court to compel Sayles to
submit to a physical examination, and consequently because there
was no court order based upon a showing of "good cause" directing
Sayles to submit to such an examination in accordance with the
statutory specifications, Sayles claims that Allstate's refusal to
pay her medical benefits until she completed the physical
examination that it requested violated the statute.

The putative class action was originally filed in the Court of
Common Pleas of Pike County on June 20, 2016. On July 25, 2016,
Allstate removed the action to federal court. The of Complaint
seeks to bring claims on behalf of a class of  "All persons
injured in motor vehicle accidents and insured under Pennsylvania
auto insurance policies issued by Defendant which provided for
medical benefits coverage whom Defendant required or directed to
submit to insurance physical exams without Court order directing
insured to submit to physical exams."

The Complaint raises eight counts seeking relief: (1) a request
for a declaratory judgment declaring Allstate in violation of
Section 1796 of the MVFRL and that it must hereafter comply with
the statute; (2) claims for a violation of Section 1796 of the
MVFRL; (3) claims for violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL); (4) claims for
violations of Pennsylvania's Insurance Bad Faith Act, 42 Pa. Cons.
Stat. Ann. Section 8371; (5) claims for breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing; (6) claims for unjust enrichment; (7)
claims of intentional misrepresentation; and (8) alternative
claims for medical benefits.

In the motion, Allstate argued that Pennsylvania law permits
parties to enter into an insurance contract like the one presently
at issue, which contains a provision that requires the insured to
submit to an IME as often as the insurer "reasonably requires."
Because Sayles did not attend the IME which Allstate required,
Allstate contends that she breached the insurance contract.

In the Memorandum dated May 10, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/FlWqE6 from Leagle.com, Judge Caputo denied the
motion to dismiss as to Count I and II because Allstate's
examination requirement in conflict with Section 1796 and thus
unenforceable. The motion is granted as to Count III because the
"communication from her insurance company was related to, and
indeed was centered on, the substance of the contract of insurance
Plaintiff maintained with Defendant," and therefore is barred by
the economic loss doctrine; Count IV because the Complaint alleges
only that Allstate made a "reasonable legal conclusion based on an
area of the law that is uncertain or in flux"; Count V because
there is no reason for the Court to "imply" a separate cause of
action for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing;
Count VI because the Complaint fails to state a claim for unjust
enrichment; and Count VII and VIII because the Court sees no
reason to allow the tort claims to proceed simply because
Plaintiff chose not to allege a breach of contract claim.

Samantha Sayles is represented by:

      Charles Kannebecker, Esq.
      WEINSTEIN SCHNEIDER KANNEBECKER & LOKUTA
      104 W High St,
      Milford, PA 18337
      Tel: (570)296-6471

Allstate Insurance Company is represented by Marc E. Wolin, Esq.
-- mwolin@saiber.com -- SAIBER LLC


ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Hearing on Class Suit Pact Set for May 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
A court hearing is set for May 30, 2017 to determine the final
approval of Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A.'s agreement to
settle a putative securities class action suit, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On September 8, 2014, the West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension
Fund filed a putative securities class action suit against
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. and certain of its current or
former officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 with regard to
disclosures concerning pricing and transactions with related
parties that allegedly inflated Altisource Portfolio Solutions
S.A. share prices.

The Court subsequently appointed the Pension Fund for the
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council
35 and the Annuity Fund for the International Union of Painters
and Allied Trades District Council 35 as Lead Plaintiffs.

On January 30, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint which added Ocwen Financial Corporation as a defendant,
and seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a
class action on behalf of purchasers of Altisource Portfolio
Solutions S.A. securities between April 25, 2013 and December 21,
2014 and an unspecified amount of damages.  Altisource Portfolio
Solutions S.A. moved to dismiss the suit on March 23, 2015.

On September 4, 2015, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss, finding that the Lead Plaintiffs' amended complaint
failed to state a claim as to any of the defendants, but
permitting the Lead Plaintiffs to file another amended complaint.
Lead Plaintiffs subsequently filed second and third amended
complaints with substantially similar claims and theories.
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. moved to dismiss the third
amended complaint on October 22, 2015.

On December 22, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing with
prejudice all claims against Ocwen Financial Corporation and
certain claims against Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. and the
officer and director defendants, but denying the motion to dismiss
as to other claims.

On December 19, 2016, the Court granted Lead Plaintiffs leave to
file the fourth amended complaint, and Lead Plaintiffs filed the
fourth amended complaint on December 28, 2016.

On January 6, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to strike certain
matters from the fourth amended complaint and a motion to dismiss
certain claims pled in the fourth amended complaint.  Before the
Court ruled on Defendants' motions, the parties notified the Court
on January 19, 2017 of their agreement to settle the action, which
is subject to Court approval and other customary terms and
conditions described in the settlement stipulation filed with the
Court, including rights of the parties to terminate the settlement
under certain conditions.

On February 10, 2017, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement, certifying a settlement class, approving
the form and content of notice of the settlement to class members,
establishing procedures for shareholders to request exclusion from
the class or object to the settlement, and setting a hearing for
May 30, 2017 to determine whether the settlement should be
approved and the case dismissed with prejudice.

Under the proposed settlement, Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A.
paid a total of US$32 million in cash, US$4 million of which was
funded by insurance proceeds, to a settlement fund to resolve all
claims asserted and which could have been asserted on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Altisource Portfolio
Solutions S.A. stock between April 25, 2013 and December 21, 2014.
The proposed settlement provides that Altisource Portfolio
Solutions S.A. and the officer and director defendants deny all
claims of wrongdoing or liability.

Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. operates as a marketplace and
transaction solutions provider for the real estate, mortgage, and
consumer debt industries in the United States.  The company serves
utility companies, commercial banks, servicers, investors, non-
bank originators and correspondent lenders, mortgage bankers,
insurance companies, and financial services companies, as well as
a government-sponsored enterprise.  Altisource Portfolio Solutions
S.A. was incorporated in 1999 and is headquartered in Luxembourg.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: "Edgar" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT EDGAR, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION,
R. A. WALKER, and ROBERT G. GWIN, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
01372 (S.D. Tex., May 3, 2017), alleges that Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (i) Anadarko's maintenance and safety
protocols in respect to certain of its vertical wells were
inadequate; (ii) due to the foregoing shortcomings, these wells
were at an increased risk of explosion; and (iii) that as a result
of the foregoing, Anadarko's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation engages in the exploration,
development, production, and marketing of oil and gas
properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
     THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
     3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 600
     Dallas, TX 75204
     Phone: 214-643-6011
     Fax: 281-254-7789
     E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

        - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Hui M. Chang, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-661-1100
     Fax: 212-661-8665
     E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com
             hchang@pomlaw.com

        - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 377-1181
     Fax: (312) 377-1184
     E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Motion to Dismiss JAVELIN Merger Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit related to
the acquisition of JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. remains
pending, ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the tender offer and merger for JAVELIN Mortgage Investment
Corp.  The Tender Offer and Merger are collectively defined herein
as the "Transactions." All nine suits name ARMOUR, the previous
members of JAVELIN's board of directors prior to the Merger (of
which eight are current members of ARMOUR's board of directors)
(the "Individual Defendants") and JMI Acquisition Corporation
("Acquisition") as defendants. Certain cases also name ACM and
JAVELIN as additional defendants. The lawsuits were brought by
purported holders of JAVELIN's common stock, both individually and
on behalf of a putative class of JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging
that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties
owed to the plaintiffs and the putative class of JAVELIN
stockholders, including claims that the Individual Defendants
failed to properly value JAVELIN; failed to take steps to maximize
the value of JAVELIN to its stockholders; ignored or failed to
protect against conflicts of interest; failed to disclose material
information about the Transactions; took steps to avoid
competitive bidding and to give ARMOUR an unfair advantage by
failing to adequately solicit other potential acquirors or
alternative transactions; and erected unreasonable barriers to
other third-party bidders. The suits also allege that ARMOUR,
JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants. The
lawsuits seek equitable relief, including, among other relief, to
enjoin consummation of the Transactions, or rescind or unwind the
Transactions if already consummated, and award costs and
disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.
The sole Florida lawsuit was never served on the defendants, and
that case was voluntarily dismissed and closed on January 20,
2017.

On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order
consolidating the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned
In re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation
(Case No. 24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the
Maryland cases as interim lead co-counsel. On May 26, 2016,
interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty asserting consolidated
claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting the
breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste. On June 27, 2016,
defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. A hearing was held on the Motion to Dismiss
on March 3, 2017, and the Court reserved ruling. To date, the
Court has not issued an order on the Motion to Dismiss.

Each of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and the Individual Defendants intends
to defend the claims made in these lawsuits vigorously; however,
there can be no assurance that any of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM or the
Individual Defendants will prevail in its defense of any of these
lawsuits to which it is a party. An unfavorable resolution of any
such litigation surrounding the Transactions may result in
monetary damages being awarded to the plaintiffs and the putative
class of former stockholders of JAVELIN and the cost of defending
the litigation, even if resolved favorably, could be substantial.
Due to the preliminary nature all of these suits, ARMOUR is not
able at this time to estimate their outcome.

ARMOUR is a Maryland corporation formed to invest in and manage a
leveraged portfolio of MBS and mortgage loans.


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Still Faces TCPA Violation Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc. continues to face a class action petition over
alleged Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On May 21, 2015, the petition was filed by St. Louis Heart Center,
Inc. in the State Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri,
against athenahealth.  It alleges the Company violated the TCPA.

Following service, the Company removed the case to federal court
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Case No. 4:15-cv-01215.  On its motion, the federal
court initially stayed further proceedings (pending the United
States Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, No.
14-857), but lifted that stay on February 3, 2016.  The Company
filed its answer in the case on March 8, 2016.

Subsequently, on March 14, 2016, the Company moved for an
additional stay pending a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC, No.
14-1234, regarding the validity of a regulation promulgated by the
Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, relating to the claims
asserted in the petition.

On May 16, 2016, the federal court granted the motion for a
further stay pending the decision in Bais Yaakov, and on March 31,
2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its
decision, invalidating the FCC regulation in question.

On April 7, 2017, the Company filed a motion notifying the federal
court of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's decision
in Bais Yaakov and requesting a status or case management
conference.

On April 25, 2017, the court lifted the stay and issued a case
management order that, among other things, set a conference for
May 23, 2017.

athenahealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
network-based medical record, revenue cycle, patient engagement,
care coordination, and population health services for medical
groups and health systems.  It was formerly known as
athenahealth.com, Inc. and changed its name to athenahealth, Inc.
in November 2000.  The company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Watertown, Massachusetts.


AXA EQUITABLE: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "O'Donnell" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Richard O'Donnell filed an appeal from a District Court
judgment dated March 31, 2017, entered in the lawsuit entitled
O'Donnell v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, Case No. 15-cv-
9488, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
purports to cover the same class definition, makes substantially
the same allegations, and seeks the same relief as in the lawsuit
initiated by Jessica Zweiman.  The lawsuit alleges violations of
securities laws.

The appellate case is captioned as O'Donnell v. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 17-1085, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Police Officer Richard O'Donnell, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joel C. Feffer, Esq.
          Daniella Quitt, Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 935-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 753-3630
          E-mail: jcfeffer@hfesq.com
                  dquitt@hfesq.com

Defendant-Appellee AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company is
represented by:

          Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
          E-mail: jkasner@skadden.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Pender Appeals W.D.N.C. Ruling 4th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs William L. Pender and David L. Mccorkle filed an appeal
from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit styled William L.
Pender, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-00238-GCM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina at Charlotte.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The appellate case is captioned as William L. Pender v. Bank of
America Corporation, Case No. 17-1485, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on May 30, 2017; and

   -- Response Brief is due on June 26, 2017.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DAVID L. MCCORKLE and WILLIAM L. PENDER are
represented by:

          William F. Conlon, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
          1 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603-0000
          Telephone: (312) 853-7384
          E-mail: wconlon@sidley.com

               - and -

          Thomas Drake Garlitz, Esq.
          THOMAS D. GARLITZ, PLLC
          The Johnston Building
          212 South Tryon Street
          Charlotte, NC 28281-0000
          Telephone: (704) 372-1282

               - and -

          Eli Gottesdiener, Esq.
          GOTTESDIENER LAW FIRM
          498 Seventh Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11215
          Telephone: (718) 788-1500
          Telecopier: (718) 788-1650
          E-mail: eli@gottesdienerlaw.com

               - and -

          Frank Lane Williamson, Esq.
          TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC
          301 East Park Avenue
          Charlotte, NC 28203
          Telephone: (704) 338-1220
          E-mail: lwilliamson@tinfulton.com

Defendants-Appellees BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA,
NA, BANK OF AMERICAN PENSION PLAN, BANK OF AMERICA 401(K) PLAN,
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION CORPORATE BENEFITS COMMITTEE and BANK
OF AMERICA TRANSFERRED SAVINGS ACCOUNT PLAN are represented by:

          Irving Michael Brenner, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          201 North Tyron Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 343-2075
          Facsimile: (704) 343-2300
          E-mail: ibrenner@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Chris K. Meyer, Esq.
          Anne E. Rea, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
          1 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603-0000
          Telephone: (312) 853-0523
          E-mail: cmeyer@sidley.com
                  area@sidley.com

               - and -

          Carter Glasgow Phillips, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
          1501 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-0000
          Telephone: (202) 736-8270
          E-mail: cphillips@sidley.com


BANNER HEALTH: "Etter" Sues Over Refusal to Provide Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------
Micah Etter, M.D. and Laura Etter, individually and on behalf of
their minor child, H.E., and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Banner Health, an Arizona Corporation;
Banner Plan Administration, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; and
Banner Health Master Health and Welfare Benefits Plan, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01288-DGC (D. Ariz., May 1, 2017), alleges that
Banner has and continues to perpetuate the stigma associated with
mental health conditions by imposing a treatment limitation on a
mental health condition -- autism spectrum disorder -- that is not
imposed on medical or surgical benefits. Allegedly, Defendants'
arbitrary refusal to provide coverage for applied behavioral
analysis therapy, a scientifically-valid and generally-accepted
treatment for autism violates the Mental Health Parity and
Addiction Equity Act of 2008 MHPAEA and the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

Banner Health is the Plan Sponsor for the Banner Plan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
     THE BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
     2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
     Phoenix, AZ 85016
     Phone: (602) 274-1100

        - and -

     Anne Ronan, Esq.
     ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
     514 W. Roosevelt Street
     Phoenix, AZ 85003
     Phone: (602) 258-8850
     E-mail: aronan@aclpi.org


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in "Dover" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant British Airways Plc filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Dover v. British Airways, PLC (UK), Case
No. 12-cv-5567, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Brooklyn).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that fuel surcharges assessed by British Airways on
rewards flights were not actually based on the cost of fuel, and
therefore violated the terms and conditions of its frequent flyers
program.

The appellate case is captioned as Dover v. British Airways, PLC
(UK), Case No. 17-1121, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents Russel Dover, Cody Rank, Henry Horsey and
Suzette Perry, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          David S. Stellings, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEINMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com

Defendant-Petitioner British Airways Plc, (UK), is represented by:

          Richard F. Hans, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 335-4530
          Facsimile: (212) 884-8730
          E-mail: richard.hans@dlapiper.com


BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Amended Complaint Filed
-----------------------------------------
An amended complaint has been filed in a class action lawsuit
against Brixmor Property Group Inc. and Brixmor Operating
Partnership LP, the Companies said in their Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On March 31, 2016, the Company and the former officers referenced
above were named as defendants in a putative securities class
action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Court").  The complaint,
captioned Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers
Local 60 Benefit Funds v. Brixmor Property Group Inc., et al.
(Case No. 16-CV-02400 (AT)), asserts violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on the
facts described in the Company's February 8, 2016 press release
and Form 8-K.  An amended complaint was filed on February 16,
2017.  The Company believes it has valid defenses in this action
and intends to vigorously defend itself.


BUCCANEERS LIMITED: Cin-Q Auto Appeals Ruling to Eleventh Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Cin-Q Automobiles, Inc. and Medical & Chiropractic
Clinic, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit
entitled Cin-Q Automobiles, Inc., et al. v. Buccaneers Limited
Partnership, Case No. 8:13-cv-01592-AEP, in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 1,
2017, the Hon. Anthony E. Porcelli entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot;

   2. denying Plaintiffs' motion to transfer related case under
      Local Rule 4.01(b), to consolidate cases and appoint
      interim class counsel as moot;

   3. denying Defendant Buccaneers Limited Partnership's renewed
      motion for a determination that the mediation privilege has
      been waived by Plaintiffs' counsel as moot.

The Court said, "As articulated more fully in the Court's
March 31, 2017 Order entered in Technology Training Assoc., Inc.,
et al. v. Buccaneers Ltd. P'ship, Case No. 8:16-cv-1622-T-AEP
(M.D. Fla. filed June 20, 2016), a class and settlement have been
preliminarily approved regarding the same claims pending in this
action. As a result, each of the parties' motions has been
rendered moot."

The appellate case is captioned as Cin-Q Automobiles, Inc., et al.
v. Buccaneers Limited Partnership, Case No. 17-90010, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners CIN-Q AUTOMOBILES, INC., a Florida
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, and MEDICAL & CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC,
INC., a Florida corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, are
represented by:

          Michael C. Addison, Esq.
          ADDISON & HOWARD, PA
          400 N Tampa St., Suite 1100
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-2000
          Facsimile: (813) 228-6000
          E-mail: m@mcalaw.net

               - and -

          Glenn L. Hara, Esq.
          Ryan Michael Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008-0000
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: GHara@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com

Plaintiff-Petitioner CIN-Q AUTOMOBILES, INC., is also represented
by:

          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          Wallace Solberg, Esq.
          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: RGood@andersonwanca.com
                  WSolberg@andersonwanca.com
                  bwanca@andersonwanca.com

Defendant-Respondent BUCCANEERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP is represented
by:

          David Clark Borucke, Esq.
          COLE SCOTT & KISSANE, PA
          4301 W Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 400
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 289-9300
          Facsimile: (813) 286-2900
          E-mail: david.borucke@csklegal.com

               - and -

          Barry Adam Postman, Esq.
          Justin C. Sorel, Esq.
          COLE SCOTT & KISSANE, PA
          222 Lakeview Ave., Suite 120
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 383-9200
          Facsimile: (561) 683-8977
          E-mail: postman@csklegal.com
                  justin.sorel@csklegal.com

               - and -

          Kathleen P. Lally, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          E-mail: Ekathleen.lally@lw.com

               - and -

          Mark S. Mester, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
          233 S Wacker Dr., Suite 5800
          Chicago, IL 60606-6362
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          E-mail: mark.mester@lw.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Varner, III, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
          100 N Tampa St., Suite 4100
          Tampa, FL 33602-3642
          Telephone: (813) 227-6321
          Facsimile: (813) 229-0134
          E-mail: joe.varner@hklaw.com


BURLINGTON COAT: Cal. App. Remands Cashiers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One,
reversed the trial court's order denying defendant's special
motion to strike and remanded the case styled KRIZEL GALLANO,
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY OF CALIFORNIA
LLC, Defendant and Appellant, No. A146335 (Cal. Ct. App.).

Plaintiff Krizel Gallano worked as a cashier and a customer
service representative for Burlington Coat Factory of California
LLC at its Daly City store beginning in May 2013. On March 15,
2014, she was allegedly coerced into signing a statement
confessing to numerous mistakes, including processing a return of
perfume that allegedly resulted in a loss of $400 to the store.
After plaintiff signed the statement, she was directed to sign a
promissory note establishing a debt in the amount of $880. She was
told that if she paid the amount and resigned, there would be no
criminal charges. She signed a letter of resignation and was told
she would be receiving a letter from a third party with further
instructions on how to make payments on her debt. Later, she
received a civil demand letter from a law firm seeking $350 for
shoplifting, theft, or fraud pursuant to Penal Code section 490.5.

On February 5, 2015, plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against defendant, alleging violations of California labor laws
and Business and Professions Code section 17200. She declared that
the purpose of her complaint was to stop defendant's unlawful
practice of intimidating its employees into indemnifying the
company for its ordinary business losses. She alleged that
defendant has a practice of mischaracterizing as theft routine
retail mistakes, such as processing fraudulent returns or selling
mistagged items. It then misuses the civil shoplifting provision
contained in Penal Code section 490.5 to intimidate employees into
signing promissory notes that force them to shoulder the debt for
the company's financial losses. She asserted that such conduct
violates Labor Code section 2802, subdivision (a).

Defendant filed a special motion to strike the complaint under
section 425.16. Defendant argued that the complaint's allegations
demonstrated that plaintiff's claims arise from protected activity
within the meaning of section 425.16, as the challenged conduct
was undertaken in anticipation of litigation. It asserted that
each of her claims is premised upon defendant's demands for
payment that are authorized under Penal Code section 490.5. On
August 12, 2015, the trial court filed its order denying
defendant's SLAPP motion. The court concluded defendant had failed
to make a prima facie showing that plaintiff's claims arise from
protected activity. The trial court first observed defendant had
not introduced any evidence in support of its motion, instead
relying on the allegations of the complaint for its contention
that all of the claims are based on protected speech. The court
concluded that, as a matter of law, defendant's conduct amounted
to criminal extortion. Appeal followed.

The Cal. App. reversed the order denying defendant's motion to
strike and remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings. The Cal. App. ruled that the Defendant did not
concede that it engaged in any unlawful acts. And while
defendant's actions were assertive, there are no allegations that
its conduct, in and of itself, exceeded the scope of that which is
statutorily authorized by Penal Code section 490.5. The demand
letters also do not threaten to expose plaintiff to criminal
liability unless payment is made. Rather, the complaint alleges
that defendant is using the shoplifting procedures to achieve an
unlawful result, namely, to coerce employees into paying for
ordinary losses.

On the other hand, since the trial court concluded that defendant
had not met its burden under the first prong of the section 425.16
analysis, it did not address the second prong. Although the
parties have extensively briefed the issues pertaining to the
probability of plaintiff's prevailing on their causes of action
and the validity of defendant's defenses, the Cal. App. believes
it is more appropriate that the trial court address the issues in
the first instance.

A copy of the opinion dated April, 27, 2017, is available at
https://goo.gl/SyTRqL from Leagle.com.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One
panel consists of Presiding Justice Jim Humes and Justices Robert
L. Dondero and Kathleen M. Banke.


CABLE NEWS: 11th Cir. Affirms Order Dismissing "Perry"
------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the district court's judgment of dismissal, in the case
captioned RYAN PERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CABLE NEWS NETWORK,
INC., Delaware corporation, CNN INTERACTIVE GROUP, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-13031 (11th
Cir.).

Appellee Cable News Network, Inc., is a producer of news
programming for television. Cable News Network, Inc. along with
its subsidiary Appellee CNN Interactive Group, Inc. offer media
content on a mobile software application or app. Through the CNN
App, users can get breaking news alerts, follow stories, and watch
video clips and coverage of live events.

Ryan Perry began using the CNN App in early 2013 on his iPhone. He
never consented to allow CNN to disclose his personally
identifiable information. Perry alleges that the CNN App, without
a user's knowledge, both tracks the user's views of news articles
and videos and also collects a record of this viewing activity.
When a user closes the CNN App, CNN sends the collected record of
viewing activity to a company called Bango, a third party company
that conducts data analytics. CNN also sends Bango a media access
control address, which is a unique string of numbers associated
with a particular user's specific mobile device.

On February 18, 2014, Perry filed a proposed class action in the
district court. In his first amended complaint, Perry sets forth
one cause of action for violation of the Video Privacy Protection
Act (VPPA), 18 U.S.C. Section 2710. Perry seeks injunctive relief
and both statutory and punitive damages due to CNN's allegedly
unlawful disclosures of personally identifiable information.

Following the Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Ellis v. Cartoon
Network, Inc., 803 F.3d 1251, in which it affirmed the dismissal
of a complaint bringing similar allegations pursuant to the VPPA,
Perry sought leave of the district court to amend his complaint.
On April 20, 2016, the district court granted CNN's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. The district court held that Perry
failed to state a claim under the VPPA both because Perry is not a
statutory consumer and the information at issue is not personally
identifiable information. The district court also reasoned that
Perry's proposed amendments to his complaint would be futile.
Perry appeals.

Although Perry concedes that his complaint fails to state a claim
under the VPPA, he argues that the district court erred in denying
leave to amend. Specifically, Perry argues that, if permitted, he
would amend his complaint to allege that in addition to
downloading the CNN App and viewing CNN content on his iPhone, he
also subscribed to CNN's television channel through his cable
package. Perry also contends that CNN's transmission of his MAC
address and video history is personally identifiable information
as defined in the VPPA.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision
finding that the ephemeral investment and commitment associated
with Perry's downloading of the CNN App on his mobile device, even
with the fact that he has a separate cable television subscription
that includes CNN content, is simply not enough to consider him a
subscriber under Ellis. Perry still is free to delete the app
without consequences whenever he likes, and never access its
content again. The district court correctly determined that
Perry's cable subscription as described is not the something more
under Ellis necessary to state a claim under the VPPA. At most,
the cable subscription shows that Perry is a subscriber of his
cable television provider.

A copy of the Eleventh Circuit's order dated April 27, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/fQ6egj from Leagle.com.

Marc J. Zwillinger -- marc@zwillgen.com -- Jeffrey G. Landis --
jeff@zwillgen.com -- Jonathan S. Frankel -- jon@zwillgen.com -- at
ZwillGen PLLC; Alan Jay Butler; James Andrew Lamberth --
james.lamberth@troutmansanders.com -- Clinton Earl Cameron -- Alan
W. Bakowski -- alan.bakowski@troutmansanders.com -- at Troutman
Sanders LLP, for Defendant-Appellee

Jennifer Auer Jordan -- jordan@ssjwlaw.com -- at Shamp Speed
Jordan Woodward; Jay Edelson -- jedelson@edelson.com -- Courtney
C. Booth -- Rafey Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- James
Dominick Larry -- Ryan D. Andrews -- randrews@edelson.com -- Roger
Perlstadt -- rperlstadt@edelson.com -- Benjamin H. Richman --
brichman@edelson.com -- John Aaron Lawson -- alawson@edelson.com
-- at Edelson PC, for Plaintiff-Appellant

The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit panel
consists of Circuit Judges Susan H. Black and Charles R. Wilson
and Judge Jane A. Restani.


CANADIAN SOLAR: Still Defends Class Action Suit in Ontario Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Solar Inc. continues to defend itself in a class action
lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, according to the
Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Following the two subpoenas from the SEC in 2010, six class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, or the New York cases, and another class
action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, or the California case.  The New
York cases were consolidated into a single action in December
2010.

On January 5, 2011, the California case was dismissed by the
plaintiff, who became a member of the lead plaintiff group in the
New York action.

On March 11, 2011, a Consolidated Complaint was filed with respect
to the New York action.  The Consolidated Complaint alleges
generally that the Company's financial disclosures during 2009 and
early 2010 were false or misleading; asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and
names the Company, its chief executive officer and its former
chief financial officer as defendants.

The Company filed its motion to dismiss in May 2011, which was
taken under submission by the Court in July 2011.  On March 30,
2012, the Court dismissed the Consolidated Complaint with leave to
amend, and the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint
against the same defendants on April 19, 2012.

On March 29, 2013, the Court dismissed with prejudice a class
action lawsuit filed against the Company and certain named
defendants alleging that the Company's financial disclosures
during 2009 and early 2010 were false or misleading and in
violation of federal securities law.  The court found that the
plaintiffs failed to adequately allege a securities law violation
and granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims against all
defendants with prejudice.

On December 20, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing such
class action lawsuit.

In addition, a similar class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its executive officers in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice on August 10, 2010.  The lawsuit alleges
generally that the Company's financial disclosures during 2009 and
2010 were false or misleading and brings claims under the
shareholders' relief provisions of the CBCA, Part XX III.1 of the
Ontario Securities Act as well as claims based on negligent
misrepresentation.

In December 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Ontario action on the basis that the Ontario Court has no
jurisdiction over the claims and potential claims advanced by the
plaintiff.  The court dismissed the Company's motion on August 29,
2011.

On March 30, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal denied the
Company's appeal with regard to its jurisdictional motion.  On
November 29, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the
Company's application for leave to appeal the order of the Ontario
Court of Appeal.

The plaintiff's motions for class certification and leave to
assert the statutory cause of action under the Ontario Securities
Act were served in January 2013 and initially scheduled for
argument in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in June 2013.
However, the plaintiff's motions were adjourned in view of the
plaintiff's decision to seek an order compelling the Company to
file additional evidence on the motions.

On July 29, 2013 the Court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to
compel evidence.  On September 24, 2013 the plaintiff's
application for leave to appeal from the July 29 order was
dismissed.

In September 2014, the plaintiff obtained an order granting him
leave to assert the statutory cause of action under the Ontario
Securities Act for certain of his misrepresentation claims.

In January 2015, the plaintiff in the class action lawsuit filed
against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice obtained an order for class
certification in respect of certain claims for which he had
obtained leave in September 2014 to assert the statutory cause of
action for misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act, for
certain negligent misrepresentation claims and for oppression
remedy claims advanced under the CBCA.

The Court dismissed the Company's application for leave to appeal
and the class action has moved to the merits stage.  The Company
believes the Ontario action is without merit and the Company is
defending it vigorously.

Canadian Solar Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
develops, manufactures, and sells solar ingots, wafers, cells,
modules, and other solar power products primarily under the
Canadian Solar brand name.  The Company operates through two
segments: Module and Energy.  Canadian Solar Inc. was founded in
2001 and is based in Guelph, Canada.


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: McCabe Appeals "Aranda" Suit Ruling to 7th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Kevin McCabe filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled GERARDO ARANDA, et al. v. CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE,
INC., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-04069, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The appellate case is captioned Kevin McCabe, et al. v. Caribbean
Cruise Line, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1778, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 4, 2017, Kevin
McCabe previously filed an appeal in the lawsuit.  That appellate
case is titled as Kevin McCabe, et al. v. Caribbean Cruise Line,
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 17-1626.

The District Court has previously signed off on an award of more
than $15 million -- and potentially, as much as $18.9 million --
in attorney fees for lawyers, who secured a $76 million settlement
from the Defendants accused of using nonprofit surveys to mask
illegal telemarketing calls.[BN]

Objector-Appellant KEVIN MCCABE is represented by:

          Todd C. Bank, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD C. BANK
          119-40 Union Turnpike
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 520-7125
          E-mail: TBLaw101@aol.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees GRANT BIRCHMEIER, STEPHEN PARKES, REGINA
STONE and GERARDO ARANDA, on behalf of themselves and a class of
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Ryan D. Andrews, Esq.
          Roger Perlstadt, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  randrews@edelson.com
                  rperlstadt@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Esq.
          EDELSON, P.C.
          123 Townsend Street
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  erapp@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jon C. Loevy, Esq.
          Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
          Scott R. Rauscher, Esq.
          Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          311 N. Aberdeen Street
          Chicago, IL 60607-1249
          Telephone: (312) 243-5900
          Facsimile: (312) 243-5902
          E-mail: jon@loevy.com
                  mike@loevy.com
                  scott@loevy.com
                  atievsky@edelson.com

Defendants-Appellees CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INCORPORATED, and
VACATION OWNERSHIP MARKETING TOURS, INCORPORATED, are represented
by:

          Jeffrey Backman, Esq.
          GREENSPOON MARDER PA
          200 E. Broward Boulevard
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 491-1120
          Facsimile: (954) 213-0140
          E-mail: jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, ECONOMIC STRATEGY
GROUP, INCORPORATED, and ECONOMIC STRATEGY LLC are represented by:

          Anna-Katrina S. Christakis, Esq.
          PILGRIM CHRISTAKIS LLP
          321 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 939-0920
          E-mail: kchristakis@pilgrimchristakis.com

Defendant-Appellee BERKLEY GROUP, INCORPORATED, is represented by:

          Vincent J. Connelly, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-7912
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8614
          E-mail: vconnelly@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Joanne R. Driscoll, Esq.
          Kevin M. Forde, Esq.
          Kevin R. Malloy, Esq.
          Brian P. O'Meara, Esq.
          FORDE LAW OFFICES LLP
          111 W. Washington Street
          Chicago, IL 60602-0000
          Telephone: (312) 641-1441
          Facsimile: (312) 641-1288
          E-mail: jdriscoll@fordellp.com
                  kforde@fordellp.com
                  kmalloy@fordellp.com
                  bomeara@fordellp.com


CITIZENS TELECOM: Suit Over Internet Service Sent to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's order
and remanded with instructions to enter an order compelling
arbitration on an individual basis in the case captioned, CITIZENS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY OF WEST VIRGINIA d/b/a FRONTIER
COMMUNICATIONS OF WEST VIRGINIA, FRONTIER WEST VIRGINIA, INC.,
Defendant Below, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL SHERIDAN, APRIL MORGAN,
TRISHA COOKE, and RICHARD BENNIS, individually, and on behalf of
other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiffs Below,
Respondents, Case No. 16-0005 (W. Va.).

Respondents Michael Sheridan, April Morgan, Trisha Cooke, and
Richard Bennis on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated
persons are West Virginia residents who initially subscribed to
Frontier's residential "high-speed Internet service" between
August 2007 and June 2010. On October 14, 2014, Respondents filed
a putative class action complaint alleging that Frontier never
provided Internet service at advertised speeds and purposefully
"throttled" the speed of its customers' Internet service. In the
complaint, Respondents sought declaratory relief that they had not
agreed to arbitrate any claims arising from Frontier's service and
that their putative class action was not subject to arbitration.
Respondents also sought monetary damages, attorneys' fees and an
injunction.

In September 2011, Frontier altered the Terms and Conditions and
added an arbitration provision requiring any dispute between a
customer and Frontier to be resolved by binding arbitration on an
individual basis. More specifically, the arbitration provision
included waivers of the right to a trial by jury and the right to
participate in a class action, a representative proceeding or a
private attorney general action.

Respondents assert that they never read this portion of the
billing statement because Frontier placed it toward the end of a
multipage billing statement after many other notices. Respondents
further contend the terms of the arbitration provision were not
contained in the billing statement.

On November 30, 2015, the Circuit Court of Lincoln County issued
an order denying Frontier's motion to compel arbitration in a
putative class action filed by Respondents.

On appeal, Frontier contends that the circuit court erred in
refusing to enforce an arbitration provision in the parties'
agreement.

In a Memorandum and Order dated April 20, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/oikU4k from Leagle.com, the West Virginia Supreme
Court concluded that the circuit court erred in its judgment
because Frontier provided reasonable notice to its customers of
its changes to the unilateral contract, and Respondents assented
to the changes by virtue of continuing to subscribe to Frontier's
Internet service after the reasonable notice was provided.

The action is remanded with instructions to enter an order
compelling arbitration on an individual basis.

Citizens Telecommunications of Company of West Virginia d/b/a
Frontier Communications of West Virginia is represented by Thomas
R. Goodwin, Esq. -- trg@goodwingoodwin.com -- and -- J. David
Fenwick, Esq. -- cgf@goodwingoodwin.com -- GOODWIN & GOODWIN

Michael Sheridan, et al. are represented by Benjamin Sheridan,
Esq. -- ben@kswvlaw.com -- and -- Mitchel Lee Klein, Esq. --
mitch@kswvlaw.com -- KLEIN SHERIDAN & GLAZER LC -- Jonathan J.
Marshall, Esq. -- jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY GLASSER,
LLP


CMS ENERGY: Settlement of Kansas and Missouri Cases Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The tentative settlement with the plaintiffs in three Kansas and
Missouri Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation cases remains
pending, CMS Energy Corporation and Consumers Energy Company said
in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2017.

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

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

In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the district court decision. The appellate court found that FERC
preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases. The
appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of leave to
amend to add federal antitrust claims. The matter was appealed to
the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2015 upheld the Ninth Circuit's
decision. The cases were remanded back to the federal district
court. In May 2016, the federal district court granted the
defendants' motion for summary judgment in the individual lawsuit
based on a release in a prior settlement involving similar
allegations and reinstated CMS Energy as a defendant in one of the
class action lawsuits. The order of summary judgment has been
appealed. In December 2016, CMS Energy entities reached a
tentative settlement with the plaintiffs in the three Kansas and
Missouri cases for an amount that was not material to CMS Energy.
The tentative settlement and request for preliminary approval have
been filed in the federal district court. The settlement will be
subject to court approval. Other CMS Energy entities remain as
defendants in the two Wisconsin class action lawsuits.

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


CNA FINANCIAL: 401(k) Plus Plan Litigation in Early Stages
----------------------------------------------------------
The CNA 401(k) Plus Plan Litigation is in the early stages, CNA
Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

In September 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against CCC,
Continental Assurance Company (CAC), CNAF, the Investment
Committee of the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan, The Northern Trust Company
and John Does 1-10 (collectively Defendants) over the CNA 401(k)
Plus Plan. The complaint alleges that Defendants breached
fiduciary duties to the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan and caused prohibited
transactions in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 when the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan's Fixed Income
Fund's annuity contract with CAC was canceled. The plaintiff
alleges he and a proposed class of the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan
participants who had invested in the Fixed Income Fund suffered
lower returns in their CNA 401(k) Plus Plan investments as a
consequence of these alleged violations and seeks relief on behalf
of the putative class. This litigation is in its preliminary
stages, and as of yet no class has been certified.

CCC and the other defendants are contesting the case and
management currently is unable to predict the final outcome or the
impact on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows. As of March 31, 2017, the likelihood of
loss is reasonably possible, but the amount of loss, if any,
cannot be estimated at this stage of the litigation.


COMENITY CAPITAL: Ordered to Respond to Interrogatories
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, MICHAEL DOHERTY & LESLIE WESTMORELAND, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. COMENITY CAPITAL BANK & COMENITY BANK, Defendant, Case No.
16cv1321-H-BGS (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted in part Plaintiffs' requests to compel
Defendants to produce further responses to Plaintiffs' First Set
of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production.

The case is a class action alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq.
Defendants Comenity Capital Bank and Comenity Bank are large
national banks that "service millions of credit card accounts for
consumers throughout the United States." Plaintiffs Michael
Doherty and Leslie Westmoreland proceed on their First Amended
Complaint and seek to certify a class from July 31, 2014 to
present of "All individuals in the United States to whom: (1)
Defendants placed a call; (2) using an automatic telephone dialing
system (ATDS) or using an artificial or prerecorded voice; (3) to
his or her cellular telephone number; and (4) for whom Defendants
did not have express consent to place such call at the time it was
placed."

During the class discovery period, Plaintiffs served Requests for
Production and Interrogatories on Defendants. Defendants limited
their responses to information and documents pertaining to the
named Plaintiffs: they objected to requests regarding all call
recipients as premature, irrelevant, overbroad, unduly burdensome,
and not proportional to the needs of the case given the fact that
Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their action
or on a motion for class certification.

On April 17, 2017, Plaintiffs and Defendants submitted a Joint
Statement About Discovery Dispute Re: Responses of Defendant
Comenity Capital Bank to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories
and First Set of Requests for Production (Joint Statement).

In his Order dated May 9, 2017 available at https://is.gd/Q9QLru
from Leagle.com, Magistrate Skomal concluded that the Defendants
need only provide evidence of prior consent if they intend to rely
on it at class certification. To the extent they have not already
done so, Defendants are to provide representative samples.
Defendants are not required to conduct an account-by-account
review to produce documents as related to individual call
recipients.

Defendants are ordered to provide supplemental responses to
Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production no later
than June 8, 2017.

Michael Doherty is represented by Daniel G. Shay, Esq. --
DanielShay@SanDiegoBankruptcyNow.com -- LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G.
SHAY -- Douglas J. Campion, Esq. -- doug@djcampion.com -- LAW
OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J CAMPION

Comenity Capital Bank is represented by David J. Kaminski, Esq. --
kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- CARLSON AND MESSER


CONCHA Y TORO: Appeal in California Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Concha y Toro Winery Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that an appeal in a
California class action remains pending.

In the United States, on March 24, 2015, twenty-four wine
producers, along with the subsidiary Fetzer, were notified of a
class action lawsuit filed before the California State Court. This
claim is based on the fact that the Producers did not comply with
the obligation to notice the specific presence of arsenic in their
products under California regulations.

In March 2015, the California Court accepted to reject the
petition (demurrer without leave) without giving the petitioners
the right to continue the trial or change their claim. They
appealed to this resolution.

The lawyers consider that there is a high probability of having a
final judgment favorable to wine producers.

It should be noted that United States regulation does not restrict
levels of arsenic in wines (only in water). Determining the value
of the contingency is complex. However, in a negative scenario,
hypothetically Fetzer could be condemned to: (i) - Pay $ 2,500 per
bottle sold with arsenic levels multiplied by 365 (1 year); (ii) -
Compensate and restitute the products (iii) - Pay legal and
judicial expenses.

The Company is the largest Chilean producer and exporter of wines
in terms of both volume and value, with total sales in 2015 of 309
million liters and Ch$636,194 million.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Order in "Korolshteyn" Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Costco Wholesale Corporation and NBTY, Inc., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Tatiana
Korolshteyn v. COSTCO, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00709-CAB-RBB, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
San Diego.

The appellate case is captioned as Tatiana Korolshteyn v. COSTCO,
et al., Case No. 17-80066, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent TATIANA KOROLSHTEYN, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Max A. Stein, Esq.
          BOODELL & DOMANSKIS, LLC
          1 N. Franklin Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 300-5505
          E-mail: mstein@boodlaw.com

               - and -

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com

               - and -

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6978
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com

               - and -

          Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
          SIPRUT, PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          E-mail: sweltman@siprut.com

Defendants-Petitioners COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION and NBTY,
INC., are represented by:

          William A. Delgado, Esq.
          WILLENKEN WILSON LOH & DELGADO LLP
          707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 3850
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 955-9240
          Facsimile: (213) 955-9250
          E-mail: wdelgado@willenken.com


DG HOSPITALITY: "Bracy" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, Cal. Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENETTA L. BRACY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. DG HOSPITALITY VAN NUYS, LLC,
THE SPEARMINT RHINO COMPANIES WORLDWIDE, INC., SPEARMINT RHINO
CONSULTING WORLDWIDE, INC., DAMES N' GAMES, JOHN DOES #1-10, AND
XYZ Corporations #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00854 (C.D.
Cal., May 3, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff did not receive the
Fair Labor Standards Act-mandated minimum wage for all hours
worked, nor did she receive time-and-one-half her regular rate of
pay for each hour she worked over forty hours in a given workweek.

Specifically, Defendants never paid Plaintiff anything for the
time she worked while employed by Defendants, says the complaint.
Plaintiff was actually required to pay Defendants in the form of a
"house fee" or "overhead fee" upon entrance to the nightclub and
tips.  Plaintiff's only compensation came in the form of tips from
patrons. However, Plaintiff was required to divide these tips with
Defendants and other employees at the nightclub.

Plaintiff also brings this action under the Portal-to-Portal Act,
the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Labor Code
and related regulations including the California Private Attorneys
General Act, and Cal. Wage Order.

The case was brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and current
and former Defendant employees who work, or worked, as exotic
dancers at Defendants' nightclubs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Liakos, Esq.
     NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
     525 South Douglas Street, Suite 260
     El Segundo, CA 90245
     Phone: (310) 331-8224
     Fax: (646) 843-760
     Email: jliakos@napolilaw.com

        - and -

     Salvatore C. Badala, Esq.
     Paul B. Maslo, Esq.
     NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
     360 Lexington Avenue
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 397-1000
     Fax: (646) 843-7603
     Email: sbadala@napolilaw.com
            pmaslo@napolilaw.com


DIGITALGLOBE INC: Faces "Assad" Suit Over Merger with MacDonald
---------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE ASSAD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. DIGITALGLOBE, INC., GENERAL HOWELL M.
ESTES III, NICK S. CYPRUS, ROXANNE DECYK, LAWRENCE A. HOUGH,
WARREN C. JENSON, L. ROGER MASON, JR., JEFFREY R. TARR, KIMBERLY
TILL, EDDY ZERVIGON, MACDONALD, DETTWILER AND ASSOCIATES LTD., SSL
MDA HOLDINGS, INC., and MERLIN MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01097-NYW (D. Col., May 3, 2017), alleges that
defendants filed a Form F-4 Registration Statement in relation to
the acquisition of the Company by MacDonald, Dettwiler and
Associates Ltd. MDA Holdings, Inc., and Merlin Merger Sub, Inc.
that omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and
misleading.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of
DigitalGlobe will receive $17.50 in cash and 0.3132 of a Parent
share for each share of DigitalGlobe stock they own.

The case alleges that the Registration Statement omits material
information regarding (i) the Company's financial projections,
MacDonald's financial projections, and the financial analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisors, PJT Partners LP and
Barclays Capital Inc., (ii) potential conflicts of interest of the
Company's officers and directors, and (iii) potential conflicts of
interest of the Company's financial advisors.

DIGITALGLOBE, INC. is a global provider of high-resolution Earth
imagery, data, and analysis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
     THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
     600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South
     Denver, CO 80202
     Phone: (303) 861-3003
     Fax: (303) 536-7849
     Email: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
     THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
     Post-Montgomery Ctr.
     One Montgomery Street, Ste. 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (303) 861-3003
     Fax: (303) 536-7849
     Email: kip@shumanlawfirm.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RM LAW, P.C.
     995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
     Wayne, PA 19087
     Phone: (484) 588-5516


DISH NETWORK: Seeks Judgment or New Trial in Krakauer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Dish Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that DISH Network L.L.C.'s
motions for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative,
for a new trial in the Krakauer class action lawsuit remains
pending.

The Company said, "On March 25, 2009, our wholly-owned subsidiary
DISH Network L.L.C. was sued in a civil action by the United
States Attorney General and several states in the United States
District Court for the Central District of Illinois (the "FTC
Action"), alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") and the Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), as well as
analogous state statutes and state consumer protection laws.  The
plaintiffs allege that we, directly and through certain
independent third-party retailers and their affiliates, committed
certain telemarketing violations."

"On December 23, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment, which indicated for the first time that the state
plaintiffs were seeking civil penalties and damages of
approximately $270 million and that the federal plaintiff was
seeking an unspecified amount of civil penalties (which could
substantially exceed the civil penalties and damages being sought
by the state plaintiffs).  The plaintiffs were also seeking
injunctive relief that if granted would, among other things,
enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectly
through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party
retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to market
or promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISH
Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from certain
existing independent third-party retailers and from certain new
independent third-party retailers, except under certain
circumstances.

"We also filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of
all claims.  On December 12, 2014, the Court issued its opinion
with respect to the parties' summary judgment motions.  The Court
found that DISH Network L.L.C. is entitled to partial summary
judgment with respect to one claim in the action.  In addition,
the Court found that the plaintiffs are entitled to partial
summary judgment with respect to ten claims in the action, which
includes, among other things, findings by the Court establishing
DISH Network L.L.C.'s liability for a substantial amount of the
alleged outbound telemarketing calls by DISH Network L.L.C. and
certain of its independent third-party retailers that were the
subject of the plaintiffs' motion.  The Court did not issue any
injunctive relief and did not make any determination on civil
penalties or damages, ruling instead that the scope of any
injunctive relief and the amount of any civil penalties or damages
are questions for trial.

"In pre-trial disclosures, the federal plaintiff indicated that it
intended to seek up to $900 million in alleged civil penalties,
and the state plaintiffs indicated that they intended to seek as
much as $23.5 billion in alleged civil penalties and damages.  The
plaintiffs also modified their request for injunctive relief.
Their requested injunction, if granted, would enjoin DISH Network
L.L.C. from placing outbound telemarketing calls unless and until:
(i) DISH Network L.L.C. hires a third-party consulting
organization to perform a review of its call center operations;
(ii) such third-party consulting organization submits a
telemarketing compliance plan to the Court and the federal
plaintiff; (iii) the Court holds a hearing on the adequacy of the
plan; (iv) if the Court approves the plan, DISH Network L.L.C.
implements the plan and verifies to the Court that it has
implemented the plan; and (v) the Court issues an order permitting
DISH Network L.L.C. to resume placing outbound telemarketing
calls.  The plaintiffs' modified request for injunctive relief, if
granted, would also enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting
customer orders solicited by certain independent third-party
retailers unless and until a similar third-party review and Court
approval process was followed with respect to the telemarketing
activities of its independent third-party retailer base to ensure
compliance with the TSR.

"The first phase of the bench trial took place January 19, 2016
through February 11, 2016.  In closing briefs, the federal
plaintiff indicated that it still is seeking $900 million in
alleged civil penalties; the California state plaintiff indicated
that it is seeking $100 million in alleged civil penalties and
damages for its state law claims (in addition to any amounts
sought on its federal law claims); the Ohio state plaintiff
indicated that it is seeking approximately $10 million in alleged
civil penalties and damages for its state law claims (in addition
to any amounts sought on its federal law claims); and the Illinois
and North Carolina state plaintiffs did not state the specific
alleged civil penalties and damages that they are seeking; but the
state plaintiffs have taken the general position that any damages
award less than $1.0 billion (presumably for both federal and
state law claims) would not raise constitutional concerns.  Under
the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, excessive fines may
not be imposed.

"On October 3, 2016, the plaintiffs further modified their request
for injunctive relief, and are now seeking, among other things, to
enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectly
through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party
retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to market
or promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISH
Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from some or
all existing independent third-party retailers.  The second phase
of the bench trial, which commenced on October 25, 2016 and
concluded on November 2, 2016, covered the plaintiffs' requested
injunctive relief, as well as certain evidence related to the
state plaintiffs' claims.

"We may also from time to time be subject to private civil
litigation alleging telemarketing violations.  For example, a
portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent
third-party retailer at issue in the FTC Action are also the
subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network
L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action").  Following a five-day
trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that case found that the
independent third-party retailer was acting as DISH Network
L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue in that
case, and that class members are eligible to recover $400 in
damages for each call made in violation of the TCPA.  The
plaintiff is also seeking enhanced damages under the TCPA for
alleged willful or knowing violations.  The Court will decide
whether there were any willful or knowing violations, and the
Court has discretion to increase the damages by up to three times
for any such violations.  On March 7, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C.
filed motions with the Court for judgment as a matter of law and,
in the alternative, for a new trial.

"The plaintiffs in the FTC Action have asserted that the jury
verdict in the Krakauer Action preclusively establishes that the
independent third-party retailer at issue in the Krakauer Action
was acting as DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the calls
at issue in the FTC Action, and is otherwise persuasive evidence
that the other independent third-party retailers at issue in the
FTC Action were acting as DISH Network's L.L.C.'s agents when they
made their respective calls at issue in the FTC Action, that the
alleged civil penalties being sought by the federal and state
plaintiffs are reasonable, and that the calls made by DISH Network
L.L.C. and independent third-party retailers at issue in the FTC
Action were made to landline residential phones.  We have opposed
those assertions.

"We intend to vigorously defend these cases.  We cannot predict
with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or
determine the extent of any potential liability or damages."

Dish Network provides video services in the United States.


DISH NETWORK: Still Defends Suit by Heskiaoff et al.
----------------------------------------------------
Dish Network Corporation continues to defend a lawsuit by Michael
Heskiaoff, Marc Langenohl, and Rafael Mann, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2017.

The Company said, "On July 10, 2015, Messrs. Michael Heskiaoff and
Marc Langenohl, purportedly on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, filed suit against our subsidiary Sling Media,
Inc. (now known as "Sling Media L.L.C.," which we acquired as a
result of the completion of the Share Exchange on February 28,
2017) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The complaint alleges that Sling Media
Inc.'s display of advertising to its customers violates a number
of state statutes dealing with consumer deception.

"On September 25, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
and Mr. Rafael Mann, purportedly on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed an additional complaint alleging
similar causes of action.

"On November 16, 2015, the cases were consolidated.  On August 12,
2016, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the consolidated
case.  On September 12, 2016, the plaintiffs moved the Court for
leave to file an amended complaint, which we opposed.

"On March 22, 2017, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file an amended complaint and entered judgment in favor
of Sling Media L.L.C.  On April 17, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal.

"We intend to vigorously defend this case.  We cannot predict with
any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the
extent of any potential liability or damages."

Dish Network provides video services in the United States.


DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM LLC: Davis Neurology Files Appeal to 8th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Davis Neurology PA filed an appeal from a court order
and judgment, both dated March 20, 2017, in its lawsuit titled
Davis Neurology PA v. DoctorDirectory.com LLC, et al., Case No.
4:16-cv-00682-BSM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas - Little Rock.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed in the Pope County Circuit Court (Case No. 58-cv-16-
00040), and was later removed to the District Court.

The appellate case is captioned as Davis Neurology PA v.
DoctorDirectory.com LLC, et al., Case No. 17-1820, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Brief of Appellant Davis Neurology PA is due on May 30,
      2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the Court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant;

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Davis Neurology PA, on behalf of itself and
all other entities and persons similarly situated, is represented
by:

          Joe Paul Leniski, Jr., Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH
          & JENNINGS PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37204
          Telephone: (615) 254 8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255 5419
          E-mail: jleniski@branstetterlaw.com

               - and -

          Alex Graham Streett, Esq.
          James Albert Streett, Esq.
          STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
          107 West Main
          Russellville, AR 72801
          Telephone: (479) 968 2030
          Facsimile: (479) 968-6253
          E-mail: alex@streettlaw.com
                  james@streettlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees DoctorDirectory.com LLC and Everyday Health
Inc. are represented by:

          Maria Z. Vathis, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          161 N. Clark Street, Suite 4300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 602-5000
          E-mail: maria.vathis@bryancave.com

               - and -

          David A. Zetoony, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          1801 13th Street
          Boulder, CO 80302
          Telephone: (303) 417 8530
          Facsimile: (303) 417 8330
          E-mail: david.zetoony@bryancave.com


DYNAMEX OPERATIONS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Delivery Drivers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Patti B. Saris of the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Dynamex Operations
East, LLC's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss in the case
captioned, DJAMEL OUADANI, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DYNAMEX OPERATIONS EAST, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 16-12036-PBS (D. Mass.).

Plaintiff Djamel Ouadani brings the putative class action against
Defendant, Dynamex Operations East, alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Massachusetts
misclassification and wage laws.

Dynamex employees told Ouadani that he would have to associate
with one of three "Dynamex-affiliated vendors" in order to become
a driver. Ouadani associated with Selwyn and Birtha Shipping, LLC,
but he never interviewed with its owner and manager, Edward Alwis,
who also worked as a Dynamex delivery driver. Neither Dynamex nor
SBS classified Ouadani as an employee.

On August 22, 2016, Ouadani complained to Dynamex that he did not
have the independence of a contractor and that he should be paid
as an employee. The next day, Ouadani was permanently removed from
the driver schedule, resulting in his termination.

Before the Court is Dynamex's motion to compel arbitration and
dismiss under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. Sections
1-16 (2012), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Dynamex argues that its
independent contractor agreement with SBS is valid and that
Ouadani's wage law claims are expressly covered by the arbitration
provision in that agreement.

In a Memorandum and Order dated May 10, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/SmgVmx from Leagle.com, Judge Saris concluded that
Dynamex has failed to meet its burden of showing that Ouadani
embraced the benefits of the Dynamex-SBS agreement.

Djamel Ouadani is represented by Stephen S. Churchill, Esq. --
steve@fairworklaw.com -- and -- Rachel J. Smit, Esq. --
rachel@fairworklaw.com -- FAIR WORK, P.C.

Dynamex Operations East, LLC is represented by Diane M. Saunders,
Esq. -- daine@saunders@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH
SMOAK& STEWART


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss San Onofre Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edison International and Southern California Edison Company said
in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2017, that defendants' motion to dismiss an amended complaint
related to San Onofre remains pending.

Replacement steam generators were installed at San Onofre in 2010
and 2011. On January 31, 2012, a leak suddenly occurred in one of
the heat transfer tubes in San Onofre's Unit 3 steam generators.
The Unit was safely taken off-line and subsequent inspections
revealed excessive tube wear. Unit 2 was off-line for a planned
outage when areas of unexpected tube wear were also discovered. On
June 6, 2013, SCE decided to permanently retire Units 2 and 3.
San Onofre CPUC Proceedings

In November 2014, the CPUC approved the Settlement Agreement by
and among SCE, The Utility Reform Network, the CPUC's Office of
Ratepayer Advocates and San Diego Gas & Electric ("SDG&E"), which
was later joined by the Coalition of California Utility Employees
and Friends of the Earth, dated November 20, 2014 (the "San Onofre
OII Settlement Agreement"), which resolved the CPUC's
investigation regarding the steam generator replacement project at
San Onofre and the related outages and subsequent shutdown of San
Onofre. Subsequently, the San Onofre Order Instituting
Investigation ("OII") proceeding record was reopened by a joint
ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and the Assigned
administrative law judge ("ALJ") to consider whether, in light of
SCE not reporting certain ex parte communications on a timely
basis, the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement remained
reasonable, consistent with the law, and in the public interest,
which is the standard the CPUC applies in reviewing settlements
submitted for approval. In comments filed with the CPUC in July
2016, SCE asserted that the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement
continues to meet this standard and therefore should not be
disturbed. A number of the parties to the San Onofre OII, however,
have requested that the CPUC either modify the San Onofre OII
Settlement Agreement or vacate its previous approval of the
settlement and reinstate the San Onofre OII for further
proceedings.

In a December 2016 joint ruling, the Assigned Commissioner and the
Assigned ALJ expressed concerns about the extent to which the
failure to timely report ex parte communications had impacted the
settlement negotiations and directed SCE and SDG&E to meet and
confer with the other parties in the San Onofre OII to consider
changing the terms of the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement. The
ruling set out a schedule requiring that at least two meet-and-
confer sessions be held in the first quarter of 2017 and requiring
the parties to submit a joint status report to the CPUC by April
28, 2017 if no modifications have been agreed to by some or all of
the parties as a result of the meet-and-confer process. The
parties held three meet-and-confer sessions. In March 2017, SCE
and other parties reported to the CPUC that the parties
participating in the meet-and-confer process have agreed to
mediate the issues identified in the December 2016 joint ruling.

In April 2017, SCE and other meet-and-confer parties filed a joint
motion to extend the April 28, 2017 joint report deadline to
August 15, 2017. SCE has recorded a regulatory asset of $815
million at March 31, 2017 to reflect the expected recoveries under
the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement. Management assesses at
the end of each reporting period whether regulatory assets are
probable of future recovery. SCE assessed the San Onofre
regulatory asset at March 31, 2017 and continues to conclude that
the asset is probable, though not certain, of recovery based on
SCE's knowledge of facts and judgment in applying the relevant
regulatory principles to the issue. SCE does not believe that the
conclusions in the MHI arbitration, discussed below, change the
expectation on the probability of recovery of the San Onofre
regulatory asset.

Challenges related to the Settlement of San Onofre CPUC
Proceedings

A federal lawsuit challenging the CPUC's authority to permit rate
recovery of San Onofre costs and an application to the CPUC for
rehearing of its decision approving the San Onofre OII Settlement
Agreement were filed in November and December 2014, respectively.
In April 2015, the federal lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice
and the plaintiffs in that case appealed the dismissal to the
Ninth Circuit in May 2015. In light of the San Onofre OII meet-
and-confer sessions, the Ninth Circuit cancelled the hearing that
had been scheduled for February 9, 2017 and ordered the parties to
notify the Ninth Circuit of the status of the San Onofre OII by
May 1, 2017 and periodically thereafter.

In July 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in federal court against Edison International, its then
Chief Executive Officer and its then Chief Financial Officer. The
complaint was later amended to include SCE's former President as a
defendant.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the securities
laws by failing to disclose that Edison International had ex parte
contacts with CPUC decision-makers regarding the San Onofre OII
that were either unreported or more extensive than initially
reported. The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class
of persons who acquired Edison International common stock between
March 21, 2014 and June 24, 2015.

In September 2016, the federal court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint, with an opportunity for plaintiff to amend
the complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and defendants
again moved to dismiss the complaint in October 2016 and a
decision is pending.


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Edison International and Southern California Edison Company said
in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2017, that defendants' motion to dismiss an amended complaint
in a class action lawsuit alleging claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act remains pending.

In November 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in federal court against Edison International, its then
Chief Executive Officer and its Treasurer by an Edison
International employee, alleging claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act. The complaint purports to be filed
on behalf of a class of Edison International employees who were
participants in the Edison 401(k) Savings Plan and invested in the
Edison International Stock Fund between March 27, 2014 and June
24, 2015. The complaint alleges that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties because they knew or should have known that
investment in the Edison International Stock Fund was imprudent
because the price of Edison International common stock was
artificially inflated due to Edison International's alleged
failure to disclose certain ex parte communications with CPUC
decision-makers related to the San Onofre OII.

In July 2016, the federal court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend
her complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in July 2016,
that dismissed Edison International as a named defendant and the
remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss in August 2016.
These defendants' motion was heard by the court in November 2016
and a decision is pending.


ELI LILLY: Still Faces 3 Actos Class Suits in Canada
----------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company is named
along with Takeda as a defendant in three purported product
liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, including one
in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North
America, Inc., et al. and Carrier et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), one
in Quebec (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), and one in Alberta
(Epp v. Takeda Canada et al.).  The Company promoted Actos in
Canada until 2009.

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


ELI LILLY: Oral Argument in "Strafford" Appeal in Late 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Oral argument is
expected in late 2017 in an appeal in the case, Strafford et al.
v. Eli Lilly and Company.

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

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

"Plaintiffs filed a second motion for certification under the
consumer protection acts of New York and Massachusetts. The
district court denied that motion for class certification in July
2015. The district court dismissed the suit and plaintiffs are
appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral
argument is expected in late 2017."


ELI LILLY: Settlement Framework Reached over Cymbalta Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company has
reached a settlement framework which provides for a comprehensive
resolution of nearly all of the personal injury claims, filed or
unfiled, alleging injuries from discontinuing treatment with
Cymbalta.

The Company said, "We are named in approximately 140 lawsuits
involving approximately 1,470 plaintiffs filed in various federal
and state courts alleging injuries arising from discontinuation of
treatment with Cymbalta. These include approximately 40 individual
and multi-plaintiff cases filed in California state court,
centralized in a California Judicial Counsel Coordination
Proceeding pending in Los Angeles. The first individual product
liability cases were tried in August 2015 and resulted in defense
verdicts against four plaintiffs. We believe all these Cymbalta
lawsuits and claims are without merit."

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


ELI LILLY: Still Faces 495 Byetta(R) Product Liability Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company has been
named as a defendant in approximately 495 Byetta(R) product
liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving approximately 760
plaintiffs.

The Company said, "Approximately 60 of these lawsuits, covering
about 320 plaintiffs, are filed in California state court and
coordinated in a Los Angeles Superior Court. Approximately 430
lawsuits, covering about 435 plaintiffs, are filed in federal
court, the majority of which are coordinated in a multidistrict
litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California. The remaining three lawsuits, representing
four plaintiffs, are in various state courts."

"Approximately 485 of the lawsuits, involving approximately 720
plaintiffs, contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed
to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid
cancer); most others allege Byetta caused or contributed to
pancreatitis. The federal and state trial courts granted summary
judgment in favor of us and co-defendants on the claims alleging
pancreatic cancer; those rulings are being appealed by the
plaintiffs.

"We are aware of approximately 20 additional claimants who have
not yet filed suit. These additional claims allege damages for
pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer. We believe these lawsuits and
claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them
vigorously."


ELI LILLY: Defendant in 530 Axiron(R) Product Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company has been
named as a defendant in approximately 530 Axiron(R) product
liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving approximately 530
plaintiffs.

The Company said, "In about one-third of the cases, other
manufacturers of testosterone are named as co-defendants. Nearly
all of these lawsuits have been consolidated in a federal MDL in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. A
small number of lawsuits have been filed in state courts. The
cases generally allege cardiovascular and related injuries.
Medical Mutual of Ohio has filed a class action complaint against
multiple manufacturers of testosterone products in the Northern
District of Illinois, on behalf of third party payers who paid for
those products. The complainant is seeking damages under various
state consumer protection laws and the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. We believe these
lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend
against them vigorously."


ELI LILLY: Still Faces 60 Cialis Product Liability Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company has been
named as a defendant in approximately 60 Cialis product liability
lawsuits in the U.S.

The Company said, "These cases, originally filed in various
federal courts, contain allegations that Cialis caused or
contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (melanoma). In December
2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML)
granted the plaintiffs' petition to have the filed cases and an
unspecified number of future cases coordinated into a federal MDL
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alongside an existing coordinated proceeding involving
Viagra (R) . The JPML ordered the transfer of the existing cases
to the now-renamed MDL In re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) and
Cialis (Tadalafil) Products Liability Litigation . We believe
these lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to
defend against them vigorously."


ELI LILLY: Defendant in Insulin Pricing Litigation
--------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company, along
with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are named as defendants in a
purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of New
Jersey, In re. Insulin Pricing Litig., relating to insulin
pricing.

Three additional purported class action lawsuits, Barnett v. Novo
Nordisk Inc. and Boss v. CVS Health Corp., and Christensen v. Novo
Nordisk Inc., have been filed against the three manufacturers and
various pharmacy benefit managers in the same court. The
complainants in all four lawsuits are seeking damages under
various state consumer protection laws and the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The three lawsuits that
include the pharmacy benefit managers as defendants also allege
anti-trust violations, among other state and federal law
violations.

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


ENEL AMERICAS: Still Defends Class Action by Garzon Residents
-------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Enel Americas S.A. continues to defend itself in
class action lawsuits by Garzon residents in connection to the El
Quimbo hydroelectric project, according to the Company's Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by residents of the
Colombian Municipality of Garzon against subsidiary Emgesa S.A.
E.S.P., alleging that the construction of the El Quimbo
hydroelectric project had caused the plaintiffs' income from
handicrafts or entrepreneurial activities to decrease by an
average of 30%.  The lawsuit claims the decrease was not
considered when the project's social-economic impact report was
drafted.

Emgesa denied these allegations on the basis that (i) the social-
economic impact report complied with all methodological criteria,
including giving all interested parties the opportunity to be
registered in the report, (ii) the plaintiffs are not residents
and therefore, compensation is allowed only for those whose
revenues are, in their majority, coming from their activity in the
direct area of influence of the El Quimbo hydroelectric project,
and (iii) compensation must not go beyond the "first link" of the
production chain and must be based on the status of the income
indicators of each affected person.

A proceeding was filed in parallel by 38 inhabitants of the
Municipality of Garzon, who are claiming compensation for being
affected by the El Quimbo hydroelectric project since they were
not included in the social-economic impact report.  A mandatory
settlement hearing was unsuccessful.  The court ordered a test,
which is currently in the preliminary phase.  In the parallel
proceeding, an exception previous of pending lawsuit was filed,
based on the existence of the principal proceeding.  The proposed
exception is pending ruling.  The amount involved in this
proceeding is estimated to be approximately COP33 billion
(approximately CLP7,362,428,000).  The amount involved in the
parallel proceeding is estimated to be approximately COP1.7
billion (approximately CLP381,508,000).

Enel Americas S.A. operates as an electricity utility company.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, engages in the generation,
transmission, and distribution of electricity in Argentina,
Brazil, Colombia, and Peru.  It generates electricity from
hydroelectric and thermal energy sources.  It was formerly known
as Enersis Americas S.A. and changed its name to Enel Americas
S.A. in December 2016.  Enel Americas S.A. was founded in 1889 and
is headquartered in Santiago, Chile.


ENEL AMERICAS: Class Action vs. Codensa Subsidiary Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enel Americas S.A.'s subsidiary Codensa S.A. E.S.P. continues to
defend itself in a class action suit pending in Colombia,
according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The class action was filed in Colombia against Codensa in which
plaintiffs seek reimbursement for excess charges for not applying
the tariff benefit that according to them would have applied to
them as users of the Voltage One Level and owners of the
infrastructure, as established by Resolution No. 082 of 2002,
amended by Resolution No. 097 of 2008.

Regarding the proceeding status, Codensa filed a plea against the
lawsuit rejecting it entirely.  A conciliation hearing was held
between the parties, without success.  The writ of proof is
pending.  The amount involved in this proceeding is estimated to
be approximately COP337 billion (approximately CLP75,186,003,000).

Enel Americas S.A. operates as an electricity utility company.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, engages in the generation,
transmission, and distribution of electricity in Argentina,
Brazil, Colombia, and Peru.  It generates electricity from
hydroelectric and thermal energy sources.  It was formerly known
as Enersis Americas S.A. and changed its name to Enel Americas
S.A. in December 2016.  Enel Americas S.A. was founded in 1889 and
is headquartered in Santiago, Chile.


ENSIGN GROUP: Agreement Reached in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
The Ensign Group, Inc. has reached an agreement in principle to
settle a class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company and its operating subsidiaries have been, and continue
to be, subject to claims and legal actions that arise in the
ordinary course of business, including potential claims related to
patient care and treatment as well as employment related claims.
Since 2011, the Company has been involved in a class action
litigation claim alleging violations of state and federal wage and
hour laws. In January 2017, the Company participated in an initial
mediation session with plaintiffs' counsel. As a result of this
discussion and due to (i) the fact no class had been certified
(ii) the lack of specificity as to legal theories put forth by the
plaintiffs, (iii) the nature of the remedies sought and (iv) the
lack of any basis on which to compute estimated compensatory
and/or exemplary damages, the Company could not predict what the
outcome of the pending purported class action lawsuit would be,
what the timing of the ultimate resolution of this lawsuit would
be, or an estimate and/or range of possible loss related to the
pending class action lawsuit. In light of the inherent
uncertainties involved in the pending class action lawsuit, the
Company determined that we were not able to estimate the costs or
range of costs for the year ended December 31, 2016.

In March 2017, the Company was invited to engage in further
mediation discussions to determine whether settlement in advance
of a determination on class certification was possible. In April
2017, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the
subject class action litigation, without any admission of
liability and subject to approval by the California Superior
Court.  Based upon the recent change in case status, the Company
recorded an accrual for estimated probable losses of $11,000 in
the first interim financial statements. The settlement remains
subject to final documentation and the approval of the California
Superior Court following notice to affected class members.


ERIE INDEMNITY: Motions to Dismiss Beltz II Lawsuit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit remain pending, Erie
Indemnity Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erie Indemnity Company is a publicly held Pennsylvania business
corporation that has since its incorporation in 1925 served as the
attorney-in-fact for the subscribers (policyholders) at the Erie
Insurance Exchange ("Exchange").  The Exchange, which also
commenced business in 1925, is a Pennsylvania-domiciled reciprocal
insurer that writes property and casualty insurance. We function
solely as the management company and all insurance operations are
performed by the Exchange.


FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Putative Class Action Suits Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation continues to defend in a
number of non-ordinary course lawsuits, most of which are putative
class actions, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses.

In a case alleging the defendants charged an improper rate for
title insurance in a refinance transaction (Lewis v. First
American Title Insurance Company, filed on November 28, 2006 and
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Idaho), a court has granted class certification.  The Company said
that it has been unable to assess the probability of loss or
estimate the possible loss or the range of loss.

The cases alleging that the defendants misclassified certain
employees include:

  * Cruz v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on
November 25, 2015 and pending in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Orange,

  * Sager v. Interthinx, Inc., filed on January 23, 2015 and
pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, and

  * Weber v. Interthinx, Inc., et al., filed on April 17, 2015 and
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

These lawsuits are putative class actions for which a class has
not been certified.  The Company said that it has not yet been
able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible
loss or the range of loss or, where the Company has been able to
make an estimate, the Company believes the amount is not material
to the condensed consolidated financial statements as a whole.

The cases alleging that the defendants overcharged or improperly
charged fees for products and services, conspired to fix prices,
participated in the conveyance of illusory property interests,
denied home warranty claims, and gave items of value to builders,
brokers and others as inducements to refer business in violation
of certain laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws
generally prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain
obligations, include:

  * Downing v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
filed on July 26, 2016 and pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia,

  * Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on December 21, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles,

  * Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on
June 15, 2006 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles,

  * Lennen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on May 19, 2016 and pending in the United States District court
for the Middle District of Florida,

  * McCormick v. First American Real Estate Services, Inc., et
al., filed on December 31, 2015 and pending in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Orange,

  * Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on February 25, 2005 and pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

  * Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, and

  * In re First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation,
consolidated on October 9, 2014 and pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

All of these lawsuits, except Kaufman and Kirk, are putative class
actions for which a class has not been certified.  In Kaufman a
class was certified but that certification was subsequently
vacated.  A trial of the Kirk matter has concluded and the
judgment has been affirmed on appeal.  The Company said that it
has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or
estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where the
Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company believes
the amount is not material to the condensed consolidated financial
statements as a whole.

First American Financial Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
provides financial services.  It operates through Title Insurance
and Services, and Specialty Insurance segments.  First American
Financial Corporation was incorporated in 2008 and is based in
Santa Ana, California.


FRANK & ISRAEL: Comprehensive Health Alleges TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS OF THE PALM BEACHES, INC., a
Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. FRANK & ISRAEL,
LTD. d/b/a FIRMS, Defendant, Case No. 9:17-cv-80555-RLR (S.D.
Fla., May 3, 2017), alleges that Defendant sent advertisements by
facsimile about goods, products, or services available for
purchase by Plaintiff without Plaintiff's consent, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the regulations the
Federal Communications Commission.

Defendant is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
     BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
     134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     P.O. Box 416474
     Miami Beach, FL 3311
     Phone: 312-658-5500
     Fax: 312-658-5555


G WILLI-FOOD: Settles Israeli Class Suits on Improper Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016, that parties to a lawsuit on
improper product marketing had submitted a stipulation of
discontinuance on September 23, 2016, thereby ending the
litigation.

In December 2013, December 2014 and April 2016, the Company was
served with lawsuits and motions to certify them as class action
lawsuits in accordance with Israel's Class Action Claims Law,
5766-2006, whose subject matter and cause of action, according to
what is claimed, is the improper marketing of products which the
Company imports and sells in a manner which allegedly misleads the
consumer public. The class which the petitioning plaintiffs wish
to represent is every resident of Israel who purchased these
Company products.  The amount of the lawsuits, if successful, is
estimated by the plaintiffs in the amount of approximately ILS40
million.

G. Willi-Food International Ltd. develops, imports, exports,
markets, and distributes various food products worldwide.  It was
formerly known as G. Willi-Food Ltd. and changed its name to G.
Willi-Food International Ltd. in June 1996.  The Company was
founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Yavne, Israel.  It is a
subsidiary of Willi-Food Investments Ltd.


G WILLI-FOOD: N.Y. Securities Class Action Settled at Sept. 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016 that the lead plaintiff in a
securities class action in New York signed a request to file a
stipulation dismissing the lawsuit without any cost for the
Company on September 23, 2016. The request was approved by the
court.

On February 29, 2016, Willi Food was served with a lawsuit and a
motion to certify it is a class action (securities class action)
which was filed in the US in the Federal District Court for the
Southern District of New York by a shareholder who claims to own
shares of Willi Food (the "Plaintiff"), against Willi Food, Mr.
Gregory Gurtovoy, the Company's ultimate controlling shareholder,
and some of the past and present officers (hereinafter, jointly:
the "Defendants").

The lawsuit is a demand for compensation for alleged damages
incurred by the Plaintiff because of a violation of Federal
securities laws and other laws by the Defendants during the period
from April 30, 2014 and until February 18, 2016.

According to the Company, "In light of the early stage of the
lawsuit, the Company cannot, based on the position of its legal
advisors, evaluate the risk involved and therefore no provision
has been made in the financial statements with respect to the
aforesaid."

G. Willi-Food International Ltd. develops, imports, exports,
markets, and distributes various food products worldwide.  It was
formerly known as G. Willi-Food Ltd. and changed its name to G.
Willi-Food International Ltd. in June 1996.  The Company was
founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Yavne, Israel.  It is a
subsidiary of Willi-Food Investments Ltd.


GEO GROUP: Seeks 10th Cir. Review of Decision in "Menocal" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant The GEO Group, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling
relating to the lawsuit entitled Menocal, et al. v. The GEO Group,
Case No. 1:14-CV-02887-JLK, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado - Denver.

The appellate case is captioned as Menocal, et al. v. The GEO
Group, Case No. 17-1125, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Geo Group
filed an appeal from the order granting class certification in the
lawsuit.  That appellate case is captioned as ALEJANDRO MENOCAL,
et al. v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., Case No. 17-701.

The Defendant operates immigration detention facilities under
contracts with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, subject to extensive contractual,
regulatory and statutory requirements.  Since 1986, GEO has
operated Colorado's Aurora Detention Center (the "Facility"),
where this dispute arises.  The Plaintiffs are current and former
immigration detainees at the Facility.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ALEJANDRO MENOCAL, MARCOS BRAMBILA, LOURDES
ARGUETA, HUGO HERNANDEZ, GRISEL XAHUENTITLA, JESUS GAYTAN, OLGA
ALEXAKLINA, DAGOBERTO VIZGUERRA and DEMETRIO VALERGA, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          R. Andrew Free, Esq.
          R. ANDREW FREE LAW OFFICE
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37209
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          E-mail: Andrew@lmmigrantCivilRights.com

               - and -

          Alexander N. Hood, Esq.
          TOWARDS JUSTICE-DENVER
          1535 High Street, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (720) 239-2606
          E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org

               - and -

          Hans C. Meyer, Esq.
          MEYER LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          P.O. Box 40394
          1029 Santa Fe Drive
          Denver, CO 80204
          Telephone: (303) 831-0817
          E-mail: hans@themeyerlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Brandt Powers Milstein, Esq.
          MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
          595 Canyon Boulevard
          Boulder, CO 80302
          Telephone: (303) 957-5754
          E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
          KELMAN BUESCHER FIRM
          600 Grant Street, Suite 450
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 333-7751
          E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com

Defendant-Appellant THE GEO GROUP, INC., is represented by:

          Charles A. Deacon, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          300 Convent Street
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 244-5575
          E-mail: charlie.deacon@nortonrosefulbright.com

               - and -

          Dana Eismeier, Esq.
          Erik K. Schuessler, Esq.
          BURNS, FIGA & WILL
          6400 S. Fiddlers Green Circle, Suite 1000
          Greenwood Village, CO 80111
          Telephone: (303) 796-2626
          Facsimile: (303) 796-2777
          E-mail: deismeier@bfwlaw.com
                  eschuessler@bfwlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Emery, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          799 9th Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662-0210
          E-mail: mark.emery@nortonrosefulbright.com


GOLDEN FLAKE: Faces "Fullerton" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH FULLERTON, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GOLDEN FLAKE SNACK FOODS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00296-RV-CJK (N.D. Ohio, May 1, 2017),
alleges that Plaintiff and the putative class members were not
paid overtime for any hours worked over forty (40) per week, even
though they were "non-exempt" employees, and thus entitled to such
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The purported class includes all workers who were employed by
Defendant Golden Flake as a route delivery driver, route salesman,
route sales representative, or similar position.

Defendant Golden Flake is in the business of producing and
distributing various snack foods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq.
     900 E. Moreno Street
     Pensacola, FL 32503
     Phone: (850) 437-9600
     Fax: (850) 437-0906
     E-mail: jjtalbott@talbottlawfirm.com
             civilfilings@talbottlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
     Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER, LLC
     7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
     Massillon, OH 44646
     Phone: 330-470-4428
     Fax: 330-754-1430
     E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
             sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

        - and -

     Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
     Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
     THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC2
     920 Rockefeller Building
     614 W. Superior Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: 216-696-5000
     Fax: 216-696-7005
     E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
             chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com


GOOGLE INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Abu Maisa Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Abu Maisa, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled ABU MAISA, INC., a California corporation, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE,
INC., a Delaware corporation; INTUIT, INC., a Delaware
corporation; PAY PAL, INC., a Delaware corporation; SQUARE, INC.,
a Delaware corporation; STRIPE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 3:15-cv-06338-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks to recover not less than their Unruh Law minimum statutory
damages of $4,000 for each violation of Unruh Law suffered by the
Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Abu Maisa, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., et al., Case No. 17-15729, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 21, 2017.  If the
      registration for Appellate ECF is confirmed after this
      date, the Mediation Questionnaire is due within one day of
      receiving the e-mail from PACER confirming the
      registration;

   -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record must be
      served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1
      on July 24, 2017;

   -- Appellees' answering brief and excerpts of record must be
      served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1
      on August 21, 2017; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief must be filed and
      served within 14 days of service of the appellees' brief,
      pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1.[BN]


HASAKI RESTAURANT: Appeals From S.D.N.Y. Opinion in "Yu" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Hasaki Restaurant, Inc., Hashimoto Gen, John Doe and
Jane Doe 1-10, Kunitsugu Nakata and Shuji Yagi filed an appeal
from a District Court opinion dated April 10, 2017, in the lawsuit
titled Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-6094, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks to recover damages for unpaid overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 each workweek, as a result of the Defendants'
alleged willful and intentional violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Hasaki is a no-reservations Japanese restaurant that's been
serving sushi & cooked items since 1984.

The appellate case is captioned as Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc.,
Case No. 17-1067, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Mei Xing Yu, individual, on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated, is represented by:

          Keli Liu, Esq.
          HANG AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-18 39th Avenue
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353 6288
          E-mail: kliu@hanglaw.com

Defendants-Appellants Hasaki Restaurant, Inc., Shuji Yagi,
Kunitsugu Nakata, Hashimoto Gen and John Doe and Jane Doe 1-10 are
represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          BERKE-WEISS & PECHMAN LLP
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 308-8582
          E-mail: pechman@bwp-law.com


HAWTHORN BANK: Missouri Ct. Affirms Ruling in Overdraft Fees Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed judgment in the case
captioned, LAURIE FREEMAN and MARTIN REID, Individually and on
Behalf of Themselves and All Persons Similarly Situated,
Appellants, v. HAWTHORN BANK, Respondent, Case No. WD79534 (Mo.
App.).

Laurie Freeman and Martin Reid are former customers of Hawthorn
and participants in the Bounce program.  Freeman opened a checking
account with Hawthorn in 2007 and applied for a debit card.  She
used Bounce for both check and debit card transactions.  Freeman
tried to avoid overdrawing her account to avoid overdraft fees,
but she occasionally incurred overdraft fees.  Freeman closed her
account with Hawthorn in 2010 and opened an account at US Bank,
where she signed up for overdraft protection.

Appellants filed a class action petition for damages against
Hawthorn. In their petition, Appellants alleged that Hawthorn's
collection of overdraft fees on debit card transactions under the
Bounce program violated Missouri's usury law. Appellants further
asserted a claim for conversion and money had and received. The
class period was the period beginning November 17, 2005, and
ending September 20, 2013.

Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of
Hawthorn.

On appeal, Appellants contend the circuit court erred in holding
that Hawthorn's debit card overdraft fee is a statutorily-
permitted service charge imposed on a deposit account and,
therefore, is not subject to the state's usury law.

In an Order dated April 18, 2017 available at https://is.gd/vWlds4
from Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence
supports the court's finding that Hawthorn provides services to
its customers in connection with the overdraft fee for debit card
transactions.  Pursuant to the plain language of 362.111.1,
Hawthorn's overdraft fees of $25 and $30 during the class period
fall well within the range of fees imposed by federally-chartered
banks.

Laurie Freeman and Martin Reid are represented by:

      James P. Frickelton, Esq.
      Edward Robertson, III, Esq.
      Kirk Goza, Esq.
      BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON
      11150 Overbrook Rd, Ste 200
      Leawood, KS 66211-2235
      Tel:(913) 266-2300

Hawthorn Bank is represented by John C. Aisenbrey, Esq. --
john.aisenbrey@stinson.com -- STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP


HEART TO HEART: Faces "Hollis" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL HOLLIS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, PLAINTIFF v. HEART TO HEART HOSPICE MANAGEMENT, LLC,
HEART TO HEART HOSPICE OF LUFKIN, LLC, AND KELLY MITCHELL,
INDIVIDUALLY, DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:17-cv-00301-ALM-CAN (E.D.
Tex., May 4, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff was not compensated for
any hours worked over forty per week in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the suit, Plaintiff worked forty hours per week
performing data entry and Certified Nursing Assistant scheduling.
In addition to these duties, Plaintiff was on call at nights and
weekends. Including time spent actually performing work while on
call, Plaintiff consistently worked over forty hours per week. In
spite of the fact that she was an hourly, non-exempt employee,
Plaintiff was not compensated for any hours worked over forty per
week.

Defendants provide medical services and support to patients who
are in the final stages of life or who have terminal illnesses.
Defendants currently employ Plaintiff as a Certified Nursing
Assistant, or CNA, working out of their Lufkin location.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HSBC MORTGAGE: New York Court Partially Dismisses RICO Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kenneth M. Karas of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted in full PHH
Mortgage Corporation's motion to dismiss and granted in part and
denied in part HSBC Defendants' motion to dismiss the case
captioned, DAWN TARDIBUONO-QUIGLEY, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION
(USA), HSBC BANK USA, N.A., and PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-6940 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y..).

Plaintiff Dawn Tardibuono-Quigley brings the putative Class Action
against HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and
PHH Mortgage Corporation, alleging that Defendants violated the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18
U.S.C. Section 1962(c), conspired to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1962(d), violated New York General Business Law Section
349, breached a contract, and were unjustly enriched by a scheme
to charge borrowers for unnecessary default-related services.

In December 2008, Plaintiff borrowed $280,800 from HSBC Mortgage
to purchase a third-floor cooperative apartment (the co-op) in New
Rochelle, New York. Plaintiff signed a promissory note (the
Mortgage Note) agreeing to pay back HSBC Mortgage the amount of
the loan and signed a security agreement (the Security Agreement)
with HSBC Mortgage pledging the co-op as security for the loan.
Plaintiff alleges that after she defaulted, Defendants ordered and
charged her for numerous unnecessary property inspections. From
the end of January 2011 through December 1, 2012, Plaintiff made
payments and was improperly charged inspection fees.

Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In his Opinion and Order dated March 30, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/mhbVob from Leagle.com, Judge Karas held that
Plaintiff's RICO allegations are deficient and that Plaintiff has
failed to identify any fraudulent misrepresentations in these
communications. As to breach of contract claim, PHH is dismissed
with prejudice because there is no basis upon which to hold PHH
liable since Plaintiff failed to allege that Plaintiff and PHH
were parties to the Security Agreement or any similar document and
as to HSBC, the breach of contract claims remain because the
Security Agreement governs the relationship between Plaintiff and
HSBC Mortgage.

Dawn Tardibuono-Quigley is represented by Todd Seth Garber, Esq.
-- tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- and -- Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq.
-- dblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP, FREI-
PEARSON & GARBER, LLP

HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) is represented by James Lawrence
Bernard, Esq. -- jbernard@stroock.com -- Julia Beatrice
Strickland, Esq. -- jstrickland@stroock.com -- David Wesley Moon,
Esq. -- dmoon@stroock.com -- Nathan Harry Stopper, Esq. --
nstopper@stroock.com -- and -- Raymond Alexander Garcia, Esq. --
rgarcia@stroock.com -- STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP


HUB GROUP: Subsidiary Still Faces Christian Lubinski Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Hub Group, Inc. continues to defend itself in
legal proceedings filed by Christian Lubinski on behalf of owner-
operators providing delivery services, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

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

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

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

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

On October 26, 2016, Lubinski filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of federal subject-matter jurisdiction and a motion for leave to
file an amended complaint, attempting to "clarify" the putative
class definition and arguing that the Class Action Fairness Act's
exceptions to jurisdiction apply.  In early 2017, Plaintiff's
counsel advised Hub Group Trucking that Lubinski would no longer
challenge federal jurisdiction.  On February 15, 2017, the
District Court adopted the parties' stipulation and found that
there is federal subject-matter jurisdiction.  On March 22, 2017,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted
Plaintiff's motion to recall the mandate and reinstate Lubinski's
appeal of the district court's order dismissing the case.  The
appeal was fully briefed earlier, so no further briefing will
occur absent an Order from the Court of Appeals.

Hub Group, Inc., an asset-light freight transportation management
company, provides intermodal, truck brokerage, and logistics
services in North America.  It operates through two segments, Mode
and Hub.  The Company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in
Oak Brook, Illinois.


IDAHO: High Court Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Educ. Funding
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RUSSELL JOKI, individually and as Guardian
and Guardian Ad Litem of PEYTON LEE GIFFORD-JOKI, a minor of age
16 enrolled at Meridian High School; and SARAH C. HOLT,
individually and as Parent and Guardian Ad Litem of SABRINA HOLT
and SOPHIA HOLT, children enrolled in Chief Joseph Elementary
School in Meridian, Idaho; each Plaintiff in their own behalf and
in behalf of all parents, grandparents, and guardians ad litem of
all school age children in grades K-12 in the Meridian Joint
School District #2, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE STATE OF IDAHO,
THE IDAHO STATE LEGISLATURE, THE IDAHO STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION,
and THE HONORABLE TOM LUNA, Superintendent of Public Instruction,
Defendants-Respondents, and MERIDIAN JOINT DISTRICT #2, Defendant,
Docket No. 43907 (Idaho), Justice Warren E. Jones of the Supreme
Court of Idaho, Boise, affirmed the district court's dismissal of
the state defendant and denied Joki's request for costs and
attorney's fees.

Russell Joki and sixteen other individuals initiated a suit
against the State of Idaho, the Idaho State Legislature, the Idaho
State Board of Education, and the Superintendent of Public
Instruction and all 114 Idaho public school districts, and one
charter school. Joki sought to proceed as a representative of a
class consisting of all students currently enrolled in the
defendant school districts, together with their parents or
guardians. In the initial complaint, Joki requested reimbursement
for the damages that he and other class members suffered, and
continued to suffer, as a result of the unconstitutional fees
charged by the defendant school districts. On October 9, 2012,
Joki filed an amended class action complaint, adding a second
cause of action against the State Defendants. Specifically, Joki
requested a declaratory judgment that Idaho's current system of
funding education is unconstitutional. Joki cited article IX,
section 1 of the Idaho Constitution as the basis for his claims.

The State defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the district
court granted on March 19, 2013. On the same day, 53 of the 114
school districts were voluntarily dismissed by Joki. On March 27,
2013, Joki submitted a motion to alter or amend the order
dismissing the State defendants. On June 27, 2013, Joki, Meridian
Joint District #2, and the State defendants stipulated that Joki
may file a second amended complaint, with the provision that
Meridian Joint District #2 and the State defendants reserved the
right to seek dismissal, summary judgment, and resist class
certification. The district court granted Joki's motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint. On July 16, 2013, Joki filed
the second amended complaint, which sought reimbursement from
Meridian Joint District #2 or the legislature of certain fees
imposed by the school districts and a declaratory judgment against
the State defendants that the current system of funding education
in Idaho is unconstitutional.

The State Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint. In an accompanying memorandum, the State defendants
argued that the claims against them fell squarely within the terms
of the Constitutionally Based Educational Claims Act, Idaho Code
sections 6-2201-2216 (CBECA), and should be dismissed according to
the provisions therein. In response, Joki argued that the CBECA
did not require the dismissal of the State Defendants.

Specifically, Joki asserted that according to the court's holding
in Idaho Schools for Equal Education Opportunity v. State (ISEEO
IV), the CBECA was unconstitutional as applied to his second cause
of action.

On November 27, 2013, the district court issued a memorandum
decision and order regarding the State defendants' motion to
dismiss. The district court found that the CBECA applied to Joki's
claim for fee reimbursement and required the dismissal of the
State defendants. The district court reasoned that the CBECA
applied to Joki's claim because, under the CBECA, a district court
may issue any order that it determines would assist the local
school district in administering constitutionally required
educational services. Further, the district court reasoned that
the State defendants could only be added as defendants after a
bench trial, a finding that a school district failed to provide
constitutionally required educational services, the issuance of a
corresponding remedial order; and a continued noncompliance by a
school district had occurred. The district court granted the State
defendants' motion to dismiss.

Joki's complaint did not allege inadequate school facilities, the
district court concluded that Joki failed to state a claim to
enforce ISEEO V. Further, the district court reasoned that even if
Joki were to allege facts within the purview of the court's
holding in ISEEO V, the CBECA would nevertheless apply and require
Joki to first exhaust the remedies under the CBECA before pursuing
action against the State Defendants. In sum, the district court
held that the CBECA governed all of Joki's claims, as brought
against the State Defendants, and required dismissal.

On June 27, 2014, the district court denied Joki's motion for
class certification due to concerns over the suitability of Joki
as representative of the proposed class. On December 7, 2015, the
district court entered judgment in favor of Joki against Meridian
Joint District #2 in the amount of $85. Joki appealed the
dismissal of the State defendants.

Justice Warren E. Jones cites Idaho Code section 6-2205, which
provides that any patron suit against the state, the legislature,
or any of the state's officers or agencies not authorized by the
district court pursuant to this section will be dismissed. Because
Joki did not obtain authorization from the district court to add
the State defendants, the district court's dismissal of the State
defendants was not in error. With regards to attorney's fees,
Justice Jones held that Idaho Code section 12-121 provides that a
judge may award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing
party. Consequently, only a prevailing party may receive
attorney's fees under the private attorney general theory. Joki is
not the prevailing party against the State defendants, therefore,
he is not entitled to attorney's fees at the district court level
or on appeal. The district court's dismissal of the state
defendants is affirmed and Joki's request for cost and attorney's
fees is denied.

A copy of Justice Warren E. Jones's order dated April 27, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/968OFO from Leagle.com.

Robert Huntley, Esq.
The Huntley Law Firm, PLLC
815 W Washington St
Boise, ID 83701
Tel: 208-388-1230
Fax: 208-388-0234

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Esq.
Leslie Hayes, Esq.
Idaho Attorney General Office
700 W Jefferson St #210
Boise, ID 83720
Tel: 208-334-2400

The Supreme Court of Idaho, panel consists of Chief Justice Roger
S. Burdick and Justices Warren E. Jones, Daniel T. Eismann, Joel
D. Horton and Robyn M. Brody.


INSPERITY INC: Suit over Worksite Employee 401(k) Plan Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Insperity, Inc. continues to defend the Worksite Employee 401(k)
Retirement Plan Class Action Litigation, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 1, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company said, "In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was
filed against us and the third party discretionary trustee of the
Insperity 401(k) retirement plan available to eligible worksite
employees (the "Plan") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on behalf of Plan
participants. This suit generally alleges that the Company's
third-party discretionary trustee of the Plan and Insperity
breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by selecting
an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper for the Plan,
by causing participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping
fees to the Insperity subsidiary, by failing to monitor other
fiduciaries and by making imprudent investment choices."

"We believe we have meritorious defenses, and we intend to
vigorously defend this litigation. As a result of uncertainty
regarding the outcome of this matter, no provision has been made
in the accompanying consolidated financial statements."

Insperity, Inc., a Delaware corporation, provides an array of
human resources ("HR") and business solutions designed to help
improve business performance.


INVUITY INC: California Stockholder Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Invuity, Inc. defends itself in a purported stockholder class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The class action, titled Paciga v. Invuity, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-01005, was filed on February 27, 2017 against the Company,
its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements to investors regarding the Company's business
prospects.  The complaint purports to assert claims for violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Commission Rule 10b-
5 on behalf of a purported class consisting of all purchasers of
the Company's common stock between July 19, 2016 and November 3,
2016, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney fees
and costs, and other relief.

Invuity said, "The Company intends to defend the litigation
vigorously.  Based on information currently available, the Company
has determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of
possible loss is not reasonably estimable."

Invuity, Inc., a medical technology company, develops various
surgical devices to address various surgical procedures in the
United States.  The Company integrates its intelligent photonics
technology platform into its single-use and reusable advanced
surgical devices to address various critical intracavity
illumination and visualization challenges.  The Company was
formerly known as Spotlight Surgical, Inc. and changed its name to
Invuity, Inc. in 2007.  Invuity, Inc. was incorporated in 2004 and
is based in San Francisco, California.


ITURAN LOCATION: Monopoly Abuse Suit Awaits Class Cert. Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against Ituran Location and Control Ltd. for alleged
monopoly abuse and customer discrimination is yet to be approved
as a class action, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.

On July 13, 2015, the Company received a purported class action
lawsuit which was filed against the Company in the District Court
of Central Region in Tel-Aviv, Israel, by one plaintiff who is a
subscriber of the Company, alleging that the Company, which was
declared a monopoly under the Israeli Restrictive Trade Practices
Law, 1988, unlawfully abused its power as a monopoly and
discriminated between its customers.

The plaintiff claims that the alleged discrimination resulted from
the Company charging higher monthly subscription fees from
customers who are obliged by insurance company requirements to
install location and recovery systems in their vehicles than the
monthly subscription fees that are charged from customers who are
not required by insurance companies to install location and
recovery systems in their vehicles.

In addition, the plaintiff claims that the Company offers to
customers who are not required by insurance companies to install
location and recovery systems in their vehicles, a discounted
warrantee service to their location and recovery systems.

The plaintiff claims in addition to the above, that such actions
raise additional causes of action against the Company such as
negotiations without good faith, executing contract without good
faith, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of consumer
protection laws, tort laws, and breach of statutory duty.

The total amount claimed if the lawsuit is approved as a class
action was estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 300
million (approximately USD$77 million).

The Company's defense against the approval of the class action
lawsuit was filed on January 3, 2016.  The plaintiff has responded
to the defense on February 29, 2016, and a first preliminary
hearing took place on January 4, 2017.

A class action lawsuit based on similar claims, against the
Company, which description was filed with sect on form 6-K on
March 22, 2011, was dismissed by the court on the request of both
parties, on March 5, 2012 for a small compensation to the
plaintiff and his attorneys, in a total amount of NIS 30,000
(approximately USD$7,900).

The Company said, "Such dismissal of a similar class action
lawsuit may have a positive effect on the Company's defense
against the current lawsuit.  Based on an opinion of its legal
counsels, at this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to
assess the lawsuit's chances of success, however based on the
documents of the claim, the Company has good defense arguments in
respect of claims made by the plaintiff and that the chances that
the lawsuit will not be approved as a class action lawsuit are
higher than it will be approved.  While we cannot predict the
outcome of this case, if we are not successful in defending our
claim, we could be subject to significant costs, adversely
affecting our results of operations."

Ituran Location and Control Ltd., together with its subsidiaries,
provides location-based services and wireless communications
products in Israel, Brazil, Argentina, and the United States.  It
was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Azour, Israel.


JACKSON NATIONAL: Faces "Nofsinger" Suit Over "Surrender Charges"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BONNIE NOFSINGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Michigan corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03367
(N.D. Ill., May 4, 2017), alleges that Defendant assessed unlawful
and unauthorized "surrender charges" in violation of law and in
breach of the annuity contracts owned by Plaintiff and the other
members of the putative Class and Subclass.

An annuity is a type of insurance product. The surrender charge is
calculated as a percentage of the annuity principal accumulated up
to the time of withdrawal.

Defendant, Jackson National, is an insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott A. Morgan, Esq.
     MORGAN LAW FIRM, LTD.
     55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 900
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: (312)327-3386
     E-mail: smorgan@smorgan-law.com

        - and -

     John Sawin, Esq.
     SAWIN LAW FIRM, LTD.
     55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 900
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: (312)853-2490
     E-mail: jsawin@sawinlawyers.com

       - and -

     Myles McGuire, Esq.
     Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
     Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
     David L. Gerbie, Esq.
     MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
     55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 900
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: (312)893-7002
     E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
             emeyers@mcgpc.com
             eturin@mcgpc.com
             dgerbie@mcgpc.com


JENKINS WAGNON: Bids to Dismiss FDCPA Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales of the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico denied motion to dismiss and
motion for judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned, JOSHUA
CORDOVA, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JODY JENKINS and JENKINS, WAGNON & YOUNG,
P.C., Defendants, Case No. 16-460 KG/KBM (D.N.M.).

Plaintiff Joshua Cordova originally filed a Class Action Complaint
for Damages in the Second Judicial District Court in the County of
Bernalillo, New Mexico. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that
attorney Jody Jenkins and his law firm, Jenkins, Wagnon & Young,
P.C., submitted fraudulent attorney fee affidavits in their New
Mexico debt collection cases, resulting in hundreds of inflated
judgments against New Mexico residents.  Plaintiff claims that
Defendants' conduct violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692 et seq., the New Mexico Unfair
Practices Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 57-12-1, et seq. (UPA), and
constituted malicious abuse of process, fraud, and unjust
enrichment.

As the basis for Plaintiff's claims, Plaintiff specifically
alleges that, on June 16, 2014, Jenkins filed suit in State
District Court on behalf of debt buyer Autovest, L.L.C., against
Plaintiff.  The complaint in that case alleged that Autovest was
the owner and holder of an auto loan contract, acquired from Wells
Fargo, that Plaintiff had signed in 2006 to finance the purchase
of a motor vehicle.  The complaint further alleged that Plaintiff
defaulted on the auto loan and, as a result, was indebted to
Autovest. Throughout the Lawsuit, no responsive pleadings were
filed, no hearings were held, and Jenkins did not make any court
appearances. Subsequently, Jenkins filed a Motion for Default
Judgment on behalf of Autovest, to which he attached a signed,
notarized, "Itemized Affidavit in Support of Attorney's Fees."

The Fee Affidavit sought attorney's fees for the hours Jenkins and
JWY spent on the Lawsuit under the lodestar method.  In support of
their request, Jenkins stated, under oath, that JWY had spent a
total of 4.25 attorney hours, at a reasonable rate of $250 per
hour, on the Lawsuit.  On October 30, 2014, the State District
Court granted Autovest default judgment and awarded Defendants
attorney's fees.

Plaintiff alleges that Jenkins did not perform 4.25 of work in the
Lawsuit.  In support, Plaintiff attaches several other nearly
identical Fee Affidavits, which Jenkins submitted in other debt
collection cases resolved by default judgment around the time of
the Lawsuit.  In those Fee Affidavits, Jenkins claims that he
performed 4.25 hours of work, with the same itemization of
attorney time.  In addition, Plaintiff attaches a one-page Motion
for Default Judgment which was filed in the Lawsuit, along with
five other examples of nearly identical motions for default
judgment filed in similar cases.  As a result, Plaintiff claims
that Jenkins could not have performed all these tasks and that
they more likely were completed by support staff in less than 4.25
hours.  Thus, Defendants' Fee Affidavits contained false
statements.

Defendants removed the case to the Court on May 20, 2016.
Subsequently, they filed their Motion, seeking dismissal of
Plaintiff's claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and judgment on
the pleadings pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata and
collateral estoppel. In response, Plaintiff argues that he has
stated a viable claim under the FDCPA and that he has otherwise
alleged sufficient factual matter to survive a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss. In addition, Plaintiff maintains that his
claims are not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 20, 2017,
available at https://is.gd/jp0VQq from Leagle.com, Judge Gonzales
found that Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded his claims under
both Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and that their claims are not barred
under the doctrine of res judicata.

Plaintiffs are represented by Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. -- sdr@rl-
legal.com -- Brian D. Long, Esq. -- bdl@rl-legal.com -- Gina M.
Serra, Esq. -- gms@rl-legal.com -- and -- Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. --
jjr@rl-legal.com -- RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. -- Derrick B. Farrell,
Esq. -- derrick.farrell@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LLP --
Michael Van Gorder, Esq. -- mvangorder@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI &
FARUQI, LLP -- Peter Andrews, Esq. -- ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC --
Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. -- shopkins@zlk.com -- and -- Sebastiano
Tornatore, Esq. -- etripodi@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP --
Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. -- jml@jlclasslaw.com -- LIFSHITZ & MILLER

Christopher Crupi, John Carden, Michel Stinglhamber, Robert
Dinning, Eliseo Gonzalez-Urien, Christopher Reynolds, and Shawn
Kennedy are represented by Albert H. Manwaring, IV, Esq. --
amanwaring@morrisjames.com -- and -- Albert J. Carroll, Esq. --
acarroll@morrisjames.com -- MORRIS JAMES LLP


JOHN DAVID: "Calixtro-Calixtro" Alleges Breach of H-2A Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL CALIXTRO-CALIXTRO, On behalf of himself and a class of
those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DAVID HODGES d/b/a
BARON'S CREEK FARMS, Defendant, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00394
(W.D. Tex., May 1, 2017), alleges that Defendant violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act when he failed to pay Plaintiff the minimum
wage and overtime, and breached their employment contract when he
failed to follow the H-2A program's regulations that were a
material term of the contract, including by paying less than the
Adverse Effect Wage Rate.

Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) is the minimum wage that the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL) has determined "must be offered and paid
to U.S. and alien workers by agricultural employers of
nonimmigrant H-2A agricultural workers.

Defendant owned and operated a farm and produce packing shed,
called Baron's Creek Farms.  Plaintiff and similarly situated
workers performed work at Baron's Creek Farms, including
harvesting, grading, and packing squash from Baron's Creek and
other farms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Mauch, Esq.
     TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC.
     1111 North Main Ave.
     San Antonio, TX 78212
     Phone: (210) 212-3716
     Fax: (210) 212-3772
     Email: dmauch@trla.org

        - and -

     William J. Grigg, Esq.
     TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC.
     1111 North Main Ave.
     San Antonio, TX 78212
     Phone: (210) 212-3700
     Fax: (210) 212-3772
     Email: wgrigg@trla.org

        - and -

     Nathaniel Norton, Esq.
     TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC.
     301 S. Texas Blvd.
     Mercedes, TX 78570
     Phone: (956)447-4800
     Fax: (210) 212-3772
     Email: nnorton@trla.org


JP MORGAN: Faces "Musthaler" Suit Alleging False Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE MUSTHALER, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK;
DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE, Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00794 (C.D.
Cal., May 4, 2017), seeks to stop Defendant's alleged practice of
falsely advertising that it will provide services that it has no
intention to provide, and redress for a nationwide class of
consumers who were charged interest and late fees they did not
owe.

Defendant is a California limited liability company and is engaged
in the business of providing loans and related services.

According to the complaint, Defendant represents that it gives
consumers the choice as to whether they elect Defendant to provide
coverage against insufficient funds, or whether they do not want
Defendant to approve those transactions.  Plaintiff and others
similarly situated elected not to have coverage against
insufficient funds transactions. Defendant misrepresented and
falsely advertised to Plaintiff and others they would honor
Plaintiff's election. However, Chase provided coverage against
insufficient funds, despite Plaintiff's specific instruction not
to do so, and then charged Plaintiff a $34.00 insufficient funds
fee for each transaction.

The case alleges violation of the Unfair Competition Law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JUMEI INTERNATIONAL: Shareholder Complaint Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Jumei International Holding Limited said in its Form 20-F Annual
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a court
has dismissed a consolidated shareholder class action complaint.

The Company said, "In December 2014, four putative shareholder
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Eastern
District of New York against our company, certain current and
former officers and directors of our company, and underwriters in
our initial public offering: Lu v. Jumei International Holding
Limited et al., Civil Action No. 14 CV 9826 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on
December 11, 2014); Yim v. Jumei International Holding Limited et
al., Civil Action No. 14 CV 7269 (E.D.N.Y.) (filed on December 12,
2014, voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs on March 9, 2015); Yin
v. Jumei International Holding Limited et al., Civil Action No. 14
CV 9957 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on December 17, 2014); and Brock v.
Jumei International Holding Limited et al., Civil Action No. 14 CV
9993 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on December 18, 2014). The complaints in
the above-mentioned putative shareholder class action lawsuits
allege that our company's registration statement for our initial
public offering and/or certain subsequent press releases,
financial statements, and other disclosures made by our company
contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of the
federal securities laws.

"On March 9, 2015, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice the putative class action originally filed in the
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Yim v. Jumei
International Holding Limited et al. On June 22, 2015, the
District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated
the remaining three putative class actions into one action, In re
Jumei International Holding Limited Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 14 CV 9826 (S.D.N.Y.), appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel.

"On October 16, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed--purportedly on
behalf a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a
result of their trading activities related to our ADSs between May
16, 2014 and November 19, 2014--a Consolidated Amended Complaint,
which advances similar allegations as the previously filed
complaints, and alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k and 77o and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
15 U.S.C. Sections 78(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5.

"On March 22, 2016, we and the underwriters in our initial public
offering filed a joint motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint. On January 10, 2017, the court issued an opinion and
order granting our and the underwriters' joint motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Amended Complaint; on January 11, 2017, the court
entered a judgment dismissing the case accordingly."


KBR INC: Faces "Denenberg" Securities Suit Over Bribery Scandal
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN DENENBERG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. KBR, INC., STUART J. BRADIE,
MARK W. SOPP and BRIAN K. FERRAIOLI, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
01375 (S.D. Tex., May 3, 2017), alleges that Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies in violation of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act.

Specifically, Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's
United Kingdom subsidiaries had violated applicable bribery and
corruption laws; and (ii) that as a result of the foregoing, KBR's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

KBR Inc. provides professional services and technologies across
the asset and program life-cycle within the government services
and hydrocarbons industries worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
     THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
     3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 600
     Dallas, TX 75204
     Phone: 214-643-6011
     Fax: 281-254-7789
     E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

        - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Hui M. Chang, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-661-1100
     Fax: 212-661-8665
     E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com
             hchang@pomlaw.com

        - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 377-1181
     Fax: (312) 377-1184
     E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


KELSEY-HAYES: 6th Cir. Affirms Injunction in Retiree Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district
court's award of partial summary judgment, and modified the
permanent injunction to exclude Northrop Grumman in the case
captioned, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW); JAMES WARD;
MARSHALL HUNT; RICHARD GORDON, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. KELSEY-
HAYES COMPANY; TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORPORATION; NORTHROP
GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 15-
2285 (6th Cir.).

Plaintiffs are Medicare-eligible retirees from a Detroit
automotive plant owned and operated by defendant Kelsey-Hayes
Company who brought a class action alleging breach of a collective
bargaining agreement under Section 301 of the Labor Management
Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 185, and violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001
et seq., including breach of fiduciary duty.

Kelsey-Hayes and TRW moved for an order to compel arbitration,
relying on the PCA's arbitration clause. Northrop Grumman filed a
separate motion to compel arbitration. The district court
initially granted the motions to compel arbitration in their
entirety, but upon reconsideration reversed in part, finding that
a subset of plaintiffs -- those who had retired before the 2001
plant closing -- could not be bound by the PCA because their
rights had already vested under the 1998 CBA and that their
healthcare-related disputes were thus exempt from the CBA's
arbitration clause.  Kelsey-Hayes appealed the district court's
order.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that employees who retired
prior to the 2001 PCA did not consent to the PCA's terms and could
not be compelled to arbitrate pursuant to it.

Defendants moved to stay litigation pending the Supreme Court's
decision in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, 135 S.Ct. 926 (2015)
which involved how to interpret silence concerning the duration of
retiree healthcare benefits when construing CBAs, which would
directly impact the Sixth Circuit's decision in the case at hand.
Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Tackett, which explicitly
overruled decades of Sixth Circuit precedent established by UAW v.
Yard-Man, Inc., 716 F.2d 1476 (6th Cir. 1983), the parties re-
filed cross-motions for summary judgment and re-briefed their
arguments to incorporate the decision. The district court denied
defendants summary judgment and granted the plaintiff-retirees
partial summary judgment, as well as a permanent injunction
ordering defendants to reinstate the retirees' group-insurance
plan.

The Court reviewed de novo the district court's grant of summary
judgment.

In an Opinion dated April 20, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/SlQcBD from Leagle.com, the Sixth Circuit affirmed
the injunction to all parties except on Northrop Grumman for lack
of sufficient evidence in the record to determine liability.

Kelsey-Hayes, et al. are represented by Gregory V. Mersol, Esq. --
gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

International Union, et al. are represented by William Wertheimer,
Esq. -- william.wertheimer@temple.edu -- LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM
WERTHEIMER


KITOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Wants 2015 Case Parties to Negotiate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kitov Pharmaceuticals Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the court in a
2015 class action in Israel has ordered the parties to negotiate
on the matter in order to try and reach a procedural agreement,
and scheduled an additional preliminary hearing for May 4, 2017.

The Company said, "On December 3, 2015, we announced that we
received a lawsuit and motion to approve the lawsuit as a class
action lawsuit pursuant to the Class Action Lawsuits Law 5766-2006
(the "2015 Motion") which was filed against us and our directors
at the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division). The 2015
Motion is with respect to asserted claims for damages to the
holders of our securities listed on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange,
arising due to the public offering of our initial public offering
of our securities in the U.S. during November 2015. In the 2015
Motion it was claimed that the class the petitioners are seeking
to represent, namely, anyone holding our shares at the start of
trading on November 22, 2015 exclusive of the respondents and/or
anyone acting on their behalf and/or any affiliates thereof and
excluding anyone whose rights to our shares derive from ADS
certificates issued in the U.S to such extent as derived
therefrom; and any holders of our Series 2 TASE listed warrants as
of the start of trading on November 22, 2015, exclusive of the
respondents and/or anyone acting on their behalf and/or any
affiliates thereof (Purported Class). The total amount claimed
from all defendants, if the 2015 Motion is certified as a class
action, as set forth in the motion is approximately NIS 16.4
million."

"In addition to this amount, the petitioners in the motion are
seeking remedies in order to redress discrimination against the
Purported Class owing to the dilution caused by the public
offering, including the possibility that the Purported Class
should be awarded from Kitov Parent amounts reflecting the losses
of the Purported Class from a possible price increase in the
shares of Kitov Parent following the announcement of the Phase III
clinical trial results.

"Under applicable Israeli law, a motion to approve a lawsuit as a
class action initially needs to be approved as such by the court.
Only after such approval is granted by the court, will the court
proceed to the second stage of hearing the underlying claims of
the class action lawsuit. We announced that we reject the claims
asserted in the 2015 Motion. We have delivered our response to the
court in accordance with applicable law, and a preliminary hearing
was held by the court on September 12, 2016. At such hearing the
court determined that certain claims of the petitioners in
connection with alleged personal interests by affiliates of Kitov
Parent in connection with the public offering of our initial
public offering of our securities in the U.S. during November 2015
are not part of the grounds for the 2015 Motion and no remedies
shall be sought by the petitioners in connection therewith. The
court set a schedule for the submission by the petitioners of a
motion for discovery, and any responses to such motion.

"An additional preliminary hearing was held on February 7, 2017.
At that hearing the court ruled on the scope of the petitioners'
motion for discovery, and pursuant to such ruling Kitov Parent
delivered to the petitioners (subject to signing confidentiality
undertakings) certain protocols of the board of directors of Kitov
Parent. Pursuant to the filing of one of the 2017 Motions to
Approve a Class Action in Israel by the same attorneys for the
plaintiffs in the 2015 Motion, Kitov Parent and other respondents
in the 2015 Motion filed a motion to narrow the scope of court's
ruling on the petitioners' motion for discovery, and the
petitioners filed a motion to declare that Kitov Parent did not
comply with the court's ruling on the petitioners' motion for
discovery and therefor is in contempt of the court. Furthermore,
petitioners filed a motion for the dismissal of the further motion
to narrow the scope of court's ruling on the petitioners' motion
for discovery.

"On March 30, 2017 the court ordered the parties to negotiate on
the matter in order to try and reach a procedural agreement, and
scheduled an additional preliminary hearing for May 4, 2017.

"On November 8, 2016, a shareholder of Kitov Parent submitted a
request to the court in connection with the 2015 Motion to be
excluded from the Purported Class and claiming to have independent
causes of action and claims of approximately NIS 1 million (the
"Petition to Exclude"). We responded to the court as required,
and, amongst other arguments, we noted that pursuant to the Class
Action Lawsuits Law 5766-2006 and the Regulations enacted
thereunder, at the current stage of the court proceedings with
respect to the Motion, such shareholder cannot petition to be
excluded from the Purported Class. The court ordered the
shareholder to respond to our response and he has done so. The
shareholder has not submitted any independent lawsuit against us,
and we are of the view that such shareholder's claims are
identical to the asserted claims for damages in the Motion.

"We have been advised by our attorneys that the likelihood of
Kitov Parent not incurring any financial obligation as a result of
the class action (including the 2015 Motion and the Petition to
Exclude) exceeds the likelihood that Kitov Parent will incur a
financial obligation. At this preliminary stage however, we are
unable, with any degree of certainty, to make any other
evaluations or any other assessments with respect to the 2015
Motion's probability of success or the scope of potential
exposure, if any.


KITOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Wants 2017 Case Parties to Negotiate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kitov Pharmaceuticals Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Court in
Israel has advised the plaintiff parties in the 2017 class action
lawsuits to try to reach a procedural agreement.

The Company said, "On February 16, 2017, we announced that four
lawsuits and motions to approve the lawsuits as a class action
lawsuit were filed against us and certain of our office holders at
the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division), and served on us,
with each such motion relating to the ISA Investigation into our
public disclosures around certain aspects of the studies related
to our lead drug candidate, KIT-302 (the "2017 Motions")."

"The first motion was filed against us, our executive directors
and certain of our former directors, by the law offices of Tadmor
& Co. and Prof. Yuval Levy & Co. acting on behalf of one of our
shareholders, Mr. Kobi Koren, who is requesting to act as
representative of all shareholders of record from December 10,
2015 until February 6, 2017. The plaintiff alleges, among other
things, that we included misleading information in our public
filings, which caused the class for which the plaintiff is seeking
recognition an aggregate loss of NIS 25,545,206 (approximately US$
6,818,000).

"The second motion was filed against us, our executive directors
and certain of our present and former directors, by the law
offices of Yanay & Co. acting on behalf of Mr. Ilan Vainreb, Ms.
Merav Shir, Mr. Dimitry Braverman and Mr. Tzhaci Tal Gaon, our
shareholders, who are requesting to act as representatives of all
our shareholders on February 6, 2017, the date the ISA's
investigation was reported, excluding the respondents named in the
motion. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that we
included misleading information in our public filings which caused
the class for which the plaintiffs are seeking recognition an
aggregate loss of NIS 36,525,592.51 (approximately US$9,748,000).

"The third motion was filed against us, our executive directors
and certain of our former directors, and our former internal
auditor, by the law offices of Redei-Gadot acting on behalf of
Messrs. Reuven Hay Refua and Binyamin Gabay, our shareholder, who
are requesting to act as representatives of all shareholders of
record from December 15, 2015 until February 6, 2017, excluding
the respondents in the motion. The plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that we included misleading information in our public
filings which caused the class for which the plaintiffs are
seeking recognition, an aggregate loss of NIS 33,235,000
(approximately US$8,870,000). This motion has since been withdrawn
in response to the Petition for Dismissal.

"The fourth motion was filed against us, our executive directors
and certain of our present and former directors, by the law
offices of Kalai, Rosen & Co. acting on behalf of by Messrs. Yoram
Chayut and Gur Tzemach, our shareholders, who are requesting to
act as representatives of all shareholders of record from December
10, 2015 until February 6, 2017. The plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that we included misleading information in our
public filings which caused the class for which the plaintiffs are
seeking recognition, an aggregate loss of NIS 29,094,290
(approximately US$ 7,765,000). The petitioners this motion have
petitioned the court to dismiss the other 3 of the 2017 Motions
("Petition for Dismissal"). The court granted the petitioners in
the other 3 of the 2017 Motions, as well as the Company and the
other defendants, until March 28, 2017 to respond to Petition for
Dismissal. The Company and the other defendants filed its response
to the Petition for Dismissal on March 28, 2017.

"In addition on March 28, 2017, the Company and the defendants in
all of the 2017 Motions submitted a request to the court to extend
the deadline for responding to any of the 2017 Motions until 90
days subsequent to the decision by the court in the Petition for
Dismissal. In a court decision from March 30, 2017, the court
advised the plaintiff parties to try and reach a procedural
agreement regarding the combination of the motions, and all
relevant deadlines for responding were extended until a subsequent
decision to be made. In a court decision from April 3, 2017, after
all responses to the Petition for Dismissal were filed, the court
again decided that the plaintiffs should try to reach a procedural
agreement regarding the combination of the motions and update the
court in the matter until May 3, 2017. This latter decision also
stated that the respondents (including the Company) may be party
to any such procedural agreement.

"Under applicable Israeli law, a motion to approve a lawsuit as a
class action initially needs to be approved as such by the court.
Only after such approval is granted by the court, will the court
proceed to the second stage of hearing the underlying claims of
the class action lawsuit. The court may also determine to combine
the 2017 Motions, based on, among other things, considering the
underlying facts and circumstances of each motion.

"Our management rejects the claims in all of the aforesaid 2017
Motions. At this preliminary stage we are unable, with any degree
of certainty, to make any evaluations or any assessments with
respect to the 2017 Motions as to the probability of success or
the scope of potential exposure, if any."


KITOV PHARMACEUTICALS: May 18 Pre-Trial Conference Set in NY Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An initial pretrial conference is scheduled for May 18, 2017, in a
class action lawsuit in New York, Kitov Pharmaceuticals Holdings
Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On February 7, 2017, an individual who allegedly acquired Kitov
Parent's securities, individually and on behalf of a putative
class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Kitov
Parent's securities, filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Kitov Parent,
its CEO and CFO, alleging violations of U.S. federal securities
laws and seeking unspecified damages and other relief based on,
among other things, Kitov Parent allegedly including misleading
information in its public filings. Our time to respond to the
Complaint is to be determined. An initial pretrial conference is
scheduled for May 18, 2017.


KITOV PHARMACEUTICALS: San Mateo, Calif. Cases Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The court in San Mateo, California, has consolidated two class
action lawsuits, Kitov Pharmaceuticals Holdings Ltd. said in its
Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On February 10, 2017, an individual who allegedly acquired Kitov
Parent's securities, individually and on behalf of a putative
class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Kitov
Parent's securities, filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Mateo against Kitov
Parent, its CEO and CFO, and the underwriters of Kitov Parent's
initial public offering, alleging violations of U.S. federal
securities laws and seeking unspecified damages and other relief
based on, among other things, Kitov Parent allegedly including
misleading information in its public filings.

On March 20, 2017, an individual who allegedly acquired Kitov
Parent's securities, individually and on behalf of a putative
class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Kitov
Parent's securities, filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Mateo against Kitov
Parent, its CEO and CFO, and the underwriters of Kitov Parent's
initial public offering, alleging violations of U.S. federal
securities laws and seeking unspecified damages and other relief
based on, among other things, Kitov Parent allegedly including
misleading information in its public filings.

On April 6, 2017, the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of San Mateo entered an order consolidating the two
California putative class actions. On April 13, 2017, the court
entered a case management order requiring the plaintiffs to file
and serve an amended consolidated complaint on or before June 5,
2017. The case management order requires Kitov Parent and the
other defendants to file and serve their answers or other
responses to the amended consolidated complaint on or before July
20, 2017. The court has scheduled an initial case management
conference for October 11, 2017.


L3 TECHNOLOGIES: June 30 Final Hearing on Consumer Suit Pact
------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on the final approval of a settlement to resolve five
class action consumer lawsuits against L3 Technologies, Inc. is
scheduled for June 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

During 2015 and 2016, five putative class action complaints
against the Company were filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri alleging that the Company's
EoTech business unit knowingly sold defective holographic weapons
sights (Andrew Tyler Foster, et al., v.  L-3 Communications
EoTech, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:15 CV 03519 BCW).

In October 2016, the parties reached a settlement in principle to
resolve the allegations in these cases.

On February 15, 2017, the Company received preliminary approval
from the court to settle the five class action consumer lawsuits
filed.  Following an agreed-to notice period in which any
contentions from objectors are addressed, the court, in its
discretion and following a fairness hearing that has been
scheduled for June 30, 2017, will order final approval of the
settlement and the litigation will be resolved.

Any final approval order from the court is subject to appeal.
Prior to final resolution of this litigation, either party retains
rights to withdraw from the settlement under circumstances
delineated in the settlement agreement.  There are numerous risks
associated with this settlement, including that the court finds
that the settlement is not fair and adequate to the class members
or for any other reason that the court deems appropriate to
withhold final approval.  If final approval does not occur, the
litigation would recommence.

As of March 31, 2017, the Company has accrued the amount deemed
appropriate for this matter.

L3 Technologies, Inc. provides aerospace systems, and
communication and electronic systems and products used on military
and commercial platforms in the United States and internationally.
It operates in three segments: Electronic Systems, Aerospace
Systems, and Communication Systems.  It was formerly known as L-3
Communications Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to L3
Technologies, Inc. in December 2016.  The Company was founded in
1997 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Court to Hear Securities Suit Pact on Aug. 10
--------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing for the proposed settlement of a securities
class action against L3 Technologies, Inc. has been scheduled for
August 10, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017.

In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of
its officers.  These cases were consolidated into a single action
on October 24, 2014.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed
in the District Court on December 22, 2014, which was further
amended and restated on March 13, 2015.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws
related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the
Company at its Aerospace Systems segment, and seeks monetary
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses.

On March 30, 2016, the District Court dismissed with prejudice all
claims against the Company's officers and allowed the claim
against the Company to proceed to discovery.

On December 20, 2016, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to resolve this matter for US$34.5 million, subject to
the execution of definitive settlement documents and final court
approval.

On February 22, 2017, the parties executed a final settlement
agreement.

On March 10, 2017, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement.  In accordance with the settlement agreement, the
Company's insurers have paid the settlement amount into an escrow
account that will be used to fully fund the settlement subject to
the terms of the settlement agreement.

L3 Technologies, Inc. provides aerospace systems, and
communication and electronic systems and products used on military
and commercial platforms in the United States and internationally.
It operates in three segments: Electronic Systems, Aerospace
Systems, and Communication Systems.  It was formerly known as L-3
Communications Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to L3
Technologies, Inc. in December 2016.  The Company was founded in
1997 and is headquartered in New York, New York.



L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Putative Class Suit on 401(k) Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
L3 Technologies, Inc. continues to face putative class action
regarding a Company-sponsored 401(k) plan, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On June 24, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of participants in and beneficiaries of a Company-sponsored
401(k) plan.  An amended complaint was filed on September 29,
2016.

The amended complaint alleged that certain of the Company's
officers breached fiduciary duties owed under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by making the Company's stock
available as an investment alternative under the plan during a
period prior to the disclosure of misconduct and accounting errors
identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment.  The
complaint sought, among other things, monetary damages, equitable
relief, pre-judgment interest, and fees and expenses.

On December 2, 2016, the matter was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice.

On January 27, 2017, a new putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of the same 401(k) participants and beneficiaries,
asserting substantially similar claims against the same officers
of the Company.

On March 28, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the action.

The Company said that it the suit lacks merit and intends to
defend against it vigorously.  It further stated that it is unable
to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that
may be incurred in connection with this matter because the
proceedings are in their early stages.

L3 Technologies, Inc. provides aerospace systems, and
communication and electronic systems and products used on military
and commercial platforms in the United States and internationally.
It operates in three segments: Electronic Systems, Aerospace
Systems, and Communication Systems.  It was formerly known as L-3
Communications Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to L3
Technologies, Inc. in December 2016.  The Company was founded in
1997 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


LABORATORY CORP: Still Faces Lawsuit on Lab Test Order Changes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings continues to face
putative class action suit regarding alleged changes to laboratory
test orders, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017.

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

In June 2015, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was
denied.  The Plaintiff appealed the denial of Class Certification,
and the Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the Motion for
Class Certification on January 20, 2017.

The Company said it will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide.  It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development.  The Company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Face Sandusky Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings still defends itself in
the class action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v.
MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

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

The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of
USD$5000 for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA,
and injunctive relief.

In September of 2014, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
was denied.

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

On May 3, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit issued its decision and order reversing the District
Court's denial of class certification.  The Eighth Circuit
remanded the matter for further proceedings.

On December 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Plaintiff's
renewed Motion for Class Certification.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide.  It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development.  The Company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends Florida CCPA Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings continues to face a
putative class action lawsuit over alleged violation of the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with the putative class
action lawsuit captioned Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida.  The complaint
alleges that the Company violated the Florida CCPA by billing
patients who were collecting benefits under the Workers'
Compensation Statutes.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory
damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal
expenses.  In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

The Company said it will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide.  It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development.  The Company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Bloomquist Class Action Lawsuit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is still facing the
putative class action lawsuit captioned Daniel L. Bloomquist v.
Covance Inc., et al., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017.

On August 3, 2016, the Company was served with the lawsuit filed
in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.  The
complaint alleges that Covance Inc. violated the California Labor
Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing to
provide overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods,
failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay for all wages
owed upon termination, and failing to provide accurate itemized
wage statements to Clinical Research Associates and Senior
Clinical Research Associates employed by Covance Inc. in
California.  The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties,
injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

On October 13, 2016, the case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

The Company said it will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide.  It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development.  The Company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: "Bouffard" Lawsuit in North Carolina Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is facing a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company was served with the lawsuit captioned Victoria
Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings on
March 10, 2017.  The complaint alleges that the Company's patient
list prices unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same
services with private and public health insurers in violation of
various state consumer protection laws.  The lawsuit also alleges
breach of implied contract or quasi-contract, unjust enrichment,
and fraud.

The lawsuit seeks statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

The Company stated it will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide.  It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development.  The Company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LOWER MERION, PA: School District Tax Increase Injunction Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appeals case captioned Arthur Alan Wolk, Philip Browndies,
and Catherine Marchand, v. The School District of Lower Merion,
Appellant, Case No. 1465 C.D. 2016 (Pa. Commw.), The School
District of Lower Merion appeals from the August 29, 2016, order
of the Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County, which granted the
request of Arthur Alan Wolk, Philip Browndies, and Catherine
Marchand for injunctive relief.

The trial court enjoined the School District from enforcing or
collecting a tax increase for fiscal year 2016-17 of over 2.4%
more than was in effect for the prior year.

On March 11, 2016, Appellees Arthur Alan Wolk, Philip Browndies,
and Catherine Marchand filed an amended class action complaint on
behalf of present and past residents of Lower Merion, seeking
$55,000,000 in damages plus interest and costs for alleged
misrepresentations to the Pennsylvania Department of Education
(Department) and expenditures for a continuing education program
for teachers (Counts I-III). Appellees also asked the trial court
to suspend the Lower Merion School Board's (Board) authority to
act for the School District, to appoint a trustee and court
monitor to supervise the School District's decision-making and to
manage its finances (Counts IV-V, XI); to impose a constructive
trust over the School District's surpluses (Count VI); to award
damages and terminate certain employees in connection with a
matter settled in 2010 (Counts VII-VIII); to appoint a Board of
Viewers (Count IX); to mandate that bond refinance disclosures be
revised and that monies be reallocated from one account to another
(Count X); and to declare the system of taxation to be
unconstitutional because it taxes property owners only and does
not vary the amount of tax by the number of children a taxpayer
has in the schools (Count XII).

The School District filed preliminary objections to the amended
complaint alleging that: (1) Appellees' claims are nonjusticable
political questions; (2) Appellees lack standing; (3) the claims
are barred by what is commonly called the Political Subdivision
Tort Claims Act;1 (4) Appellees failed to join indispensable
parties; (5) the amended complaint fails to state a claim; (6) it
would be contrary to law and the Constitution to award the relief
Appellees seek; and (7) Appellees failed to exhaust all
administrative remedies.

On August 29, 2016, the Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County
(trial court)issued an order granted the request of Arthur Alan
Wolk, Philip Browndies, and Catherine March and (collectively,
Appellees) for injunctive relief.

Before the Court, the School District contends that the trial
court issued a preliminary injunction, which is immediately
appealable as an interlocutory appeal under Pa. R.A.P. 311(a)(4),
and thus, Appellees' motion to quash for failure to file post-
trial motions should be denied.

In a Memorandum of Opinion dated April 20, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/vZVDBY from Leagle.com, the Pennsylvania
Commonwealth Court concluded that a permanent injunction was
issued by the trial court and because the trial court issued a
permanent injunction and the School District failed to file post-
trial motions, the School District's appeal must be dismissed
because all of its issues are waived.

School District of Lower Merion is represented by Michael D.
Kristofco, Esq. -- mkristofko@wispearl.com -- WISLER PEARLSTINE,
LLP -- Dorothy Alicia Hickok, Esq. -- alicia.hickok@dbr.com -- and
-- Alfred W. Putnam, Jr., Esq. -- alfred.putnam@dbr.com -- DRINKER
BIDDLE & REATH LLP

Arthur Alan Wolk, Philip Browndies, and Catherine Marchand are
represented by Arthur A. Wolk, Esq. -- awolk@airlaw.com -- THE
WOLK LAW FIRM


MARBLECAST OF MICHIGAN: Garner Properties Files Suit Under TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
GARNER PROPERTIES & MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Michigan limited liability
company, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. MARBLECAST OF MICHIGAN,
INC., and AMERICAN WOODMARK CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-11439-VAR-MKM (E.D. Mich., May 4, 2017), alleges that
Defendants sent Plaintiff at least one advertisement by facsimile
about kitchen and bath cabinetry and surfaces or installation
services in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Plaintiff did not expressly consent to receive Defendants'
advertisement by fax and does not have an established business
relationship with Defendants.

Defendants sell kitchen and bath cabinetry and surfaces and offer
installation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
     BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
     134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     P.O. Box 416474
     Miami Beach, FL 3311
     Phone: 312-658-5500
     Fax: 312-658-5555

        - and -

     Aaron D. Cox, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF AARON D. COX, PLLC
     23380 Goddard Rd.
     Taylor, MI 48180
     Phone: 734-287-3664

        - and -

     Mark K. Wasvary, Esq.
     MARK K. WASVARY, P.C.
     2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste 100
     Troy, MI 48084
     Phone: 248-649-5667


MARIETTA MEMORIAL: Court Partially Grants Prelim. Injunction
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio partially granted
Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in the case
captioned, LYNNETT MYERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MEMORIAL HEALTH
SYSTEM MARIETTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:15-cv-2956 (S.D. Ohio.).

The case is a wage and hour lawsuit brought by named Plaintiffs
Lynnett Myers, Carol Butler, and Arva Lowther, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individuals, against
Defendants Memorial Health System, Marietta Memorial Hospital, and
Selby General Hospital for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio
Revised Code Section 4113.15, and Ohio common law. Plaintiffs'
claims center on Defendants' automatic lunch deduction policy.

Plaintiffs amended their complaint in May 2016, bringing two
additional Ohio law claims: a purported violation of Ohio's Prompt
Pay Act and a common law unjust enrichment claim. The Court
conditionally certified an FLSA class in August 2016. Several
months later, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for their state law
claims.

On March 1, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order. In their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction,
Plaintiffs request the following relief: (1) an order enjoining
Defendants from engaging in further unilateral communications
about this lawsuit with potential class members; (2) a re-opening
of the opt-in period for the entire class of 1,954 individuals;
(3) issuance of corrective notice to the collective class members
who have already received notice; (4) the addition of language to
the notice form being sent to collective class members who have
not yet joined the suit, which states that the Court is aware of
Defendants' coercive tactics and efforts to discourage
participation in the lawsuit; (5) an order requiring Defendants to
bear the costs associated with sending corrective notice; and (6)
an award of attorneys' fees and costs associated with compelling
Defendants to provide a complete class list, the TRO, and the
preliminary injunction.

In an Opinion and Order dated April 20, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/XiIBBW from Leagle.com, Judge Marbley granted
Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction but ruled that Defendants are
not prohibited from communicating with their employees about
issues that arise within the scope of employment, the treatment of
patients, or any other matter that relates to the performance of
their jobs.

Lynnett Myers, et al. are represented by:

      Marcy J. Stevens, Esq.
      Steven Charles Babin, Jr., Esq.
      Lance Chapin, Esq.
      CHAPIN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
      580 S. High Street,
      Suite 330
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Tel:(614)705-1917

Marietta Memorial Hospital, et al. are represented by James Edward
Davidson, Esq. -- james.davidson@icemiller.com -- and -- Catherine
L. Strauss, Esq. -- Catherine.Strauss@icemiller.com -- ICE MILLER
LLP


MARRIOTT HOTEL: McCray Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ian McCray filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled IAN MCCRAY, an individual, and on behalf of
himself, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v.
MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; SJMEC,
INC., a California corporation, Case No. 5:16-cv-02092-NC, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Jose.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Santa Clara (Case No. 16CV291271) and was removed to the
District Court.

The appellate case is captioned as Ian McCray v. Marriott Hotel
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-15767, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record must be
      served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1
      on July 27, 2017;

   -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record must be
      served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1
      on August 28, 2017; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief must be filed and
      served within 14 days of service of the appellee's brief,
      pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1.[BN]


MEAD JOHNSON: Stockholder Class Suit in Illinois Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Mead Johnson Nutrition Company is facing a purported stockholder
class action suit filed on February 14, 2017 in Illinois related
to a Company merger plan and agreement, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On February 10, 2017, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Reckitt Benckiser and
Marigold Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of
Reckitt Benckiser ("Merger Sub"). Pursuant to the agreement,
Reckitt Benckiser will indirectly acquire the Company by means of
a merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company on the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement (the
"Merger").  The Merger Agreement and the consummation of the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement have been
unanimously approved by the Company's board of directors.

On February 14, 2017, a stockholder of the Company filed the
lawsuit in Cook County, Illinois, captioned Kirkham v. Altschuler,
et al., 2017-CH-02109.  The defendants are the Company, the
individual members of the board of directors, Reckitt Benckiser
and Merger Sub.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company's board of directors violated
their fiduciary duties and that the Company, Reckitt Benckiser and
Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches, in each case in
connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement.  The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to enjoin
consummation of the Merger.

On March 28, 2017, the plaintiff stockholder filed an amended
complaint.  In addition to the allegations of the original
complaint, the amended complaint further alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose certain information in the
preliminary proxy statement, filed with the SEC on March 13, 2017.

The plaintiff alleges that this omitted information is material
for stockholders to vote on the Merger.  The amended complaint
alleges the same causes of actions against the same defendants and
seeks the same relief as did the original complaint.  The Company
and its directors intend to vigorously defend against the
allegations in the complaint.

Mead Johnson Nutrition Company manufactures, distributes, and
sells infant formula, children's nutrition, and other nutritional
products.  The Company markets its products to mothers, health
care professionals, and retailers in approximately 50 countries in
Asia, North America, Latin America, and Europe.  Mead Johnson
Nutrition Company was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in
Glenview, Illinois.


MEAD JOHNSON: Faces 4 Purported Stockholder Suits in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mead Johnson Nutrition Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017 that four Company stockholders
separately filed purported stockholder class action lawsuits in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in
March 2017.

On February 10, 2017, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Reckitt Benckiser and
Marigold Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of
Reckitt Benckiser ("Merger Sub"). Pursuant to the agreement,
Reckitt Benckiser will indirectly acquire the Company by means of
a merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company on the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement (the
"Merger").  The Merger Agreement and the consummation of the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement have been
unanimously approved by the Company's board of directors.

In March 2017, these lawsuits were filed:

  * Steinberg v. Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, et al., 1:17-cv-
00304 filed on March 21, 2017;

  * Rubin v. Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, et al., 1:17-cv-00325
filed on March 27, 2017;

  * Solak v. Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, et al., 1:17-cv-00325
filed on March 27, 2017; and

  * Walters v. Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, et al., 1:17-cv-
00344 filed on March 30, 2017.

All the class action suits named the Company and the individual
members of the board of directors as defendants.  Except in the
Walters case, the defendants also include Reckitt Benckiser and
Merger Sub.

Each of the lawsuits alleges that the Company's preliminary proxy
statement, filed with the SEC on March 13, 2017, is false and
misleading with respect to the Merger, and thus, the Company and
the individual defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 as well as SEC Rule 14a-9. The lawsuits also
alleged that Reckitt Benckiser (if named as defendant) and the
individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin consummation of
the Merger.

The Company said that it and its directors intend to "vigorously
defend" against the allegations in the complaints.

Mead Johnson Nutrition Company manufactures, distributes, and
sells infant formula, children's nutrition, and other nutritional
products.  The Company markets its products to mothers, health
care professionals, and retailers in approximately 50 countries in
Asia, North America, Latin America, and Europe.  Mead Johnson
Nutrition Company was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in
Glenview, Illinois.


MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: Arbitration OK'd in Delivery Drivers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge G. Murray Snow of the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona granted in part Defendants Arizona
Logistics LLC, Michigan Logistics Incorporated, and Parts
Authority Arizona LLC's Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration
and Stay Proceedings in the case captioned, Xavier Bonner, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. Michigan Logistics Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. CV-16-03662-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.).

The Plaintiffs in the action are individuals who contracted with
Arizona Logistics to serve as delivery drivers. Each signed an
Owner Operator Agreement, which formed the basis for the
contractual relationship between Arizona Logistics and each
driver. Each Plaintiff performed deliveries on behalf of Arizona
Logistics' customer, Parts Authority Arizona LLC, which runs a
chain of automotive parts shops in Arizona.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "knowingly misclassified" them
as independent contractors, rather than employees. By doing this,
Plaintiffs allege, Defendants were able to avoid paying
statutorily mandated minimum and overtime wages, shift business
expenses to Plaintiffs, avoid payroll taxes and benefits, and
obtain an unfair competitive advantage in the marketplace.
Plaintiffs bring individual and class claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and Arizona's Wage Act, and on a theory of
restitution/unjust enrichment.

Defendants bring the Motion to Compel based on Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) provisions included in the Owner Operator
Agreements.

In the Order dated April 20, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/NVcchl from Leagle.com, Judge Murray concluded that
the Agreements clearly contemplate arbitration, including
arbitration of all claims at issue in the case as to Plaintiffs
Bonner, Ross, Williams and Harris.  As to Plaintiff Six, the Court
orders that Six initiate an ADR proceeding as contemplated in the
Agreement if he wishes to pursue a remedy and stayed further
proceedings.

Pahkalijae Ross, et al. are represented by Daniel Lee Bonnett,
Esq. -- info@martinbonnett.com -- and -- Susan Joan Martin, Esq. -
- info@martinbonnett.com -- MARTIN & BONNETT PLLC

            -- and --

      Marijana Frances Matura, Esq.
      Troy Lane Kessler, Esq.
      SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
      534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel:(888)831-8615

Michigan Logistics Incorporated, et al. are represented by Heather
Fox Vickles, Esq. -- hvickles@shermanhoward.com -- Matthew
McKinley Morrison, Esq. -- mmorrison@shermanhoward.com -- and --
John Alan Doran, Esq. -- jdoran@shermanhoward.com -- SHERMAN &
HOWARD LLC


MIDLAND CREDIT: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of CROA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's judgment dismissing the putative class action claims in
the case captioned, PATRICIA KIELTY, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated and SUSAN PATHMAN, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 15-
56737 (9th Cir.).

Patricia Kielty and Susan Pathman appeal from the district court's
judgment dismissing their putative class action claims asserted
under the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA).

In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 10, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/uDev3n from Leagle.com, the Ninth Circuit held that
the district court did not err when it concluded plaintiffs failed
to plausibly allege that Midland is a credit repair organization.

Dismissal of the CROA claims was appropriate because the "overall
net impression communicated" by Midland was merely that it sought
repayment of a debt, the Ninth Circuit held.


NAVIOS MARITIME: ADS Action Still Active in N.Y. District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A complaint against Navios Maritime Holdings Inc. and its
directors related to American Depositary Shares (ADS) remains
pending in New York, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.

On October 7, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company and six of its directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York by a
purported holder of Series G ADSs and Series H ADSs.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and
contract.  The complaint sought, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages, a declaration regarding certain of the Company's
alleged obligations under the applicable certificates of
designation, the restoration of certain alleged rights to non-
tendering holders if the exchange offer that commenced on
September 19, 2016 was consummated, and an award of plaintiff's
costs.

On November 28, 2016, plaintiff's counsel informed the Court that
the litigation was moot in light of the failure of the consent
solicitation (which did not attain the necessary support from the
holders of Series G ADSs and Series H ADSs).

On January 10, 2017, plaintiff's counsel submitted a motion for
attorneys' fees to which the Company submitted an opposition brief
on February 3, 2017, which requested that the Court deny the
request for attorneys' fees in its entirety.

Navios Maritime Holdings Inc. operates as a seaborne shipping and
logistics company.  It focuses on the transportation and
transshipment of dry bulk commodities, including iron ore, coal,
and grains.  It operates in two segments, Dry Bulk Vessel
Operations and Logistics Business.  Navios Maritime Holdings Inc.
is based in Monte Carlo, Monaco.


NEW JERSEY, USA: Carson Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to Third Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Carson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled David Carson, et al. v. New Jersey Department of
Corrections, et al., Case No. 2-16-cv-05163, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs complain about prison condition.

The appellate case is captioned as David Carson, et al. v. New
Jersey Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 17-1823, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID CARSON of Adult Diagnostic & Treatment
Center, in Avenel, New Jersey, appears pro se.

Plaintiff-Appellee STEVEN GROHS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, appears pro se.

Defendants-Appellees NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, GARY M.
LANIGAN and SHERRY YATES, in their individual and official
capacities, are represented by:

          Kevin J. Dronson, Esq.
          OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
          Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex
          25 Market Street
          Trenton, NJ 08625
          Telephone: (609) 633-8687
          E-mail: kevin.dronson@dol.lps.state.nj.us


PAT WILLIAMS: "Johnson" Suit Alleges Non-payment of Travel Time
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN JOHNSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. PAT WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00591 (W.D. La., May 1, 2017), alleges that Defendant failed to
pay John Johnson, and other workers like him, overtime as required
by federal law.  Further, the case alleges that while Pat Williams
paid Mr. Johnson, and other workers like him, the same hourly rate
for all hours worked up to 40 hours in workweek, and overtime for
work on a jobsite, Pat Williams did not pay Mr. Johnson and these
other workers for the significant time they would spend traveling
between jobsites.

Pat Williams is a general construction company headquartered in
Leesville, Louisiana. Mr. Johnson was an hourly employee of Pat
Williams.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
     David I. Moulton, Esq.
     MATTHEW S. PARMET, T.A.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     E-mail: mparmet@brucknerburch.com
             dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


PAYPAL INC: Perkins Appeals Decision in "Zepeda" Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intervenor Tammy Perkins filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Moises Zepeda, et al. v. PayPal, Inc., Case No.
4:10-cv-02500-SBA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 11,
2017, Senior District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of an amended class action
settlement agreement in the case.

Plaintiffs Moises Zepeda, Michael Spear, Ronya Osman, Brian
Pattee, Casey Ching, Denae Zamora, Michael Lavanga and Gary Miller
are PayPal users who allege that PayPal placed holds on their
account funds. Plaintiffs allege that PayPal improperly handled
disputed transactions relating to their user accounts by
unilaterally placing holds and reserves thereon without
explanation. PayPal also is alleged to have failed to provide
annual error-resolution notices and monthly account statements in
violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
1693, et seq. The parties have resolved the action on a class-wide
basis and entered into a settlement agreement, as amended, which
the court preliminarily approved in a prior order.

The appellate case is captioned as Moises Zepeda, et al. v.
PayPal, Inc., Case No. 17-15780, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by May 19, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on June 19, 2017;

   -- Appellant Tammy Perkins' opening brief is due on July 28,
      2017;

   -- Appellees Casey Ching, Michael Lavanga, Gary Miller, Ronya
      Osman, Brian Pattee, PayPal, Inc., Michael Spear, Denae
      Zamora and Moises Zepeda's answering brief is due on
      August 28, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees MOISES ZEPEDA, MICHAEL SPEAR, RONYA OSMAN,
BRIAN PATTEE, CASEY CHING, DENAE ZAMORA, MICHAEL LAVANGA and GARY
MILLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Howard J. Hirsch, Esq.
          Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
          LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
          503 Divisadero Street
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: (415) 913-7800
          Facsimile: (415) 759-4112
          E-mail: hhirsch@lexlawgroup.com
                  mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Brian Kabateck, Esq.
          Richard Leo Kellner, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN & KELLNER, LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 217-5000
          E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
                  rlk@kbklawyers.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI STAHLE & TORRIJOS, LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 844-9696
          E-mail: alfredo@asstlawyers.com

Intervenor-Appellant TAMMY PERKINS is represented by:

          Caroline V. Tucker, Esq.
          TUCKER POLLARD
          2102 Business Center Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 253-5710
          E-mail: ctucker@tuckerpollard.com

Defendant-Appellee PAYPAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          David Wesley Moon, Esq.
          Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5800
          E-mail: dmoon@stroock.com
                  jstrickland@stroock.com


PAYPAL INC: "Ezeude" Suit Alleges Ponzi Scheme by Traffic Monsoon
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KINGSLEY EZEUDE and CHUKWUKA OBI on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. PAYPAL, INC. AND PAYPAL
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-02558-HRL (N.D. Cal.,
May 4, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs are victims of a
Ponzi/Pyramid scheme operated by Charles David Scoville and
Traffic Monsoon, LLC.

According to the case, Traffic Monsoon duped investors into
believing it was "a specialized advertising and revenue sharing
company" that operated a pay-to-click and Internet traffic
exchange program.

On its website, Traffic Monsoon falsely told investors that it was
not selling investments or operating a Ponzi/pyramid scheme that
would pay returns to existing investors with money from new
investors.

The Traffic Monsoon Scheme was allegedly facilitated by the
knowing assistance and negligent actions of Defendant PayPal, Inc.
PayPal served as the payment processor for approximately $134
million worth of those investments and processed a massive amount
of transactions on behalf of Traffic Monsoon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam Wolf, Esq.
     PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE
     4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 766-3544
     Fax: (415) 402-005
     Email: awolf@prwlegal.com

        - and -

     Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
     Lydia M. Floyd, Esq.
     PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE
     1422 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1610
     Cleveland, OH 44115
     Phone: 216-589-9280
     Fax: 888-411-0038
     Email: arosca@prwlegal.com
     Email: lfloyd@prwlegal.com


PETROCHINA CO: Class Suits on PRC Investigation Fully Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
PetroChina Company Limited disclosed in its Company's Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 that the class actions against
the Company, among other defendants, in relation to the
investigation of the authorities of the People's Republic of China
has been fully dismissed.

In September 2013, two class action complaints were filed with the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(the "District Court") against the Company and certain of its
former and current directors and senior management on the grounds
of PRC authorities' investigation into certain of the Company's
former directors and senior management.  The two suits were
subsequently consolidated into one as ordered by the District
Court.

In June 2014, the plaintiff submitted a revised complaint whereby
the plaintiff removed the current senior management from the
individual defendants initially named and only included certain of
our former directors and senior management.

In August 2015, the District Court made a judgment directing
termination of the motion of the plaintiff and the closing of the
case.  In response to that, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second
Circuit").

In March 2016, the Second Circuit ruled to affirm the judgment of
the District Court, thus supporting the dismissal by the District
Court of the plaintiff's complaint.  After that, the plaintiff did
not continue to pursue the appeal within the time limit allowed
for appeal and thus, pursuant to the U.S. federal court procedure
rules, all the allegations submitted to the District Court and the
Second Circuit have been fully dismissed.

PetroChina Company Limited, together with its subsidiaries,
primarily engages in a range of petroleum related products,
services, and activities.  It operates through Exploration and
Production, Refining and Chemicals, Marketing, and Natural Gas and
Pipeline segments.  The Company was founded in 1988 and is based
in Beijing, the People's Republic of China.  PetroChina Company
Limited operates as a subsidiary of China National Petroleum
Corporation.


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Still Faces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.-Petrobras continues to defend itself in a
consolidated securities class action, according to the Company's
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Between December 8, 2014 and January 7, 2015, five putative
securities class action complaints were filed against the Company
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (SDNY).  These actions were consolidated on February 17,
2015 (the "Consolidated Securities Class Action").  The Court
appointed a lead plaintiff, Universities Superannuation Scheme
Limited ("USS"), on March 4, 2015.

USS, together with two other plaintiffs -- Union Asset Management
Holding AG ("Union") and Employees' Retirement System of the State
of Hawaii ("Hawaii") -- filed a consolidated amended complaint
("CAC") on March 27, 2015 that purported to be on behalf of
investors who:

  (i) purchased or otherwise acquired Petrobras securities traded
on the NYSE or pursuant to other transactions in the U.S. during
the period January 22, 2010 and March 19, 2015, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), and were damaged thereby;

  (ii) purchased or otherwise acquired during the Class Period
certain notes issued in 2012 pursuant to a registration statement
filed with the SEC in 2009, or certain notes issued in 2013 or
2014 pursuant to a registration statement filed with the SEC in
2012, and were damaged thereby; and

  (iii) purchased or otherwise acquired Petrobras securities on
the Brazilian stock exchange during the Class Period, who also
purchased or otherwise acquired Petrobras securities traded on the
NYSE or pursuant to other transactions in the U.S. during the same
period.

The CAC alleged, among other things, that in the Company's press
releases, filings with the SEC and other communications, the
Company made materially false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding the value of its assets, the amounts of its
expenses and net income, the effectiveness of its internal
controls over financial reporting, and its anti-corruption
policies, due to alleged corruption purportedly in connection with
certain contracts, which allegedly artificially inflated the
market value of its securities.

On April 17, 2015, Petrobras, Petrobras Global Finance B.V. (PGF)
and underwriters of notes issued by PGF (the "Underwriter
Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss the CAC.

On July 9, 2015, the judge presiding over the Consolidated
Securities Class Action ruled on the motion to dismiss, partially
granting the Company's motion.  Among other decisions, the judge
dismissed claims relating to certain debt securities issued in
2012 under the Securities Act of 1933, as time barred by the
Securities Act's statute of repose and ruled claims relating to
securities purchased on the Brazilian stock exchange must be
arbitrated, as established in the Company's bylaws.  The judge
rejected other arguments presented in the motion to dismiss the
CAC and, as a result, the Consolidated Securities Class Action
continued with respect to other claims.

As allowed by the judge, a second consolidated amended complaint
was filed on July 16, 2015, a third consolidated amended complaint
("TAC") was filed on September 1, 2015, which, among other things,
extended the Class Period to end on July 28, 2015 and added
Petrobras America, Inc. as a defendant, and a fourth consolidated
amended complaint ("FAC") was filed on November 30, 2015.  The TAC
and FAC, brought by lead plaintiff Union, Hawaii, and an
additional plaintiff, North Carolina Department of State
Treasurer, or North Carolina (collectively, "class plaintiffs") --
brought those claims alleged in the CAC that were not dismissed or
were allowed to be re-pleaded under the judge's July 9, 2015
ruling.

On October 1 and December 7, 2015, Petrobras, PGF, Petrobras
America, Inc. and the Underwriter Defendants filed motions to
dismiss the TAC and the FAC, respectively.

On December 20, 2015, the judge ruled on the motion to dismiss the
FAC, partially granting the motion.  Among other decisions, the
judge dismissed the claims of USS and Union based on their
purchases of notes issued by PGF for failure to plead that they
purchased the notes in U.S. transactions.  The judge also
dismissed claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for certain
purchases for which class plaintiffs had failed to plead the
element of reliance.  The judge rejected other arguments presented
in the motion to dismiss the TAC and FAC and, as a result, the
Consolidated Securities Class Action continues with respect to the
remaining claims.

On October 15, 2015, class plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in the Consolidated Securities Class Action, and on
November 6, 2015, Petrobras, PGF, Petrobras America, Inc. and the
Underwriter Defendants opposed the motion.  On February 2, 2016,
the judge granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
certifying a Securities Act Class, represented by Hawaii and North
Carolina, and an Exchange Act Class represented by USS.

On June 15, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit ("Second Circuit") granted Petrobras' motion
requesting interlocutory appellate review of the class
certification decision.  The parties completed briefing the appeal
on September 8, 2016.  Petrobras and the other defendants moved in
district court for a stay of all district court proceedings
pending the Second Circuit's decision on the merits of the appeal
of the class certification, which the judge denied on June 24,
2016 Defendants then moved in the Second Circuit for a stay of all
district court proceedings pending a decision on the appeal of the
class certification decision.  On August 2, 2016, the Second
Circuit granted Defendants' motion and stayed all district court
proceedings.  Oral argument regarding the appeal was held before
the Second Circuit on November 2, 2016.

In addition to the Consolidated Securities Class Action, to date,
33 lawsuits have been filed by individual investors before the
same judge in the SDNY (six of which have been stayed), and one
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (collectively, "Opt-out Claims"),
consisting of allegations similar to those in the Consolidated
Securities Class Action (each such lawsuit by individual investors
an "Opt-out Action").  On August 21, 2015, Petrobras, PGF and
underwriters of notes issued by PGF filed a motion to dismiss
certain of the Opt-out-Claims in the SDNY, and on October 15,
2015, the judge ruled on the motion to dismiss, partially granting
the motion.  Among other decisions, the judge dismissed several
Exchange Act, Securities Act and state law claims as barred by the
relevant statutes of repose.  The judge denied other portions of
the motion to dismiss and, as a result, these actions will
continue with respect to other claims brought by these class
plaintiffs.

In the action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Petrobras
and PGF filed a motion to dismiss on May 13, 2016, and the
district judge denied the motion on November 1, 2016, allowing the
action to continue.  On February 23, 2017, the Company filed a
motion for the judge to recuse herself, which the judge granted on
March 7, 2017.  On March 8, 2017, the case was reassigned to a
different judge, and the parties are currently engaged in
discovery.

On October 31, 2015, the SDNY judge ordered that the Opt-out
Claims before him in the SDNY and the Consolidated Securities
Class Action be tried together in a single trial not to exceed a
total of eight weeks.  On November 5, 2015, the judge scheduled
the trial to begin on September 19, 2016; however, the trial is
now stayed due to the stay imposed by the Second Circuit decision
on August 2, 2016.  On November 18, 2015, the judge ordered that
any Opt-out Claim filed before him in the SDNY after December 31,
2015 will be stayed in all respects until after the completion of
the trial.

On October 21, 2016, the Company's board of directors approved
agreements to settle Opt-out Claims in four cases:

  * Dodge & Cox Int'l Stock Fund, et al. v. Petroleo Brasileiro
S.A.-Petrobras, et al., No.  15-cv-10111 (JSR),

  * Janus Overseas Fund, et al. v. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.-
Petrobras, et al., No.  15-cv-10086 (JSR),

  * PIMCO Funds: PIMCO Total Return Fund, et al. v. Petroleo
Brasileiro S.A., et al., No.  15-cv-8192 (JSR), and

  * Al Shams Investments Ltd., et al. v. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.-
Petrobras, et al., No.  15-cv-6243 (JSR).  The terms of the
settlements are confidential.

On November 23, 2016, Petrobras' board of directors approved
agreements to settle Opt-out Claims in eleven cases:

  * Ohio Public Employees Retirement System v. Petroleo Brasileiro
S.A.-Petrobras, et al., No.  15-cv-3887 (JSR),

  * Abbey Life Assurance Company Limited, et al. v. Petroleo
Brasileiro S.A.-Petrobras, No.  15-cv-6661 (JSR),

  * Aberdeen Emerging Markets Fund, et al. v. Petroleo Brasileiro
S.A.-Petrobras, 15-cv-3860 (JSR),

  * Aberdeen Latin American Income Fund Limited, et al. v.
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.-Petrobras, 15-cv-4043 (JSR),

  * Delaware Enhanced Global Dividend and Income Fund, et al. v.
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.-Petrobras, 15-cv-6643 (JSR),

  * Dimensional Emerging Markets Value Fund, et al. v. Petroleo
Brasileiro S.A.-Petrobras, 15-cv-2165 (JSR),

  * Manning & Napier Advisors, LLC, et al. v. Petroleo Brasileiro
S.A.-Petrobras, No.  15-cv-10159 (JSR),

  * Russell Investment Company, et al. v. Petroleo Brasileiro
S.A.-Petrobras, No.  15-cv-7605 (JSR),

  * Skagen AS, et al. v. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.-Petrobras, et
al., No.15-cv-2214 (JSR),

  * State of Alaska Department of Revenue, Treasury Division, et
al. v. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.-Petrobras, No.  15-cv-8995 (JSR),
and

  * State Street Cayman Trust Co., Ltd., v. Petroleo Brasileiro
S.A.-Petrobras, No.  15-cv-10158 (JSR).

On February 24, 2017, Petrobras' board of directors approved
agreements to settle Opt-out Claims in four cases:

  * New York City Employees Retirement System, et al. v. Petroleo
Brasileiro S.A.  - Petrobras et al., No.  15-cv-2192 (JSR),

  * Transamerica Income Shares, Inc., et al v. Petroleo Brasileiro
S.A.  - Petrobras, et al., No.  15-cv-3733 (JSR),

  * Internationale Kaptialanlagegesellschaft mbH v. Petroleo
Brasileiro S.A.  - Petrobras, et al., No.  15-cv-6618 (JSR), and

  * Lord Abbett Investment Trust - Lord Abbett Short Duration
Income Fund, et al v. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.  - Petrobras, et
al., No.  15-cv-7615 (JSR).

Based on the settlements reached and the status of certain other
Opt-out claims, the Company charged to statement of income the
amount of BRL1,215 (US$372) in 2016.  The terms of the settlements
are confidential and Petrobras denies all allegations of
wrongdoing and continues to defend itself vigorously in all
pending actions.  The settlements are aimed at eliminating the
uncertainties, burdens and expense of ongoing litigation.

The terms of these settlements are confidential.  Based on the
settlements reached, and the status of certain other Opt-out
Claims, the Company recognized a provision of US$372 million in
2016.

The Company stated, "The Consolidated Securities Class Action and
certain Opt-out Claims involve highly complex issues that are
subject to substantial uncertainties and depend on a number of
factors such as the novelty of the legal theories, the information
produced in discovery, the timing of court decisions, rulings by
the court on key issues, analysis by retained experts, and the
possibility that the parties negotiate in good faith toward a
resolution.  In addition, the claims asserted are broad, span a
multi-year period and involve a wide range of activities, and the
contentions of the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Class
Action and certain Opt-Out Claims concerning the amount the amount
of alleged damages are varied, and at this stage, their impact on
the course of the litigation is complex and uncertain.

"The uncertainties inherent in all such matters affect the amount
and timing of the ultimate resolution of these actions.  As a
result, we are unable to make a reliable estimate of eventual loss
arising from the Consolidated Securities Class Action and certain
Opt-Out Claims.

"Depending on the outcome of the litigation, we may be required to
pay substantial amounts, which could have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition, consolidated results of
operations or consolidated cash flows for an individual reporting
period.  We have engaged a U.S. firm as legal counsel and intend
to defend these actions vigorously."

The Company is also currently a party to class actions commenced
in Argentina and Holland, and to arbitration proceedings commenced
in Brazil, all of which are currently in their initial stages.  In
each case, the proceedings were brought by investors and consist
of allegations similar to those in the Consolidated Securities
Class Action and the Opt-Out Claims.

Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.-Petrobras operates in the oil, natural
gas, and energy industries.  The Company was founded in 1953 and
is headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.


PHILIP MORRIS: ADESF Class Suit in Brazil vs. Unit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Philip Morris International Inc. continues to
defend itself in a class action filed in Brazil by consumer
organization The Smoker Health Defense Association, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

In the class action, The Smoker Health Defense Association (ADESF)
v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth
Lower Civil Court of the Central Courts of the Judiciary District
of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July 25, 1995, the Company's
subsidiary and another member of the industry are defendants.  The
plaintiff, a consumer organization, is seeking damages for all
addicted smokers and former smokers, and injunctive relief.

In 2004, the trial court found defendants liable without hearing
evidence and awarded "moral damages" of BRL1,000 (approximately
US$318) per smoker per full year of smoking plus interest at the
rate of 1% per month, as of the date of the ruling.  The court did
not award actual damages, which were to be assessed in the second
phase of the case.  The size of the class was not estimated.

Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals, which
annulled the ruling in November 2008, finding that the trial court
had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and returned
the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

In May 2011, the trial court dismissed the claim.  In February
2015, the appellate court unanimously dismissed plaintiff's
appeal.

In September 2015, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of
Justice.  In February 2017, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
of Justice denied plaintiff's appeal.

In March 2017, plaintiff filed an en banc appeal to the Supreme
Court of Justice.  In addition, the defendants previously filed a
constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis
that plaintiff did not have standing to bring the lawsuit.  Both
appeals are still pending.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Public Prosecutor's Class Action vs. Unit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal of the Public Prosecutor of Sao Paulo regarding a
dismissed class action against a subsidiary of Philip Morris
International Inc. is still pending in the Superior Court of
Justice, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

In the class action, Public Prosecutor of Sao Paulo v. Philip
Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda., Civil Court of the City
of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6, 2007, the Company's
subsidiary is a defendant.

The plaintiff, the Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is
seeking (i) damages on behalf of all smokers nationwide, former
smokers, and their relatives; (ii) damages on behalf of people
exposed to environmental tobacco smoke nationwide, and their
relatives; and (iii) reimbursement of the health care costs
allegedly incurred for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases
by all Brazilian States and Municipalities, and the Federal
District.

In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial court
limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo only.
In December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo issued a
decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because the case
involved issues similar to the ADESF case and should be
transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in Sao Paulo where
the ADESF case is pending.  The court further stated that these
cases should be consolidated for the purposes of judgment.

In April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the Seventh
Civil Court's decision that consolidated the cases, finding that
they are based on different legal claims and are progressing at
different stages of proceedings.  This case was returned to the
Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo, and the Company's subsidiary
filed its closing arguments in December 2010.

In March 2012, the trial court dismissed the case on the merits.
In January 2014, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals rejected
plaintiff's appeal and affirmed the trial court decision.

In July 2014, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of Justice.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Unit Still Defends in C. Letourneau Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Philip Morris International Inc. continues to
defend itself in a class action filed in Canada by Cecilia
Letourneau, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017.

In the class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September
1998, the Company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers
(Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.  and JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are
defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought
compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who
is deemed addicted to smoking.  The class was certified in 2005.

Trial began in March 2012 and concluded in December 2014.  The
trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015.  The trial court
found the Company's subsidiary and two other Canadian
manufacturers liable and awarded a total of CAD131 million
(approximately US$97 million) in punitive damages, allocating
CAD46 million (approximately US$34 million) to the Company's
subsidiary.

The trial court found that defendants violated the Civil Code of
Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the
Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of
the dangers of smoking.  The trial court also found that
defendants conspired to prevent consumers from learning the
dangers of smoking.  The trial court further held that these civil
faults were a cause of the class members' addiction.

The trial court rejected other grounds of fault advanced by the
class, holding that: (i) the evidence was insufficient to show
that defendants marketed to youth, (ii) defendants' advertising
did not convey false information about the characteristics of
cigarettes, and (iii) defendants did not commit a fault by using
the descriptors light or mild for cigarettes with a lower tar
delivery.  The trial court estimated the size of the addiction
class at 918,000 members but declined to award compensatory
damages to the addiction class because the evidence did not
establish the claims with sufficient accuracy.

The trial court ordered defendants to pay the full punitive damage
award into a trust within 60 days and found that a claims process
to allocate the awarded damages to individual class members would
be too expensive and difficult to administer.  The trial court
ordered a briefing on the proposed process for the distribution of
sums remaining from the punitive damage award after payment of
attorneys' fees and legal costs.

In June 2015, the Company's subsidiary commenced the appellate
process by filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court's
judgment with the Court of Appeal of Quebec.  The Company's
subsidiary also filed a motion to cancel the trial court's order
for payment into a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal.

In July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and
overturned the trial court's ruling that the subsidiary make the
payment into a trust within 60 days.

In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court of Appeal
seeking security in both the Letourneau case and the case
captioned Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves
Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and
JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada.

In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and
ordered the subsidiary to furnish security totaling CAD226 million
(approximately US$167 million), in the form of cash into a court
trust or letters of credit, in six equal consecutive quarterly
installments of approximately CAD37.6 million (approximately
US$27.7 million) beginning in December 2015 through March 2017.

The Court of Appeal heard oral arguments on the merits appeal in
November 2016.

The Company stated, "Our subsidiary and PMI believe that the
findings of liability and damages were incorrect and should
ultimately be set aside on any one of many grounds, including the
following: (i) holding that defendants violated Quebec law by
failing to warn class members of the risks of smoking even after
the court found that class members knew, or should have known, of
the risks, (ii) finding that plaintiffs were not required to prove
that defendants' alleged misconduct caused injury to each class
member in direct contravention of binding precedent, (iii)
creating a factual presumption, without any evidence from class
members or otherwise, that defendants' alleged misconduct caused
all smoking by all class members, (iv) holding that the addiction
class members' claims for punitive damages were not time-barred
even though the case was filed more than three years after a
prominent addiction warning appeared on all packages, and (v)
awarding punitive damages to punish defendants without proper
consideration as to whether punitive damages were necessary to
deter future misconduct."

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Unit Still Defends in Conseil Quebecois Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017 that its subsidiary continues to
defend itself in a class action related to a suit captioned
Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada.

In the class action, the Company's subsidiary and other Canadian
manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-MacDonald
Corp.) are defendants.  The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking
organization and an individual smoker, sought compensatory and
punitive damages for each member of the class who allegedly
suffers from certain smoking-related diseases.  The class was
certified in 2005.

Trial began in March 2012 and concluded in December 2014.  The
trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015.  The trial court
found the Company's subsidiary and two other Canadian
manufacturers liable and found that the class members'
compensatory damages totaled approximately CAD15.5 billion,
including pre-judgment interest (approximately US$11.4 billion).

The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and
several liability basis, allocating 20% to the Company's
subsidiary (approximately CAD 3.1 billion, including pre-judgment
interest (approximately US$2.3 billion)).  In addition, the trial
court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately US$66,300) in punitive
damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately US$22,100) to the
Company's subsidiary and found that defendants violated the Civil
Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms,
and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn
adequately of the dangers of smoking.

The trial court also found that defendants conspired to prevent
consumers from learning the dangers of smoking.  The trial court
further held that these civil faults were a cause of the class
members' diseases.  The trial court rejected other grounds of
fault advanced by the class, holding that: (i) the evidence was
insufficient to show that defendants marketed to youth, (ii)
defendants' advertising did not convey false information about the
characteristics of cigarettes, and (iii) defendants did not commit
a fault by using the descriptors light or mild for cigarettes with
a lower tar delivery.

The trial court estimated the disease class at 99,957 members.
The trial court ordered defendants to pay CAD 1 billion
(approximately US$737 million) of the compensatory damage award
into a trust within 60 days, CAD 200 million (approximately US$147
million) of which is the subsidiary's portion and ordered briefing
on a proposed claims process for the distribution of damages to
individual class members and for payment of attorneys' fees and
legal costs.

In June 2015, the Company's subsidiary commenced the appellate
process by filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court's
judgment with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. The subsidiary also
filed a motion to cancel the trial court's order for payment into
a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal.

In July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and
overturned the trial court's ruling that the Company's subsidiary
make an initial payment within 60 days.

In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court of Appeal
seeking an order that defendants place irrevocable letters of
credit totaling CAD5 billion (approximately US$3.7 billion) into
trust, to secure the judgments in both the Letourneau case and the
suit captioned Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and
Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson &
Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court,
Canada.

Plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their motion for security against
JTI-MacDonald Corp. and proceeded only against the Company's
subsidiary and Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.

In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and
ordered the Company's subsidiary to furnish security totaling
CAD226 million (approximately US$167 million) to cover both the
Letourneau and Blais cases.  Such security may take the form of
cash into a court trust or letters of credit, in six equal
consecutive quarterly installments of approximately CAD 37.6
million (approximately US$27.7 million) beginning in December 2015
through March 2017.  The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco
Canada Ltd. to furnish security totaling CAD 758 million
(approximately US$559 million) in seven equal consecutive
quarterly installments of approximately CAD 108 million
(approximately US$80 million) beginning in December 2015 through
June 2017.

In March 2017, the Company's subsidiary made its sixth and final
quarterly installment of security for approximately CAD 37.6
million (approximately US$27.7 million) into a court trust.  This
payment is included in other assets on the condensed consolidated
balance sheets and in cash used in operating activities in the
condensed consolidated statements of cash flows.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the security is payable upon a
final judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court's
judgment or upon further order of the Court of Appeal.  The Court
of Appeal heard oral arguments on the merits appeal in November
2016.

The Company stated, "Our subsidiary and PMI believe that the
findings of liability and damages were incorrect and should
ultimately be set aside on any one of many grounds, including the
following: (i) holding that defendants violated Quebec law by
failing to warn class members of the risks of smoking even after
the court found that class members knew, or should have known, of
the risks, (ii) finding that plaintiffs were not required to prove
that defendants' alleged misconduct caused injury to each class
member in direct contravention of binding precedent, (iii)
creating a factual presumption, without any evidence from class
members or otherwise, that defendants' alleged misconduct caused
all smoking by all class members, (iv) relying on epidemiological
evidence that did not meet recognized scientific standards, and
(v) awarding punitive damages to punish defendants without proper
consideration as to whether punitive damages were necessary to
deter future misconduct."


Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Kunta Case Still Pending in Winnipeg, Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. does not anticipate activity in a
"Kunta" class action filed in Winnipeg, Canada, while the
plaintiff's counsel pursues another class action in Saskatchewan,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

In the class action, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers'
Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg, Canada, filed June
12, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM
USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
("COPD"), severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease
resulting from the use of tobacco products.  She is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family
members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of
government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.

In September 2009, plaintiff's counsel informed defendants that he
did not anticipate taking any action in this case while he pursues
the class action filed in Saskatchewan.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Still Ongoing in Adams Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017 that preliminary motions are still
pending in the class action, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan,
Canada.

The class action was filed on July 10, 2009, and named the
Company, its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants.  The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products.

She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from
COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution
of profits.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Expects No Activity in "Semple" Case in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. anticipates no activity in a
"Semple" class action pending in Canada while plaintiff's counsel
pursues another class action filed in Saskatchewan, according to
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

In the class action, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers'
Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court), Nova Scotia,
Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries, and
its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products.  He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their
estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of
profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs
allegedly caused by tobacco products.

The Saskatchewan case, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers'
Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, was
filed in July 10, 2009 and preliminary motions are still pending.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Expects No Activity in "Dorion" Case in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. anticipates no activity in a
"Dorion" class action pending in Canada while plaintiff's counsel
pursues another class action filed in Saskatchewan, according to
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

In the class action, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers'
Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada, filed June
15, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM
USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus
infections resulting from the use of tobacco products.  She is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and
family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of
government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.

As of April 27, 2017, the Company, its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint.

The Saskatchewan case, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers'
Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, was
filed in July 10, 2009 and preliminary motions are still pending.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Still Defends in McDermid Class Action in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. continues to defend itself in the
class action, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.,
Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The class action was filed in June 25, 2010, and named the
Company, its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products.  He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were
alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease
allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family
members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants
from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Still Defends Bourassa Class Action in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. remains a defendant in the class
action, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.,
Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The class action was filed June 25, 2010, and named the Company,
its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and
other members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the
decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from
emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products.  She is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007,
and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly
caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members,
plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from
January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.

In December 2014, plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity on S. Jacklin Class Action at Mar. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
There was no activity in the class action, Suzanne Jacklin v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, based on Philip Morris International Inc.'s
disclosure in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that he
does not intend to take any action in this case in the near
future."

The class action was filed in June 20, 2012, and named the
Company, its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria), and other members of the industry as defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products.  She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have
smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered,
or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as
restitution of profits.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Aikens" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sharon Aikens filed an appeal from the District Court's
order and judgment, both dated March 22, 2017, in the lawsuit
entitled Aikens v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No.
16-cv-1159, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Central Islip).

The appellate case is captioned as Aikens v. Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC, Case No. 17-1132, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

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

          Justin Auslaender, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 East Southern Avenue
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (917) 793-9022
          E-mail: jauslaender@consumerlawinfo.com

Defendant-Appellee Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, is
represented by:

          Michael James Van Riper, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1345 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 548-7069
          Facsimile: (212) 548-2150
          E-mail: mvanriper@mcguirewoods.com


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces "Garcia" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01036-RAL-JSS (M.D. Fla., May 3,
2017), alleges that Plaintiff worked for Defendant without being
paid the correct overtime premium rate of time and one-half his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40)
hours within a work week in violation of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act.

Defendant is an organization providing a several types of
insurance, including, but not limited to, home and auto insurance,
to the general public.  Plaintiff was employed as a "claims
generalist associate" for Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN,P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
     P.O Box4979
     Orlando, FL 32802-4979
     Phone: (407) 420-1414
     Fax: (407) 245-3341
     Email:cleach@forthepeople.com


RHODE ISLAND: Wins Summary Judgment in Disableds' FAPE Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge William E. Smith of the United Stated
District Court for the District of Rhode Island denied Plaintiffs'
Motion for Summary Judgment and granted Defendant's Cross-Motion
for Summary Judgment in the case captioned, K.S. and K.L., through
her parent L.L., on behalf of a class of those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. R.I. BOARD OF EDUCATION, by and through its chair,
Barbara S. Cottam, in her official capacity, Defendant, Case No.
14-077 S (D.R.I.).

Plaintiffs are a certified statewide class of disabled individuals
who, "but for turning 21, would otherwise qualify or would have
qualified for a free appropriate public education until age 22
because they have not or had not yet earned a regular high school
diploma." Plaintiffs claim that Section 300.101 of Rhode Island's
Regulations Governing the Education of Children with Disabilities,
permitting local education agencies (LEAs) to terminate disabled
students' special-education services at age 21, violates their
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act right to a free
appropriate public education (FAPE) between the ages of 21 and 22.

Defendant Rhode Island Board of Education oversees the state's
elementary, secondary, and higher education systems, including
special education. The Board argues that Section 300.101 is
consistent with the IDEA because the LEAs' obligation to provide a
FAPE to disabled children ages 18 through 21 applies only if it
does not conflict with state law or practice concerning the
provision of public education to non-disabled children.

The parties both filed for cross motion for summary judgment on
the Rhode Island Board of Education's practice permitting local
education agencies to terminate special-education services to
disabled children at age 21 violates the IDEA.

In an Opinion and Order dated May 9, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/IPyplc from Leagle.com, Judge Smith found that
Section 300.101 does not violate the IDEA and that Defendant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

K.S. is represented by Jason H. Kim, Esq. --
jkim@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY
LLP -- Paul Alston, Esq. -- PAlston@ahfi.com -- ALSTON HUNT FLOYD
& ING

Rhode Island Board of Education, by and through its Chair Barbara
S. Cottam is represented by Jon M. Anderson, Esq. --
janderson@brcsm.com -- BRENNAN, RECUPERO, CASCIONE, SCUNGIO&
MCALLISTER, LLP


RITE AID: 3rd Cir. Has Jurisdiction Over Lipitor Appeals
--------------------------------------------------------
A pharmaceutical company holding the patent on a drug sues the
manufacturer of a generic version of that drug for patent
infringement.  The patent-holder and the generic manufacturer
later settle, with the former paying the latter not to produce a
generic until the patents at issue expire.  In FTC v. Actavis,
Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2233 (2013), the Supreme Court recognized that
such a settlement -- commonly known as a "reverse payment" --
where large and unjustified, can sometimes unreasonably diminish
competition in violation of the antitrust laws.  To answer the
antitrust question, Actavis explained, "it is not normally
necessary to litigate patent validity" because "the size of the
unexplained reverse payment can provide a workable surrogate for a
patent's weakness."

Two sets of consolidated appeals, raised to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, involved allegations that
the companies holding the patents for Lipitor and Effexor XR
delayed entry into the market of generic versions of those drugs.
The companies did so, plaintiffs say, by engaging in an
overarching monopolistic scheme that involved fraudulently
procuring and enforcing the patents and then entering into a
reverse-payment settlement agreement with a generic manufacturer.
With a single exception, every complaint asserts one of these
monopolization claims against the patent-holders.  The cases were
assigned to the same district judge, who ultimately dismissed the
bulk of plaintiffs' claims.

The Third Circuit addressed two questions of federal jurisdiction:

   1. First, do plaintiffs' allegations of fraudulent procurement
and enforcement of the patents require the Third Circuit to
transfer these appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit?  That court has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from
civil actions "arising under" patent law.  But not all cases
presenting questions of patent law necessarily arise under patent
law.  Where, as in this case here, patent law neither creates
plaintiffs' cause of action nor is a necessary element to any of
plaintiffs' well-pleaded claims, jurisdiction lies in the Third
Circuit Court, not the Federal Circuit.

   2. The second jurisdictional question we confront is confined
to one of the Lipitor appeals, RP Healthcare, Inc. v. Pfizer,
Inc., No. 14-4632.  That case, brought by a group of California
pharmacists, involves claims solely under California law and was
filed in California state court.  Following removal the District
Court declined to remand the case to state court, citing potential
patent defenses.  That was error, as federal jurisdiction depends
on the content of the plaintiff's complaint, not a defendant's
possible defenses.  Before final judgment, however, the remaining
non-diverse defendants were voluntarily dismissed, thus raising
the possibility that, notwithstanding the District Court's failure
to remand the case, it possessed diversity jurisdiction before the
time it entered judgment.  But because the state of the record
before the Third Circuit is unclear with regard to the citizenship
of the parties, the Third Circuit says it cannot reach the merits
of this appeal until that question is resolved.  The Third Circuit
accordingly remanded the RP Healthcare appeal to the District
Court so it can conduct jurisdictional discovery and address the
matter in the first instance.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated April 13, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/VoNIQV from Leagle.com.

The appeals cases are Rite Aid Corporation; Rite Aid Hdqtrs.
Corporation; JC (PJC) USA, LLC; Maxi Drug, Inc. d/b/a Brooks
Pharmacy; Eckerd Corporation, Walgreen Company; The Kroger Co.;
Safeway, Inc.; Supervalu, Inc.; HEB Grocery Company L.P., Giant
Eagle, Inc., Meijer, Inc.; Meijer Distribution, Inc., Rochester
Drug Co-Operative, Inc.; Stephen L. LaFrance Pharmacy, Inc. d/b/a
SAJ Distributors; Burlington Drug Company, Inc.; Value Drug
Company; Professional Drug Company, Inc.; American Sales Company
LLC, A.F.L.-A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan; Mayor and City
Council of Baltimore, Maryland; New Mexico United Food and
Commercial Workers Union's and Employers' Health and Welfare Trust
Fund; Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company, d/b/a Blue
Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana; Bakers Local 433 Health Fund; Twin
Cities Bakery Workers Health and Welfare Fund; Fraternal Order of
Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund;
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98; New York
Hotel Trades Counsel & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc.,
Health Benefits Fund; Edward Czarnecki; Emilie Heinle; Frank
Palter; Andrew Livezey; Edward Ellenson; Jean Ellyn Dougan; Nancy
Billington, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, RP Healthcare, Inc.; Chimes Pharmacy, Inc.; James
Clayworth, R.Ph., d/b/a Clayworth Pharmacy; Marin Apothecaries,
Inc., d/b/a Ross Valley Pharmacy; Golden Gate Pharmacy Services,
Inc., d/b/a Golden Gate Pharmacy; Pediatric Care Pharmacy, Inc.;
Meyers Pharmacy, Inc.; Tony Mavrantonis R. Ph., d/b/a Jack's
Drugs; Tilley Apothecaries Inc., d/b/a Zweber's Apothecary, IN RE:
EFFEXOR XR ANTITRUST LITIGATION Walgreen, Co.; The Kroger, Co.;
Safeway, Inc.; Supervalu, Inc.; HEB Grocery Company LP; American
Sales Company, Inc., Rite Aid Corporation; Rite Aid Hdqtrs.,
Corporation; JCG (PJC) USA, LLC; Maxi Drug, Inc. d/b/a Brooks
Pharmacy; Eckerd Corporation; CVS Caremark Corporation, Giant
Eagle, Inc., Meijer, Inc.; Meijer Distribution, Inc., Professional
Drug Company, Inc.; Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.; Stephen L.
LaFrance Holdings, Inc.; Stephen L. LaFrance Pharmacy, Inc. d/b/a
SAJ Distributors; Uniondale Chemist, Inc., Painters District
Council No. 30 Health & Welfare Fund; Medical Mutual of Ohio,
A.F.L.-A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan; Daryl Deino; IBEW-NECA
Local 505 Health & Welfare Plan; Louisiana Health Service
Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana; Man-U
Service Contract Trust Fund; MC-UA Local 119 Health & Welfare
Plan; New Mexico United Food and Commercial Workers Union's and
Employers' Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Plumbers and Pipefitters
Local 572 Health and Welfare Fund; Sergeants Benevolent
Association Health and Welfare Fund; Patricia Sutter (together
"End-Payor Class Plaintiffs") on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Case Nos. 14-4202, 14-4203, 14-4204,
14-4205, 14-4206, 14-4602, 14-4632, 15-1184, 15-1185, 15-1186, 15-
1187, 15-1274, 15-1323, 15-1342 (3rd Cir.).

Rite Aid Corp., et al. are represented by Maureen S. Lawrence,
Esq. -- mlawrence@hangley.com -- and -- Barry L. Refsin, Esq. --
brefsin@hangley.com -- HANGLEYARONCHICK SEGAL PUDLIN& SCHILLER

Walgreen Co., Kroger Co., et al. are represented by Anna T. Neill,
Esq. -- aneill@knpa.com -- Scott E. Perwin, Esq. --
sep@kennynachwalter.com -- and -- Lauren C. Ravkind, Esq. --
lcr@kennynachwalter.com -- KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A.

Pfizer, Inc., Pfizer Ireland, Pharmaceuticals, et al. are Liza M.
Walsh, Esq. -- lwalsh@walsh.law -- CONNELL FOLEY LLP

Ranbaxy, Inc., et al. are represented by Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. --
lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- Joseph Serino, Jr., Esq. --
joseph.serino@kirkland.com -- and -- Steven J. Menashi, Esq. --
steven.menashi@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Hansen" Suit Transferred to W.D. Okla.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Cathleen Hansen, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00352 (E.D. Wis., March 9, 2017), was transferred to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
May 3, 2017, under Case No. 5:17-cv-00513.

Hansen seeks injunctive relief by requiring Samsung to issue
corrective actions including notification, recall, service
bulletins and fully-covered replacement parts and labor or
replacement, damages associated with the replacement of the
defective products and parts, attorneys' fees and costs resulting
from fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express
warranty, negligence, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act and
violation of state consumer protection laws.

On November 4, 2016, Samsung announced a recall involving 34
models of Samsung top-load washing machines with mid-controls or
rear-controls. The washing machine top unexpectedly detaches from
the washing machine chassis during use, posing a risk of injury
from impact.

On November 16, 2015, Hansen purchased one of the subject Samsung
washing machines (model number WA456DRHDWR/AA) from an H.H. Gregg
Appliances and Electronics Store in Greenfield, Wisconsin. It is
one of those recalled units. Samsung's offer to repair or rebate
was deemed impractical by the Plaintiff due to the hassle and
inequitable compensation value of the rebate offered. The full
replacement option was not honored by the Samsung dealer.

Samsung is a major designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of
consumer appliances, including washing machines, which it
distributes throughout the United States.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Denise L. Morris, Esq.
     Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
     Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
     John D. Blythin, Esq.
     ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP
     3620 E Layton Ave
     Cudahy, WI 53110
     Tel: (414) 482-8000
     Fax: (414) 482-8001

           - and -

     William B. Federman, Esq.
     FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
     10205 N Pennsylvania Ave
     Oklahoma City, OK 73120
     Tel: (405) 235-1560
     Fax: (405) 239-2112
     Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com

Defendants are represented by:

     Stewart D. Aaron, Esq.
     Susan L. Shin, Esq.
     ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
     250 West 55th Street
     New York, NY 10019-9710
     Tel: (212) 836-8002
     Fax: (212) 836-8689
     Email: stewart.aaron@apks.com
            susan.shin@apks.com

            - and -

     Kenneth L. Chernof, Esq.
     ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
     601 Massachusetts Ave, NW
     Washington, DC 20001
     Tel: (202) 942-5000
     Fax: (202) 942-5999
     Email: kenneth.chernof@apks.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Dee" Suit Over Recalled Note7 Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dior Dee and Cory Raymond on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., a New York Corporation; and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Foreign Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-02489 (N.D.
Cal., May 1, 2017), was filed against Defendant Samsung for its
alleged failure to recall dangerous products, including its
recalled Samsung Note7 devices, and failure to warn consumers of
the dangers they pose.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. manufactures and sells
smartphones.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R. Patterson, Esq.
     PATTERSON LAW GROUP
     402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 756-6990
     Fax: (619) 756-6991
     E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com


SEADRILL LIMITED: N.Y. Class Action Suit Deemed Closed in 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class lawsuit against Seadrill Limited has been
considered closed after it has been dismissed by the court and the
thirty days' appeal period has expired without appeal, according
to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In December 2014, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit,
Fuchs v. Seadrill Limited, No. 14-cv-9642 (LGS)(KNF), was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging, among other things, that Seadrill and certain of its
executives made materially false and misleading statements in
connection with the payment of dividends.  In January 2015, a
second purported shareholder class action lawsuit, Heron v.
Seadrill Limited, No.  15-cv-0429 (LGS)(KNF), was filed in the
same court on similar grounds.  In March 2015, a third purported
shareholder class action lawsuit, Glow v. Seadrill Limited, No.
15-cv-1770 (LGS)(KNF), was filed in the same court on similar
grounds.  On March 24, 2015, the court consolidated these
complaints into a single action.  On June 23, 2015, the court
appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel and ordered the
co-lead plaintiffs to file a single consolidated amended complaint
by July 23, 2015.

The amended complaint, or the Complaint was filed on July 23, 2015
alleging, among other things, that the Company, NADL and certain
of their executives made materially false and misleading
statements in connection with the payment of dividends, the
failure to disclose the risks to the Rosneft transaction as a
result of various enacted government sanctions and the inclusion
in backlog of US$4.1 billion attributable to the Rosneft
transaction.

The defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on
October 13, 2015.  The plaintiffs, in turn, filed their Opposition
to the Motion to Dismiss on November 12, 2015 and the defendants'
Reply Brief was served on December 4, 2015.

On June 21, 2016 the court issued an order granting the
defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  On July 15, 2016 the Court entered
a judgment dismissing the Complaint with prejudice.  The thirty
days' appeal period has expired without appeal and the matter is
therefore closed.

Seadrill Limited, an offshore drilling contractor, provides
offshore drilling services to the oil and gas industry worldwide.
The company operates through three segments: Floaters, Jack-up
Rigs, and Other.  Seadrill Limited was founded in 2005 and is
headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda.


SEATTLE GENETICS: Faces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Seattle Genetics, Inc. is defending a securities class action
lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On January 10, 2017, the Company became a named defendant in a
securities class action complaint seeking compensatory damages of
an undisclosed amount. On March 29, 2017, a stockholder derivative
lawsuit was filed in Washington Superior Court for the County of
Snohomish, naming as defendants certain of the Company's current
and former executive officers and members of its board of
directors. The Company is named as a nominal defendant.

The Company does not believe it is feasible to predict or
determine the outcome or resolution of these proceedings, or to
estimate the amount of, or potential range of, loss with respect
to these proceedings. In addition, the timing of the final
resolution of these proceedings is uncertain. As a result of these
lawsuits, the Company will incur litigation expenses and may incur
indemnification expenses, and potential resolutions of the
lawsuits could include settlements requiring payments. Those
expenses could have a material impact on the Company's financial
position, results of operations, and cash flows.

Seattle Genetics is a biotechnology company focused on the
development and commercialization of targeted therapies for the
treatment of cancer.


SELECT COMFORT: Class Action Appeal Underway
--------------------------------------------
The appeal in a class action lawsuit against Select Comfort
Corporation remains pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1,
2017, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiffs David and Katina Spade commenced a
purported class action lawsuit in New Jersey state court against
Select Comfort alleging that Select Comfort violated New Jersey
consumer statutes by failing to provide to purchasing consumers
certain disclosures required by the New Jersey Furniture
Regulations. It is undisputed that plaintiffs suffered no actual
damages or in any way relied upon or were impacted by the alleged
omissions. Nonetheless, on behalf of a purported class of New
Jersey purchasers of Select Comfort beds and bases, plaintiffs
seek to recover a $100 statutory fine for each alleged omission,
along with attorneys' fees and costs.

Select Comfort removed the case to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, which subsequently granted
Select Comfort's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, which has certified two questions of law to the New
Jersey Supreme Court relating to whether plaintiffs who have
suffered no actual injury may bring claims. The New Jersey Supreme
Court has accepted the certified questions and the parties are in
the process of preparing and submitting briefs.

"As the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey agreed, we believe that the case is without merit and the
order of dismissal should be affirmed," the Company said.

Select Comfort is a vertically integrated brand and the developer,
manufacturer, marketer, retailer and servicer of a complete line
of Sleep Number beds and related technology.


SLING MEDIA: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Heskiaoff" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Michael Heskiaoff, Marc Langenohl and Rafael Mann filed
an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Heskiaoff,
et al. v. Sling Media Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-5388, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

The nature of suit is stated as torts property-fraud.

The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Sling Media Slingbox,
Case No. 17-1094, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Michael Heskiaoff, Individually & on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Marc Langenohl, Individually &
on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Rafael Mann, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Robert Ian Lax, Esq.
          LAX LLP
          380 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 818-9150
          Facsimile: (212) 208-4309
          Email: rlax@lax-law.com

Defendant-Appellee Sling Media, Inc., is represented by:

          Leigh R. Lasky, Esq.
          LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
          351 West Hubbard Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 634-0057
          Facsimile: (312) 634-0059
          E-mail: lasky@laskyrifkind.com


SONUS NETWORKS: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Drop Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc. is awaiting the Massachusetts District
Court's decision on a motion to dismiss a class action complaint
against the Company, among other defendants, related to alleged
federal securities law violations, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.


On April 6, 2015, Ming Huang, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a Class Action Complaint (Civil Action No. 3:15-
02407), alleging violations of the federal securities laws (the
"Complaint") in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey (the "District of New Jersey"), against the Company
and two of its officers, Raymond P. Dolan, the Company's President
and Chief Executive Officer, and Mark T. Greenquist, the Company's
former Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Defendants").

On September 21, 2015, in response to motions subsequently filed
with the District of New Jersey by four other purported
shareholders of the Company seeking status as lead plaintiff, the
District of New Jersey appointed Richard Sousa as lead plaintiff
(the "Plaintiff").  The Plaintiff claims to represent purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the period from October 23,
2014 to March 24, 2015, and seeks unspecified damages.

The principal allegation contained in the Complaint is that the
Defendants made misleading forward-looking statements concerning
the Company's fiscal first quarter of 2015 financial performance.

On September 22, 2015, the Company filed a Motion to Transfer (the
"Motion to Transfer") this case to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "District of
Massachusetts").

On March 21, 2016, the District of New Jersey granted the
Company's Motion to Transfer.  Thus, this case will now be
litigated in the District of Massachusetts (Civil Action No. 1:16-
cv-10657-GAO).

On May 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the
"Amended Complaint"), which is now the operative complaint in this
litigation.

On June 20, 2016, the Company and the other Defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss")
and on July 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss.

The Company filed its reply to the Plaintiff's opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss on August 15, 2016.

A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held on February 28, 2017,
and the parties are now awaiting a decision from the District of
Massachusetts.

Sonus Networks said, "The Company believes that the Defendants
have meritorious defenses to the allegations made in the Amended
Complaint and does not expect the results of this suit to have a
material effect on its business or consolidated financial
statements.  The Company is also fully cooperating with an SEC
inquiry regarding the development and issuance of the Company's
first quarter 2015 revenue and earnings guidance.  At this time,
it is not possible to predict the outcome of the SEC's inquiry,
including whether or not any proceedings will be initiated or, if
so, when or how the matter will be resolved and therefore an
estimate of the possible range of loss, if any, cannot be made."

Sonus Networks, Inc. provides networked solutions worldwide.  It
offers Session Border Controllers (SBCs) that address security and
interworking requirements for small, medium, and large businesses,
as well as regional and global communications service providers;
Sonus GSX9000 Open Services Switch, which bridges IP and TDM
networks by converting voice signal into Internet Protocol (IP) IP
packets and transmitting those IP packets on a data network; and
Sonus T7000 Intelligent Switching System, a class five end-office
soft switch that provides residential and business voice services,
as well as IP-IP multimedia processing engine services.  The
Company was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Westford,
Massachusetts.


STANDARD INSURANCE: "Woods" Class Settlement Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Karen B. Molzen of the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico preliminary approved
settlement and settlements class and class counsel in the case
captioned, BRETT F. WOODS AND KATHLEEN VALDES, FOR THEMSELVES AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATION, Plaintiffs, v. STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY, AN OREGON INSURANCE COMPANY, MARTHA QUINTANA, A NEW
MEXICO RESIDENT, AND THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO GENERAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION, Defendants, Case No. 1:12-cv-
01327-KBM/KRS (D.N.M.).

The action was originally filed on November 20, 2012, in the First
Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, State of New Mexico
against Defendants Standard Insurance Company, Martha Quintana,
and the State of New Mexico General Services Department, Risk
Management Division, alleging on behalf of Plaintiffs and the
proposed Class that Defendants had accepted premiums without
providing coverage in return for the premiums paid.

Defendant Standard Insurance removed the case to the District
Court on December 28, 2012. After extensive arms-length settlement
negotiations and multiple mediations, the parties agreed to
material settlement terms by agreeing to a Memorandum of
Settlement on August 12, 2016.

Plaintiffs proposed that named Plaintiffs, Brett F. Woods and
Kathleen Valdes to be appointed as Class representatives, Charles
Peifer, Robert Hanson, and Matthew Jackson, Peifer, Hanson &
Mullins, P.A. and William H. Carpenter, Carpenter Law Office Ltd.
as class counsel and Dahl Administration, LLC as class
administrator.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Settlement, Certifying a Settlement Class and
Appointing Class Counsel.

In her Order dated May 9, 2017 available at https://is.gd/48Y10n
from Leagle.com, Judge Molzen found that the settlement terms are
fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the
Class.

Brett F. Woods is represented by Charles Robert Peifer, Esq. --
cpeifer@peiferlaw.com -- Matthew Eric Jackson, Esq. --
mjackson@peiferlaw.com -- and -- Robert E. Hanson, Esq. --
rhanson@peiferlaw.com -- PEIFER, HANSON & MULLINS, PA

Standard Insurance Company, et al. are represented by W. Mark
Mowery, Esq. -- mmowery@rodey.com -- RODEY, DICKASON, SLOAN, AKIN
& ROBB -- Ryan McComber, Esq. -- ryan.mccomber@figdav.com -- and -
- Timothy A. Daniels, Esq. -- tim.daniels@figdav.com -- FIGARI&
DAVENPORT LLP


SUCCESS AGENCY: Faces "Florio" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAHLIA S. FLORIO, Plaintiff, v. SUCCESS AGENCY LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 9:17-cv-80557-DMM (S.D. Fla., May 3, 2017), was filed on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, alleging that
Defendant failed to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act
because Plaintiff was regularly required to work in excess of
forty (40) hours a workweek but was not paid overtime compensation
as required by the FLSA.  Defendant also allegedly failed to keep
accurate time records as required by the FLSA.[BN]

SUCCESS agency is a full-service digital agency offering creative
inbound marketing and web design packages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
     Jason M. Melton, Esq.
     WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
     One Progress Plaza
     200 Central Avenue, #400
     St. Petersburg, FL 33701
     Tel: (727) 822-1111
     Fax: (727) 898-2001
     E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
             lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
             kmoran@theFLlawfirm.com


SUNRUN INC: Justin Hall Files Suit Alleging Corrupt Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN HALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNRUN INC., LYNN JURICH, and BOB
KOMIN, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02571 (N.D. Cal., May 4,
2017), alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company
was concealing customer cancelations from investors; (2) that the
Company engaged in corrupt sales practices; (3) that, as a result
of the foregoing, the Company was exposed to potential civil and
criminal liability; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Sunrun's business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Sunrun Inc. provides solar energy through the Company's lease and
power purchase agreements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: (310) 201-9150
     Fax: (310) 201-9160
     E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com


SUNRUN INC: Faces "Fink" Suit Alleging Securities Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FINK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. SUNRUN INC., LYNN MICHELLE JURICH, and
ROBERT PATRICK KOMIN JR., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02537 (N.D.
Cal., May 3, 2017), alleges that Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies in violation of the U.S.
Securiteis and Exchange Act. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Sunrun failed to adequately disclose how many customers canceled
contracts after signing up for the Company's homesolar energy
system; (ii) discovery of the foregoing conduct would subject the
Company to heightened regulatory scrutiny and potential civil
sanctions; and (iii) as a result, Sunrun's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation,
sale, ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy
systems in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     468 North Camden Drive
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Phone: (818) 532-6499
     E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bank Faces Campbell and Neal Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Syncrony Bank has been
added as defendant to the Campbell and Neal lawsuits.

The Bank or the Company is, or has been, defending a number of
putative class actions alleging claims under the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") as a result of phone calls made
by the Bank. The complaints generally have alleged that the Bank
or the Company placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone
dialing system or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice
without their consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation,
without specifying an aggregate amount.

Campbell et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on January 25, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
The original complaint named only J.C. Penney Company, Inc. and
J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. as the defendants but was amended on
April 7, 2017 to replace those defendants with the Bank.

Neal et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Synchrony Bank, for which
the Bank is indemnifying Wal-Mart, was filed on January 17, 2017
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina. The original complaint named only Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
as a defendant but was amended on March 30, 2017 to add Synchrony
Bank as an additional defendant.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Campbell et al. Suit v. Gap Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned, Campbell et al. v. Gap Inc., has been
dismissed, Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Bank has resolved or had dismissed a number of other putative
class actions that made similar claims under the TCPA. With the
exception of the Abdeljalil matter, all were either resolved on an
individual basis with the class representatives or dismissed
voluntarily.

Abdeljalil et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank, which was filed on
August 22, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, was dismissed on December 22, 2016 after
receiving the court's final approval of an agreement to settle the
case on a class basis.

Campbell et al. v. Gap Inc., for which the Bank was indemnifying
the defendant, was filed on January 25, 2017 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York and dismissed on April
7, 2017.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Faces "Kincaid" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against the case, Michael W. Kincaid, DDS et al. v.
Synchrony Financial.

The Company is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit
alleging claims under the TCPA relating to facsimiles. In Michael
W. Kincaid, DDS et al. v. Synchrony Financial, plaintiff alleges
that the Company violated the TCPA by sending fax advertisements
without consent and without required notices, and seeks up to
$1,500 for each violation. The amount of damages sought in the
aggregate is unspecified.

The original complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on January 20, 2016. On August 11,
2016, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss based on
the lack of personal jurisdiction. On August 15, 2016, the
plaintiff re-filed the case in the Southern District of Ohio.

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


TENET HEALTHCARE: Lead Plaintiffs File Consolidated Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the four court-
appointed lead plaintiffs have filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint asserting violations of the federal securities
laws.

On February 10, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas consolidated two previously disclosed lawsuits
filed by purported shareholders of the Company's common stock
against the Company and several current and former executive
officers into a single matter captioned In re Tenet Healthcare
Corporation Securities Litigation.

On April 11, 2017, the four court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed
a consolidated amended class action complaint asserting violations
of the federal securities laws. The plaintiffs are seeking class
certification on behalf of all persons who acquired the Company's
common stock between February 28, 2012 and August 1, 2016.  The
complaint alleges that false or misleading statements or omissions
concerning the Company's financial performance and compliance
policies, specifically with respect to the previously disclosed
civil qui tam litigation and parallel criminal investigation of
the Company and certain of its subsidiaries (together, the
"Clinica de la Mama matters"), caused the price of the Company's
common stock to be artificially inflated. In addition, the
plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated GAAP by failing to
disclose an estimate of the possible loss or a range of loss
related to the Clinica de la Mama matters.

Tenet Healthcare Corporation is a diversified healthcare services
company.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Awaits Class Certification Ruling in "Maderazo"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company is
awaiting the court's ruling on class certification in the case,
Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist
Health Systems, et al.

In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a
Baptist Health Systems, et al., filed in June 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported
class of registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San
Antonio-area hospital systems allege those hospital systems,
including Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San
Antonio regional hospitals violated Section Sec. 1 of the federal
Sherman Act by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation and
exchanging compensation-related information among themselves in a
manner that reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to
such nurses. The suit seeks unspecified damages (subject to
trebling under federal law), interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
The case was stayed from 2008 through mid-2015.

"At this time, we are awaiting the court's ruling on class
certification and will continue to vigorously defend ourselves
against the plaintiffs' allegations. It remains impossible at this
time to predict the outcome of these proceedings with any
certainty; however, we believe that the ultimate resolution of
this matter will not have a material effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations," the Company said.

Tenet Healthcare Corporation is a diversified healthcare services
company.


TETRAPHASE PHARAM: Massachusetts Court Dismisses Securities Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts allowed Defendants' motion o
dismiss the cases captioned, JOSEPH HARRINGTON, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated Plaintiff, v. TETRAPHASE
PHARMACEUTICALS INC., GUY MACDONALD, JOHN CRAIG THOMPSON, and
DAVID LUBNER, Defendants. DAN SCHLAPKOHL, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated Plaintiff, v. TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS
INC., GUY MACDONALD, JOHN CRAIG THOMPSON, and DAVID LUBNER,
Defendants, Case No. 16-10133-LTS, 16-10577-LTS (D. Mass.).

The consolidated class action cases allege that between March 5,
2015, and September 8, 2015, (the class period) Tetraphase
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and three individual defendants, Guy
MacDonald, President and CEO, John Thompson, COO during the class
period, and David Lubner, CFO and senior vice president during the
class period, violated securities laws. Plaintiffs allege that the
defendants (Tetraphase) knew that the drug they were testing would
fail long before that information was released to the public.

Tetraphase filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

In his Order dated May 9, 2017 available at https://is.gd/fSzVZD
from Leagle.com, Judge Sorokin found that all of the evidence, if
considered together, fall short of that required to show a strong
inference of scienter.

Plymouth County Retirement System, et al. are represented by Max
Schwartz, Esq. -- mschwartz@scott-scott.com -- Joseph P.
Guglielmo, Esq. -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- and -- Thomas L.
Laughlin, IV, Esq. -- tlaughlin@scott-scott.com -- SCOTT SCOTT,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP -- Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. --
shopkins@zlk.com -- LEVI KORSINSKY LLP

Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. are represented by Michael
G. Bongiorno, Esq. -- michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com -- Peter J.
Kolovos, Esq. -- peter.kolovos@wilmerhale.com -- and -- Sarah L.
Murphy, Esq. -- sarah.murphy@wilmerhale.com -- WILMER CUTLER
PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP


TEXAS: 5th Cir. Remands Suit vs. HHSC Over EPSDT
------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated
the district court's judgment and remanded the case titled CARLA
FREW; CHARLOTTE GARVIN, as next friend of her minor children
Johnny Martinez, Brooklyn Garvin and BreAnna Garvin; CLASS
MEMBERS; NICOLE CARROLL, Class Representative; MARIA AYALA, as
next friend of her minor children, Christopher Arizola, Leonard
Jimenez and Joseph Veliz; MARY JANE GARZA, as next friend of her
minor children, Hilary Garza and Sarah Renea Garza, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. CHRIS TAYLOR, Commissioner of the Texas Health and
Human Services Commission in his official capacity; KAY
GHAHREMANI, State Medicaid Director of the Texas Health and Human
Services Commission in her official capacity, Defendants-
Appellants, No. 14-41232 (5th Cir.).

The Early, Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) is
a program that focuses on preventative health care for indigent
children, especially routine checkups and necessary follow up
care.

A class action was brought on behalf of Medicaid-eligible children
in Texas alleging that the State was failing to provide adequate
EPSDT services. In 1996, the district court entered a consent
decree aimed at enhancing the availability of health care
services, eliminating barriers that have the effect of preventing
access to services, and more effectively informing recipients that
services are available and important to their current and future
health. The Decree dictated that the state meet a range of
objectives. More than a decade later, in 2007, plaintiffs
successfully obtained the agreed Corrective Action Order. The
order resulted from plaintiffs' motions to enforce and to find
defendants in violation of the original decree. Each of the plans
in the 2007 order deals with a specific issue, such as
transportation, health care provider training, and outreach
efforts.

At the same time it entered the 2007 Corrective Action Order, the
district court entered an order addressing attorney's fees. Its
final provision held that beginning four years from the date of
entry of the corrective action orders, counsel will confer to
determine what further action, if any, is required. If the parties
agree, they will so report to the court within 120 days following
the fourth anniversary of the order entry date. If the parties
cannot agree within 90 days of the fourth anniversary of the order
entry date, the dispute will be resolved by the court. If the
parties cannot agree, either party may file a motion within 30
days of the completion of discussion among counsel.

Following the procedure, both sides conferred regarding the need
for further action related to the checkup reports and lagging
counties. When they did not reach agreement, both submitted
motions to the district court. Plaintiffs sought further action
regarding checkup reports and the lagging counties, while
defendants sought to modify both the Corrective Action Order and
Consent Decree under Rule 60(b)(5) to eliminate the provisions in
both that related to checkup reports or lagging counties,
asserting they had met all requirements. The district court denied
the plaintiffs' motion, and granted the defendants' motion.
Plaintiffs did not appeal the ruling.

Despite coming out on the losing end, Plaintiffs sought attorneys'
fees for the time spent briefing both motions. The district court
ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys' fees
pursuant to the 2007 Fee Order, and emphasized that the plaintiffs
were the prevailing party both in obtaining the original consent
decree and the corrective action order. The court ordered that
defendants pay plaintiffs' their requested $129,140.00 for work on
the contested motions. The court rejected defendants request to
analyze the reasonableness of the fees based on the degree of
plaintiffs' success, finding that because the basis of the fees
was the agreed-upon Corrective Action Order and 2007 Fee Order,
the success or failure of the work did not determine payment in
such instance. Appeal followed.

The Fifth Circuit agrees with the district court that plaintiffs
had an entitlement to fees as the round of motion practice was the
final step contemplated under the 2007 Corrective Action Order for
which they were the prevailing party. As with a typical fee
request, however, the district court should have engaged in a
reasonableness analysis that included evaluating the party's
degree of success. Since the district court did not consider the
degree of success in analyzing the reasonableness of the fees
requested, the interim fee order is vacated and the suit is
remanded for the district judge to conduct such inquiry.

A copy of the Fifth Circuit's per curiam decision dated April 27,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/0WnJ6v from Leagle.com.

For Plaintiff-Appellee:

     Timothy Borne Garrigan, Esq.
     STUCKEY & GARRIGAN LAW OFFICES, PLLC
     2803 North Street
     Nacogdoches, TX 75963-1902
     Tel: 936-560-6020
     Fax: 936-560-9578

        - and -

     Jane K. Swanson, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JANE K. SWANSON
     1408 Bentwood Road
     Austin, TX 78722-1016
     Tel: 512-220-0678

For Defendant-Appellant:

     James Byron Eccles, Esq.
     Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs
     P.O. Box 13941
     Austin, TX 78711-3941
     Tel: 512-475-3932

          -- and --

     Arthur D'Andrea, Esq.
     J. Campbell Barker, Esq.
     Sean Patrick Flammer, Esq.
     Office of the Attorney General of Texas
     P.O. Box 12548 (MC059)
     Austin, TX 78711-2548

The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit panel consists
of Circuit Judges James L. Dennis and Gregg J. Costa and District
Judge Kurt Damian Engelhardt.


TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS: Downs, Zou Win Partial Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Michael Vazquez of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part motions for
summary judgment brought by Defendants L. McCarthy Downs III and
Hayden Zou in the case captioned, ROBIN JOACHIM DARTELL, et al.,
individually and on behalf all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 14-3620 (D.N.J.).

The class action involves alleged misrepresentations in Defendant
Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Initial Public Offering registration
documents.  Plaintiffs brought suit under the Securities Act of
1933 against a number of individuals and entities who were
involved in the IPO, including Tibet; the Tibet Directors who
signed the IPO registration statement; the underwriter, Anderson &
Strudwick; and the auditor for the IPO, Acquavella, Chiarelli,
Shuster, Berkower & Co., LLP.

Plaintiffs initially filed suit on August 31, 2012 asserting (1)
violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against all
Defendants (Count One); (2) violation of Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933 against Tibet, A&S, and Sterne Agee (Count
Two); and (3) violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 against the Individual Defendants.

Downs and Zou filed these motions for summary judgment on June 30,
2016. Downs and Zou both generally argue that they are not proper
Defendants under Section 11 and that they are not a "control
person" under Section 15. Consequently, they seek summary judgment
as to Counts One and Three. Both Defendants also seek to revisit a
court's determination in the class certification opinion regarding
tracing due to new facts that were discovered in summary judgment.
Zou argues that the lead Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their
Section 11 claims because they cannot "trace" the purchase of
their shares to the IPO.

In an Opinion dated May 10, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/HAND2b from Leagle.com, Judge Vazquez concluded that
Plaintiffs fail to provide the Court with a single case in which a
court determined that an individual employee of an underwriter was
personally liable under Section 11, in addition to the underwriter
itself. As to Count One the Court held that there are material
issues of fact as to whether they were persons named in the
registration statement as about to become people performing
similar functions to a director and whether Defendants' are
absolved of liability under the due diligence defense.

Robin Joachim Dartell and Lee Fishman are represented by Erica L.
Stone, Esq. -- estone@rosenlegal.com -- and -- Laurence M. Rosen,
Esq. -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA

Acquavella, Chiarelli, Shuster, Berkower & Co., LLP is represented
by Michael Robert Mcandrew, Esq. --
michael.mcandrew@wilsonelser.com -- and -- Nicole B. Liebman, Esq.
-- nicole.liebman@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ
EDELMAN & DICKER LLP


TWENTIETH CENTURY: Suit Over "Empire" Filming Partially Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Amy J. St. Eve of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois granted in part and denied
in part Defendants' motions to dismiss the case captioned, T.S.,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX TELEVISION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 16 C 8303 (N.D. Ill.).

In the summer of 2015, officials placed the Juvenile Temporary
Detention Center on lockdown so that it could be used to film
episodes for the Fox television show, Empire.  Plaintiffs, who
were juvenile detainees during that time, allege that JTDC
officials "placed off limits" certain areas that are essential to
the JTDC's mission of educating and rehabilitating the hundreds of
juveniles housed there, including the JTDC's school, its
facilities for family visits, the outdoor recreation yard, the
library, the infirmary, and the chapel.

On October 5, 2016, minor Plaintiffs T.S. and Q.B., through their
legal guardians, brought the twelve-count First Amended Class
Action Complaint alleging violations of their constitutional
rights, along with supplemental state law claims.  Plaintiffs, who
seek to represent a class of similarly situated juveniles, bring
the following substantive claims and claims seeking to establish
certain Defendants' liability in their First Amended Complaint:
(1) a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against all
Defendants (Count I); (2) a Fourth Amendment claim against all
Defendants (Count II); (3) a Monell liability claim against Cook
County/and or the Chief Judge's Office (Count III); (4) a joint
action liability claim against the Fox Defendants (Count IV); (5)
a respondeat superior liability claim against the Fox Defendants
in relation to Plaintiffs' constitutional claims (Count V); (6) a
constitutional conspiracy claim against all Defendants (Count VI);
(7) a state law breach of fiduciary duty claim against
Superintendent Dixon and Defendant Does (Count VII); (8) an
inducement of breach of fiduciary duty claim against the Fox
Defendants (Count VIII); (9) an intentional infliction of
emotional distress claim against all Defendants (Count IX); (10) a
state law civil conspiracy claim against all Defendants (Count X);
(11) a state law respondeat superior claim against Cook County,
the Chief Judge's Office, and the Fox Defendants (Count XI); and
(12) an indemnification claim pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102
against Cook County (Count XII).

Before the Court are three separate motions to dismiss brought by
the Fox Defendants, Defendants Dixon and Cook County, and the
Chief Judge's Office pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 20, 2017 available
at https://is.gd/8MyaoY from Leagle.com, Judge St. Eve denied the
Cook County Defendants' and Chief Judge's Office' motions to
dismiss the following claims -- Counts I, III, VII, IX and X and
granted without prejudice Defendants' motions to dismiss Count VI.
As to the Fox Defendants, the Court granted without prejudice
Defendants' motions to dismiss Counts I, IV, VI, VIII, IX, and X.
The Court granted with prejudice Defendants' motions to dismiss
Counts II and V.

The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their allegations in
Counts IV, VI, VIII, IX, and X in a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint -- in accordance with this ruling and consistent with
counsel's Rule 11 obligations.

Q.B., et al. are represented by Pamela Reasor Hanebutt, Esq. --
phanebutt@eimerstahl.com -- and -- Susan M. Razzano, Esq. --
srazzano@eimerstahl.com -- EIMER STAHL LLP -- Stephen Heschel
Weil, Esq. -- steve@weilchardon.com -- WEIL & CHARDON LLC

Twentieth Century Fox Television, et al. are represented by
Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. -- jjacobson@kelleydrye.com -- Matthew
Charles Luzadder, Esq. -- mluzadder@kelleydrye.com -- and --
Catherine E. James, Esq. -- cjames@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY DRYE &
WARREN LLP

The County of Cook, Illinois is represented by:

      Anthony E. Zecchin, Esq.
      Thomas Edward Nowinski, Esq.
      COOK COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEYS OFFICE
      500 Daley Center,
      50 W. Washington,
      Chicago, IL 60602-1305
      Tel:(312)603-1880


ULTRATECH INC: Shareholder Class Action on Veeco Merger Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ultratech, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 1, 2017, that it is facing purported class action complaints
filed by its shareholders regarding Veeco Instruments Inc.'s
proposed acquisition of the Company.

On February 2, 2017, the Company, Veeco Instruments Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("Veeco") and Ulysses Acquisition Subsidiary
Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Veeco ("Merger Subsidiary"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which, among other
things, Merger Subsidiary will be merged with and into the Company
(the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Veeco, subject to the terms and conditions of
the Merger Agreement.

On March 17, 2017, an Ultratech shareholder filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned The Vladimir Gusinsky Rev.
Trust v.  Ultratech, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-01468-PJH, on
behalf of itself and all other Ultratech shareholders against the
Company, its directors at the time the acquisition was announced,
Veeco, and Merger Sub.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with
Veeco's proposed acquisition of Ultratech, the defendants
purportedly agreed to a supposedly inadequate price for the
Ultratech shares, agreed to unreasonable deal-protection measures,
and potentially engaged in supposed self-dealing.

The complaint seeks to recover under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged misstatements and
omissions in the preliminary proxy statement filed on March 13,
2017.  The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
including enjoining or rescinding the transaction and rescissory
damages to the extent already implemented, an order directing the
dissemination of a proxy statement that is not false or
misleading, and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees.

On March 22, 2017, two other Ultratech shareholders filed a
purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, captioned De Letter et al.
v. Ultratech, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01542-WHA, on behalf
of themselves and all other Ultratech shareholders against the
Company and its directors at the time the acquisition was
announced.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with
Veeco's proposed acquisition of Ultratech, the defendants
purportedly agreed to a supposedly inadequate price for the
Ultratech shares and potentially engaged in supposed self-dealing.
The complaint further alleges that the sale process was flawed and
tainted by the self-interest of certain directors.

The complaint seeks to recover under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged misstatements and
omissions in the preliminary proxy statement filed on March 13,
2017.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including enjoining
or rescinding the transaction and rescissory damages to the extent
already implemented, compensatory damages, and an award of
attorneys' and experts' fees.

Ultratech, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets
photolithography, laser thermal processing, and inspection
equipment.  The Company was founded in 1979 and is headquartered
in San Jose, California.


WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Arbitrator Finds Unit Liable in FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Waterstone Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that an arbitrator has
found Waterstone Mortgage Corporation liable for unpaid minimum
wages, overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, and liquidated
damages in the class action lawsuit, Herrington v. Waterstone
Mortgage Corporation.

Waterstone Mortgage Corporation is a defendant in a class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin and subsequently compelled to arbitration
before the American Arbitration Association. The plaintiff class
alleged that Waterstone Mortgage Corporation violated certain
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and failed to
pay loan officers consistent with their various employment
agreements.

On April 13, 2017, the arbitrator issued a partial award regarding
liability, in which the arbitrator found Waterstone Mortgage
Corporation liable for unpaid minimum wages, overtime,
unreimbursed business expenses, and liquidated damages under the
FLSA.

While an award regarding damages has not yet been issued, the
Company has estimated that the award, which includes plaintiff
attorney fees and costs, could be as high as $10.0 million.
Waterstone Mortgage Corporation will continue to vigorously defend
its interests in this matter, including challenging any findings
regarding liability and damages through appropriate post-
arbitration motions and appeal processes and seeking to vacate in
its entirety any award against the Company.

"Given the pending legal strategies that are available, we do not
believe that it is probable that the plaintiff will ultimately
prevail in this litigation. In accordance with the authoritative
guidance in evaluating contingencies, the Company has not recorded
an accrual related to this matter," the Company said.


* NEW CASE SUMMARY: Bought Milk Antitrust
-----------------------------------------
See how advancements in technology and a fully digital notice and
distribution produced 8X more claimants, reached 4+ million people
and transformed the settlement process in the Fresh Milk Products
Antitrust Litigation Settlement. You can download the case summary
at: https://www.sipree.com/boughtmilkcase/.




                         *********


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 Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *