CAR_Public/170525.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, May 25, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 104



                            Headlines

1-800 CONTACTS: Boies Schiller Appointed Interim Class Council
7-ELEVEN INC: "Eloi" Seeks Reimbursement of Business Expenses
AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA: Faces Potential Suit Over Staff Contracts
ALFRED NICKLES: "Conaway" Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
AMERICAN HONDA: Sued for Using Soy-Based Electrical Wires

AMERICAN ROAD: Former Sales Rep Sues Over OT Allegations
APOLLO COMMERCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Case Pending
AUROBINDO PHARMA: Rochester Drug Sues Over Overpriced Glyburide
BARRICK GOLD: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Investors Class Action
BEIERSDORF INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Franz" Class Suit

BILLY'S PIZZA: "Larios" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
BRISTOL BAY: East African Refugees Maltreated, Abikar Suit Says
BROOMALL OPERATING: 3d Cir. Affirms Ruling in OT Class Suit
BUON AMICI: "Miro" Seeks Withheld Tips, Minimum Wages, Pay Stubs
CALAMOS PARTNERS: "Schechter" Sues Over Unfair Merger Deal

CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Freedom Home Appeals Ruling in "Aranda" Suit
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Berkley Group Appeals Ruling in "Aranda" Suit
CAYAN LLC: McCombs Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to Seventh Circuit
CENTRAL PAYMENT: Georgia Court Approves TCPA Suit Settlement
CHRISTIAN FINANCIAL: Caregiver Class Action Settled

COMCAST CORP: Cable TV Subscribers Suit Dismissed
CONN'S INC: Bid to Certify Securities Suit Pending
CORPORATE BAILOUT: Abante Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
CORT BUSINESS: "Pollar" Seeks OT Pay; Sues Over Missed Breaks
CYLCOMM LLC: Dodd Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads

DIGITAL ALLY: Purcell Julie Starts Class Action Investigation
DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON: Sexual Abuse Case Continues
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Sept. 14 Final Approval Hearing Set
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Bid to Transfer or Stay B&R Suit Underway
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Rayner" Suit

ETSY INC: Dismissal of "Altayyar" Amended Suit Under Appeal
ETSY INC: Cervantes and Weiss Actions Remain Stayed
EVANSTON NORTHWESTERN: Asks Court to Dismiss Price Hike Suit
EXXON MOBIL: Dismissal of Suit Over Arkansas Pipeline Spill Upheld
FACEBOOK INC: Aug. 9 Fairness Hearing in "Campbell" Suit

FANNIE MAY: Slapped With Class Action Over Bumped Up Candy Boxes
FARIS PROPERTIES: "Lizotte" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Deductions
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS: Schwebel Sues Over Electricity Surcharge
FYRE MEDIA: New Yorkers File Class Action Over Cancelled Festival
FYRE MEDIA: "Herlihy" Suit Demands Damages Over Festival Chaos

GRAIN PROCESSING: Iowa High Ct. Certifies Class in Pollution Suit
GREAT CIRCLE: "Bush" Suit Claims Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
HERITAGE-CRYSTAL CLEAN: Defending Class Suit over Contract Fees
HIGHER ONE: Faces "Edelman" Suit over Student Debit Card Fees
HOME HEALTH CARE: "Toussaint" Suit Seeks OT Wages, Pay Stubs

HOMELAND SECURITY: Sued over Deportation of Juvenile Immigrants
HONGLI CLEAN ENERGY: "Nasin" Sues Over Shares Trading Suspension
INTRA-CELLULAR THERAPIES: Khang & Khang Files Shareholders Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: "Lomeli" Suit Alleges Tax-Refund Scam
KINGS AUTOSHOW: "Stokes" Seeks Overtime Pay, Claims No Pay Stubs

KONA GRILL: "Cedeno" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Denied Leave
LPL FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Securities Class Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Talks Held in Formaldehyde & Abrasion MDLs
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Steele" Action Still Pending in Ontario
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Class Cert. Motion in "Gold" Suit Pending

MADISON COUNTY, MS: Sheriff Disputes Racial Bias Claims
MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Local 589 Suit Order
MDL 2672: Court Rejects 244 Motions for Attorneys Fees
MOBILEIRON INC: Says Settlement Subject to Final Documentation
MOORE BREWER: "Wiseman" Sues Over Missing Notification Letter

OREGON: Faces Class Action Over Unsafe Prison Food
PAT WILLIAMS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Act Violations
PCG PUBLIC: Faces Suit for Underpaying Overtime
PCM INC: "Miller" Sues Over Share Price Drop, Non-disclosure
PETCO HOLDINGS: "Cote" Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal.

PORSCHE CARS: Court Rejects Class Cert. Bid in "Butler" Suit
PROSPERITY 89: "Candido" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread of Hours Pay
PULTE HOME: Bldg. Code Violations Not Subject to Class Treatment
PURITAN'S PRIDE: "Larson" Sues Over Misleading Promotion
QUAKER OATS: "Anitch" Mislabeling Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.

QUINTIS: Faces Class Action Over Tumbling Share Prices
RACKSPACE HOSTING: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action
RALPH ROWE: Named Defendant in Class Action Over Sexual Abuse
RETAILMENOT INC: Faces "Scarantino" Suit over Merger Deal
REVEL SYSTEMS: "Bisaccia" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

RMK WORLDWIDE: "Rodriguez" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
SACRAMENTO, CA: NAACP to Explore Suing Over Discriminatory Law
SANDOVAL COUNTY: "Valdez" Suit Claims Overtime, Back Pay
SCHAROME CARES: "Lenderman" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under NYLL
SELECT STAFFING: "Joseph" Sues Over Illegal Background Checks

SILVER BAY: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
SLICE TECH: Suit Says Spam-Removal Service Sells Users' Emails
SOS FURNITURE: "Da Silva" Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
SPECIAL CARE: "Tracy" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
SPIN MASTER: Hejduk Drops Suit over Hatchimals

SRA VENTURES: Faxing Without Opt-Out Leads to $135MM Payment
ST. JUDE: Faces Class Action Over Implantable Defibrillators
SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: Warciak Appeals Decision to Seventh Circuit
TIAA: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Excessive 401(k) Plan Fees
TIPTON COUNTY, TN: Faces "Smith" Class Suit over Data Breach

TRIBE APP: "Horsley" Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
TWITTER INC: Shareholder Class Suits Pending in California
UBER TECH: Spies on Lyft Drivers, "Gonzalez" Suit Claims
UNION PACIFIC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Valenzuela" Suit
UNITED STATES: Judge Curiel to Oversee "Montes" Suit

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action Suit
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: "Kim" Sues Over Unpaid Meal Breaks
VERISK ANALYTICS: Accord in Intellicorp Records Litigation Okayed
VERISK ANALYTICS: June 15 Final Approval Hearing in "Sager" Case
VERISK ANALYTICS: Dismissal of "Snyder" Suit Upheld

VERISK ANALYTICS: ISO Dropped from "Halloran" Suit
VITAMIN SHOPPE: "Nathan" Sues Over Dietary Supplement Mislabeling
WELLS FARGO: New Unauthorized Accounts Revealed Amidst Class Suit
WELLS FARGO: $142MM "Jabbari" Case Accord Taken Under Submission
WEST VIRGINIA: Group Says Settlement for Lawyers' Lawsuit Greed

WHIRLPOOL: Judge Denies Vision II Oven Class Action Certification
WILLBROS GROUP: Suit over 2014 Earnings Statement Still Ongoing

* Greensfelder Comments on Enforceability of Arbitration Deal








                            *********


1-800 CONTACTS: Boies Schiller Appointed Interim Class Council
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene at Law 360 reports Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP won spots as interim class
counsel in consolidated litigation accusing 1-800 Contacts Inc. of
making illegal agreements with rivals to erase competition for
internet search advertising, according to a Utah court order May
10.

U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell granted an unopposed motion to
seat the two legal powerhouses atop a group of eight cases that
were consolidated earlier as the parties work to streamline the
litigation, which followed a Federal Trade Commission suit over
the alleged anti-competitive scheme, court records show.

The order also called for any future cases pulled into the instant
suit's orbit to follow the same schedule and be led by the same
interim lead class counsel.

"Because additional cases may be consolidated with this case in
this court, this court will issue orders to the extent practicable
calling for such matters to proceed in a manner consistent with
the schedule in this action," Judge Campbell wrote. "This order
will apply to all subsequent 'tag-along' actions related to this
litigation."

A flurry of suits were filed in the wake of the FTC's
administrative complaint in August alleging 1-800 Contacts entered
into illegal bidding agreements with at least 14 competing online
contact lens retailers prohibiting them from placing
advertisements on search engines like Google and Bing when
consumers searched for the company's trademarks. The agreements
also covered so-called negative keywords, such that search engines
were instructed not to display results for 1-800 Contacts'
competitors in searches for the company, the agency said.

Once the dominant online contacts retailer, 1-800 Contacts began
securing the arrangements with other sellers in 2004 out of a
recognition that its business was being undercut, according to the
FTC's complaint. To get the rivals to agree to its terms, the
retailer sent the companies threatening letters incorrectly
claiming trademark infringement because their names came up in a
search for "1-800 Contacts," the agency said.

By 2013, 1-800 Contacts had locked in at least 14 agreements with
competitors, according to the FTC. Together, the companies make up
more than 80 percent of the online contact lens retail market, the
agency said.

Only one rival -- Lens.com -- refused to comply with the company's
demands and proceeded to litigation, the agency said. The Tenth
Circuit in 2013 rejected 1-800 Contacts' trademark infringement
claims, the FTC said.

The retailer has argued the compacts were reasonable efforts to
protect its intellectual property. In February, the FTC ruled
against two of 1-800 Contacts' defenses, saying that the online
retailer could not claim immunity from the action under the Noerr-
Pennington doctrine -- which states that petitioning the
government for redress is generally exempt from antitrust
liability -- and that the agency does not have to show that the
agreements were shams to establish liability.

On May 8, Judge Campbell approved an unopposed motion to
consolidate eight consumer class actions lodged over the same
accusations in Utah federal court. The consumer suits generally
allege that customers paid inflated prices because of pacts 1-800
Contacts made between online contact lens sellers.

"We're honored and pleased the court selected us as interim lead
counsel in the case and look forward to moving forward with the
litigation and to trial," Scott Gant of Boies Schiller told
Law360.

The customers are represented by Carl E. Goldfarb. Esq. --
cgoldfarb@bsfllp.com -- and Scott E. Gant -- sgant@bsfllp.com --
of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq. --
sjodlowski@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

The defendants are represented by Robert S. Clark, Esq. --
rclark@parbrown.com -- and Sara M. Nielson, Esq. --
snielson@parrbrown.com -- of Parr Brown Gee & Loveless and Rohit
K. Singla, Justin P. Raphael and Ashley D. Kaplan of Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP.

The lead case is J. Thompson et al. v. 1-800 Contacts Inc. et al.,
case number 2:16-cv-01183, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah. [GN]


7-ELEVEN INC: "Eloi" Seeks Reimbursement of Business Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Saint Eloi, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 7-ELEVEN, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 154299/2017 (N.Y. Sup., May 9, 2017), seeks reimbursement of
business expenses, including laundering of uniforms, plus
interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor
Law.

Plaintiff was employed by 7-Eleven, Inc. as a store clerk at its
store located at 145 Sunrise Highway, Freeport, New York 11520
from February 2016 through June 2016.

7-Eleven operates an international chain of convenience stores
with its principal place of business at 1722 Routh St., Ste 1000,
Dallas Texas 75201.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Leon, Esq.
      Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
      Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 943-9080
      Fax: (212) 943-9082
      Email: lambinder@vandallp.com


AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA: Faces Potential Suit Over Staff Contracts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Harper at Riot Act reports that current and former staff
of Federal Government-run navigation service provider Airservices
Australia are working with Chamberlains Law Firm to advance a
potential employment claim with an estimated value of up to
hundreds of thousands of dollars per worker.

The potential claim focuses on superannuation losses and
employment contracts the firm says unlawfully stripped away
redundancy entitlements.

Management staff joining Airservices Australia between 1996 and
2017 were allegedly obliged to sign individual contracts that,
while offering high pay rates and bonuses, capped their redundancy
entitlements. This was allegedly in contrast to standard
redundancy rights contained in the collective agreement between
all other staff and the organisation.

Rory Markham, Chamberlains' Director, Litigation -- Employment and
Risk Management, said the firm was currently working with several
potential claimants, with that number likely to grow substantially
by the time legal proceedings against Airservices Australia were
to commence in a few weeks.

"We know that at any one time there would have been at least 150
to 200 individuals that were on these management contracts," Mr
Markham said.

"It is of great concern that according to our instructions, these
management contracts were an attempt to circumvent the Fair Work
approved entitlements and the enterprise agreements, in a plan to
lower liability in the event of a large redundancy pay-out."

He said the firm will allege the contracts had been presented in
strictly closed human resources meetings as a way of offering
lucrative bonuses to selected staff without transparency or
disclosure.

The solicitor said that Airservices Australia could have offered
its staff lawful individual flexibility agreements under a
collective agreement in order to negotiate different hours of work
or higher pay.

"But that didn't appear to be the purpose of the management
contract," he said.

"It appeared to have nothing to do with flexibility, regardless of
who you were, you tended to have the same terms, and the
redundancies were capped."

The RiotACT approached Airservices Australia to ask whether they
were still using individual management contracts that imposed caps
on redundancy payments and/or requiring new staff to move to
retail superannuation schemes, and whether they stood by those
contracts signed previously.

A spokeswoman for Airservices Australia provided the following
statement in response.

"Airservices Australia complies with its obligations as an
employer, including those set out by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth),
and other relevant legislative and industrial instruments.

"It would be inappropriate to comment on individual matters.

"Airservices is willing to engage with relevant parties to resolve
any outstanding employment issues."

With many of the management staff in question having arrived from
other areas within the Australian Public Service, signing up to
the contract allegedly meant surrendering rights to years of
service that would otherwise have been factored into any
redundancy payout at a time when they were joining an organisation
in which Chamberlains will argue redundancies were a strong
possibility due to uncertain budgets.

When one of the largest redundancy rounds in public service
history took place in 2016, the employees allegedly received a
fraction of the redundancy payments they would have had they not
signed individual management agreements upon joining Airservices
Australia.

Their packages were capped so that years of public service in
other departments or agencies played no role in calculating the
payments, according to Mr. Markham.

All staff joining Airservices during the period from 1996 until
2017 were allegedly told they could not con

Chamberlains has also been instructed that workers joining
Airservices Australia during the years in question were advised
they must switch to their superannuation to Airservices' own
retail superannuation fund, AV Super.

In the case of those moving from other parts of the public service
this meant they could not continue to participate in the
Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme or Public Sector Superannuation
Scheme preserved benefits schemes.

"What our claimants will argue is that Airservices employees were
entitled to continue with their very generous superannuation
schemes but were wrongfully told by Airservices that they had to
participate in a retail super fund," Mr. Markham said.

"Their losses are really quite considerable because they were
wrongfully told that they couldn't stay in their preserved fund."

The claims will seek compensation for those losses as well as in
relation to the redundancy shortfalls.

The claims could run individually into the hundreds of thousands
of dollars depending on the individual's circumstances, Mr.
Markham said.

He said the firm was looking into whether there may have been
similar incidents elsewhere in the government sector in recent
years and would welcome information from the public that may
assist with these investigations.

While few of the current and former Airservices Australia staff
eligible to participate in the claim through Chamberlains were
members of a union, the Deputy National President of the CPSU,
Rupert Evans, told the RiotACT his organisation had worked with
affected staff in recent months.

"We have supported members who were incorrectly put in contract
positions to return to the enterprise agreement," he said.

"The enterprise agreement, which was negotiated by the CPSU and
others, ensures Airservices workers receive proper rates of pay
and important rights around issues such as redundancies." [GN]


ALFRED NICKLES: "Conaway" Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Robert Conaway, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alfred Nickles Bakery, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01109 (S.D. Ohio, November 17, 2016),
was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on May 4, 2017, under Case No. 5:17-cv-00954.

Conaway seeks unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act. Nickles is into the business of baking and distributing
breads, buns and pastries where Plaintiff worked as a Route
Driver. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

Defendant is represented by:

      Michael T. Short, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON - COLUMBUS
      1600 Fifth Third Center
      21 East State Street
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Tel: (614) 463-4226
      Fax: (614) 737-5321
      Email: mshort@littler.com

             - and -

      Timothy S. Anderson, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON - CLEVELAND
      20th Floor, 1100 Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Tel: (216) 696-7600
      Fax: (216) 696-2038
      Email: tanderson@littler.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Sued for Using Soy-Based Electrical Wires
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at Cook County Record reports while noting the
product may be better for the environment, a new class action
lawsuit asserts automaker Honda hasn't done enough to stop mice
and other small animals from persistently nibbling through its
cars' electrical wires, which are coated with a soy-based
insulation.

On May 11, plaintiff Michael Preston, identified in court
documents as a resident of Cook County, filed suit in Chicago
federal court against American Honda Motor Company, asserting the
company owes him and potentially thousands of others money for the
damage they have suffered from being left stranded or in danger,
and their cars in need of costly repairs not covered by their
vehicles' warranties, after important systems failed because
animals had chewed through the lines.

"By November of 2016, Honda already knew that its use of soy-based
material to cover electrical wiring rendered the wiring
particularly susceptible to being sought out, chewed and/or eaten
by rodents and other animals," Preston's complaint said.  "In
fact, Honda had begun marketing and distributing 'Tape, Rodent' as
a 'Genuine Honda Part.'

"Despite its acknowledgement that the wire coating needed to be
taped over to perhaps dissuade hungry animals, Honda still refused
to cover Plaintiff's needed repairs," the complaint said.

Preston is being represented in the action by attorneys Larry P.
Smith -- lsmith@smithmarco.com -- of the SmithMarco P.C. firm, and
Stacy M. Bardo -- Stacy@bardolawpc.com -- of Bardo Law P.C., both
of Chicago.

According to the complaint, Preston had leased a Honda Accord in
June 2015. The lease included a three-year or 36,000 -mile new
vehicle warranty, which, the complaint alleged, should have
included electrical wiring.

In November 2016, however, Preston's car's power steering system
completely failed, leaving the car "impossible to turn and thus
rendering it inoperative on the roadway."

He said repair technicians told him his car's electrical wires had
been chewed and eaten by rodents, drawn by the soy-based coating
on the wires.

However, Honda would not cover the problem under its warranty, and
then only reinstalled new soy-based insulated wiring " and told
Plaintiff he would have to pay for repairs out of his own pocket
or make a claim under his insurance to repair the damage," the
complaint said.

Preston asserted Honda's refusal to cover the cost of the repairs,
or to take any steps to remedy the alleged defect, violates
federal warranty law.

Preston has asked the court to expand the lawsuit to include all
others who purchased or leased a Honda Accord in Illinois from
2013-2016 -- a number that could reach into the tens of thousands,
based on vehicle records, the complaint asserted.

Preston also asked the court to certify an additional plaintiffs
subclass under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, which includes
everyone in Illinois who purchased Honda Accords from 2014-2016.

The complaint asks the court to order Honda to pay the plaintiffs'
repair costs, to pay Honda Accord owners and lessees for the value
loss to their cars from the alleged defect, and to pay actual and
punitive damages, plus attorney fees, under both federal and
Illinois state laws. [GN]


AMERICAN ROAD: Former Sales Rep Sues Over OT Allegations
--------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez at Florida Record reports that a sales
representative for a Harley-Davidson shop alleges he was not paid
the correct rate for overtime during his employment and has filed
a class action.

Matthew Frazee, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Orlando Division against American Road
Management Inc. alleging that the defendant violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that he was
employed by the defendant from December 2016 to March 31, 2017.
The plaintiffs holds American Road Management Inc. responsible
because the defendant allegedly failed to pay employees one-half
their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 per
workweek and failed to keep accurate time records for all
employees.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment for
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages or pre- and post-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs and any further relief
that the Court deems just and appropriate. He is represented by
Matthew R. Gunter of Morgan and Morgan PA in Orlando.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division Case number 6:17-cv-00671-JA-TBS [GN]


APOLLO COMMERCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the
Defendants' motions to dismiss in the case, In Re Apollo
Residential Mortgage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, remains
pending.

On August 31, 2016, the Company, pursuant to the terms and
conditions of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 26,
2016 (as amended, the "AMTG Merger Agreement") acquired Apollo
Residential Mortgage, Inc. ("AMTG"). AMTG merged with and into the
Company (the "AMTG Merger") with the Company continuing as the
surviving entity. As a result, all operations of AMTG and its
former subsidiaries are consolidated with the operations of the
Company. As of December 31, 2016 all assets acquired from AMTG
were sold.

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

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

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

The Company is a Maryland corporation that has elected to be taxed
as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The Company
primarily originates, acquires, invests in and manages performing
commercial first mortgage loans, subordinate financings, CMBS and
other commercial real estate-related debt investments. These asset
classes are referred to as the Company's target assets.


AUROBINDO PHARMA: Rochester Drug Sues Over Overpriced Glyburide
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. and FWK Holdings, L.L.C., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., Citron Pharma, LLC, Heritage
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02134 (E.D. Pa., May 9, 2017),
asserts that Defendants control the United States market for
generic Glyburide, an anti-diabetic drug of the sulfonylurea class
indicated to treat Type 2 diabetes.

The suit seeks, on behalf of a class of all persons and entities
in the United States and its territories who indirectly purchased,
paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase
price for Defendants' generic glyburide, other than for resale,
from October 1, 2012 through the present, restitution and/or
damages, actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble
damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary
relief, equitable relief in the form of restitution and/or
disgorgement of all unlawful or illegal profits received.
Plaintiffs seek an injunction against Defendants, their
affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and other
officers, directors, partners, agents and employees thereof, and
all other persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf or in
concert with them, from in any manner continuing, maintaining, or
renewing the conduct, contract, conspiracy, or combination from
further overpricing.  The suit also seeks costs of suit, including
reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from unlawful restraint of
trade, unjust enrichment, unfair competition or unfair,
unconscionable, deceptive or fraudulent acts or practices in
violation of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws
protection and unfair competition statutes.

Aurobindo is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 6
Wheeling Road, Dayton, New Jersey. Aurobindo has an ongoing
partnership with Citron Pharma LLC, whereby Aurobindo manufactures
generic glyburide, which Citron Pharma LLC then sells under its
trade dress.

Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Eatontown, New Jersey. Heritage
sells Glyburide throughout the United States. Heritage is a
subsidiary of Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., based in Pune, India.
Jeffrey A. Glazer sat as CEO of Heritage while Jason T. Malek was
Senior Vice President, Commercial Operations and later President
of Heritage.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 1090 Horsham Road, North Wales,
Pennsylvania 19454. Teva USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

FWK Holdings, L.L.C. is the assignee of antitrust claims possessed
by Frank W. Kerr Company and brings this action as successor-in-
interest to Kerr's claims arising from its purchase of glyburide
directly from one or more of the Defendants at supra-competitive
prices.

Rochester Drug Cooperative Inc. is a stock corporation existing
under the Ney York Cooperative Corporations Law.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
      Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq.
      Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
      Joshua Saltzman, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
      Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
             rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com
             jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
             jsaltzman@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

      Barbara Mahoney, Esq.
      Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      Email: barbaram@hbsslaw.com
             jerrodp@hbsslaw.com


             - and -

      Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
      David P. Germaine, Esq.
      VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI P.C.
      55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 224-1500
      Fax: (312) 224-1510
      E-mail: Jvanek@vaneklaw.com
              Dgermaine@vaneklaw.com

              - and -

      Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
      Erin C. Burns, Esq.
      NASTLAW LLC
      1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Tel: 215-923-9300
      Fax: 215-923-9302
      Email: dnast@nastlaw.com
             ebums@nastlaw.com

             - and -

      David F. Sorensen, Esq.
      Christina Black, Esq.
      Zachary Kaplan, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Email: dsorensen@bm.net
             cblack@bm.net
             zcaplan@bm.net

             - and -

      Peter Kohn, Esq.
      Joseph T. Lukens
      101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 600
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Tel: (215) 277-5770
      Fax: (215) 277-5771
      Email: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
             jlukens@faruqi.com

             - and -

      Barry S. Taus, Esq.
      Kevin Landau, Esq.
      Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
      TAUS CEBULASH & LANDAU LLP
      80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
      New York, NY 10038
      Tel: (212) 931-0704
      Email: btaus@tcllaw.com
             kiandau@tcllaw.com
             atamoshunas@tcllaw.com

             - and -

      John D. Radice, Esq.
      April D. Lambert, Esq.
      A. Luke Smith, Esq.
      RADICE LAW FIRM
      34 Sunset Blvd
      Long Beach, NJ 08008
      Tel: (646) 245-8502
      Fax: (609) 385-0745
      Email: jradice@radicelawfirm.com

             - and -

      Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
      Donna M. Evans, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 838 7797
      Fax: (212) 838 7745
      Email: srobertson@cohenmilstein.com
             devans@cohenmilstein.com


BARRICK GOLD: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Investors Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Barrick Gold
Corporation ("Barrick" or the "Company") (NYSE: ABX) and certain
of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Barrick
securities between February 16, 2017 and April 24, 2017, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/abx.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On April 24, 2017, Barrick revised its full year guidance, stating
that "[f]ull-year gold production is now expected to be 5.3-5.6
million ounces, down from our previous range of 5.6-5.9 million
ounces."  Barrick credited about two-thirds of the decrease to the
planned sale of 50% percent of its Veladero mine.  The Company
also revised Veladero-specific guidance, forecasting full-year
production at Veladero of 630,000-730,000 ounces, compared to its
previously-issued guidance of 770,000-830,000 ounces.  Following
this news, Barrick stock dropped US$2.15 per share, or 11.3%, to
close at US$16.89 on April 25, 2017.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose: (1) that the pipes and safety systems at the Veladero
mine were not robust enough to prevent gold-bearing solution
spills; (2) that, consequently, Argentinian authorities would
restrict the addition of cyanide to the Veladero mine's heap leach
facility and require remedial work; (3) that these developments
would impact (and were impacting) the production capacity of the
Veladero mine; (4) as a result, Barrick's Veladero mine production
guidance and total gold production guidance were overstated; and
(5) that, due to the above mentioned reasons, Defendants'
statements about Barrick's business, operations, and prospects,
were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/abx or you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Barrick you have until July 10, 2017 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.[GN]


BEIERSDORF INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Franz" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ashley Franz filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Ashley Franz v. Beiersdorf, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-
02241-LAB-AGS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
involves the Plaintiff's allegation against the Defendant for
misleading representations on bottles of its Nivea CoQ10 Lotion.
The Plaintiff submitted a citizen petition with the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).  However, without discussing the merits of
the Plaintiff's claim, the FDA denied the petition and informed
the Plaintiff that it did not intend to take action at that time
regarding Nivea CoQ10.

The appellate case is captioned as Ashley Franz v. Beiersdorf,
Inc., Case No. 17-55646, 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 June 5, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on July 3, 2017;

   -- Appellant Ashley Franz's opening brief is due on August 14,
      2017;

   -- Appellee Beiersdorf, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      September 11, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant ASHLEY FRANZ, On behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

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

          Nada Djordjevic, Esq.
          Max A. Stein, Esq.
          BOODELL & DOMANSKIS, LLC
          1 N. Franklin Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 938-1003
          E-mail: ndjordjevic@boodlaw.com
                  mstein@boodlaw.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

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

          Alycia A. Degen, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: adegen@sidley.com

               - and -

          Kara Lynn McCall, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-2666
          E-mail: kmccall@sidley.com


BILLY'S PIZZA: "Larios" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Larios and John Doe, on behalf of themselves and FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, v. Billy's Pizza Pasta Inc. and Fanol Coku,
Case 1:17-cv-02659 (E.D.N.Y., May 3, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, unpaid spread
of hours premium, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Larios was hired by Defendants to work as a pizza maker at
Defendants' "Billy's Pizza & Pasta," located at 1626 Bedford
Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11225. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRISTOL BAY: East African Refugees Maltreated, Abikar Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class of East African
refugees working for three defense contractors that help train
U.S. Marines are treated worse than other workers, ridiculed,
forced to perform janitorial tasks without pay and denied breaks,
according to the refugees' federal class action in San Diego.

Defendants include Bristol Bay Native Corp., Glacier Technical
Solutions and Workforce Resources.

The case is captioned, Abucar Nunow ABIKAR, Barkadle Sheikh
Muhamed AWMAGAN, Arab Mursal DEH, Majuma MADENDE, Osman Musa
MOHAMED, Osman Musa MUGANGA, Rukia MUSA, and Fatuma SOMOW, on
behalf of themselves and all others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Bristol Bay Native Corporation, Glacier Technical
Solutions, LLC, and Workforce Resources, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-99999 (S.D. Cal.).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class:

     Marilynn Mika Spencer, Esq.
     A. Melissa Johnson, Esq.
     Thomas J. McCammon, Esq.
     SPENCER JOHNSON MCCAMMON LLP
     2727 Camino del Rio South, Suite 140
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Tel: (619) 233-1313


BROOMALL OPERATING: 3d Cir. Affirms Ruling in OT Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
JD Supra reports the Third Circuit recently affirmed the decision
of a Pennsylvania district court, holding that a class action
involving overtime compensation filed against the operating
companies of a senior care facility is not subject to arbitration.

The background of the case is as follows. Plaintiffs filed their
putative class and collective action against the defendants under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Pennsylvania wage and hour
statutes. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to pay
proper overtime compensation. The defendants moved to compel
arbitration, based on an arbitration clause in an Employment
Dispute Resolution Program book that plaintiffs agreed to as a
condition of employment. The clause provides that arbitration is
"the only means of resolving employment related disputes."
However, the clause also states that it "covers only claims by
individuals and does not cover class or collective actions." The
Pennsylvania district court read the clause as unambiguously
carving out class and collective actions from mandatory
arbitration and accordingly denied defendants' motion to compel
arbitration. The defendants appealed to the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit noted the question presented: "Does an
arbitration clause stating that it 'covers only claims by
individuals and does not cover class or collective actions'
nonetheless require that a putative class and collective action
for overtime pay be sent to arbitration?" The Third Circuit
affirmed the district court's decision. Recognizing the strong
federal policy favoring arbitration, the Court noted that policy
has its limits, and the text of the arbitration clause controls.
The Court then held the clause at issue "unmistakably provides
that plaintiffs' class and collective actions need not be subject
to arbitration."

Novosad v. Broomall Operating Company LP, No. 16-2089 (3d Cir.
April 10, 2017). [GN]


BUON AMICI: "Miro" Seeks Withheld Tips, Minimum Wages, Pay Stubs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Miro, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Buon Amici and Christopher Raimo,
Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-03288, (S.D. N.Y., May 3, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wage, unlawfully
withheld tips, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff was a food runner and busboy employed in the Defendants'
restaurant located at 238 Central Avenue, White Plains, NY 10606.
Defendants utilized a tip credit to avoid having to pay the full
statutory minimum wage, failed to pay overtime, and did not
provide wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Jordan El-Hag, Esq.
      EL-HAG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      777 Westchester Ave, Suite 101
      White Plains, NY, 10604
      Tel: (914) 755-1579
      Fax: (914) 206-4176
      Email: Jordan@elhaglaw.com


CALAMOS PARTNERS: "Schechter" Sues Over Unfair Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Schechter, Rita Patchel and Frederick Ferguson,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. John P. Calamos, Sr., Calamos Partners LLC, and
CPCM Acquisition, Inc., Defendants, 2017-0356 (Del. Ch., May 9,
2017), seeks damages, costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief for Defendants' breaches of fiduciary
duties in connection with the Calamos Asset Management, Inc.
merger with Calamos Partners LLC and CPCM Acquisition, Inc. with
Calamos Asset Management as the surviving corporation.

Plaintiffs alleges that the $8.25 in cash for each share of
Calamos Asset Management Class A common stock is insufficient and
is substantially unfair in terms of process and price, failing to
protect its minority stockholders and favored the interests of the
controlling stockholders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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
      (302) 295-5310

            - and -

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


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Freedom Home Appeals Ruling in "Aranda" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom Home Care Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled 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.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated individuals against Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. (CCL),
Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours, Inc. (VOMT), The Berkley
Group, Inc., and Economic Strategy Group and its affiliated
entities (ESG).  The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by using an
autodialer and an artificial or prerecorded voice to call the
Plaintiffs' cellular and landline telephones.

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.

The appellate case is captioned as Freedom Home Care Inc., et al.
v. Grant Birchemeier, et al., Case No. 17-1953, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet was due May 22, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before June 19, 2017, for
      Freedom Home Care, Inc.[BN]

Appellant FREEDOM HOME CARE, INC., is represented by:

          Christopher A. Bandas, Esq.
          BANDAS LAW FIRM
          500 N. Shoreline
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 698-5200
          Facsimile: (361) 698-5222
          E-mail: cbandas@bandaslawfirm.com

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

          Ryan D. Andrews, Esq.
          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Roger Perlstadt, Esq.
          Alexander Glenn Tievsky, 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
                  atievsky@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 -

          Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
          Jon C. Loevy, Esq.
          Scott R. Rauscher, 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

Defendants 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 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 BERKLEY GROUP, INCORPORATED, is represented by:

          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: bomeara@fordellp.com


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Berkley Group Appeals Ruling in "Aranda" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Berkley Group, Incorporated, 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.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated individuals against Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. (CCL),
Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours, Inc. (VOMT), The Berkley
Group, Inc., and Economic Strategy Group and its affiliated
entities (ESG).  The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by using an
autodialer and an artificial or prerecorded voice to call the
Plaintiffs' cellular and landline telephones.

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.

The appellate case is captioned as Grant Birchmeier, et al. v.
Berkley Group, Incorporated, Case No. 17-1969, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet was due May 22, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before June 19, 2017, for
      Berkley Group, Incorporated.[BN]

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:

          Ryan D. Andrews, Esq.
          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Roger Perlstadt, Esq.
          Alexander Glenn Tievsky, 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
                  atievsky@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 -

          Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
          Jon C. Loevy, Esq.
          Scott R. Rauscher, 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

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

          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


CAYAN LLC: McCombs Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to Seventh Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Heather N. McCombs, D.P.M., LLC filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Heather N. McCombs, D.P.M.,
LL v. Cayan, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-10843, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.

The appellate case is captioned as Heather N. McCombs, D.P.M., LLC
v. Cayan, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-1946, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief is due on or before June 14, 2017, for Heather
N. McCombs, D.P.M., LLC.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant HEATHER N. MCCOMBS, D.P.M., LLC., individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons, is represented by:

          Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
          WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
          350 S. Northwest HWY., Suite 300
          Park Ridge, IL 60068
          Telephone: (847) 701-5290
          E-mail: cwarner@warnerlawllc.com

Defendants-Appellees CAYAN, LLC, doing business as CAPITAL BANK
CARD, and WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, are represented by:

          Gregory D. Beaman, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          1152 15th Street N.W.
          Columbia Center
          Washington, DC 20005-1706
          Telephone: (202) 339-8400
          E-mail: gbeaman@orrick.com


CENTRAL PAYMENT: Georgia Court Approves TCPA Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathrun Rattigan, Esq., at Robinson + Cole, in an article for JD
Supra, reports that Georgia federal judge, U.S. District Judge
Clay D. Land, approved the final order and judgment to settle
class action claims that Central Payment Co. LLC (Central Payment)
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for $6.5
million. Lead plaintiff, Fred Heidarpour, claimed that Central
Payment violated the TCPA by hiring third parties to 'cold call'
prospective clients using prerecorded telemarketing calls without
the required prior consent. This class action was filed back in
August 2015. Discovery in this case revealed that more than 27
million attempted prerecorded calls had been made on behalf of
Central Payment during the proposed class period.

Judge Land approved the settlement, and dismissed the case with
prejudice, after no objections were received from over 310,000
proposed settlement class members. He found that the settlement
was fair, adequate, reasonable and in the best interests of the
settlement class. Members of the settlement class have been
defined as any individual or entity who, at any time between
August 18, 2011, to the date of the settlement agreement, received
one or more telemarketing calls from Korthals LLC on behalf of
Central Payment. It also includes individuals who received these
calls, but were on the national do-not-call registry. All
settlement class members will receive equal shares after payments
for notice, administration, attorneys' fees and costs, and
plaintiff's service payments are distributed.

Counsel for plaintiff is permitted to collect a maximum of
$2,166,666 in attorneys' fees along with out-of-pocket expenses of
up to $44,000. Heidarpour will be awarded an incentive of $25,000
"in light of the service performed by plaintiff for the class."
[GN]


CHRISTIAN FINANCIAL: Caregiver Class Action Settled
---------------------------------------------------
Rick Shrum at Observer Reporter reports more than 3,000 Western
Pennsylvania health-care workers were notified there has been a
settlement in their class-action lawsuit against a fiscal agent,
which they accused of failing to pay wages.

The workers provided attendant care services for the disabled in
the region, including Washington and Greene counties. The
settlement is for US$196,000, with payments going to as many as
3,200 class members.

Those individuals claimed in a 2012 lawsuit Christian Financial
Management either did not pay them or did not pay in a timely
fashion. CFM, the employer/fiscal agent, was under contract with
the state Department of Public Welfare to handle payroll services
for disabled Pennsylvanians, according to a news release from
Community Justice Project, a nonprofit, public-interest Pittsburgh
law firm.

Megan Lovett, Esq., a CJP attorney, said Pittsburgh-based CFM in
turn sued its two predecessors as payroll provider to these
clients, bringing them into the class-action case. The suit was
filed in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court as Martinez et al. v.
CFM, accessAbilities Inc. and Community Resources for
Independence.

CFM, according to the law firm, claimed accessAbilities Inc. and
Community Resources for Independence were responsible for improper
file transfers, resulting in the late or withheld wage payments.
An earlier ruling, Lovett said, led to many class members getting
their wages in late 2012 or early 2013, so the settlement money is
related to penalties and court costs.

The defendants, CPJ said, have denied the claims but agreed to
settle for practical and financial reasons. A call to the CFM
offices prompted a recorded message saying the number was no
longer in use, with no further information.

Traditional Paths to Independent Living provides attendant
services to the disabled, and has links to the lawsuit. Kathleen
Kleinmann, CEO of Washington-based TRPIL, said she could not
comment on the settlement.

John Lorence, a TRPIL employee and longtime advocate for people
with disabilities, was affected by the payment issue in 2012.
Lorence, who died in May 2016 at age 62, was a Carmichaels
resident with muscular dystrophy. He could not use his arms and
legs.

In a telephone interview with the Observer-Reporter's Barbara
Miller in August 2012, he said, "My attendants do everything for
me." Under the state's program of "attendant care," Lorence was in
charge of hiring, training, scheduling and, if necessary,
dismissing caregivers.

Lorence said, at that time ,he had submitted time sheets, but
attendants hadn't been paid for two time periods. He said he paid
them from taxpayer money he received through a different state
program, Act 150, even though the funds were supposed to be used
for other purposes. "It's a violation of my service agreement," he
said, "but I'm willing to risk that to stay alive."

The law firm's Lovett said in an email that "five of John
Lorence's attendant care workers are members" of the class-action
suit. [GN]


COMCAST CORP: Cable TV Subscribers Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge dismissed with leave to amend a class action
accusing Comcast of charging cable TV subscribers billions of
dollars in bogus fees.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria granted both groups of
plaintiffs -- a California group and an out-of-state group --
leave to amend.

Lead plaintiff Dan Adkins sued Comcast in October 2016, claiming
it charges customers $10 extra each month in "broadcast TV" and
"regional sports" fees, which it disguises as government-imposed
taxes. Adkins said the practice raises customers' monthly charges
above what they were told they would pay when they subscribed.

Comcast said in its motion to dismiss that it charges the fees to
cover part of the cost of transmitting broadcast TV signals and
regional sports networks, and that Congress "encouraged" it to
list the costs on subscribers' bills when it passed the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act in 1992.

At an April 20 hearing, Chhabria said he would grant Comcast's
motion to dismiss with leave to amend because customers can cancel
service and get a full refund within a month.

The judge made good on that promise Tuesday, ruling in a 2-page
order that the California plaintiffs had failed to state their
claims because they did not say how Comcast tricked them over the
fees.

But, Chhabria wrote: "it appears possible that the complaint could
be amended to state a claim with respect to at least some of the
counts," and granted the California plaintiffs 21 days to amend.

Chhabria found the out-of-state plaintiffs had failed to establish
personal jurisdiction over Comcast, but granted them leave to
amend "because the law regarding personal jurisdiction over the
claims brought by the out-of-state plaintiffs is in flux."

Chhabria referred to Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. San Francisco
County Superior Court, which the U.S. Supreme Court is set to
decide in June. The decision in that case will determine whether
out-of-state plaintiffs can sue an out-of-state company for
injuries suffered in another state.

Chhabria said that if the Supreme Court favors the out-of-state
plaintiffs, they can seek leave to amend their complaint within 30
days of the decision.

Class counsel Dan Hattis said in an email Tuesday that the
plaintiffs plan to file an amended complaint.

"Judge Chhabria's order was very positive for plaintiffs; no
claims were dismissed without leave to amend, and Judge Chhabria
indicated that a repleaded complaint would survive a motion to
dismiss," Hattis said. "Comcast's high-power attorneys left the
courtroom in a huff, very clearly upset with the ruling."

Comcast is represented by Seamus Duffy with Drinker Biddle & Reath
in Philadelphia.


CONN'S INC: Bid to Certify Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP reminds
stockholders that an investor of Conn's, Inc. filed a federal
securities fraud class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division. The fourth
amended complaint, which alleges that the company and certain of
its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 between September 2, 2014 and December 9, 2014, recently
survived a motion to dismiss on 13 counts of alleged
misstatements. The parties are now briefing a motion for class
certification. Conn's is a retailer of durable consumer products,
including appliances, furniture, and mattresses in the United
States.

"Conn's credit policies . . . impacted the underperformance and
quality of [Acceptance Now] customer accounts originating from
Conns stores."

Conn's Is Accused of Misleading Investors

The class action complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose to investors that it had lowered its underwriting
standards to push larger ticket items onto customers who had
little or no ability to pay. By doing this, Conn's substantially
increased its sales revenue based on sales that were only achieved
through high-risk consumer credit. According to the complaint,
Conn's hid its debt practices and the negative exposure it would
ultimately have on the company's profits until the third fiscal
quarter 2015 when the company revealed an increase in provisions
for bad debt and customer delinquency rates and acknowledged that
the forecasting of its credit operations had not been acceptably
accurate. As a result of this revelation, shares of Conn's dropped
over 40%.

Conn's credit policies seem to still be a concern. On March 31,
2017, Rent-A-Center announced its Acceptance Now division would
not be renewing a referral agreement with Conn's due to the
quality and consistent under-performance of Acceptance Now
customer accounts originating from Conn's stores in terms of
delinquencies, losses, and product returns. The press release
stated that "Conn's credit policies . . . impacted the
underperformance and quality of [Acceptance Now] customer accounts
originating from Conns stores."

Conn's Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid
Kandinov, Esq. at (800) 350-6003, -- LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com -
- or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than US$1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in
which they have invested. [GN]


CORPORATE BAILOUT: Abante Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Corporate Bailout, LLC,
Mark D. Guidubaldi & Associates, Llc Aka Protection Legal Group,
American Funding LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-02559, (N.D.
Cal., May 4, 2017), seeks actual damages, statutory damages for
willful and negligent violations, costs and reasonable attorney's
fees and such other and further relief resulting from negligent
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff is a rooting and plumbing business in Emeryville,
California. It claims that Defendants, financing companies,
attempted to solicit Plaintiff to avail of their services by
calling using an automatic telephone dialing system. Abante is on
the National "Do-not-Call" registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CORT BUSINESS: "Pollar" Seeks OT Pay; Sues Over Missed Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Pollar, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. Cort
Business Services Corporation and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
HG17859665, (Cal. Super, May 9, 2017), seeks compensatory damages,
economic and/or special damages, unpaid straight time and overtime
wages, compensation for missed meal and rest breaks, damages
and/or monies owed for failure to comply with itemized employee
wage statement provisions, unfair competition and including
disgorgement of their wrongfully withheld wages under the
California Business and Professions Code,  The sui further seeks
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, interest accrued to date,
costs of suit and expenses incurred and such other and further
relief.

Defendants own and operate trucks, industrial trucks, industrial
vehicles, and/or industrial worksites where Pollar worked as a
truck driver. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Turley, Esq.
      David Mara, Esq.
      Jill Vecchi, Esq.
      THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
      7428 Trade Street
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (619) 234-2833
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4048


CYLCOMM LLC: Dodd Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads
-------------------------------------------------
Dodd, Drennan & Associates, PLLC, on behalf of itself and all
other entities and persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Cylcomm, LLC d/b/a Directlodging.com and John Does 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00804, (M.D. Tenn., May 4, 2017),
seeks an amount of $500.00 for each fax transmission, statutory
damages and injunctive relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Direct Lodging offers goods and services related to travel and
leisure activities.

Dodd, Drennan & Associates, PLLC is an accounting firm at 1204
16th Avenue South, Nashville, Tennessee 37212. It received, on its
fax machine, four separate transmissions of a single-page ad of
Defendants' travel services without prior express invitation or
permission in writing. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
      BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
      223 Rosa L. Parks Ave, Suite 200
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Tel: (615) 254-8801
      Email: jleniski@branstetterlaw.com

             - and -

      James A. Streett, Esq.
      STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
      107 West Main
      Russellville, AR 72801
      Tel: (479) 968-2030
      Email: Alex@StreettLaw.com
             James@StreettLaw.com


DIGITAL ALLY: Purcell Julie Starts Class Action Investigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Gray at Stock News Union reports law firm, Purcell Julie &
Lefkowitz LLP, has confirmed it is investigating Digital Ally,
Inc. (NASDAQ:DGLY) over alleged violations of fiduciary duty by
the board of directors. The law firm has yet to issue details on
what the investigations pertain to, having stated that interested
shareholders should contact it for additional information.

Digital Ally Earnings Call

News of the class action investigation comes on the developer of
advanced digital technology products reporting that it will
announce its Q1 2017 results on May 15, 2017. The company will
also host an investor conference call to discuss its operating
results as well as its long-term plans.

The last time Digital Ally, Inc. (NASDAQ:DGLY) posted financial
results it said its revenue for the full year ending December 31,
2016, dropped by 17% to US$16.6 million. Revenues in the fourth
quarter were also down by 32% to US$3.4 million compared to
revenues of US$5.1 million in Q4, 2015. Gross profit, on the other
hand, came in at US$148,807, down from US$1.5 million the previous
year same quarter.

Airport Upgrade Contract

Separately, Digital Ally, Inc. (NASDAQ:DGLY) says it has signed a
three-year service contract to upgrade Airport shuttle bus fleet
video systems for one of its customers. The customer in question
is one of the largest near-airport parking companies with more
than 30 locations in 20 airports. Under the terms of the
agreement, the company is to upgrade the customer's fleet of 388
DVM-250 in-bus event recorder systems.

Digital Ally, Inc. (NASDAQ:DGLY) will also install 78 new DVM-250
in-bus video systems fitted with Its FleetVU Manager. The contract
should earn the company US$400,000 including service revenues over
the course of three years.

"We continue to be pleased by the success of our commercial
division, specifically with our ability to retain and extend our
current customer contracts. We pride ourselves on our ability to
provide our customers with the most innovative and cost effective
end-to-end total video solution available on the market, "said
Chief executive officer Stan Ross.

The three-year contract pulls Digital Ally, Inc. (NASDAQ:DGLY)
into a new market, the company having enjoyed success in the
ambulance, taxi, Limousine market with the DVM-250 series.
According to the CEO, they continue to gain significant market
share in the airport ground transportation market. Focus going
forward now shifts to widening the company's sales channels as the
race for new market opportunities heats up.

Digital Ally, Inc. (NASDAQ:DGLY)'s stock was up by 2.5% in May 10
trading session consequently closing the day at US$4.10 a share.
[GN]


DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON: Sexual Abuse Case Continues
--------------------------------------------------
After nearly a decade, legal wrangling continues over a $12
million settlement paid to victims who were sexually abused by
Catholic priests in the Charleston area more than 30 years ago.

A lawsuit on behalf of one of the victims, identified only as John
Doe 10, was filed in September 2010, according to court documents.
The plaintiff was molested at his church school and parish
beginning in 1983 according to the suit.

"The priest involved, Frederick Hopwood, had an extensive history
of molesting children that covered the decades before 1983," the
documents said.

Hopwood pleaded guilty on March 21, 1994, to one count of a lewd
act upon a minor. As part of his plea agreement, the 9th Circuit
Solicitor's Office gave Hopwood statewide immunity from further
prosecution.

The case is scheduled to move forward on May 15 and stems from
fallout over the settlement.

The class-action lawsuit that led to the 2007 settlement was not
advertised nationwide and left out victims who had moved away from
South Carolina, said Gregg Meyers, a Charleston-based attorney
representing John Doe 10 and six other victims named in the
documents.

"John Doe 10, and the other respondents, each lived in a state
other than South Carolina in 2007," the documents said. "(He)
continues to live out of state."
Sponsored

The current suit names Roman Catholic Diocese of Charleston
officials, The Most Rev. Robert E. Guglielmone, Bishop of
Charleston; Rev. Monsignor Martin Laughlin, a former administrator
of the Diocese; and former Bishop of Charleston Robert J. Baker,
as well as two attorneys who negotiated the settlement -- Lawrence
E. Richter, Jr. and David K. Haller.

On March 31, a Circuit Court judge denied a motion made by the
Diocese to dismiss the case, according to court documents.

Church officials also filed a motion with the S.C. Court of
Appeals to stay May 15's trial but the motion was denied, Meyers
said.

The Diocese claimed in 2007 that they wanted to provide assistance
to all people impacted by the abuse, he said.

"We want to make them keep their promise," Meyers said.

May 15's trial will be bifurcated, meaning proceedings will only
involve church officials.

Meyers said he plans to move forward with proceedings against
Richter and Haller if the case against the Diocese isn't
successful.

"In the first stage, the Diocese is alleged to have been negligent
in supervising its priest who it knew, or should have known, was
dangerous to children," court documents said. "In the second,
potential state . . . . the lawyer defendants are alleged to have
been professionally negligent in manipulating the class action,
and to have done so with the full cooperation of the Diocese."

Reached by phone, Haller said he did not have comment on the
proceedings because they would not involve him. Richter could not
be reached for comment. [GN]


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Sept. 14 Final Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
The final approval hearing is scheduled for September 14, 2017, on
the settlement in the case, Polly Hansen v. Discover Financial
Services and Discover Home Loans, Inc., Discover Financial
Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017.

On July 9, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Polly Hansen v. Discover Financial Services and Discover
Home Loans, Inc.). The plaintiff alleges that the Company
contacted her, and members of the class she seeks to represent, on
their cellular and residential telephones without their express
consent or after consent was revoked in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Plaintiff seeks statutory
damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. The TCPA provides
for statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for
willful violations). On March 9, 2016, Sumner Davenport was
substituted as lead plaintiff for Polly Hansen.

On January 13, 2017, plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement to resolve the
case. On January 20, 2017, the Court granted preliminary approval
of the settlement. The final approval hearing is scheduled for
September 14, 2017. If approved, the case will be dismissed with
prejudice as to all certified class members who do not opt out of
the settlement.

Discover Financial Services is a direct banking and payment
services company.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Bid to Transfer or Stay B&R Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on the decision to transfer or stay the case, B&R
Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et
al., is expected in May 2017, Discover Financial Services said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 2, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2017.

On March 8, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, other credit card networks, other issuing banks, and
EMVCo in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v.
Visa, Inc. et al.) alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust
Act, California's Cartwright Act, and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy by defendants to shift fraud
liability to merchants with the migration to the EMV security
standard and chip technology. Plaintiffs assert joint and several
liability among the defendants and seek unspecified damages,
including treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive
relief.

On July 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
includes additional named plaintiffs, reasserts the original
claims, and includes additional state law causes of action.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss on August 5, 2016. On
September 30, 2016, the court granted the motions to dismiss for
certain issuing banks and EMVCo but denied the motions to dismiss
filed by the other networks, including the Company.

Discovery is proceeding and a class certification ruling is
expected this spring unless the Court agrees to transfer the
action to federal court in New York where certain related claims
are now pending in the actions consolidated as MDL 1720, or the
Court agrees to stay the California litigation pending resolution
of the New York claims. A ruling on the decision to transfer or
stay the case is expected in May.

The Company is not in a position at this time to assess the likely
outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to this matter, but
will seek to vigorously defend against all claims asserted by the
plaintiffs.

Discover Financial Services is a direct banking and payment
services company.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Rayner" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ty Rayner filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Rayner v. E*Trade Financial Corporation, Case No.
16-cv-7129, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 19,
2017, the District Court tossed the proposed class action, which
alleged that E-Trade sent orders through trading venues that paid
rebates instead of selecting the most efficient exchange, saying
the proposed class claims can't proceed under the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Rayner v. E*Trade Financial
Corporation, Case No. 17-1487, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Ty Rayner, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com

Defendants-Appellees E*Trade Financial Corporation and E Trade
Securities LLC are represented by:

          Faith E. Gay, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: faithgay@quinnemanuel.com


ETSY INC: Dismissal of "Altayyar" Amended Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case, Altayyar v. Etsy, Inc., have filed a
notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, Etsy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

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

On October 22, 2015, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel. On January 21, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed
an amended class action complaint alleging false or misleading
statements or omissions with respect to substantially the same
topics as the original complaint. The amended complaint adds
certain outside directors and underwriters as defendants, expands
the purported class period to be April 16, 2015 to August 4, 2015,
inclusive, and asserts violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint
seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory
damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. On April 5, 2016,
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

On March 24, 2017, the court entered a judgment dismissing the
amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice, based on an
opinion filed March 16, 2017.   On April 21, 2017, Plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

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

Etsy, Inc. offers markets, services and technology that empower
creative entrepreneurs and shape a positive future for business.
The Company generates revenue primarily from transaction and
listing fees, Etsy Payments fees (formerly referred to as Direct
Checkout fees), Promoted Listing fees and Shipping Label sales.


ETSY INC: Cervantes and Weiss Actions Remain Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
The consolidated Cervantes and Weiss actions remain stayed, Etsy,
Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

On July 21, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint
(Cervantes v. Dickerson, et.al., Case No. CIV 534768) was filed in
the Superior Court of State of California, County of San Mateo
against the Company, certain officers, directors and underwriters.
The complaint asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  As in the Altayyar litigation, the
complaint alleges misrepresentations in the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-1 and Prospectus with respect to, among other
things, merchandise for sale on the Company's website that may be
counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement. The
complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. On
December 7, 2015, the Company and the underwriter defendants moved
to stay the Cervantes action on the grounds of forum non
conveniens.

On November 5, 2015, another purported securities class action
complaint (Weiss v. Etsy et al., No. CIV 536123) was filed in the
Superior Court of State of California, County of San Mateo. The
Weiss complaint names as defendants the Company and the same
officers, directors and underwriters named in the Cervantes
complaint, and also asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly false or misleading
statements or omissions with respect to, among other things,
merchandise for sale on the Company's website that may be
counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement. On
December 24, 2015, the court consolidated the Cervantes and Weiss
actions.

The Company and the named officers and directors intend to defend
themselves vigorously against these consolidated actions. In light
of, among other things, the early stage of the litigation, the
Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and is
unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of
loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome. On
February 3, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to stay
the consolidated actions.

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

Etsy, Inc. offers markets, services and technology that empower
creative entrepreneurs and shape a positive future for business.
The Company generates revenue primarily from transaction and
listing fees, Etsy Payments fees (formerly referred to as Direct
Checkout fees), Promoted Listing fees and Shipping Label sales.


EVANSTON NORTHWESTERN: Asks Court to Dismiss Price Hike Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer at Law360 reports NorthShore University HealthSystem
on May 10 again asked an Illinois federal court to dismiss a class
action alleging the 2000 merger that created the hospital chain
hiked patient prices, saying the suit doesn't name a valid market
or a valid class.

The hospital chain moved for a summary judgment in the suit,
saying the market isn't properly defined either in terms of
services or geography, a number of the class members lack standing
and all had waived their claims in a 2008 Federal Trade Commission
ruling while filing a separate motion seeking to decertify the
class.

The class action stems from Evanston Northwestern Healthcare
Corp.'s 2000 acquisition of rival Highland Park Hospital, forming
the four-hospital Chicago-area NorthShore University HealthSystem.
The FTC said in 2004 the combined company's greater market power
had led to cost increases "substantially higher" than predicted,
in violation of the Clayton Act. The FTC ordered NorthShore to
divest Highland Park Hospital, but after several years of
litigation, in 2008 the FTC agreed to let NorthShore keep Highland
Park as long as a separate team handled Highland Park price
negotiations with insurers.

The current suit was brought in August 2007 on behalf of a
proposed class that had purchased inpatient hospital services or
hospital-based outpatient services from NorthShore hospitals since
the merger, claiming patients had been overcharged for those seven
years when rate negotiations had been handled jointly. The case
was later consolidated with several similar cases.

The plaintiffs, led by Amit Berkowitz, Steven J. Messner, Henry W.
Lahmeyer and Painters District Council No. 30 Health & Welfare
Fund and including a number of managed care organizations, moved
for class certification in February 2009.

U.S. District Judge Joan H. Lefkow denied their motion in March
2010, saying the plaintiffs couldn't prove NorthShore had
uniformly raised prices and thus couldn't claim a classwide
injury. The Seventh Circuit then revived the suit, saying price
uniformity wasn't necessary to sustain the predominance
requirement for class certification, and certification was granted
in December 2013.

A motion to dismiss the case on statute of limitations grounds was
denied in September, with U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang finding
the statute did not toll when the merger closed, but when the
newly-merged company began signing new managed-care contracts that
increased the cost of care.

In its summary judgment motion, NorthShore argued Painters Fund
and similar administrative service organizations lacked standing
because they were indirect purchasers, and that all of the class
members waived their claims due to the 2008 FTC ruling.

In a phone interview on May 10  NorthShore counsel David Dahlquist
said under the terms of the judgment, managed-care organizations
with pre-existing contracts were allowed to negotiate new,
separate contracts with Highland Park and NorthShore, but none
did.

"Because no one took advantage of it, our argument is that they
waived their claims," he said.

The motion also argued the class had not provided proof of a valid
product or geographic market, saying they were attempting to class
both inpatient and outpatient services in the same market and that
the hospitals did not form a valid geographic market.

The chain also filed a separate motion seeking class
decertification on the grounds of lack of predominance and
superiority. Dahlquist said the plaintiffs claims failed to meet
the standards set by the Seventh Circuit and district court
rulings.

NorthShore also argued the named plaintiffs lack standing, in the
case of the ASO and MCOs, or received only outpatient services.

Counsel for plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for
comment on May 11.

The plaintiffs are represented by Mary Jane Fait, Esq. of the Law
Offices of Mary Jane Fait and Marvin A. Miller, Esq. --
mmiller@millerlawllc.com -- Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq. --
mvantine@millerlawllc.com -- and Kathleen E. Boychuck, Esq. --
kboychuck@millerlawllc.com -- of Miller Law LLC.

NorthShore is represented by Duane M. Kelley, Esq. --
dkelly@winston.com -- David E. Dahlquist, Esq. --
ddahlquist@winston.com -- Christopher B. Essie, Esq. --
cessig@winston.com -- Michael S. Pulls, Esq. --
mpullos@winston.com -- Connor A. Ready, Esq. --
creidy@winston.com --   and Laura B. Greenspan, Esq. --
lgreenspan@winston.com -- of Winston & Strawn LLP.

The case is In re: Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corp.
Antitrust Litigation, case number 1:07-cv-04446, in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN]


EXXON MOBIL: Dismissal of Suit Over Arkansas Pipeline Spill Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Hale-Shelton at Arkansas Online reports Exxon Mobil
prevailed May 11 when a federal appeals court panel affirmed a
lower court's ruling that decertified a class-action lawsuit
against the oil giant and dismissed it.

Four property owners in central Arkansas filed the original
lawsuit after the March 29, 2013, rupture of the Pegasus pipeline,
which spilled tens of thousands of gallons of heavy crude oil into
Mayflower's Northwoods subdivision, drainage ditches and a cove of
Lake Conway.

A three-judge panel of the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals upheld the March 2015 decision by U.S. District Judge
Brian Miller in Little Rock. Miller had earlier granted class-
action status to the lawsuit but later reversed course and
dismissed the case.

Miller decided he had been wrong to grant class-action status to
landowners whose property is crossed by the Pegasus line, which
extends from Corsicana, Texas, to Patoca, Ill. The pipeline, built
in 1947-48, also runs through Arkansas and Missouri. A class
action stood to affect thousands of landowners in the four states.

Neither Exxon Mobil nor attorneys for the original plaintiffs,
Arnez and Charletha Harper and Rudy and Betty Webb, had much to
say on May 11.

Exxon Mobil spokesman Todd Spitler said only: "We agree with the
decision of the court."

Thomas Thrash, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in an email
that he and others involved in the case "were very disappointed in
the decision."

"We have not made the decision as to whether we will appeal
further," Thrash added.

The Webbs live in Conway but own property in Mayflower. The
Harpers live in Mayflower.

The lawsuit had sought to rescind the prospective plaintiffs'
easements in all four states and to force Exxon Mobil to remove or
replace the pipeline. Alternatively, the lawsuit sought to recover
damages resulting from what it contended was Exxon Mobil's breach
of contract and diminished property values.

Exxon Mobil shut down the roughly 850-mile-long pipeline shortly
after the spill. Only a 211-mile segment in Texas has reopened.

Like Miller, the appeals court panel found a lack of commonality
among the landowners in the four states -- an essential element in
a class-action case.

Establishing breach of contract "would require examination of how
Exxon's operation of the pipeline affects the plaintiffs, which,
as the district court found, varies depending on where individual
class members' property is located, as well as many other
factors," the panel's opinion said.

"Too many individual issues predominate over common ones," the
panel added.

Further, even if the easements were similar or identical, it said,
there would be issues of conflicting contract, property and tort
laws in the four states.

With class-action status removed, the panel said individual claims
by the Harpers and the Webbs failed because the easement contracts
did not even require the oil company to perform maintenance or
repairs. Further, both couples have conceded that the Exxon Mobil
pipeline has not caused "any damage to any crops, timber, or
fences" on their property, the appeals panel wrote.

"Instead they claim the pipeline is composed of 'bad pipe' and is
'worn out,'" the panel wrote. "Such vague allegations alone cannot
provide the basis for these claims."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs also had argued that Exxon Mobil had
withheld important documents until days before the district court
entered its order -- documents that they said provided "newly
discovered evidence," the panel said.

But the panel said Miller had found that this new evidence did
"not address ... the heart" of his judgment and that the Harpers
and the Webbs had not suffered any actual damages.

"As far as the Webbs' and Harpers' allegations that Exxon's late
production of discovery documents should have prevented the grant
of summary judgment, they fail to explain why whatever was
produced late would have changed the result," the panel said.

"Our own review . . . . does not convince us the district court
clearly abused its discretion in concluding that the additional
evidence the Webbs and Harpers sought to introduce would not have,
as the district court said, 'produce[d] a different result,'" it
added. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Aug. 9 Fairness Hearing in "Campbell" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in Oakland, Calif. preliminarily approved a class
action settlement in which Facebook agrees to stop reading its
customers' email to sell it for targeted ads.

The Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only
(and for no other purpose and with no other effect upon the
Action, including no effect upon the Action should the Settlement
Agreement not receive final approval or should the Effective Date
not occur), a class defined as all natural-person Facebook users
located within the United States and its territories who have
sent, or received from a Facebook user, private messages that
included URLs in their content (and from which Facebook generated
a URL attachment), from December 30, 2011 to March 1, 2017.

The only changes between the Settlement Class and the class
certified by the Court on May 18, 2016, are (1) the explicit
inclusion of Facebook users located in United States territories,
and (2) bringing the end of the class period current to the date
of settlement. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) all
Persons who are directors, officers, and agents of Facebook or its
subsidiaries and affiliated companies or are designated by
Facebook as employees of Facebook or its subsidiaries and
affiliated companies; and (ii) the Court, the Court's immediate
family, and Court staff, as well as any appellate court to which
this matter is ever assigned, and its immediate family and staff.

The Court appoints Plaintiffs Michael Hurley and Matthew Campbell
as the Class Representatives, and the law firms of Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC as Class
Counsel.

A Fairness hearing shall be held before this Court on August 9,
2017, at 9 a.m., at the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland Courthouse, Courtroom 3,
3rd Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612.

Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses shall be filed and served no later than May 26, 2017. Any
opposition, comment, or objection shall be filed no later than
June 26, 2017. Any reply shall be filed no later than July 10,
2017.

The motion in support of final approval of the settlement shall be
filed and served no later than May 26, 2017. Any opposition,
comment, or objection shall be filed no later than June 26,
2017. Any reply shall be filed no later than July 10, 2017.

The case is captioned, MATTHEW CAMPBELL and MICHAEL HURLEY,
Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant, Case No. C13-05996PJH-SK
(N.D. Cal.).


FANNIE MAY: Slapped With Class Action Over Bumped Up Candy Boxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at Cook County Record reports iconic Chicago
candymaker Fannie May has been hit with a class action lawsuit by
consumers who claim they overpaid for $10 boxes of candy after
discovering the boxes were only about 60 percent full.

On May 10, plaintiffs Clarisha Benson and Lorenzo Smith filed a
class action complaint in Chicago federal court, saying Fannie
May's practice of bumping up the size of the boxes without
increasing the amount of candy contained inside deceives consumers
and violates the law.

The plaintiffs are represented in the action by attorneys James X.
Bormes and Kasif Khowaja, each of Chicago.

The lawsuit centers on Fannie May's use of "slack fill," or "the
difference between the actual capacity of a container and the
volume of product within it." While some slack fill can be needed
to reduce damage to the product during shipping and distribution,
the complaint claims the amount of slack fill used by Fannie May
in several of its products is excessive, intended to fool
customers into believing they are getting more candy for their
money than the package actually contains.

The lawsuit, for instance, says Fannie May's 7 oz. package of Hot
Fudge Truffles is 48 percent slack; its Pixies package contain 38
percent slack; and Mint Meltaways contain 33 percent slack.

"The packaging of the Products is uniformly made out of
nontransparent cardboard so that consumers cannot see the slack-
fill therein, thus giving Plaintiffs and the Class the false
impression that there is more food inside than is actually there,"
the lawsuit said.

The boxes of Fannie May candy are sold locally at 65 Fannie May
retail stores in Chicago and elsewhere, as well as at local
supermarkets and other retailers, including Jewel Food Stores and
Walgreens. The boxes of candy can also be purchased online.

The boxes retail for about $10 each.

Benson said she purchased a box of Mint Meltaways at a Fannie May
store at 111 W. Washington, Chicago, while Smith bought a box of
Pixies at a Fannie May store at 343 N. Michigan Avenue.

Smith, the lawsuit said "paid $9.99 for the Product on the
reasonable assumption the box was filled to functional capacity.
He would not have paid this sum had he known that the box was
nearly 40% empty or had the box been proportioned to its actual
contents.

"Defendant promised Plaintiff a full box of Pixies for $9.99, but
it only delivered barely 60% of the box, depriving him of the
benefit of his bargain," the lawsuit said.

The complaint claims the allegedly excessive slack fill in Fannie
May's candy boxes amounts to violations of the Illinois consumer
fraud law, and means Fannie May has been unjustly enriched at
consumers' expense.

The lawsuit asks the court to order Fannie May to pay unspecified
"monetary damages," pay attorney fees and to block Fannie May from
continuing to sell the packages of candy containing the allegedly
excessive slack fill. [GN]


FARIS PROPERTIES: "Lizotte" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Deductions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Lizotte, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Faris Properties, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00195, (E.D. Tenn., May 3, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum
wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant operates numerous McDonald's Franchise restaurants in
the Eastern District of Tennessee where Plaintiff was employed at
their restaurant in Rockwood, Roane County. Lizotte claims to
regularly work off-the-clock without compensation, work through
meal/rest periods and were deducted cash register shortages
without cause. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark N. Foster, Esq.
      P.O. Box 192
      104 N Front St, Rockwood, TN 37854
      Rockwood, TN 37854
      Tel: (865) 354-3333


FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS: Schwebel Sues Over Electricity Surcharge
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schwebel Baking Company, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. First Energy Solutions Corp.
(FES), Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00974, (N.D. Ohio, May 8,
2017), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and breach of
contract damages against FES on behalf of Plaintiff, which
purchased electricity from FES pursuant to a fixed price
electricity supply agreement, and to enjoin FES from taking any
steps to collect the unlawful and improper charges.

FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. is an energy generator and supplier
serving residential, commercial and industrial users of
electricity in multiple states including Ohio, Illinois, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey from whom Plaintiff agreed
to purchase and pay for its electrical supplies on a fixed-rate
basis. FES breached the terms of the Fixed-Rate Agreement by
attempting to collect a surcharge from Plaintiff due to higher
costs incurred from its energy supplier, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Turner, Esq.
      Carolyn Blake, Esq.
      MEYERS, ROMAN, FRIEDBERG & LEWIS
      28601 Chagrin Blvd, Suite 500
      Cleveland, OH 44122
      Tel: (216) 831-0042
      Fax: (216) 831-0542
      Email: pturner@meyersroman.com
             cblake@meyersroman.com

             - and -

      Judith S. Scolnick, Esq.
      William C. Fredericks, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Helmsley Building
      230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10169
      Tel: (212) 223-6444
      Fax: (212) 223-6334
      Email: jscolnick@scott-scott.com
             wfredericks@scott-scott.com

             - and -

      Geoffrey M. Johnson, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      12434 Cedar Road, Suite 12
      Cleveland Heights, OH 44106
      Tel: (216) 229-6088
      Fax: (860) 537-4432
      Email: gjohnson@scott-scott.com


FYRE MEDIA: New Yorkers File Class Action Over Cancelled Festival
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports two New York
City customers have filed a class action lawsuit against festival
operators alleging negligence and negligent misrepresentation.

Matthew Herlihy and Anthony Lauriello filed a complaint,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, May 3
in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against William McFarland, Jeffrey Atkins p/k/a Ja Rule, Grant
Margolin, Fyre Media, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, alleging they
falsely advertised their Fyre Festival to consumers.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege Herlihy and
Lauriello suffered monetary damages from purchasing a ticket for
the Fyre Festival, which was promoted as a luxurious, celebrity-
endorsed music festival for the elite in the Bahamas.

The suit says ticket packages started at $1,200 and ran to six
figures. The plaintiffs allege the defendants failed to properly
organize and plan Fyre Festival for consumers who purchased
tickets because the Bahamas island was lacking basic amenities,
was covered in dirt and guests had to sleep in tents with
blankets.

The plaintiffs seek trial by jury, compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages, interest, restitution, enjoin the defendant,
legal fees and all other relief the court deems just. They are
represented by attorneys Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. -- ek@zlk.com --
and Andrea Clisura, Esq. -- aclisura@zlk.com -- of Levi &
Korsinsky LLP in New York.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case
number 1:17-cv-03296-PKC [GN]


FYRE MEDIA: "Herlihy" Suit Demands Damages Over Festival Chaos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Herlihy and Anthony Lauriello, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. Billy McFarland, an individual, Jeffrey Atkins
p/k/a Ja Rule, an individual, Fyre Media, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
1:17-cv-03296 (S.D. N.Y., May 3, 2017) seeks actual, consequential
and incidental losses and damages, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees, costs of suit, and such other and further relief resulting
from fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

In December 2016, Defendants promoted their upcoming "Fyre
Festival" as a posh, island-based music festival featuring first-
class culinary experiences and a luxury atmosphere on a private
island in the Bahamas. However, the festival's lack of adequate
food, water, shelter and medical care created a dangerous and
panicked situation among attendees. Defendants also promoted the
festival as a "cashless" event where attendees upload funds to a
wristband for use at the festival rather than bringing any cash.
However, attendees were unable to purchase basic transportation on
local taxis or busses, which accept only cash.

Fyre Media Inc. is an entertainment booking company headquartered
in New York, New York.

Herlihy and Lauriello purchased a ticket package to Fyre Festival,
totaling approximately $1,027.00 in costs. Herlihy and Lauriello
had also deposited $900 and $1,000 respectively into individual
wristbands that was supposed to be used to pay for activities and
beverages on the island during the festival but did not have
access to such monies after they left the island. Defendants have
not offered to compensate such.

Defendants have offered to refund the price paid for ticket
packages, but to date have not done so. Additionally, Plaintiffs
claim the cost of airfare to Miami, lost vacation days and wages
to travel to the festival and other expenses necessarily incurred
on food and transportation. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 291-2420
      Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
      Email: rrivas@zlk.com

             - and -

      Andrea Clisura, Esq.
      Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
      Andrea Clisura, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
      Email: ekorsinsky@zlk.com
             aclisura@zlk.com

             - and -

      Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Tel: (212) 363-7500
      Fax: (866) 367-5610
      Email: nkulesa@zlk.com


GRAIN PROCESSING: Iowa High Ct. Certifies Class in Pollution Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WQAD reports that the Iowa Supreme Court has certified a class-
action lawsuit of Muscatine residents who say pollution from an
industrial plant blanketed their properties for decades.

The court on May 12 unanimously upheld a judge's certification
that the class will consist of residents who lived within 1.5
miles of the Grain Processing Corporation plant between 2007 and
2012, about 4,000 individuals.

Residents filed suit in 2012 alleging GPC failed to control
emissions from the wet milling plant, spewing odors, dust and haze
onto their land. They're seeking damages for the lost use and
enjoyment of their properties.

The court rejected GPC's argument that allowing the class would
deny the company the opportunity to contest whether individual
members suffered damages. Justices say damages can be calculated
based on a formula or by individual trials after the class case.

GPC says it's disappointed and will "determine our best legal
strategy going forward." [GN]


GREAT CIRCLE: "Bush" Suit Claims Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Bush, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Great Circle, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
04070 (W.D. Mo., May 4, 2017), seeks required wages, overtime
premiums, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum
Wage Law.

Defendant has operated a behavioral health services organization
that provides foster care services throughout Missouri. Bush
worked for the Defendant as a foster care manager. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark Potashnick, Esq.
     WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
     11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
     St. Louis, MO 63141
     Telephone: (314) 997-9150 ext. 2
     Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
     Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com

            - and -

     Eli Karsh, Esq.
     LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH
     230 South Bemiston, Suite 1200
     St. Louis, MO 63105
     Telephone: (314) 862-3333 ext. 13
     Facsimile: (314) 862-0605


HERITAGE-CRYSTAL CLEAN: Defending Class Suit over Contract Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heritage-Crystal Clean, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company is
currently defending a putative class action lawsuit alleging that
the Company charged fees in violation of both its contracts and
applicable state laws. As of the end of the first quarter of
fiscal 2017, no liability was accrued related to this lawsuit.

The Company provides parts cleaning, containerized waste
management, used oil collection, vacuum truck services, antifreeze
recycling, and field services primarily to small and medium sized
industrial customers as well as vehicle maintenance customers.  It
owns and operates a used oil re-refinery, several wastewater
treatment plants and multiple antifreeze recycling facilities.


HIGHER ONE: Faces "Edelman" Suit over Student Debit Card Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lowell Neumann Nickey, writing for Courthouse News Service,
reported that saying that federal sanctions failed to change its
unscrupulous practices, a Pennsylvania woman slapped Higher One
Holdings with a federal class action in Philadelphia over the fees
it charges on student debit cards.

Higher One is not a bank, but the April 13 complaint notes that
the organization has arrangements with colleges across the country
to store any unused financial aid that the schools must refund to
students.

Though students can opt out of using so-called OneAccounts, most
don't.

Lead plaintiff Shaya Edelman says she was one of the 80 percent of
vulnerable students whom Higher One plied into opening a co-
branded debit card. Though the account gave her immediate access
to her funds, Edelman says she faced "unconscionable and unusual
bank fees" as a result. Other options like direct deposit and
paper check would take up to one week and 21 days to clear,
respectively.

"Based on information and belief, the fees assessed to plaintiff
Edelman are representative of millions of dollars of fees that
defendants wrongfully assessed and deducted from student
customers' accounts," the complaint states.

A resident of King of Prussia, Edelman says Higher One and its
banking partners have been under fire by financial industry
authorities for years.

The complaint describes a $15 million settlement that Higher One
reached with two others in 2014, compensating students who opened
accounts between 2006 and 2012. Higher One committed another $31
million in restitution the following year, Edelman notes, as part
of a consent order after the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission
nailed it for misleading students enrolled in OneAccounts.

Also in December 2015, according to the complaint, Higher One
faced a cease-and-desist order and $24 million penalty from the
Federal Reserve.

"Despite the penalties it had received, and its promises to change
its behavior, Higher One continued to profit from deceptive
practices and improper fees," the complaint states.

Edelman signed up for a Mustang Card while enrolled at Montgomery
County Community College.

"Targeting students with excessive bank fees -- and using scarce
financial aid funds (much of which is taxpayer money) to pay those
fees -- is unethical, contrary to public policy, and makes it more
difficult for students to avoid crippling debt."

Edelman says the unconscionable bank fees that Higher One charges
are "often at 7 percent interest or higher."

These kinds of fees "are rarely, if ever, charged by other banks"
with similar checking services.

"Many students receiving grant and financial aid are low-income,
with a disproportionately higher level of need than the general
student body," the complaint continues.

Edelman seeks punitive damages and rescission, alleging unjust
enrichment, conversion and violation of Pennsylvania consumer-
protection law. She is represented by Charles Schaffer with Levin,
Sedran & Berman.

In addition to Higher One, the class action names as a defendant
its banking partner WEX Bank and Customers Bancorp, which Edelman
says acquired the OneAccounts business last year.

The defendants did not return a request for comment.


HOME HEALTH CARE: "Toussaint" Suit Seeks OT Wages, Pay Stubs
------------------------------------------------------------
Wilgainson Toussaint and Emmanuel Keriga, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Home
Health Care Services of New York, Inc., Defendant, Case
509060/2017 (N.Y. Sup., May 8, 2017) seeks damages in the amount
of their respective unpaid spread-of-hours wages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New
York Labor Laws.

Defendant provides home health care to disabled and/or elderly
individuals who live in New York City. Plaintiffs worked as Home
Attendants. They claim to be denied overtime pay and accurate wage
statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Harrison, Esq.
     HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
     110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
     Red Bank, NJ 07701
     Tel: (718)799-9111
     Fax: (718) 799-9171
     Email: nycotlaw@gmail.com


HOMELAND SECURITY: Sued over Deportation of Juvenile Immigrants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lowell Neumann Nickey, writing for Courthouse News Service,
reported that hitting the United States with a federal class
action in Philadelphia, four mothers fleeing violence in Central
America say the new administration's rush to deport their children
violates a longstanding settlement.

The children in question all successfully petitioned the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services last year, in the waning days
of the Obama administration, for SIJ status.  Short for special
immigrant juvenile, SIJ status was created in 1990 by Congress for
foreign-born children who meet certain criteria, such having
experienced abuse, neglect or abandonment. The mothers say it
allows at-risk minors under the age of 21 "to remain in the United
States legally and permanently" while they apply for a green card.

Before they obtained SIJ status, according to their April 17
complaint in Philadelphia, each of the children entered the United
States with their mothers in 2015. They were apprehended at the
border in Texas but have spent the bulk of their detention at the
Berks County Residential Center in Leesport, Pennsylvania.

Citing a 2010 federal settlement in the California case Perez-
Olano v. Holder, the children all moved rescind and reopen their
removal proceedings.  They received rejection letters this past
February. In each case, according to the complaint, Immigrations
and Customs Enforcement took the position that Perez-Olano relief
"contemplated only removal proceedings, as opposed to the
expedited removal proceedings at issue."

Attorneys for the class, which is led by mom Wendy Amparo Osorio-
Martinez, say the rationale is a farce.

"In defiance of common sense, clear congressional intent,
applicable case law, and even a mere scintilla of human decency,"
the complaint says, "defendants, without justification and or
authorization, continue to illegally and indefinitely detain SIJ
children up to and until the point at which defendants can ship
the children back 'home' -- places defendants previously
determined would not be in the children's best interest to be
returned to."

Saying their clients need immediate relief from "these abhorrent,
illegal practices," the children are seeking an emergency
temporary restraining order.

Two of the children, ages 3 and 4, are from Honduras. The other
two, ages 7 and 16, are from El Savador. They say there are
thousands in similar predicaments.  The children were among 15,101
applications for SIJ status that Citizenship and Immigration
Services approved last year. Another 594 applications were denied,
terminated, or withdrawn.

"At last count, 8,674 applications were still awaiting a
decision," the complaint says, noting that there were 5,377
applications for SIJ status in the first quarter of 2017. Of
these, 4,436 were approved and 193 were denied, terminated or
withdrawn.

The class is represented by Michael Edelman at Pepper Hamilton.
Neither Edelman, nor representatives from ICE and Homeland
Security, have returned a request for comment.

The case is captioned, WENDY AMPARO OSORIO-MARTINEZ, individually,
on behalf of her minor child, D.S. R.-O, and all others similarly
situated; CARMEN ALEYDA LOBO MEJIA, individually, on behalf of her
minor Chlld, A.D.M-L., and all others similarly situated; MARIA
DELMI MARTINEZ NOLASCO, individually, on behalf of her minor
child, J.E. L-M., and all others similarly situated; JETHZABEL
MARITZA AGUILAR MANCIA, individually, on behalf of her minor
child, V.G. R-A., and all others similarly situated; PLAINTIFFS,
V. JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, III; JOHN F. KELLY; THOMAS D.
HOMAN; THOMAS DECKER, DIANE EDWARDS; US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANTS, Case No.
17-_____ (E.D. Pa., April 17, 2017).

Attorneys for Petitioners:

Michael Joseph Edelman, Esq.
Anthony Vale, Esq.
Joseph A. Sullivan, Esq.
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
3000 Two Logan Square
Eighteenth & Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
Telephone: (215) 981-4000
Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
E-mail: edelmanm@pepperlaw.com
        Valea@pepperlaw.com
        sullivanja@pepperlaw.com

     - and -

Bridget Cambria, Esq.
Jacquelyn M. Kline, Esq.
CAMBRIA AND KLINE, PC
532 Walnut Street
Reading, PA 19601
Tel: (484) 926-2014

     - and -

Carol Anne Donohoe, ESq.
532 Walnut Street
Reading, PA 19601
Tel: (610) 370-7956


HONGLI CLEAN ENERGY: "Nasin" Sues Over Shares Trading Suspension
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jarrod Nasin, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hongli Clean Energy Technologies Corp.,
Jianhua LV, and Song LV, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03244
(D.N.J., May 8, 2017), seeks damages sustained, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys'
fees, expert fees and other costs and such other and further
relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Hongli is a vertically-integrated coal and coke producer based in
Henan Province, People's Republic of China and its securities were
traded on the Nasdaq Stock Market.

Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that it did not properly
record the impairment of its assets. On April 26, 2017, the
Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC disclosing that its
independent auditor had a disagreement with the company. Trading
of Company's securities were suspended, thus rendering the shares
of the Company illiquid.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
     South Orange, NJ 07079
     Tel: (973) 313-1887
     Fax: (973) 833-0399
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


INTRA-CELLULAR THERAPIES: Khang & Khang Files Shareholders Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit
against Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. ("Intra-Cellular" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: ITCI). Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between August 12, 2014 and April 28, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm
in advance of the July 11, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you purchased Intra-Cellular shares during the Class Period,
please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang LLP, 18101
Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone:
(949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com.

There has been no class certification in this case yet. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Intra-
Cellular made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: that findings related to toxicity in animals treated
with lumateperone (ITI-007) were observed; that these findings
posed an additional safety concern regarding lumateperone; and
that as a result of the above, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On
August 4, 2016, the Company's CEO Sharon Mates touted the
"efficacy and safety of ITI-007 for the treatment of
schizophrenia." On May 1, 2017, Intra-Cellular disclosed that the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration requested information from the
Company in order to verify whether or not there are safety risks
associated with long term exposure of ITI-007 to patients. Upon
release of this news, Intra-Cellular's stock price fell
materially, which harmed investors according to the Complaint.[GN]

If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if you have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact
Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two decades, by
telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com

Joon M. Khang, Esq.
Khang & Khang LLP
Telephone: 949-419-3834
Facsimile: 949-225-4474
E-mail: joon@khanglaw.com


JACKSON HEWITT: "Lomeli" Suit Alleges Tax-Refund Scam
-----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
tax-preparation service Jackson Hewitt alters its clients' tax
returns without their knowledge to create refunds which it put in
a bank account and cashed, according to a federal racketeering
class action in Los Angeles filed on April 17.

Luis Lomeli sued Jackson Hewitt on April 17, claiming the second-
largest tax-preparation service in the nation defrauded him of
thousands of dollars by filing false returns with the Internal
Revenue Service to inflate his refund -- which it then stole.

Lomeli says Jackson Hewitt filed his tax returns three years in a
row, and each time filed papers that were different from what he
agreed to in order to artificially reduce Lomeli's tax liability.

Instead of alerting Lomeli to the windfall amounting to more than
$11,000, Lomeli says Jackson Hewitt funneled the excess money into
a bank account. They drew a cashier's check on that account,
extracted additional fees from the refund, then forged his
signature to cash the check and pocket the refund, according to
the complaint.

"Defendants repeatedly and systematically violated that trust and
used plaintiff's identity to fraudulently obtain thousands of
dollars from the Internal Revenue Service in plaintiff's name,"
Lomeli says in the complaint.

Lomeli first caught wind of the scheme when he noticed a $300
discrepancy after filing his taxes with Jackson Hewitt in 2016,
the third year in a row he had used the company.

When he requested his tax files from the IRS, he noticed they were
substantially different than the documents he thought he was
filing with the agency. He also thought it was strange that the
cashier's check was from an account in his name registered with a
bank called Civista Bank which he had never opened, according to
the complaint.

Lomeli discovered the $300 discrepancy was largely due to an
assortment of fees levied by Jackson Hewitt. He then ordered his
2014 and 2015 tax returns to see if there were further
discrepancies, he says.

In each of those years, Jackson Hewitt had told Lomeli that his
tax returns would be a wash, that he did not owe the federal
government any money, but wasn't entitled to a refund, he says.

He says he found the tax returns for 2014 and 2015 had also been
altered from what the preparer had given him. In both instances,
Jackson Hewitt changed the returns to artificially depress
Lomeli's tax liability so that he was entitled to a refund:
instead of a wash, Lomeli actually collected about $6,200 in 2015
and about $5,700 in 2014.

Since he never received refunds, he says he checked and found the
payments were disbursed to the Civista Bank account he didn't know
he had in the form of cashier's checks, which had since been
cashed.

"Plaintiff never received the cashier's check nor was aware of its
existence," Lomeli says in the complaint. "Instead, plaintiff's
signature was forged as an endorsement on the check and the money
taken without plaintiff's knowledge."

Lomeli says someone with Jackson Hewitt was responsible for
forging the signatures and cashing the checks. He doesn't believe
his experience is unique and will seek class certification.

"There are hundreds, if not thousands, of members of each class,"
his complaint states.

Lomeli seeks a declaration that Jackson Hewitt's actions are
illegal, a ban on future similar misconduct and treble damages
under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Lomeli is represented by Paul Traina of Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack
Stalwart Law Group in Los Angeles.

An email sent to Jackson Hewitt seeking comment was not returned
as of press time.

The case is captioned, LUIS LOMELI, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON
HEWITT, INC.; TAX SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC. d/b/ a JACKSON HEWITT
TAX SERVICE; CIVISTA BANCSHARES, INC.; CIVISTA BANK, N.A.; SANTA
BARBARA TAX PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC; JJF & AC, INC. d/b/a Guanajuato
Insurance Agency and Jackson Hewitt Tax Service; JUAN FLORES, an
individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case 2:17-cv-
02899(C.D. Cal., April 17, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

Paul A. Traina, Esq.
Ian P. Samson, Esq.
ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB & LACK
A Professional Corporation
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4113
Tel: (310) 552-3800
Fax: (310) 552-9434
E-mail: ptraina@elllaw.com
        isamson@elllaw.com

     - and -

Dylan Ruga, Esq.
Ji-In Lee Houck, Esq.
STALWART LAW GROUP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: (310) 954-2000
E-mail: dylan@stalwartlaw.com
        jiin@stalwartlaw.com


KINGS AUTOSHOW: "Stokes" Seeks Overtime Pay, Claims No Pay Stubs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Stokes, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Kings Autoshow Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 509187/2017, (N.Y. Sup., May 9, 2017), seeks unpaid
overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, spread of hours premium,
maximum liquidated damages, compensation for not receiving notices
and statements and attorneys' fees pursuant to the New York
Minimum Wage Act and New York Labor Laws.

Defendant operates a Mitsubishi Dealership located at 5815 Church
Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11203 where Plaintiff was employed as a
manual worker, handling motor vehicles and assisting customers in
purchasing vehicles.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Tel: (718) 740-1000
      Fax: (718) 740-2000
      Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


KONA GRILL: "Cedeno" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Denied Leave
------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Cedeno individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective action,
Plaintiff, v. Kona Grill, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and Kona
Macadamia, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
8:17-cv-01039, (N.D. Cal., May 5, 2017), seeks to recover
compensation and benefits lost by reason of violation, actual
monetary losses and attorney's fees, costs and disbursements of
this action, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Family Medical Leave Act.

Defendants jointly own and operate 45 upscale-casual "Kona Grill"
restaurants in 23 states and Puerto Rico where Plaintiff worked as
a sous chef at their Sarasota restaurant. Kona Macadamia, Inc. is
headquartered at 7150 E. Camelback Road, #333, Scottsdale, AZ. It
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kona Grill, Inc.

Defendants allegedly failed to properly calculate overtime wages
and, in retaliation, and denied Plaintiff a medical leave during
his wife's pregnancy and upon the birth of his son. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicolas J. Castellano, Esq.
     BUCKMAN & BUCKMAN, PA
     2023 Constitution Blvd
     Sarasota, FL 34231
     Tel: (941) 923-7700
     Fax: (941) 923-7736
     Email: attorney@buckmanandbuckman.com
            nancy@buckmanandbuckman.com


LPL FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
LPL Financial Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a putative class
action lawsuit has been filed against the Company and certain of
its executive officers in federal district court alleging certain
misstatements and omissions related to the Company's share
repurchases and financial performance in late 2015. The Company
intends to defend vigorously against the lawsuit.

LPL Financial Holdings Inc. ("LPLFH"), a Delaware holding
corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries
(collectively, the "Company"), provides an integrated platform of
brokerage and investment advisory services to independent
financial advisors and financial advisors at financial
institutions (collectively "advisors") in the United States.
Through its custody and clearing platform, using both proprietary
and third-party technology, the Company provides access to
diversified financial products and services, enabling its advisors
to offer independent financial advice and brokerage services to
retail investors (their "clients").


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Talks Held in Formaldehyde & Abrasion MDLs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
has initiated settlement discussions to jointly settle the
Formaldehyde and the Abrasion multi-district litigation.

Formaldehyde-Related Cases

Beginning on or about March 3, 2015, numerous purported class
action cases were filed in various U.S. federal district courts
and state courts involving claims of excessive formaldehyde
emissions from the Company's flooring products (collectively, the
"Products Liability Cases"). The plaintiffs in these various
actions sought recovery under a variety of theories, which
although not identical are generally similar, including
negligence, breach of warranty, state consumer protection act
violations, state unfair competition act violations, state
deceptive trade practices act violations, false advertising,
fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, failure to
warn, unjust enrichment and similar claims. The purported classes
consisted either or both of all U.S. consumers or state consumers
that purchased the subject products in certain time periods. The
plaintiffs also sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive
relief and various damages, including restitution, actual,
compensatory, consequential, and, in certain cases, punitive
damages, and interest, costs, and attorneys' fees incurred by the
plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with
the alleged claims, and orders certifying the actions as class
actions. Plaintiffs did not quantify damages sought from the
Company in these class actions.

On June 12, 2015, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi
District Litigation (the "MDL Panel") issued an order transferring
and consolidating ten of the related federal class actions to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(the "Virginia Court"). In a series of subsequent conditional
transfer orders, the MDL Panel has transferred the other cases to
the Virginia Court. The Company continues to seek to have any
newly filed cases transferred and consolidated in the Virginia
Court and, ultimately, it expects all federal class actions
involving formaldehyde allegations, including any newly filed
cases, to be transferred and consolidated in the Virginia Court.
The consolidated case in the Virginia Court is captioned In re:
Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products
Marketing, Sales, Practices and Products Liability Litigation (the
"MDL").

Pursuant to a court order, plaintiffs filed a Representative Class
Action Complaint in the Virginia Court on September 11, 2015. The
complaint challenged the Company's labeling of its flooring
products and asserted claims under California, New York, Illinois,
Florida and Texas law for fraudulent concealment, violation of
consumer protection statutes, negligent misrepresentation and
declaratory relief, as well as a claim for breach of implied
warranty under California law. Thereafter, on September 18, 2015,
plaintiffs filed the First Amended Representative Class Action
Complaint ("FARC") in which they added implied warranty claims
under New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas law, as well as a
federal warranty claim. The Company filed a motion to dismiss and
answered the FARC. The Virginia Court granted the motion as to
claims for negligent misrepresentation filed on behalf of certain
plaintiffs, deferred as to class action allegations, and otherwise
denied the motion. The Company also filed a motion to strike
nationwide class allegations, on which the Virginia Court has not
yet ruled. The Company also filed a motion to strike all personal
injury claims made in class action complaints. Plaintiffs
subsequently agreed and the Virginia Court has ordered that no
Chinese formaldehyde class action pending in this lawsuit will
seek damages for personal injury on a class-wide basis. The order
does not affect any claims for personal injury brought solely on
an individual basis. The Company's motion for summary judgment on
plaintiffs' First Amended Representative Complaint in the MDL was
granted in part and denied in part, and its motion to exclude
expert reports and testimony by plaintiffs' experts related to
deconstructive testing was denied.

Abrasion-Related Cases

On May 20, 2015, a purported class action titled Abad v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California and two amended complaints
were subsequently filed. In the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"),
the plaintiffs (collectively, the "Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs")
sought to certify a national class composed of "All Persons in the
United States who purchased Defendant's Dream Home brand laminate
flooring products (the "Dream Home Product") from Defendant for
personal use in their homes," or, in the alternative, 32 statewide
classes from California, North Carolina, Texas, New Jersey,
Florida, Nevada, Connecticut, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Georgia,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, West Virginia, Kansas,
Kentucky, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, Washington, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois and Louisiana. The products that are
the subject of these complaints are part of the same products at
issue in the MDL. The SAC alleges violations of each of these
states' consumer protections statutes and the federal Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act, as well as breach of implied warranty and
fraudulent concealment. The Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs did not
quantify any alleged damages in the SAC but, in addition to
attorneys' fees and costs, sought an order certifying the action
as a class action, an order adopting the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs'
class definitions and finding that the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs
are their proper representatives, an order appointing their
counsel as class counsel, injunctive relief prohibiting the
Company from continuing to advertise and/or sell laminate flooring
products with false abrasion class ratings, restitution of all
monies it received from the Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs and class
members, damages (actual, compensatory, and consequential) and
punitive damages.

The Abad Abrasion Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint and
the Company moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The
court decided that it would decide the motion only as to the
California plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the Abad
Abrasion Plaintiffs) and ordered that all the non-California
plaintiffs (collectively, the "Non-California Abrasion
Plaintiffs") be dropped from the action with leave to re-file.
Many of the Non-California Abrasion Plaintiffs re-filed separate
complaints in the Central District of California within the
required 60-day period, which were then transferred to the
district court located in the place of residence of each Non-
California Abrasion Plaintiff. These complaints included similar
causes of action and sought similar relief as those of the Abad
Abrasion Plaintiffs.

On October 3, 2016, the MDL Panel issued an order transferring and
consolidating sixteen of the federal abrasion class actions to the
Virginia Court. In subsequent conditional transfer orders, the MDL
Panel transferred other cases to the Virginia Court. The Company
will seek to have any additional related cases transferred and
consolidated in the Virginia Court. The consolidated case in the
Virginia Court is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-
Manufactured Laminate Flooring Durability Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation (the "Abrasion MDL").

The Virginia Court issued an initial pretrial order instructing
all parties to undertake certain discovery and planning tasks and
scheduled certain preliminary conferences. Pursuant to a court
order, on February 27, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a Representative
Class Action Complaint in the Virginia Court. The complaint
challenged the durability of the Dream Home Product and asserted
claims under Alabama, California, Nevada, New York and Virginia
law for breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, violation of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and violation of consumer
protection statutes. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
representative complaint and a motion to strike irrelevant and
prejudicial allegations from the representative complaint. Both
motions are currently pending.

Estimated Liability Associated with Formaldehyde and Abrasion
MDL's

In April 2017, the Company initiated settlement discussions to
jointly settle the MDL and the Abrasion MDL. As a result of this
and other developments, the Company has recognized an estimated
liability of approximately $18,000 in its results of operations
(within selling, general and administrative expenses) for the
three months ended March 31, 2017, with a corresponding current
liability on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet
as the Company determined a loss was both probable and reasonably
estimable. This is an estimate and significant uncertainty remains
regarding whether a reasonable settlement can be reached, and the
timing, amount and form of any ultimate loss. The Company believes
that such a settlement may be funded by a combination of cash,
shares of common stock, and coupons. The ultimate resolution of
the MDL and the Abrasion MDL matters, including the form of any
settlement or any loss in the absence of a settlement, could have
a material impact on the Company's results of operations,
financial condition, and may have a material adverse impact on the
Company's liquidity. The Company will monitor new information or
developments in these contingencies in future reporting periods
and adjust its accruals, as necessary, in accordance with ASC 450-
20-25. The Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate the
amount or range of possible loss in excess of the amounts accrued.

If the Company is unable to reach a reasonable settlement, the
Company will defend the matter vigorously and believes there are
meritorious defenses and legal standards that must be met for,
among other things, class certification and success on the merits.
The Company does not have insurance coverage with respect to the
MDL and Steele matters, and may have limited insurance coverage
relative to the Abrasion MDL.

Lumber Liquidators is the largest specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring in North America, offering a complete purchasing solution
across an extensive assortment of domestic and exotic hardwood
species, engineered hardwood, laminate, resilient vinyl,
engineered vinyl plank, bamboo, engineered bamboo, cork and wood-
look ceramic tile.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Steele" Action Still Pending in Ontario
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit by Sarah Steele in Ontario remains pending,
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele ("Steele") filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior
Court of Justice against the Company. In the complaint, Steele's
allegations include (i) strict liability, (ii) breach of implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (iii) breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, (iv) fraud by concealment,
(v) civil negligence, (vi) negligent misrepresentation, and (vii)
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Steele
did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Steele seeks (i)
compensatory damages, (ii) punitive, exemplary and aggravated
damages, and (iii) statutory remedies related to the Company's
breach of various laws including the Sales of Goods Act, the
Consumer Protection Act, the Competition Act, the Consumer
Packaging and Labelling Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety
Act.

Lumber Liquidators is the largest specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring in North America, offering a complete purchasing solution
across an extensive assortment of domestic and exotic hardwood
species, engineered hardwood, laminate, resilient vinyl,
engineered vinyl plank, bamboo, engineered bamboo, cork and wood-
look ceramic tile.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Class Cert. Motion in "Gold" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a motion for
class certification in the class action lawsuit by Dana Gold
remains pending.

On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that the Morning Star
bamboo flooring (the "Bamboo Product") that the Company sells is
defective. On February 13, 2015, Gold filed an amended complaint
that added three additional plaintiffs (collectively with Gold,
"Gold Plaintiffs").

The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court
dismissed most of Gold Plaintiffs' claims but allowed certain
omission-based claims to proceed. Gold Plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint on December 16, 2015, and then a Third Amended
Complaint on January 20, 2016.

In the Third Amended Complaint, Gold Plaintiffs allege that the
Company has engaged in unfair business practices and unfair
competition by falsely representing the quality and
characteristics of the Bamboo Product and by concealing the Bamboo
Product's defective nature. Gold Plaintiffs seek the certification
of a class of individuals in the United States who purchased the
Bamboo Product, as well as seven state subclasses of individuals
who are residents of California, New York, Illinois, West
Virginia, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Florida, respectively, and
purchased the Bamboo Product for personal, family, or household
use. Gold Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their
complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Gold
Plaintiffs seek (i) a declaration that the Company's actions
violate the law and that it is financially responsible for
notifying all purported class members, (ii) injunctive relief
requiring the Company to replace and/or repair all of the Bamboo
Product installed in structures owned by the purported class
members, and (iii) a declaration that the Company must disgorge,
for the benefit of the purported classes, all or part of the
profits received from the sale of the allegedly defective Bamboo
Product and/or to make full restitution to Gold Plaintiffs and the
purported class members.

Fact discovery in the matter is now complete. The Gold Plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification seeking to certify state-
wide classes for purchases of the Bamboo Product in California,
Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The
Company filed an opposition to class certification and a motion to
exclude the opinions of the Gold Plaintiffs' experts. These
motions are currently pending.

In addition, there are a number of other claims and lawsuits
alleging damages similar to those in the Gold matter. The Company
disputes these and the Gold Plaintiffs' claims and intends to
defend such matters vigorously. Given the uncertainty of
litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal
standards that must be met for, among other things, class
certification and success on the merits, the Company is unable to
estimate the amount of loss, or range of possible loss, at this
time that may result from this action.

Lumber Liquidators is the largest specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring in North America, offering a complete purchasing solution
across an extensive assortment of domestic and exotic hardwood
species, engineered hardwood, laminate, resilient vinyl,
engineered vinyl plank, bamboo, engineered bamboo, cork and wood-
look ceramic tile.


MADISON COUNTY, MS: Sheriff Disputes Racial Bias Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Mitchell at The Clarion-Ledger reports Madison County
Sheriff Randy Tucker promised to "vigorously defend" his office
against accusations leveled by a class-action lawsuit alleging
racial bias.

The sheriff said he has reviewed the lawsuit, which accuses his
office of targeting black residents with unconstitutional and
sometimes violent searches and seizures and arresting them at
nearly five times the rate of white residents.

Tucker disputed that.

"Our deputies are professional law enforcement officials who
enforce Mississippi laws," he said in a statement. "If a law is
broken, appropriate action is taken regardless of the race of the
one breaking said law. As always, we have fairly and diligently
executed the duties for which we are required."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi and the New York
City-based law firm of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett filed the class-
action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Jackson against Tucker
and his deputies.

Many black residents "experience chronic fear and anxiety,
disruptions to their everyday activities, restrictions on travel
within their own neighborhoods and towns, and a tremendous
reluctance to contact law enforcement officials for assistance
when necessary," the lawsuit claims. "The Policing Program has
placed the black community of Madison County under a permanent
state of siege."

Lawyers filed the litigation on behalf of 10 black residents of
Madison County -- a place long divided by money and race.

The southern half of the state's wealthiest county is mostly
white, while the northern half is mostly black. The financial
divide is stark -- the average household income in mostly white
Madison is $97,000, compared to $40,000 in mostly black Canton,
which suffers from a 27 percent poverty rate.

Similar allegations against frequent roadblocks, racial profiling
and excessive force were made against then-Sheriff Toby Trowbridge
in 2004, 2006 and 2007.

Trowbridge responded then that there was no racial profiling or
abuse, that roadblocks were "random" and that claims of
discrimination were "totally unfounded."

The new lawsuit accuses Tucker of targeting black residents
through roadblocks, pedestrian checkpoints, warrantless searches
and "Jump Out Patrols."

"Between May and September 2016, 81 percent of arrests at
roadblocks and 82 percent of arrests at pedestrian stops in
Madison County were of black individuals," according to the
lawsuit.

The litigation alleges the sheriff keeps no records of roadblocks,
and ACLU officials say Tucker no longer makes a complaint form
available to residents wanting to file complaints against
deputies.

"For at least a decade, defendant Madison County has had actual
knowledge of a longstanding pattern of constitutional violations
inflicted on the black community . . . pursuant to the Policing
Program," the lawsuit alleges. "By both its action and inaction,
defendant Madison County has either sanctioned, or been
deliberately indifferent to, the (sheriff's) policy of
systematically executing unreasonable searches and seizures on the
basis of race."

The litigation is seeking an injunction to halt the sheriff's
actions and a civilian review board to review citizens'
complaints.

In February 2013, then-Deputy Robert Gibson raised concerns about
the targeting of black residents and "white officers using
excessive force and beating black individuals."

Gibson was reportedly fired. He filed a lawsuit in U.S. District
Court in Jackson, claiming racial discrimination and retaliation.

Tucker vowed to defend his office against "every aspect of ACLU's
lawsuit." [GN]


MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Local 589 Suit Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority filed an
appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit titled Local
589, Amalgamated Transit, et al. v. MBTA, Case No. 1:13-cv-11455-
ADB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, 10 named MBTA employees and their union, claim that
they are owed compensation for after-work and between-shift
travel, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Massachusetts
wage and hour laws.  The Plaintiffs initiated the putative class
action on June 17, 2013, on behalf of MBTA bus operators, train
operators, train attendants, streetcar operators, trackless
trolley operators and customer service agents, who were allegedly
required to travel from one assigned location to another during
their workday without compensation.

The appellate case is captioned as Local 589, Amalgamated Transit,
et al. v. MBTA, Case No. 17-1443, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees LOCAL 589, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, PATRICK
F. HOGAN, TIMOTHY C. BROWN, HERIBERTO CORA, ANDREW HUNTER, DAVID
JORDAN, STEPHEN MAHER, DENNIS PERRY, ALLEN R. LEE, TRACEY SPENCER
and JEFFREY WILLIAMS, And all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Paul T. Hynes, Esq.
          Brian Jay Rogal, Esq.
          ANGOFF GOLDMAN MANNING & HYNES PC
          100 River Ridge Dr., Suite 203
          Norwood, MA 02062
          Telephone: (781) 255-7700
          Facsimile: (781) 255-7750
          E-mail: brogal@angoffgoldman.com
                  phynes@angoffgoldman.com

               - and -

          Douglas Taylor, Esq.
          GROMFINE, TAYLOR & TYLER, P.C.
          1420 King Street
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 683-7780
          Facsimile: (703) 683-8616
          E-mail: dtaylor@lbgt.com

Defendant-Appellant MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY is
represented by:

          Mark W. Batten, Esq.
          Laura E. Deck, Esq.
          Alison M. Langlais, Esq.
          Rebecca Jane Sivitz, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          1 International Place, 15th Flr
          Boston, MA 02110-0000
          Telephone: (617) 526-9850
          E-mail: mbatten@proskauer.com
                  ldeck@proskauer.com
                  alanglais@proskauer.com
                  rsivitz@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Colin R. Boyle, Esq.
          MORGAN BROWN & JOY LLP
          200 State St., 11th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 523-6666
          E-mail: cboyle@morganbrown.com


MDL 2672: Court Rejects 244 Motions for Attorneys Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Francisco, on April 24, rejected 244 motions
for attorneys' fees and costs from non-class counsel in the
Volkswagen emissions cheating scandal, for failing to show their
work benefited the class, but said they may try to enforce their
claims with individual clients.

The case is captioned, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case 3:15-md-
02672-CRB(N.D. Cal.).


MOBILEIRON INC: Says Settlement Subject to Final Documentation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the case, In re MobileIron Shareholder
Litigation, is subject to final documentation and court approval,
MobileIron, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that

On August 5, 2015, August 21, 2015 and August 24, 2015, purported
stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court
of California, Santa Clara County against the Company, certain of
its officers, directors, underwriters and investors, captioned
Schneider v. MobileIron, Inc., et al., Kerley v. MobileIron, Inc.,
et al. and Steinberg v. MobileIron, Inc., et al, which were
subsequently consolidated under the case caption In re MobileIron
Shareholder Litigation. The actions are purportedly brought on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the
Company's securities issued pursuant or traceable to the Company's
registration statement and the June 12, 2014 initial public
offering. The lawsuits assert claims for violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint
seeks among other things, compensatory damages and attorney's fees
and costs on behalf of the putative class. On April 12, 2016,
Plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated complaint, which no
longer names the underwriters or investors as defendants. On
August 8, 2016 the Company filed a demurrer to the corrected
consolidated complaint. The court overruled the demurrer on
October 4, 2016.

On March 8, 2017, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the above-described actions. The proposed settlement calls
for a payment of $7.5 million to the plaintiffs in resolution of
all claims against the Company, its officers, directors and the
other defendants. The Company will contribute up to $1.1 million
to the settlement and remaining fees and expenses. This amount
represents the remainder of the Company's retention amount under
its Director & Officer liability insurance policy. The balance
will be paid by the Company's Director & Officer liability
insurance. As a result of the settlement-in-principle, we have
recorded a liability of $7.5 million in "accrued expenses" and a
corresponding receivable in "prepaid expenses and other current
assets" for the expected reimbursement under our insurance policy
on our consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2017.

While the Company and the other defendants continue to deny each
of the plaintiffs' claims and deny any liability, the Company
agreed to the settlement solely to resolve the disputes, to avoid
the costs and risks of further litigation and to avoid further
distractions to management. The settlement is subject to final
documentation and court approval.

MobileIron, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries collectively,
provides a purpose-built mobile IT platform that enables
enterprises to manage and secure mobile applications, content and
devices while providing their employees with device choice,
privacy and a native user experience.


MOORE BREWER: "Wiseman" Sues Over Missing Notification Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cristina Elizabeth Wiseman, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Moore Brewer Wolfe
Jones Tyler & North and Cabrillo Credit Union, Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00935 (S.D. Cal., May 8, 2017), seeks an award of
statutory damages, costs of litigation and reasonable attorney's
fees, prejudgment interest and any and all other relief under the
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Cabrillo is a credit union with branches nationwide, including
various cities within San Diego county. Moore Brewer collects
debts on behalf of and with authorization of Cabrillo.

Sometime in May 2016, Plaintiff allegedly fell behind in the
payments owed on a debt against Cabrillo. Moore Brewer failed,
within five days after its initial communication with Plaintiff,
to provide written notification containing a statement that unless
Plaintiff, within thirty days after receipt of that notice,
disputed the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof as such,
then Defendants would assume the debt was valid. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Swigart, Esq.
      Robert L. Hyde, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26
      Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com
             bob@westcoastlitigation.com

             - and -

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com

            - and -

     Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY
     409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Telephone: (619) 222-7429
     Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
     Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com


OREGON: Faces Class Action Over Unsafe Prison Food
--------------------------------------------------
Whitney M. Woodworth at Statesman Journal reports inmates at four
Oregon prisons were fed "green meat and moldy, spoiled food" and
bait fish marked "not for human consumption," according to a class
action lawsuit filed against Oregon Department of Corrections
officials.

The complaint, which was filed May 9 in U.S. District Court in
Portland, listed current and former inmates as plaintiffs. It
alleges the unsafe, unsanitary and neglectful behavior took place
in the kitchens of the Oregon State Penitentiary, Coffee Creek
Correctional Facility, Two Rivers Correctional Institution and
Columbia River Correction Institution.

Combined, the four prisons house about 6,000 inmates -- almost 40
percent of the state's prison population.

Oregon Department of Corrections spokeswoman Betty Bernt said it
is the department's policy to not to comment on matters of pending
litigation.

The inmates named in the complaint said they were given two
options: Eat the "putrid food" or starve.

One former inmate, Bridgette Lewis, said she witnessed spoiled
food being prepared and served to her fellow inmates when she
worked in Coffee Creek's kitchen. She handled boxes of bait fish
marked "not fit for human consumption" and watched as the fish was
ground up and served on a plate that reeked and tasted horrible,
according to the complaint.

When she complained to prison officials, she was allegedly ordered
to keep serving the substandard food.

Inmates also reported seeing green and gray spotted meats, sour
milk, wilted lettuce, moldy bread and rotten chicken.

After eating, the inmates reported regularly feeling nausea, pain
and intestinal distress.

The complaint also alleges that before state health inspections,
officials would direct inmate workers to remove the unfit and
spoiled food and put it in mobile refrigerator trucks. After the
inspection, they were allegedly ordered to return the food back to
the kitchen.

The complaint said the actions of the named defendants, which
includes DOC Director Colette Peters, acting deputy director Brian
Belleque and OSP superintendent Brandon Kelly, were outrageous,
showed deliberate indifference and allowed ongoing, long-term
pain, suffering, likely illness and malnutrition.

By providing spoiled and substandard food to inmates, officials
treated them as "though they were farm animals," according to the
complaint.

The lawsuit alleges these prison conditions violated inmates'
constitutional rights.

The former inmates, represented by Portland lawyer Leonard Berman,
Esq. -- lenberman@hainerberman.com -- of Hainer Berman are seeking
economic and non-economic damages as well as trying to compel
prison officials to provide constitutionally adequate nutrition
and food sanitation for those still incarcerated.

The complaint requested a jury trial, and the case was assigned to
federal Judge Michael Simon. No hearings have been scheduled. [GN]


PAT WILLIAMS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo at Louisiana Record reports a Leesville general
construction company is alleged to have failed to pay a former
employee overtime wages at the correct rate.

John Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated filed a complaint on May 1 in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria Division against Pat
Williams Construction LLC alleging that the construction company
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he was
employed by the defendant from November 2015 to September 2016. He
alleges normally worked more than 40 hours in a week without being
paid overtime at the rate of one-and-one-half times his regular
rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The plaintiff
holds Pat Williams Construction LLC responsible because the
defendant allegedly refused to pay for travel time between
jobsites and between the office.

The plaintiff requests seeks an order allowing this action to
proceed as a collective action, award for unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, interest
and such other relief to which he is justly entitled. He is
represented by Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. --
mparmet@brucknerburch.com -- and David I. Moulton, Esq. --
dmoulton@brucknerburch.com  -- of Bruckner Burch PLLC in Houston.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
Alexandria Division Case number 1:17-cv-00591 [GN]


PCG PUBLIC: Faces Suit for Underpaying Overtime
-----------------------------------------------
Tim Mekeel at Lancaster Online reports that a new class-action
lawsuit, led by a Lancaster city man, alleges that a state
contractor is deliberately underpaying overtime earned by 22,000
home-care workers.

Filed on May 11 in Philadelphia federal court, the lawsuit claims
that PCG Public Partnerships for years has short-changed the
employees, who assist the elderly and disabled.

The lead plaintiff is Ralph Talarico, 59, of Second Street. The
lawsuit does not estimate the overtime sum that allegedly is owed
to Talarico, who earns US$11 an hour.

The grandfather routinely works 60 hours a week caring for one
client, six hours caring for a second client, and is "on call" to
cover gaps in care or emergencies involving two more clients,
according to the lawsuit.

Home-care workers provide companionship, feeding, bathing,
transportation, light housework, help taking medication and assist
with other functions.

Talarico was among the state  Department of Public Welfare
employees who became Public Partnerships employees in January
2013, when the state spun off that home-care function to the
Boston-based company.

The department is now named the Department of Human Services.

Public Partnerships provides this Medicaid-funded "direct care" to
clients who obtain help through the department's Office of Long
Term Living Programs and the Office of Developmental Programs.

Public Partnerships and the Department of Human Services did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.

The 19-page lawsuit seeks to recover the employees' unpaid
overtime wages, plus damages equal to one-fourth of the unpaid
wages, interest, attorney's fees and costs.

According to the lawsuit, Public Partnerships initially paid the
home-care employees their regular hourly rate no matter how many
hours they worked.

State and federal law stipulates that the workers should have been
paid 1.5 times their regular rate for hours worked above 40 per
week.

In January 2016, Public Partnerships took a bit of corrective
action, according to the lawsuit.

The company provided back pay for overtime worked over the prior
two months.

And for the current pay periods, it began paying some overtime,
while omitting some overtime pay or incorrectly calculating it,
according to the lawsuit.

For instance, Public Partnerships only pays overtime for extra
hours spent caring for an employee's main client. If more hours
are worked to care for an additional client, those hours are paid
at the regular rate, the lawsuit alleges.

Public Partnerships also is failing to pay employees for time
spent traveling from client to client, as required, the complaint
claims.

The lawsuit notes that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act can
exempt employees from receiving overtime if they provide
"companionship services" under certain circumstances.

However, the lawsuit contends that the exemption does not apply to
the Public Partnerships employees because of two wrinkles in the
law.

The first is that the workers spend more than 20 percent of their
time providing services other than companionship, the lawsuit
contends.

The second is that the workers are employed by a third-party
provider -- Public Partnerships -- not directly employed by the
client or client's family.

Filing the lawsuit was the law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll in Washington D.C.

Public Partnerships made headlines in early 2013, when the handoff
from the Department of Public Welfare had just occurred, and only
80 percent of the home-care employees got paid for several weeks.
Public Partnerships blamed the snafu on inaccurate or incomplete
information provided to Public Partnerships by the state, their
prior employer. [GN]


PCM INC: "Miller" Sues Over Share Price Drop, Non-disclosure
------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Miller, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PCM, Inc., Frank F. Khulusi and Brandon H.
Laverne, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03364 (C.D. Cal., May 3,
2017) seeks to recover compensable damages for violation of
federal securities laws, and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

PCM is a multi-vendor provider of technology products and
solutions, primarily selling servers, storage products, networks,
printers and related accessories and devices. The company also
provides software asset management, hardware sales and services as
well as software value-added reseller services, managed services,
cloud-based services, consulting, and IT management and related
services.

On April 1, 2015, PCM completed the acquisition of En Pointe
Technologies Sales, Inc., an independent IT solutions provider,
for $15 million in cash and certain contingent earn-out
consideration over a three-year period. Defendants failed to
disclose that En Pointe's financial statements that PCM filed with
the SEC materially overstated the profitability of the business.
Said statement implied that En Pointe's revenues declined
significantly during the first 16 months of ownership. On this
news, shares of PCM fell $2.05 per share or over 8% from its
previous closing price to close at $22.30 per share on May 2,
2017. Miller owns PCM securities and lost substantially. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 785-2610
     Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


PETCO HOLDINGS: "Cote" Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Maria Cote, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Petco Animal
Supplies, Inc., Petco Holdings, Inc., Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-
10171 (D. Mass., January 31, 2017) was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on May 4,
2017, under Case No. 3:17-cv-00898.

Defendants jointly operate 1,150 specialty retail stores
nationwide, selling pet food, live animals, pet supplies and
related goods throughout the State of California and across the
U.S.  Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately May
2009 to January 2015 as an assistant store manager at Defendants'
store in North Andover, Massachusetts. She seeks unpaid overtime
wages, treble and liquidated damages pursuant to Massachusetts
General Law. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
     Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
     Michael H. Reed, Esq.
     KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
     Two International Drive, Suite 350
     Rye Brook, NY 10573
     Telephone: (914) 934-9200
     Facsimile: (914) 934-9220

              - and -

     Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
     David A. Roth, Esq.
     Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
     Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
     HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
     192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 545-1199
     Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
     Website: www.hgrlawyers.com

Defendants are represented by:

     Christopher B. Kaczmarek, Esq.
     Francis J. Bingham, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON PC
     One International Place, Suite 2700
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: (617) 378-6016
     Fax: (617) 507-8046


PORSCHE CARS: Court Rejects Class Cert. Bid in "Butler" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Jose refused on April 19 to certify a class
that claims Porsche Cars North America sells Porsches with
defective alternator cables that cause the battery to die
prematurely.

Plaintiff is a California resident and seeks to represent a class
and a sub-class of statewide consumers who purchased a 2005-2008
Porsche 911 (alternatively called "Porsche 997") vehicle
manufactured before February 2008 (hereinafter, "Class Vehicles").
Plaintiff alleges that the wiring harness in all Class Vehicles,
which is used to connect the vehicle's alternator and battery in
order to allow the alternator to recharge the car's battery, is
defectively designed.

The case is captioned, PAUL BUTLER, Plaintiff, v. PORSCHE CARS
NORTH AMERICA, Inc., Defendant. Case 5:16-cv-02042-LHK(N.D. Cal.).


PROSPERITY 89: "Candido" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread of Hours Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Florentino Bautista Candido, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Prosperity 89 Corp. (d/b/a Thais
New York), Adidsuda Chunton and Gift Rakowski, Defendants, Case
1:17-cv-03296 (S.D. N.Y., May 4, 2017) seeks unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
spread of hours and overtime wages including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs under New York Labor
Law.

Defendants own and operate Thais New York, a Thai restaurant
located at 1718 Second Avenue, New York, New York 10128 where
Bautista worked as a delivery worker, but did other errands every
now and then. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200


PULTE HOME: Bldg. Code Violations Not Subject to Class Treatment
----------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Luck and D. Matthew Allen of Carlton Fields, writing for
Mondaq wrote that couples who own homes in central Florida
attempted to bring a class action against a homebuilder, stemming
from alleged violations of Florida's building code. Section
553.84, Florida Statutes, provides for such a private cause of
action, but also provides a statutory defense for homebuilders
where: (1) the homebuilder obtained any required building permits,
and the appropriate agency approved the plans; (2) the project
passed all inspections required under the Code; and (3) there was
no personal injury or damage to property other than the property
that is the subject of the permits, plans, and inspections. This
defense, however, does not apply if the homebuilder knew or should
have known of the code violation.

In this case, the representative plaintiffs alleged violations of
ASTM standards incorporated into the Florida building code, which
standards addressed proper application of stucco to the exterior
of homes.  Specifically, the representative plaintiffs alleged
that many of the homes this builder constructed in Florida between
April 18, 2006 and April 18, 2016 had one or more of three stucco-
related code violations that resulted in stucco cracking. The
alleged violations related to the spacing between the stucco-
coated portions and other portions of the exterior not covered by
stucco and/or an alleged lack of proper control joints within the
stucco-coated portions of the homes' exteriors.

Based on these allegations, the representative plaintiffs sought
to bring a corresponding class action under Rule 23(b)(3) -- i.e.,
an alleged class in which common questions of law or fact
predominate over questions affecting only individual members, and
as to which a class action is a superior means of adjudicating the
dispute.

The district court disagreed and denied plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class on several grounds. First, it found that the class
failed Rule 23's implicit ascertainability requirement because the
defendant's own records did not necessarily reveal which
homeowners had such stucco problems and did not account for
subsequent purchasers. In addition, resolving the ascertainability
issue through self-identification of class members would have been
administratively infeasible and would have resulted in
individualized mini-trials to determine whether each potential
claimant actually fell within the proposed class definition.

Second, the asserted class failed the Rule 23(a)'s commonality
requirement. Commonality requires that the class members have
suffered the same injury (not just a violation of the same
provision of the law).  Plaintiffs had not attempted to show, and
likely could not show, through common proof, that all potential
class members' stucco issues were caused by one or more of the
alleged ASTM violations. As the district court explained, "merely
showing that a house has Code violations and cracked stucco is not
enough to establish that the former caused the latter."

Third and finally, the class failed Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance
and superiority requirements because each instance of alleged
stucco cracking would have to be individually examined -- not
established through common proof -- and thus individualized issues
would predominate. Further, there were other individualized issues
such as the potential applicability of Florida's pertinent five-
year statute of limitations for actions founded on the
construction of improvements to real property. Superiority failed
for largely the same reasons because where common issues of law or
fact do not predominate, a class action will not be a superior
vehicle for adjudicating the claims at issue.

For all of these reasons, the district court denied plaintiffs'
class-certification motion.

Gazzara v. Pulte Home Corp., No. 616CV657ORL31TBS, 2017 WL 1331364
(M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2017). [GN]


PURITAN'S PRIDE: "Larson" Sues Over Misleading Promotion
--------------------------------------------------------
Meg Larson and Diane Cabrera, individually and on behalf of and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Puritan's Pride
Inc., The Nature's Bounty Co. (NBTY) and Does 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02536, (N.D. Cal., May 3, 2017),
seeks to enjoin Defendants from unlawful, unfair and fraudulent
business practices resulting from misleading labeling and
marketing, restitution to restore to all affected persons all
funds acquired, disgorgement of all monies wrongfully obtained,
damages and such other and further relief resulting from unjust
enrichment and for violation of the California Consumers Legal
Remedy Act and the California Unfair Competition Law.

Plaintiffs received catalogs from the Defendants about special
"Buy One, Take One" offers aside from other promotions with
purportedly "free" products or deep discounts for a limited time,
including on the interactive Puritan's Pride website. Plaintiffs
allege that this "free" item scheme is perpetual and are just
repackaged after the offer period but customers rush to take
advantage of the "limited" time offer.

NBTY sells vitamins, minerals, herbs, specialty supplements, and
sports/active nutrition products via their subsidiary Puritan's
Pride and carries them under the Puritan's Pride brand name. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
      William A. Baird, Esq.
      Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
      MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
      29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818) 991-8080
      Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
      Email: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
             tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com
             atamburelli@marlinsaltzman.com

             - and -

      William Hansult, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF W. HANSULT
      1399 Ramona Avenue, "C"
      Grover Beach, CA 93433
      Telephone: (805) 489-1448
      Email: hansultlaw@aol.com


QUAKER OATS: "Anitch" Mislabeling Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Oren P. Anitch, Gina Da Vis and Margie Rizika,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. The Quaker Oats Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
cv-04586 (E.D. Pa., August 22, 2016), was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on May 8, 2017, under Case No. 1:17-cv-03460.

Plaintiff seeks economic, monetary, actual damages, consequential,
compensatory or statutory damages, exemplary damages, restitution
and disgorgement of Quaker's revenues arising from misleading
advertisements, injunctive relief, disgorgement of all monies
Quaker acquired by means of fraud, expenses and costs of suit,
including reasonable attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
reasonable expenses, pre and post-judgment interest and such other
and further relief resulting from breach of express and implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and for
violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Law

Defendant manufactures, warrants, advertises, distributes and
sells its Quaker Oats Old-Fashioned, Quaker Oats Quick 1-Minute,
and Quaker Steel Cut Oats throughout the United States. Quaker
claims that its products are grown using "eco-friendly" methods
that pose "less risk of pollutants and groundwater pollution."
Quaker Oats contains glyphosate, a potent and unnatural biocide
that has been declared a probable human carcinogen. Glyphosate
makes its way into Quaker Oats because it is used as an
agricultural weed killer and sprayed on the oats as a drying agent
shortly before harvest. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
      LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Tel: (215) 592-1500
      Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Andrew S. Tulumello, Esq.
      Jason R. Meltzer, Esq.
      GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
      1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202) 955-8657
      Email: atulumello@gibsondunn.com

             - and -

      Burt M. Rublin, Esq.
      BALLARD, SPAHR, ANDREWS & INGERSOLL
      1735 Market Street
      51st Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
      Tel: (215) 864-8103


QUINTIS: Faces Class Action Over Tumbling Share Prices
------------------------------------------------------
Sean Smith at The West Australian reports downgrades by ratings
agencies S&P and Moody's have sent shares in punch-drunk
sandalwood grower Quintis tumbling for a third straight day to
fresh multi-year lows.

The stock started the day optimistically, tentatively pulling back
some of the losses to top 49.5cents. However, sentiment quickly
soured again on the back of the ratings downgrades, dragging the
shares to a close of just 29.5cents -- down 16.5cents on the day
and their lowest mark since September 2012.

The close took Quintis weekly loss to 73 per cent. It has lost
AUD304 million of market value since May 9.

Moody's and S&P downgraded Quintis's debt and put the company on
negative credit watch, while also expressing concerns around
future cashflows and liquidity.

Moody's cited "a number of negative announcements by Quintis which
could reduce the company's future earnings and cash flow
generation, and potentially negatively affect the willingness of
wholesale investors to invest in new plantations".

S&P attributed its downgrade to "the risk of investor cash flows
being lower than what the company expects because of protracted
delays in sandalwood sales into China".

It also expressed concern lower than expected sales would prompt
investors to exercise put options requiring Quintis to buy back
AUD35 million of sandalwood plantations, potentially testing the
company's liquidity.

"The company is still reliant on less-predictable investments in
new plantations unless sales of its sandalwood products ramp up,"
S&P said.

The downgrades came as Sydney-based Bannister Law sought to rally
support for a potential class action.

The firm said in a statement it was investigating whether
Quintis's startling admissions around a terminated sandalwood oil
sales contract breached the company's continuous disclosure
obligations.
"Inadequate disclosure of this type is simply unacceptable in
Australia," principal Charles Bannister said.

"Continuous disclosure is at the heart of buyers' confidence in
the share market and impacts directly on the share price of listed
entities, as this news demonstrates," he said.

One of the casualties of the share price plunge is US investment
giant BlackRock, which emerged with a 5 per cent stake in Quintis.

The group held 20.02 million Quintis shares, or 5.14 per cent of
the company.

However, almost all of the shares were bought before Quintis's
share price collapse.

The last disclosed purchases were at 72cents, with the group
paying up to AUD1.66 since it began buying shares in mid-January.

Already-fragile investor confidence in the stock has been eroded
by Quintis's disclosure that its board was unaware that an
important sandalwood oil sales contract with Nestle's skincare arm
Galderma was cancelled five months ago.

Sentiment was further hurt by broking ally Canaccord Genuity's
abandonment of the company for an "apparent lack of transparency".

Canaccord downgraded Quintis to a speculative buy, but left its
12-month price target for the stock unchanged at AUD3.38.

"Given the apparent lack of transparency and internal control
processes, we are suspending coverage of the stock," it said in an
investor note on May 11. [GN]


RACKSPACE HOSTING: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP disclosed that on May 10, 2017, it filed a
securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client City of
Warwick Municipal Employees Pension Fund ("Warwick") against
Rackspace Hosting, Inc. ("Rackspace" or the "Company") (NYSE:RAX),
and certain of its senior executives (collectively, "Defendants").
The action, which is captioned City of Warwick Municipal Employees
Pension Fund v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc., No. 17-cv-03501
(S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Rackspace common stock between November 11, 2014 and
August 10, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
violated provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing false and
misleading statements regarding the impending loss of its contract
with Vodafone Group Plc ("Vodafone") and the attendant impact on
the Company's profitability and growth prospects.  Rackspace is a
cloud computing company that provides data hosting and other
related services to business customers around the world.  In
August 2010, Rackspace announced that its Vodafone Contract had
been renewed for an additional five years.

During the Class Period, Rackspace repeatedly touted the
profitability and growth of its international business.  However,
Defendants' Class Period statements pertaining to the Company's
profitability and growth prospects were materially false and
misleading because Defendants failed to disclose that: (1)
Vodafone had initiated extensive data migration away from
Rackspace servers, signaling Vodafone's intent to replace
Rackspace with alternative providers on the contract's April 1,
2015 expiration date; (2) the failure to secure a renewal of the
Vodafone Contract would have a significant near-term financial
impact on the Company's 2015 recurring revenues; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
their positive statements about the Company and its growth
prospects.

Beginning in May 2015, a series of disclosures exposed the non-
renewal of the Vodafone Contract and its concomitant impact on the
Company's financial performance and business prospects.  In
reaction to these revelations, Rackspace stock lost hundreds of
millions of dollars in market capitalization, with the Company's
stock price falling from a Class Period high of nearly US$56 per
share on April 27, 2015, to close at US$29.24 per share on August
11, 2015.

If you purchased or acquired the publicly traded common stock of
Rackspace during the Class Period, you are a member of the "Class"
and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead
Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York no later than July 10, 2017.
The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent
members of the Class.  You do not need to seek appointment as Lead
Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.  If you
are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can
share in that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may retain
counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have
any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via
email at fmcconville@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the
complaint online at http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/City-of-
Warwick-Municipal-Employees-Pension-Fund-v-Rackspace-Hosting-
Inc.cfm.

Warwick is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many
of the largest pension funds in the United States and
internationally with combined assets under management of more than
US$2 trillion.  Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built
on its half-century of securities litigation experience, more than
60 full-time attorneys, and in-house team of investigators,
financial analysts, and forensic accountants.  Labaton Sucharow
has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers,
and it is consistently ranked in leading industry publications.
Offices are located in New York, NY and Wilmington, DE. [GN]


RALPH ROWE: Named Defendant in Class Action Over Sexual Abuse
-------------------------------------------------------------
Toronto Sun reports that a notorious former Anglican minister and
scout leader convicted of sexually abusing dozens of indigenous
boys over a 12-year period is among those named in a lawsuit
seeking more than CAD100 million in damages for lifetimes worth of
suffering.

Lawyers filed the class action suit on May 11 against Ralph Rowe,
the disgraced former cleric who courts found used remote First
Nations communities in northwestern Ontario and Manitoba as
hunting grounds for young boys to sate his sexual appetites.

The suit also names the Anglican Synod of the Diocese of Keewatin
in northwestern Ontario and Scouts Canada.

Rowe, who was ordained as an Anglican minister in 1975, spent the
next dozen years flying himself in and out of isolated communities
where he ran youth activities ranging from hockey games to
overnight camping trips, usually in his capacity as either a
priest or a registered leader with the organization now known as
Scouts Canada.

Numerous criminal trials have heard that Rowe would groom young
boys under the guise of playing games before ultimately sexually
abusing them, sometimes for years.

Rowe stood trial multiple times on sex charges relating to dozens
of boys scattered over the Anglican diocese where he served. He
pleaded guilty to numerous charges and was convicted of many more
over the 1990s and 2000s, but served a total of less than five
years in prison thanks in part to a plea agreement that limited
his time served to concurrent sentences on future convictions.

Jonathan Ptak, Esq. -- jptak@kmlaw.ca -- lawyer with Koskie Minsky
LLP and lead attorney on the class action suit, said justice has
not fully been served in Rowe's case.

He said the indigenous man named as lead plaintiff felt it was
important to seek court action for crimes that have allegedly had
devastating long-term impact.

"This is really an inter-generational and community impact," Ptak
said in an interview. "There's successive generations of damage
that have been caused by this behaviour in terms of children and
the children of those children."

Similar sentiments emerged in a 2015 documentary about the former
minister.

"Survivors Rowe," directed by Peter O'Brian, tells the story of
three of his victims as they grapple with the abuse they endured.

"I don't remember what he did to me, but sometimes I see it in a
nightmare," one man, speaking in his native language, says in the
film.

"Whatever issues they have today happened because of Ralph Rowe,"
said someone reflecting on the case. "Our alcoholism, drug abuse,
broken marriages, suicide is an epidemic. Ralph Rowe has a shadow
over it."

The Anglican Church acknowledged as much this past January when it
issued an apology to all those impacted by Rowe's years of
involvement with the organization.

General secretary Michael Thompson said Rowe's actions have had a
wide-ranging impact and even contributed to a high number of
suicides among victims.

"We acknowledge that our past actions have helped to create a
legacy of brokenness in some First Nations communities, and we
express our willingness, in spite of failings and false starts in
the past, to renew our commitment to dialogue and discernment that
will help us understand more deeply and act more effectively on
our responsibilities," he said in the church's statement.

He said the church has conducted a series of mediation efforts
with the affected communities over the last 20 years.

The church has also abolished the diocese of Keewatin where Rowe
served.

Church spokeswoman Meghan Hilty said the organization did not have
any immediate comment on the recent class action suit.

Neither Rowe nor his lawyer could be located, and Scouts Canada
did not immediately respond to request for comment.

The class action suit is seeking CAD110 million in damages,
alleging all parties breached their fiduciary duties and are
vicariously liable for what happened to the boys.

Those claims have not been proven in court.

Ptak said it is hoped the suit will help bring about policy
changes in the two named organizations to protect future
generations from harm. [GN]


RETAILMENOT INC: Faces "Scarantino" Suit over Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
RetailMeNot, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit by Louis
Scarantino related to a merger deal, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 2, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company said, "On April 10, 2017, we entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger, or Merger Agreement, with Harland Clarke
Holdings Corp., or HCH, pursuant to which HCH has agreed to
acquire all issued and outstanding shares of our Series 1 common
stock at a purchase price of $11.60 per share (the "Merger")
through a tender offer and second step merger process. Assuming
timely satisfaction of all closing conditions set forth in the
Merger Agreement, and upon consummation of the Merger, we will
become a privately held company."

"On April 26, 2017, Louis Scarantino, alleging himself to be a
stockholder of the Company, filed a purported stockholder class
action complaint, or the Scarantino Complaint, in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, against the
Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, all members of the
Board, HCH and HCH's wholly-owned acquisition subsidiary. Among
other things, the Scarantino Complaint criticizes the proposed
transaction price of $11.60 per share of Series 1 common stock as
inadequate and alleges that the solicitation/recommendation
statement filed by the Company on Schedule 14D-9 omits to state
material information, rendering it false and misleading, and in
violation of the Exchange Act and related regulations. The suit
seeks, among other things, an order enjoining consummation of the
Merger, rescission of the Merger if it has already been
consummated or rescissory damages, an order directing the Company
to file a solicitation statement that does not contain any untrue
statement of fact and states all material facts required in order
to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and an
award of attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and expenses."

RetailMeNot operates a leading savings destination, both online
and in-store.


REVEL SYSTEMS: "Bisaccia" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Bisaccia, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Revel Systems, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 4:17-cv-02533, (N.D. Cal., May 3, 2017), seeks unpaid
back wages at the applicable overtime rates, liquidated damages,
costs and attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and
such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Revel Systems sells a cloud-based Point of Sale system used in
restaurants, retail stores, and enterprises that integrates
specifically with Apple's iPad. In addition to sales tracking, the
system includes payroll, inventory tracking, and customer
relationship management features. Its principal office is located
at 170 Columbus Ave., 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94133.

Plaintiff worked for Revel as a Sales Executive out of Defendant's
office in Tempe, Arizona. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
      Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
      235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 277-7235
      Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
      Email: helland@nka.com
             dbrome@nka.com


RMK WORLDWIDE: "Rodriguez" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zoila Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RMK World Wide Inc. (d/b/a Logotastic
Screen Printing & Embroidery) and Robert Knobel, Defendants, Case
No. 0:17-cv-60921 (S.D. Fla., May 9, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages or pre-judgment
interest, post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff worked as an hourly waged embroiderer for Defendants'
screen printing and embroidery business located in Broward County,
Florida.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Robert S. Norell, Esq.
      ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
      300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305
      Plantation, FL 33317
      Telephone: (954) 617-6017
      Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
      Email: rob@floridawagelaw.com


SACRAMENTO, CA: NAACP to Explore Suing Over Discriminatory Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elk Grove News reported that the Sacramento chapter of the NAACP
announced they are exploring the possibility of filing a class
action lawsuit against what they describe as "discriminatory law
enforcement practices in the Greater Sacramento region."

In a statement issued on May 10, the local chapter of one of the
country's oldest civil rights advocacy group said the issue will
be discussed at their meeting. The decision to consider a lawsuit
against regional law enforcement agencies which the Sacramento Bee
found disproportionately target African American and Latino
drivers.

In that Sacramento Bee story, an analysis of nine years of data
found that while Blacks are about 13-percent of the City of
Sacramento's population, they accounted for 32-percent of traffic
stops. Studies conducted in 2001 and 2011 by the City of
Sacramento and Sacramento County respectively revealed similar
results.

"No one should feel that they are less-than or treated differently
when walking or driving while Black," said NAACP Sacramento
chapter president Betty Williams. "However, this practice
continues here in Sacramento, and it must stop."

As part of their determination to file a class action suit, the
chapter has invited attorney Mark Harris, Esq. of Harris &
Associates to their May 13 meeting. Additionally, the chapter is
also seeking people who believe that anytime in the last seven
years have been targeted for police stops based on race to attend
the meeting.

"It's is unacceptable for our community to be victimized and
singled out merely because the color of our skin," Harris said.
"African-Americans are subjected to unjustified encounters with
law enforcement at levels disproportionately higher than any other
members of our community. Those encounters have fanned the flames
of mistrust of law enforcement by Sacramento's Black residents
which is unconscionable in light of the fact we pay their
salaries."

Tomorrow's general membership meeting starts at 11 a.m. at the
chapter's office located at 3555 3rd Ave., Sacramento.

"These stories must be told," Williams said. "Justice must be
achieved by any and all means possible."[GN]


SANDOVAL COUNTY: "Valdez" Suit Claims Overtime, Back Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Valdez, Darrell C. Howieson, Chad Klug, Thomas J. Lohr,
Chris E. Lundvall, Daniel Miller, Zane Ward and Benjamin Zerby, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Board of County Commissioners of Sandoval County,
Defendant, Case 1:17-cv-00535 (D.N.M., May 9, 2017) seeks to
recover back pay, compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages,
declaratory and injunctive relief including costs and attorneys'
fees under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs are current or former Transport Officers employed by
the County at its Detention Center. Defendant allegedly failed to
pay them for any time in excess of forty hours in a workweek as
well as the required overtime premium for that time. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Shane C. Youtz, Esq.
      Stephen Curtice, Esq.
      James A. Montalbano, Esq.
      YOUTZ & VALDEZ, P.C.
      900 Gold Avenue S.W.
      Albuquerque, NM 87102
      Tel: (505) 244-1200
      Fax: (505) 244-9700
      Email: shane@youtzvaldez.com
             stephen@youtzvaldez.com
             james@youtzvaldez.com


SCHAROME CARES: "Lenderman" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lyudmila Lenderman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Scharome Cares, Inc., Defendant,
Case 509262/2017 (N.Y. Sup., May 9, 2017) seeks damages in the
amount of her respective unpaid overtime compensation, prejudgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor
Laws.

Defendant employed Plaintiff as a full-time Home Attendant from
summer of 2010 through March 8, 2014. Scharome usually scheduled
Plaintiff to work 8 hours per day, 7 days per work week without
overtime premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Harrison, Esq.
     HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
     110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
     Red Bank, NJ 07701
     Tel: (718)799-9111
     Fax: (718) 799-9171
     Email: nycotlaw@gmail.com


SELECT STAFFING: "Joseph" Sues Over Illegal Background Checks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Joseph III, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Select Staffing, Insight Worldwide, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. BC660667 (Cal. Super., May 9, 2017), seeks
actual, statutory, compensatory, special, general and punitive
damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs of suit,
injunctive relief and further relief as the Court deems
just and proper under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

When Edward Joseph III applied for employment with Select, a
staffing agency for temporary and/or manual work, it procured two
employment criminal background check reports from a Sterling
Infosystems, Inc. The latter impermissibly disclosed Plaintiff's
expunged convictions which were dismissed. Plaintiff did not
authorize Select to procure this report. Joseph alleges that
Insight and Select violated various provisions of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act in connection with its applicant screening process
by loosely circulating such reports without issuing a notice to
the Plaintiff.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Devin H. Fok, Esq.
      DHFLAW
      234 E. Colorado Blvd., 8th Floor
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (310) 430-9933
      Facsimile: (818) 484-2023
      Email: devin@devinfoklaw.com


SILVER BAY: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed a class action has been
commenced on behalf of former stockholders of Silver Bay Realty
Trust Corporation ("Silver Bay") (NYSE:SBY) who held stock as of
May 5, 2017, in connection with the acquisition of Silver Bay by
Tricon Capital Group Inc. ("Tricon") (the "Acquisition"). This
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota and is captioned Schwartz v. Silver Bay
Realty Trust Corporation, et al., No. 17-1571.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 11. If you wish to discuss this action
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of
Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
djr@rgrdlaw.com. Any member of the putative class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Silver Bay, its Board of Directors (the
"Board"), Tricon and TAH Acquisition Holdings LLC ("TAH") with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act").
Silver Bay was a publicly traded REIT that focused primarily on
the acquisition, renovation, leasing and management of single-
family properties in several markets in the United States. On May
5, 2017, Silver Bay shareholders approved the Acquisition and it
closed on May 9, 2017.

On February 27, 2017, Silver Bay and Tricon announced they had
entered into a definitive merger agreement under which Silver Bay
would be acquired by Tricon for US$21.50 in cash for each share of
Silver Bay common stock held. The complaint alleges that in an
attempt to encourage and obtain shareholder support for the
Acquisition, defendants filed and disseminated to shareholders a
materially false and misleading Preliminary Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A on March 17, 2017, a materially false and misleading
Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A on March 28, 2017
(collectively the "Proxy"), and a materially false and misleading
Form 8-K (the "Proxy Supplement") on April 24, 2017.

According to the complaint, the Proxy and Proxy Supplement omitted
and/or misrepresented material information about Silver Bay's
intrinsic value. Specifically, the Proxy and Proxy Supplement
omitted an internal calculation of Silver Bay's net asset value
("NAV"). This omission was particularly material because NAV is
the benchmark metric used to value REITs, and Silver Bay's
internal NAV was likely much higher than the unfair merger price
of US$21.50 per share. This omission rendered statements in the
Proxy and Proxy Supplement false and/or misleading in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act.

Plaintiff seeks damages and other relief on behalf of former
holders of Silver Bay stock as of May 5, 2017. The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in
prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving
financial fraud.

Robbins Geller is widely recognized as the leading law firm
advising and representing U.S. and international investors in
securities litigation and portfolio monitoring. With 200 lawyers
in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history. For the third
consecutive year, the Firm ranked first in both the total amount
recovered for investors and the number of securities class action
recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report. Robbins Geller attorneys
have shaped the law in the areas of securities litigation and
shareholder rights and have recovered tens of billions of dollars
on behalf of the Firm's clients. Robbins Geller not only secures
recoveries for defrauded investors, it also implements significant
corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial
markets for investors worldwide. Please visit rgrdlaw.com for more
information. [GN]


SLICE TECH: Suit Says Spam-Removal Service Sells Users' Emails
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
UnrollMe, a supposedly free service that promises to rid users'
email inboxes of junk and unsubscribe them from spam lists, is
actually mining user emails for valuable data that it then sells
to the highest bidder, according to a federal class action filed
Wednesday.

Users claim UnrollMe's marketing materials and terms of service do
not adequately disclose that it collects and sells information in
its users' emails to third parties through its parent company
Slice Technologies.

The class action comes on the heels of a Sunday New York Times
profile of Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, in which he acknowledged that
to keep tabs on competitor Lyft, Uber purchased emailed Lyft
receipts from Slice, which acquired that data from UnrollMe.

UnrollMe was purchased in 2014 by Slice, a San Mateo-based data-
mining company. Slice is also named as a defendant in the class
action.

On April 23, the day after the profile was published, UnrollMe CEO
Jojo Hedaya posted an apology to the company blog, saying, "[I]t
was heartbreaking to see that some of our users were upset to
learn about how we monetize our free service."

Lead plaintiff Jason Cooper said he signed up for UnrollMe in
2015, knowing he was giving the company access to his inbox to
scour it for subscription emails. What he didn't know, he says in
his complaint, was that UnrollMe was secretly reading his emails
and selling its findings to third parties.

"Unfortunately, claiming to be a friendly and useful email service
is just a disguise to get access to the valuable information
contained in your emails," Cooper says in the complaint.

"Ultimately, the millions of consumers who registered for
UnrollMe's email 'management service' had their privacy and trust
violated," Cooper adds. "Consumers placed considerable trust in
UnrollMe to access their private and sensitive communications and
UnrollMe, operating as a disguise for its parent, Slice, betrayed
that trust by secretly combing through emails en masse and selling
collected emails to anyone willing to pay."

In the blog post that seems to pin most of its users' ire on their
inattentive reading of its privacy policy, Hedaya said the company
will try "to do better for our users," and make its business model
and service agreement more clear.

"I can't stress enough the importance of your privacy," Hedaya
said. "We never, ever release personal data about you."

The class seeks damages amounting to all profits Slice and
UnrollMe obtained by violating the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act or statutory damages under the Stored Communications
Act, whichever is greater, along with punitive damages. They are
represented by Nina Eisenberg with Edelson PC in San Francisco.

Attempts to contact the parties for comment after hours were
unsuccessful.

The case is captioned, JASON COOPER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SLICE TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., a Delaware corporation, and UNROLLME INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-234 (N.D. Cal.).

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes:

          Nina Eisenberg, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Tel: 415.212.9300
          Fax: 415.373.9435
          E-mail: neisenberg@edelson.com


SOS FURNITURE: "Da Silva" Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Edmundo Da Silva, for himself and others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. SOS Furniture Company, Inc., Mattress One, Inc.,
Mohaned Salem and Jamil Salem, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21666,
(S.D. Fla., May 4, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory overtime
wage, damages and an equal amount of liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, all interest
allowed by law, and such other and further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendants have been in the business of marketing, sales and
promotion of mattress and related items such as box springs,
frames, etc. through multiple stores under "Mattress 1 One."
Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an inside sales person at their
Miami-Dade and Broward stores from April 25, 2016 to February 17,
2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
      FAIRLAW FIRM
      7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450
      Miami, FL 33156
      Tel: (305) 230-4884
      Fax: (305) 230-4844
      Email: brian@fairlawattorney.com


SPECIAL CARE: "Tracy" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle Tracy, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Special Care Group Home, Inc. and Maxine
Martin, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00250 (M.D. Fla., May 9,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and back wages, minimum
wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dietz worked for Special Care as a certified nursing assistant.
She claims to be denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A.
      4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
      Cape Coral, FL 33904
      Telephone: (239) 549-6689
      Email: berkelaw@yahoo.com


SPIN MASTER: Hejduk Drops Suit over Hatchimals
----------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a mom who claimed in Fresno, Calif. the popular Hatchimals toys
don't always hatch -- instead producing unhappiness ranging from
"disappointing to tragic" -- has voluntarily dismissed her federal
class action.

Lead plaintiff Jodie Hejduk on April 17, moved to dismiss the
entire case with prejudice, barring her from bringing a future
action on the same claims.

"Defendants Spin Master Corp. and Spin Master Inc. have not
answered plaintiff's complaint or filed a motion for summary
judgment. Accordingly, this matter may be dismissed with prejudice
without an order of the court," the dismissal states.

Hejduk's ttorney Benjamin Meiselas with Geragos & Geragos did not
immediately return calls or emails seeking comment. Ryan Evans
with Winston & Strawn, who represented Spin Master, also did not
immediately return messages seeking comment.

Hatchimals are small stuffed animals that hatch out of the
brightly colored, spotted eggs they are sold in. Most look like
little birds with button noses and big, round eyes. Since the egg
does not reveal which animal is inside, hatching is the toy's
primary draw and the most exciting part for kids, according to
Hejduk's Jan. 19 lawsuit.

Released in time for the holidays last year, Hatchimals were the
must-have gift and frequently sold for $50 to $60. Parents who
were not lucky enough to snag one in stores often paid up to seven
times the retail price on eBay and other internet sites.

"This was an aggressive and brilliant marketing campaign built on
a house of cards and lies for a product that was not ready for the
market," Hejduk's attorney Meiselas told Courthouse News at the
time of the filing. "Spin Master knew it was spinning consumers;
they knew the product didn't hatch."

He noted the irony of the company's name, and said stories told by
families who bought the toy "border on extreme disappointment to
tragic, depending on different families' situations and their
ability to purchase these expensive items."

He added, "They were playing on the most visceral emotions of a
family: a child's happiness. It exceeds a mere letdown and caused
real damages."

Toys R Us has Hatchimals for sale at $59.99 on its website as of
April 17. Wal-Mart advertised its exclusive Hatchimal on its
website at $48.88, though it was out of stock, and others at
$79.98.

Spin Master made millions in profits off the popular toy, but many
consumers from around the world reported that the toys did not
actually hatch as advertised, according to the lawsuit.

Hejduk said she bought a Hatchimal for her daughter's birthday,
but her child was sorely "dismayed" when the toy never hatched
though they followed all the instructions.

Other parents wrote scathing reviews on Toys R Us and Amazon.com's
websites.

In a statement issued on April 12, Spin Master said it had doubled
the size of its customer-service team to respond to the issue and
has also posted troubleshooting and how-to tips on its website to
help customers hatch the toys. The company said the Hejduk's
lawyer praised the response, noting since Spin Master has handled
the backlog of complaints, issued refunds or replaced the
defective toys, there is no further need for the lawsuit.

"We view the plaintiff's voluntarily withdrawal of the class
action suit as a validation of our Hatchimals product and an
endorsement of the efforts undertaken by Spin Master to address
all of the consumer questions," Spin Master COO and global
president Ben Gadbois said in a statement.

The case is captioned, JODIE HEJDUK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. SPIN MASTER CORP.,
and SPIN MASTER, INC., Defendants.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
Eric Y. Hahn, Esq.
GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC
644 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 625-3900
Facsimile: (213) 232-3255
E-mail: mark@geragos.com
        meiselas@geragos.com
        eric@geragos.com

     - and -

Lori G. Feldman Esq.
Andrea Clisura Esq.
Courtney E. Maccarone Esq.
Justin G. Sherman, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
30Broad Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
E-mail: lfeldman@zlk.com
        aclisura@zlk.com
        cmaccarone@zlk.com
        jsherman@zlk.com


SRA VENTURES: Faxing Without Opt-Out Leads to $135MM Payment
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Katzenstein, Jean Marie R. Pechette and Jarno J. Vanto of
Polsinelli, writing for National Law Review reports that Florida-
based radiology provider, SRA Ventures, and two units of Canada-
based cardiology and imaging service provider, KMH Labs, have
agreed to pay Medical & Chiropractic Clinic Inc. US$1.35 million
to settle a proposed class action lawsuit after the providers
faxed nearly 5,600 advertisements that did not contain necessary
opt-out language, allegedly in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005 ("JFPA"), and FCC regulations.

According to the notice of settlement agreement filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
on May 2, 2017, defendants SRA Ventures, a Florida-based radiology
provider doing business as WestCoast Radiology, and two units of
KMH Labs, a Canadian cardiology and imaging service provider, will
pay the amount into a settlement fund to be distributed to class
members who received the faxes, in addition to attorneys' fees,
costs, administering the settlement, and incentive awards.

Under the JFPA, it is unlawful for a person to use a telephone fax
machine, computer or another device to send an unsolicited
advertisement to a telephone fax machine. Additionally, the JFPA
requires that senders of faxed advertisements place a clear and
conspicuous notice on the first page of the transmission regarding
the ability to opt-out. In this case, the sender did not include
the opt-out notice and did not meet any of the exceptions such as
a prior business relationship.

The faxes at issue were sent to 1,805 different fax numbers during
four days in early February and early March 2016. Settlement class
members who submit timely claims will receive proportional shares
of the fund, up to US$500 per fax received, which is the same
amount they would receive as statutory damages.

The use of faxes has decreased in recent years, but litigation
regarding junk faxes that violate the TCPA is not likely to go
away anytime soon. On the same day Medical & Chiropractic Clinic,
Inc. v. KMH Cardiology Centers, Inc. et al. was decided, an
Illinois appellate court ruled on a different case regarding a
settlement reached regarding alleged junk faxes in CE Design Ltd.
v. HealthCraft Inc. et al. Although the court upheld the trial
court's decision not to revive an eight-year legal battle about
the indemnification of a Canadian home health-support company
regarding the alleged junk faxes, each case underscores the
spectrum of complex issues involved in TCPA cases. [GN]


ST. JUDE: Faces Class Action Over Implantable Defibrillators
------------------------------------------------------------
Sheryl Ubelacker at City News reports two Toronto law firms have
launched a Canada-wide class-action lawsuit against the
manufacturers of implantable defibrillators that can fail with
little or no warning because of potentially defective batteries.

About 8,000 Canadians were implanted with the cardiac
defibrillators with the brand names Fortify, Fortify Assura,
Fortify Assura MP, Unify, Unify Assura, or Unify Quadra, which
were manufactured between January 2010 and May 23, 2015. Those
made after that period are not affected by the defect.

U.S.-based manufacturer St. Jude Medical Inc. and subsidiary St.
Jude Medical Canada Inc. are named as defendants in the
multimillion-dollar class-action suit, which has been filed with
Ontario Superior Court, said Paul Miller, Esq. -- pmiller@hsh.com
-- a partner in the law firm Howie, Sacks & Henry.

Miller, whose company teamed up with law firm Waddell Phillips to
launch the legal action, said the court has to first certify the
case as a class-action, which he hopes will occur by late fall. He
said a similar class-action suit in the U.S. is also in
preliminary stages.

Both Health Canada and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have
issued warnings about the St. Jude devices, which automatically
shock the heart into normal rhythm in people who have potentially
life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias or heart failure.

Those warnings were in response to the discovery that some of the
devices' batteries developed a lithium cluster formation, causing
them to short-circuit and their power to rapidly deplete, leading
to premature failure.

Two European patients who had the defibrillators implanted in
their chests died when the batteries failed, one of them just days
before a planned surgical replacement. In Canada, there have been
more than two dozen reports of patients losing consciousness due
to lack of blood to the brain after their devices faltered.

St. Jude Medical was purchased in January by Chicago-based Abbott
Laboratories for about US$25 billion.

In an emailed statement, an Abbott spokesperson said the company
plans to "defend its position" in the pending Canadian class-
action lawsuit, and noted that "the safety and quality of Abbott's
products is our top priority."

The representative patient plaintiff in the suit is Shirley Houle
of Port Hope, Ont., who had a Fortify Assura defibrillator
implanted in January 2014. According to the statement of claim
submitted to the court, Houle was informed by doctors about the
potential for her defibrillator to fail in October 2016, leaving
her "enormously distraught and anxious" and fearful to drive by
herself or to travel outside Canada.

Her husband Roland is named as the representative plaintiff under
the Family Law Act for damages suffered as a result of injuries
and losses suffered by his wife, the statement of claim says.

Houle's defibrillator, which was not supposed to require
replacement for another four years, was surgically removed in
March and replaced with a different model.

"You are causing someone to have a surgery at an earlier stage and
at least an extra surgery," said Miller. The lawsuit claims St.
Jude Medical breached its duty of care in failing to warn
patients, doctors and government regulators about the potentially
serious defect in the devices.

The defibrillators, introduced in 2010, are meant to last for at
least seven years before their batteries deplete and the products
need replacing. They are designed to vibrate at regular intervals
once power begins to decline, a signal that patients should see
their doctors about a replacement within 90 days.

"Obviously, if you have an implanted device and you can have the
battery deplete without any warning, it could be a serious
problem," said Miller.

Last October, St. Jude Medical notified doctors about the
defective battery in some of their defibrillators, which had been
implanted in almost 400,000 patients worldwide. Following a recall
of the products, 841 were returned to the company because their
batteries had unexpectedly failed.

But in an April 12 letter to St. Jude Medical, the FDA said the
company had played down the battery failure and continued shipping
the defibrillators from its Sylvan, Calif., plant for years before
the devices were recalled last fall.

The FDA also said the device maker had not shown it was taking
sufficient action to repair the defects and ordered the company to
provide a new reporting plan.

However, Abbott's spokesperson said the company has "worked to
provide consistent updates to regulatory authorities and our
global customers around ongoing analysis of performance data from
the affected device population.

"Recently, the company analyzed affected devices that were
returned for product analysis due to premature battery depletion.
Importantly, the rates of patient impact remain low and to date,
the adverse event rates have shown no indication of acceleration."
[GN]


SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: Warciak Appeals Decision to Seventh Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Matthew Warciak filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Matthew Warciak v. Subway Restaurants,
Incorporated, Case No. 1:16-cv-08694, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks disgorgement of any ill-gotten funds acquired as a result of
its unlawful telephone calling practices, actual, statutory, and
treble damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such
other and further relief that the Court deems reasonable and just
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Subway operates a nationwide chain of fast food sandwich shops.
Subway, through a marketing partner, engaged in a massive text
message campaign offering millions of consumers a free Subway
Sandwich in which the recipients of these promotional text
messages, including the Plaintiff, did not consent to receive
marketing messages sent by or on behalf of Subway.

The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Warciak v. Subway
Restaurants, Incorporated, Case No. 17-1956, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet was due May 22, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before June 19, 2017, for
      Matthew Warciak.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MATTHEW WARCIAK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: atievsky@edelson.com

Defendant-Appellee SUBWAY RESTAURANTS, INCORPORATED, a Delaware
Corporation, is represented by:

          Lawrence H. Heftman, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          233 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-0000
          Telephone: (312) 258-5725
          E-mail: lheftman@schiffhardin.com



TIAA: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Excessive 401(k) Plan Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Liz Skinner at Investment News reports TIAA agreed to pay $5
million to settle a lawsuit alleging the firm breached its
fiduciary responsibilities in two retirement plans it provides to
its employees.

Plaintiffs brought the suit against TIAA in October 2015, claiming
their plans overpaid in administrative and investment management
fees. They also said the plans were filled entirely with
investments managed by and paying fees to TIAA, the complaint
said.

As part of the settlement, TIAA also agreed to make design changes
in the plans, including adding non-proprietary and cheaper
investment options. The plans should save more than $2 million a
year in fees with the adjustments, according to the settlement
filed on April 10 in New York district court.

The firm agreed to the settlement, but TIAA denies violating its
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.

"To avoid the significant time, cost and distraction of ongoing
litigation, we agreed to settle," said Chad Peterson, spokesperson
for TIAA. "We value our people and are committed to providing our
employees with retirement plans that help ensure their financial
well-being, and have always acted in their best interests."

The class-action lawsuit involved one 401(k) plan and a second
retirement plan -- both of which TIAA provides to its own
employees -- and was filed on behalf of plan participants from
October 14, 2009, through the present.

TIAA is one of several financial services companies sued in recent
years over its 401(k) plan administration.

In one recent case, Jackson National Life Insurance employees
alleged the company chose high-cost, proprietary products for the
firm's 401(k) plan, violating its fiduciary duty, according to a
class action lawsuit in March. [GN]


TIPTON COUNTY, TN: Faces "Smith" Class Suit over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that employees of a rural
Tennessee county's school system claim in a $19 million federal
class-action lawsuit in Memphis that their confidential
information was released to a third party when the school board
responded to a phishing email with their W-2 and tax information.

The lead plaintiffs are Bobbie M. Smith, Regina Starnes, Debra
Alsbrook, Tonya Kenney, Carla Carothers, Doris Mitchell, Christy
Scherffius, Sarah Davis, Donald Volner, Audrey Starnes and Cynthia
Moore.

The case is captioned, Bobbie Michelle Smith, et al. on Behalf of
Herself and all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Tipton
County Board Of Education, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02282 (W.D.
Tenn., April 24, 2017)

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

Alan G. Crone, Esq.
Bailey G. Hill, Esq.
THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
88 Union Avenue, 14'h Floor
Memphis, TN 38103
Tel: (901) 737.7740
Fax: (901) 474.7926
E-mail: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
         bhill@cronelawfirmplc.com

     - and -

Jeff Ward, Esq.
WARD LAW FIRM, PLLC
99 Doctors Drive, Suite 300
Munford, TN 38058
Tel: (901) 837-9355


TRIBE APP: "Horsley" Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
--------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Horsley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tribe App, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-02519 (N.D. Cal., May 3, 2017), seeks actual monetary
loss, disgorgement of any ill-gotten funds acquired as a result of
Defendant's unlawful telephone calling practices, an injunction
requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited autodialed text
messaging activities, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and
such other and further relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Tribe has a mobile video-messaging application that allows up to
eight people to video message each other simultaneously. It
allegedly sent unsolicited text messages to consumers' cellular
telephones without their prior consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven L. Weinstein, Esq.
      5101 Crockett Place
      Oakland, CA 94602
      Telephone: (510) 336-2181
      Facsimile: (510) 336-2181
      Email: steveattorney@comcast.net

             - and -

      Blake J. Dugger, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
      1011 W. Colter St., #236
      Phoenix, AZ 85013
      Telephone: (602) 441-3704
      Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
      Email: blake@stefancoleman.com


TWITTER INC: Shareholder Class Suits Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company currently
has pending shareholder class action lawsuits alleging violations
of securities laws filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California and the Superior Court for San
Mateo County in California, naming current and former officers as
defendants.

Twitter, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in April 2007, and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California. Twitter offers
products and services for users, advertisers, developers and
platform and data partners.


UBER TECH: Spies on Lyft Drivers, "Gonzalez" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that in the latest in a long string of lawsuits against ride-
hailing company, Uber, a former driver for competitor Lyft has
accused the company of spying on Lyft drivers to lure them away.

Lead plaintiff Michael Gonzalez's class action, filed in San
Francisco federal court on April 24, claims that Uber used spyware
codenamed "Hell" to access Lyft's computer systems to determine
which Lyft drivers also worked for Uber. Gonzalez says Uber then
offered those drivers pay bonuses and steered more ride requests
their way to manipulate them into funneling their work time toward
Uber.

According to Gonzalez, Uber's actions reduced the number of Lyft
drivers on the road and increased wait times for Lyft customers.
Those customers then canceled their rides and hailed new ones
through Uber, bilking Lyft's drivers out of customers and pay.

Gonzalez says Uber stopped using the spyware in 2016, but he still
wants a judge to bar the company from "continuing to harm
plaintiff and members of the class and the public."

"Given the aggressive conduct that has been alleged, it seems
necessary to ask the court for an injunction to stop any related
practices while the lawsuit is proceeding," Gonzalez's attorney,
Caleb Marker, said in an email on April 25.

Gonzalez based his allegations on an April 12 story posted on
technology news site The Information surmising the existence of
the Hell spyware and Uber's use of bonuses and selective
dispatching to lure drivers away from Lyft.

According to that report, the spyware worked by accessing the
identification numbers of Lyft drivers, allowing it to track their
locations over time. Uber then combined Lyft's data with its own
driver location data to determine which Lyft drivers also worked
for Uber. Their names ended up on lists distributed to city
general managers, who targeted them for bonuses.

"Over time, this would have been very damaging to the Lyft market,
harming drivers such as plaintiff and absent class members,"
Gonzalez said in his 19-page complaint.

The April 24 lawsuit follows revelations last month that Uber used
a secret tool called Greyball to dodge law enforcement authorities
in cities like Las Vegas and Paris, where the service is banned or
restricted. In February, Google spinoff Waymo accused Uber of
stealing its driverless car technology to stay competitive in the
coming decades.

Gonzalez is suing under the Federal Wiretap Act, the California
Invasion of Privacy Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.

He seeks to represent a class of all individuals in the United
States who worked as drivers for Lyft but not Uber, and whose
private information and location Uber accessed through Lyft's
computer systems.

An Uber spokesperson declined to comment about the existence of
the Hell spyware on April 25.

A Lyft spokesperson also did not return a request for comment.

Marker is with Zimmerman Reed in Manhattan Beach, California.

The case is captioned, MICHAEL GONZALES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, UBER USA, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, RAISER-CA, a Delaware limited
liability company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
3:17-cv-02264-JSC(N.D. Cal., April 24, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

Mark Burton, Esq.
Michael McShane, Esq.
AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
221 Main Street, Suite 1460
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 568-2555
Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
Email: mburton@audetlaw.com
       mmcshane@audetlaw.com

     - and -

Caleb Marker, Esq.
Hannah P. Belknap, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
Telephone: (877) 500-8780
Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
       hannah.belknap@zimmreed.com


UNION PACIFIC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Valenzuela" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs James Paul Mooney and Lazy Coyote RV Village, LLC,
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Alonzo
Valenzuela, et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-01092-DGC, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona.

Petitioners James Paul Mooney and Lazy Coyote RV Village, LLC, are
the proposed class representatives in the lawsuit.

Union Pacific Railroad Company is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Nebraska. Union together with its
subsidiaries provides railroad freight transportation services in
North America.

The Plaintiffs-Petitioners ask the Ninth Circuit to permit an
interlocutory appeal of the April 19, 2017 order denying class
certification and the February 21, 2017 order regarding
certification under Rules 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the action
seeks to recover to the class of Arizona property owners unpaid
rents, damages, and interest, as a result of the Defendant's
trespass upon the class's real property and wrongful occupation
with the railroad to use the subsurface of the railroad right-of-
way.

In their memorandum addressing issue on certification, the
Plaintiffs define the proposed issue class as "[a]ll landowners
who from January 1, 1983 to the date of class certification, own
or have owned land adjoining the railroad right-of-way granted
under the general Right of Way Act of 1875, on the same side of
the centerline of the right-of-way under which the pipeline is
located in the State of Arizona."

The appellate case is captioned as JAMES PAUL MOONEY; and LAZY
COYOTE RV VILLAGE, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, successor to
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY; SFPP, L.P. (formerly
known as SANTA FE PACIFIC PIPELINES, INC., formerly known as
SOUTHERN PACIFIC PIPELINES, INC.); KINDER MORGAN OPERATING L.P.
"D"; and KINDER MORGAN G.P., INC., Case No. 17-80078, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Petitioners are represented by:

          Thomas S. Stewart, Esq.
          Elizabeth G. McCulley, Esq.
          STEWART, WALD & MCCULLEY, LLC
          2100 Central, Suite 22
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 303-1500
          Facsimile: (816) 527-8068
          E-mail: stewart@stewartwaldmcculley.com
                  mcculley@stewartwaldmcculley.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Wald, Esq.
          STEWART, WALD & MCCULLEY, LLC
          100 North Broadway, Suite 1580
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 720-6190
          E-mail: wald@stewartwaldmcculley.com

               - and -

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
          Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  vahle@stuevesiegel.com
                  lange@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          Facsimile: (619) 400-5832
          E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com

Defendants SFPP, L.P., Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D," and
Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., are represented by:

          Steven M. Strauss, Esq.
          M. Ray Hartman III, Esq.
          Summer J. Wynn, Esq.
          Catherine J. O'Connor, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 550-6006
          Facsimile: (858) 550-6420
          E-mail: sms@cooley.com
                  rhartman@cooley.com
                  swynn@cooley.com
                  coconnor@cooley.com

Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company is represented by:

          Joseph Rebein, Esq.
          Andrew Carpenter, Esq.
          Brent Dwerlkotte, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          2555 Grand Blvd.
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 474-6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
          E-mail: jrebein@shb.com
                  acarpenter@shb.com
                  dbdwerlkotte@shb.com

               - and -

          Tammy B. Webb, Esq.
          John K. Sherk, III, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          One Montgomery, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
          E-mail: jsherk@shb.com
                  tbwebb@shb.com


UNITED STATES: Judge Curiel to Oversee "Montes" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
President Donald Trump hasn't seen the last of the federal judge
in San Diego, who oversaw the years-long Trump University class
actions, as the judge has been assigned to the high-profile
lawsuit filed by the first 'dreamer' deported by the Trump
administration.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel was thrust into then-
presidential candidate Trump's election campaign last summer when
Trump said the Southern District of California judge could not
fairly oversee the Trump University litigation because he is of
Mexican descent, and Trump had made campaign pledges to build a
wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and deport undocumented
immigrants.

The judge was born in Indiana and spent years prosecuting drug-
trafficking cases against Mexican cartel members as an assistant
U.S. attorney.

Curiel approved the $25 million Trump University settlement,
marking the end of the road for the case which was closely watched
during Trump's campaign bid. The president agreed to the
settlement just days after he was elected and a week before the
first trial against his former real estate school was set
to begin.

But that isn't the last Trump will see of Curiel, who's been
assigned to preside over a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit
filed in San Diego by 23-year-old Juan Manuel Montes Bojorquez.

Montes who arrived in the United States as a child and was granted
deferred action and employment authorization under the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA.

People who qualify for such protection are known as dreamers, a
nod to the pursuit of the American Dream.

Montes has been granted DACA status twice, with his most recent
status and work permit expiring in 2018.  The dreamer claims he
was wrongfully deported twice in February from the border town of
Calexico, California, and was not given a reason why.  He never
saw an immigration judge or attorney prior to being deported in
the middle of the night on Feb. 17-18, according to the lawsuit.

Montes was apprehended a second time on Feb. 20 while trying to
cross the border after his initial deportation, according to his
lawsuit. He claims he was again deported without being given any
copies of the documents he was made to sign, and says he was not
given any legal justification for his deportation despite his
valid DACA status.

His lawsuit requests records related to his deportation, which
Montes' attorneys say Customs and Border Protection have failed to
provide.

The Department of Homeland Security reversed course from initial
statements it made when the case was filed. The agency said on
April 18, that Montes had not renewed his DACA status in 2015 so
he could work legally in the United States.

But on April 19, officials said Montes had in fact renewed his
DACA status that year and it was eligible through 2018.

The agency dispute Montes had been deported more than once,
though, suggesting he may have gone to Mexico on his own and was
apprehended and deported while trying to re-enter the United
States.

DACA rules prevent those protected under the law from leaving the
country without advance permission from the government. If Montes
had gone to Mexico on his own, that would have invalidated his
DACA status, according to Homeland Security.

No court hearings have been set in the case.


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP disclosed that on May 12, 2017, it filed a
securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client FRANKFURT-
TRUST Investment Luxemburg AG against United Technologies
Corporation, and certain of its senior executives.  The action,
which is captioned FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment Luxemburg AG v.
United Technologies Corporation, No. 17-cv-3570 (S.D.N.Y.),
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded securities of United Technologies
between April 21, 2015 and July 20, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

United Technologies is a manufacturer and servicer of high-
technology products, including aircraft components, elevators,
escalators, air-conditioning units, and military-missile systems.
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
violated provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing and reaffirming
unfounded and inflated earnings guidance, primarily based on the
planning assumptions in two of the Company's key business units:
UTC Aerospace Systems ("UTAS") and Otis Elevator Co. ("Otis").
Defendants' Class Period representations were materially false and
misleading because Defendants failed to disclose or indicate that
United Technologies' earnings forecast relied on planning
assumptions for the UTAS and Otis units that were not fully
scrutinized and were far too aggressive.

On July 21, 2015, the Company cut its 2015 earnings guidance on
the basis of weak performance by the UTAS and Otis units.  In
reaction to these revelations, UTX stock lost hundreds of millions
of dollars in market capitalization, with the Company's stock
price falling from a Class Period high of $119.14 per share on May
15, 2015, to close at $102.71 per share on July 21, 2015.

If you purchased or acquired the publicly traded securities of
United Technologies during the Class Period, you are a member of
the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.
Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York no later than July 11,
2017.  The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for
absent members of the Class.  You do not need to seek appointment
as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.
If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class,
you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may
retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have
any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via
email at fmcconville@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the
complaint online at http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Frankfurt-
Trust-Investment-Luxemburg-AG-v-United-Technologies-
Corporation.cfm.

FT-Lux is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many
of the largest pension funds in the United States and
internationally with combined assets under management of more than
$2 trillion.  Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on
its half-century of securities litigation experience, more than 60
full-time attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial
analysts, and forensic accountants.  Labaton Sucharow has been
recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is
consistently ranked in leading industry publications.  Offices are
located in New York, NY and Wilmington, DE.  [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: "Kim" Sues Over Unpaid Meal Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Kim, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. University of Texas Medical Branch,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00147 (S.D. Tex., May 3, 2017), seeks
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs and expenses of this action as provided under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant operates a chain of hospitals that provide healthcare
services in Texas where Kim was employed as a nurse at their John
Sealy Hospital and Jennie Sealy Hospital in Galveston, Texas.
Defendant automatically deducted 30 minutes from nurses' shifts
for meal periods despite remaining on duty during that time. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian B. Winegar, Esq.
      Helen Ono West, Esq.
      THE BUCKLEY LAW GROUP
      1811 Bering Dr., Suite 300
      Houston, TX 77057
      Telephone: (281) 719-9312
      Facsimile: (281) 719-9307
      Email: helen@thebuckleylawgroup.com
             brian@thebuckleylawgroup.com


VERISK ANALYTICS: Accord in Intellicorp Records Litigation Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the District Court has
granted the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the settlement of
the Intellicorp Records, Inc. Litigation.

On September 9, 2015, the Company was served with a nationwide
putative class action complaint filed in the Court of Common
Pleas, Cuyahoga County in Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary
Intellicorp Records, Inc. ("Intellicorp") titled Sherri Legrand v.
Intellicorp Records, Inc. and The Cato Corporation et al.
Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio on October 8, 2015.

Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint on
November 5, 2015 ("Amended Complaint"), which like the prior
complaint claims violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") and alleges two putative class claims against
Intellicorp, namely (i) a section 1681k(a) claim on behalf of all
individuals  who were the subjects of  consumer reports furnished
by Intellicorp, which contained  public record  information in the
"Government Sanctions" section of the report on or after September
4, 2013 and continuing through the date the class list is
prepared, and (ii) a section 1681e(b) claim  on behalf of all
individuals  who were the subjects of  consumer reports furnished
by Intellicorp, which contained  public record  information in the
"Government Sanctions" section of the report where the address or
social security number of the subject of the report do not match
the social security number or address contained in the government
database on or after September 4, 2013 and continuing through the
date the class list is prepared. Count I of the Amended Complaint
alleges that defendant Cato violated the FCRA by procuring
consumer reports on the plaintiff and other class members without
making the stand-alone disclosure required by FCRA section
1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). Counts II and III allege that Intellicorp
violated the FCRA section 1681e (b) by failing to follow
reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy of the adverse
information included in its consumer reports and FCRA section
1681k (a) by failing to maintain strict procedures to assure that
the public record information reported, which was likely to have
an adverse effect on the consumer was complete and up to date,
respectively.

The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants acted willfully and
seeks statutory damages for the classes in an amount not less than
one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per
violation, punitive damages, equitable relief, costs and
attorney's fees.

On April 24, 2017, the parties agreed to resolve the litigation in
a Settlement Agreement and Release and plaintiffs filed their
Motion for Preliminary Approval of the settlement on the same day.
The settlement provides for a non-material cash payment by the
Company, as well as certain non-monetary relief. The District
Court granted the Motion for Preliminary Approval on April 25,
2017.

Verisk Analytics is a data analytics provider serving customers in
insurance, natural resources and financial services.


VERISK ANALYTICS: June 15 Final Approval Hearing in "Sager" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the final approval
hearing of the settlement in the case, Sager v. Interthinx, is
scheduled for June 15, 2017.

On April 20, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class
action titled John Weber v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk Analytics,
Inc. The plaintiff, a former employee of the Company's former
subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in Missouri, filed the class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on behalf of all review appraisers and
individuals holding comparable positions with different titles who
were employed by Interthinx for the last three years nationwide
and who were not paid overtime wages. The class complaint claims
that the review appraiser employees were misclassified as exempt
employees and, as a result, were denied certain wages and benefits
that would have been received if they were properly classified as
non-exempt employees. It pleads a Collective Action under section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime and
seeks overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief,
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

On March 11, 2014, the Company sold 100 percent of the stock of
Interthinx, Inc. The parties agreed to resolve this matter with
the Company's contribution of a non-material amount in the Class
Action Settlement Agreement executed on November 8, 2016.

For settlement purposes only, this matter was consolidated with a
related action pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court in which
the Company is not a party, titled Sager v. Interthinx.

On February 21, 2017, the Los Angeles Superior Court approved the
settlement at the preliminary approval hearing and the final
approval hearing is scheduled for June 15, 2017.

Verisk Analytics is a data analytics provider serving customers in
insurance, natural resources and financial services.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Dismissal of "Snyder" Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Court of Appeals
for the 10th Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of the Third
Amended Complaint in the case, Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et
al.

On August 1, 2014 the Company was served with an Amended Complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado titled Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et al.  The action
is brought by nineteen individual plaintiffs, on their own behalf
and on behalf of a putative class, against more than 120
defendants, including the Company and Insurance Services Office,
Inc.  Except for the Company, ISO and the defendant Acord
Corporation, which provides standard forms to assist in insurance
transactions, most of the other defendants are property and
casualty insurance companies that plaintiffs claim conspired to
underpay property damage claims. Plaintiffs claim that the Company
and ISO, along with all of the other defendants, violated state
and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well as state
common law.

On September 8, 2014, the Court entered an Order striking the
Amended Complaint and granting leave to the plaintiffs to file a
new complaint. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Complaint, which was re-filed by plaintiffs to correct
errors as the Third Amended Complaint. The Third Amended Complaint
similarly alleges that the defendants conspired to underpay
property damage claims, but does not specifically allege what role
the Company or ISO played in the alleged conspiracy. It claims
that the Company and ISO, along with all of the other defendants,
violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well
as state common law, and seeks all available relief including
injunctive, statutory, actual and punitive damages as well as
attorneys' fees.

On January 15, 2016, the Court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss all claims asserted in the Third Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of this dismissal on
February 16, 2016. The Court granted defendants' motion to strike
the motion for reconsideration on March 2, 2016 and gave
plaintiffs leave to file another motion for reconsideration in
accordance with the rules which plaintiffs filed on March 11, 2016
and, which was denied by the Court on April 25, 2016.

On April 1, 2016, plaintiffs also filed a Notice of Appeal of the
Court's January 15, 2016 Order, which dismissed all claims in the
Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs also filed an appeal of the
Court's denial of the motion for reconsideration, which the Court
of Appeals for the 10th Circuit consolidated with the appeal of
the Court's January 15, 2016 dismissal.

Appellants filed their brief in support of the consolidated appeal
on July 21, 2016 and Appellees filed their brief in response on
September 21, 2016. On April 6, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the
10th Circuit affirmed the Court's dismissal of the Third Amended
Complaint. The time period for which Plaintiffs could move for a
motion for reconsideration of the 10th Circuit's affirmance or
Petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari has not
expired.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.

Verisk Analytics is a data analytics provider serving customers in
insurance, natural resources and financial services.


VERISK ANALYTICS: ISO Dropped from "Halloran" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Insurance Services
Office, Inc. is no longer a defendant in the case, Halloran et al.
v. Harleysville Preferred Insurance Co. et al.

On February 19, 2016, the Company was served with a notice of a
summons and complaint filed on January 29, 2016 against Insurance
Services Office, Inc. and more than 100 insurers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut titled Halloran et
al. v. Harleysville Preferred Insurance Co. et al.  As alleged in
the First Amended Complaint, the putative class action is brought
by four policyholders on behalf of a class of similarly situated
policyholders in eastern Connecticut who allege that their
homeowner's insurance carriers have wrongfully denied or will deny
their claims for damage to their homes caused by defective
concrete. The lawsuit alleges a breach of contract claim against
certain insurers and seeks declaratory relief as to more than 100
other insurers. It also alleges that ISO as the drafter of the
standardized policy language at issue violated the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices ("CUTPA") and the Connecticut Unfair
Insurance Practices Act ("CUIPA"). The plaintiffs ask that the
Court certify a class of persons similarly situated and seek
relief in the form of the cost for the replacement of their
concrete foundations, and a declaratory judgment that all of the
defendant insurance carriers are obligated to provide coverage for
claims resulting from the defective concrete as well as,
attorneys' fees, costs and interest.

On March 17, 2016 plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint that
named additional insurers as defendants.  On May 6, 2016,
plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the First Amended Complaint,
indicating an intention to remove ISO and certain insurers as
defendants and to add other insurers as defendants.   While that
motion was pending, plaintiffs sought leave to make further
amendments to the complaint.  On April 6, 2017, the Court granted
plaintiffs leave to file a Substituted Third Amended Complaint,
which does not name ISO as a defendant.  That complaint was filed
on April 7, 2017.  Accordingly, ISO is no longer a defendant in
this case.

Verisk Analytics is a data analytics provider serving customers in
insurance, natural resources and financial services.


VITAMIN SHOPPE: "Nathan" Sues Over Dietary Supplement Mislabeling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Nathan, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated
and the general public, Plaintiff, v. Vitamin Shoppe, Inc.,
Defendant, Case 3:17-cv-00948 (S.D. Cal., May 8, 2017) seeks
disgorgement of all monies, revenues and profits obtained
illegally, restitution to restore all funds acquired by means of
unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices, actual
and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs and any other and
further relief for violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law of the California
Business and Professions Code, and for breach of express and
implied warranties.

Defendant markets Vitamin Shoppe brand "Garcinia Cambogia
Extract," a dietary supplement that claims to be an effective aid
in weight management and appetite control despite that the
Product's only purportedly active ingredients, Hydroxycitric Acid
and chromium are scientifically proven to be incapable of
providing such weight-loss benefits. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
      4125 W. Point Loma Blvd., No. 206
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Phone: (619) 767-0356
      Fax: (619) 331-2943
      Email: paul@pauljosephlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: New Unauthorized Accounts Revealed Amidst Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Rufus Koren at Los Angeles Times reports that Wells Fargo &
Co. may have opened as many as 3.5 million unauthorized checking,
savings and credit card accounts over the last 15 years -- far
more than originally reported by the bank and federal regulators,
according to a new estimate from attorneys representing bank
customers.

For months, the number of unauthorized accounts that bank
employees may have created stood at 2.1 million. That figure,
reported by regulators last year, was based on the San Francisco
bank's analysis of accounts opened and credit card applications
submitted between May 2011 and July 2015.

But the attorneys, who are negotiating a class-action settlement
with the bank, suggested in documents filed late May 11 that an
additional 1.4 million unauthorized accounts were opened dating to
2002. That's the year, according to a recent internal bank
investigation, that Wells Fargo executives first noticed the
problem of employees opening accounts without customer permission.

The new estimate is the latest in a series of revelations
illustrating how the unethical sales practices at the bank may be
deeper and broader than first imagined. Late last month, for
instance, former employees alleged in court filings in a separate
action that bank workers had targeted Native Americans, college
students and immigrants in the country illegally to open unwanted
accounts in their names.

The revelations have hampered the bank's effort to move on from
the scandal, which was spurred by unrealistic sales goals set by
bank executives, ignored by the bank's internal overseers and not
adequately policed by bank examiners, according to investigations
by the bank and regulators.

The new, higher figure is based on "public information,
negotiations, and confirmatory discovery," according to May 11's
filing in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

The filing cautions that the 3.5 million figure could be an
overestimate, though a reasonable one.

Bank spokesman Ancel Martinez discounted the new number, but the
bank has not released an updated figure of its own.

"The unauthorized account numbers reported in the filing are
estimates made by plaintiffs' attorneys based on a hypothetical
scenario and have not been verified," Martinez said. "The number
of unauthorized accounts estimated in the filing do not reflect
actual unauthorized accounts."

Still, it stands to reason that the number of potentially
unauthorized accounts would be significantly larger than the 2.1
million initially reported, given the longer time period now being
scrutinized, said Scott Siefers, an analyst at investment bank
Sandler O'Neill.

"Mathematically, it makes sense," he said.

The latest estimate stems from several class-action lawsuits filed
on behalf of customers that Wells Fargo agreed in March to settle
for $110 million.

That deal would have provided payouts to customers who had
unauthorized accounts opened for them as early as 2009. But last
month, after Wells Fargo's internal investigation reported
problems dating back to 2002, the bank agreed to extend the deal
back to that point and increase the settlement to $142 million.

In providing the new estimate of affected customers, the attorneys
negotiating the deal are not seeking an additional increase in
that payout. The estimate is cited in a document asking U.S.
District Judge Vince Chhabria to approve the higher, $142-million
settlement amount.

The judge will consider the request at a hearing to be held in San
Francisco.

Despite the higher estimate, settlement documents filed so far
have not made clear how many individual customers may be eligible
for any payout. Many customers have alleged multiple unauthorized
accounts were opened in their names.

If the settlement is approved, customers would be able to make
claims for compensation, so the number of eligible settlement
participants may grow beyond attorneys' expectations.

Consumer advocates and attorneys for other Wells Fargo customers
have said the revised settlement still isn't enough.

Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director at the U.S. Public
Interest Research Group, said on May 12 that the new estimate of
3.5 million unauthorized accounts shows that regulators and
attorneys should continue to dig into the bank's practices.

"We need to keep Wells Fargo's feet to the fire," he said. "We
don't know everything yet. It's like peeling open an onion -- the
depths of the Wells Fargo corruption and its abuse of its
customers and front-line workers."

The proposed settlement is the result of negotiations between
Wells Fargo and attorneys at Seattle law firm Keller Rohrback,
which represents a handful of bank customers from across the
country.

The firm filed a lawsuit two years ago that alleged bank workers,
driven by onerous sales goals, opened accounts for customers
without authorization -- precisely the kind of conduct that the
Los Angeles Times first reported in 2013 and to which Wells Fargo
has since admitted.

The settlement would allow customers who paid fees related to the
accounts to get refunds, but only if they haven't received refunds
already. The bank has already paid $3.2 million in refunds
independent of the class-action lawsuit.

Customers who say their credit was damaged by unauthorized
accounts -- either by unwanted credit inquiries or by debts caused
by hidden fees -- also would be paid back for added costs, a
process that will involve checking customer credit scores.

Customers will have to show that their credit was harmed and that
they took out a loan at a higher interest rate to be eligible for
repayment of the extra costs.

Any settlement funds left over after refunds and credit-related
payments will be split among eligible customers, based on the
number of unauthorized accounts they had.

If approved, the settlement negotiated by attorneys in that case
would apply to Wells Fargo customers nationwide, likely putting an
end to nearly a dozen other class-action suits.

Attorneys in some of those cases have asked Chhabria to reject the
settlement, arguing that the deal does not adequately compensate
the bank's victims and that customers could get more if they
continue to press their court cases.

In a filing, attorneys who have brought cases against the bank in
Georgia, Florida, North Carolina and Alabama argued that many bank
customers may be able to win civil identity-theft claims against
Wells Fargo. They said those claims could result in a much more
lucrative payout than whatever customers are likely to get in the
pending class-action settlement.

In May 11's filing, though, Derek Loeser, Esq. --
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- and other Keller Rohrback attorneys
said that they believe customers would not win identity-theft
cases and that the deal they have negotiated with the bank is
fair.

Part of the firm's argument in favor of settling is that customers
are unlikely to be able to pursue any class-action cases against
the bank because of contract clauses that require customer
disputes with the bank to be handled in private arbitration rather
than in court.

Customers, including the ones represented by Keller Rohrback, have
tried to sue the bank over unauthorized accounts, but judges --
notably Chhabria himself -- have rejected those cases because of
Wells Fargo's arbitration clause.

Despite that, Wells Fargo Chief Executive Timothy Sloan has said
the $142-million settlement is "an important step to make things
right for our customers."

The new, higher estimate of the number of unauthorized accounts
comes on the heels of a Wells Fargo investor event during which
bank executives laid out a bevy of new initiatives aimed at
holding on to customers and attracting new ones following the
accounts scandal, which has tarnished the bank's reputation and
driven away potential new customers.

It's also forced the bank, which long relied on its branch network
to sell more products and services to customers, to rethink its
strategy, said Siefers, the analyst.

"Wells was driven for decades by one overriding notion, and that
was the idea of cross-selling," he said. "They've had to really
transform very rapidly. I think this has been a real jolt to the
system." [GN]


WELLS FARGO: $142MM "Jabbari" Case Accord Taken Under Submission
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jabbari et al v. Wells Fargo & Company et al., Case
No. 3:15-cv-02159 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria held
a hearing on May 18 to consider Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion,
Motion, and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement and for Certification of a
Settlement Class.  At the end of the hearing, the Court took the
matter under submission and indicated it will issue a written
ruling at a later date.

Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Wells Fargo will pay $142 million to settle class action claims in
San Francisco, that it secretly opened credit cards and
unauthorized accounts in customers' names going back to 2002.

The bank was hit hard by the discovery that its staff opened
millions of bank accounts and credit cards for customers without
their consent in an effort to meet internal sales goals.

Lead plaintiff Shahriar Jabbari sued Wells Fargo in May 2015,
claiming it encouraged employees to use fraudulent and deceptive
tactics to persuade customers to open fee-generating accounts by
misrepresenting them or not informing them at all.

Wells Fargo called the tricks "solutions" and set "unrealistic
sales quotas" for its employees, inducing them to add hidden fees
and open unwanted second accounts for customers, Jabbari claimed.
He said he had seven additional accounts opened without his
consent and that his credit score was damaged by unpaid fees that
were sent to a debt collector.

In September 2016, the bank said it was getting rid of its sales
goals for credit cards and other banking products, after federal
banking regulators slammed it with $185 million in fines. The
fines will be divided with $100 million going to the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, $50 million to the city and county of
Los Angeles, $35 million to the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency and $5 million to victims.

On April 21 settlement is an expansion of an earlier agreement
announced last month that adds $32 million to the payout and
includes customers who had sham accounts opened without their
knowledge starting in May 2002, the earliest the bank has data.
Fees on accounts charged from 2009 through 2017 will be reimbursed
fully, while earlier victims will be reimbursed at a flat rate.

Wells Fargo President and CEO Tim Sloan said in a statement that
he hopes the settlement will help rebuild customers' trust.

"The expansion of this agreement is another important step to make
things right for our customers," he said. "On our journey to
rebuild trust, we want to ensure our customers feel confident that
we have heard their concerns about retail sales practices, which
includes offering them numerous opportunities for remediation."

The proposed agreement requires judicial approval, and is set for
a hearing on May 18 before U.S. District Judge Vincent Chhabria.

The settlement news comes one day after the bank also agreed to
settle, for an undisclosed amount, a lawsuit claiming it steered
troubled borrowers into the federal Home Affordable Mortgage
Program to soak money from them, without ever intending to
permanently modify their loans as promised.

The case is captioned, SHAHRIAR JABBARI and KAYLEE HEFFELFINGER,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendants. Case 3:15-cv-02159-VC(N.D. Cal. April 20, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Derek W. Loeser Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101-3052
Tel: (206) 623-1900;
Fax: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
        gcappio@kellerrohrback.com

     - and -

Jeffrey Lewis Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: (510) 463-3900
Fax: (510) 463-3901
E-mail: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com

     - and -

Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: (805) 456-1496
Fax: (805) 456-1497
E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com


WEST VIRGINIA: Group Says Settlement for Lawyers' Lawsuit Greed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dickerson at West Virginia Recorder reports that legal
reform group is calling the $45 million fee request for the
plaintiffs attorneys who have worked on the 2014 water crisis
lawsuit and settlement a prime example of "lawsuit greed."

The executive director of West Virginia Citizens Against Lawsuit
Abuse also said he hopes the fee amount will be "greatly reduced."

One of the attorneys who worked on the class action case, however,
says the request is reasonable and says most people don't
understand all of the work and money that goes into handling such
a case. And the president of a statewide group for trial lawyers
says CALA is trying to distort the facts.

"Dozens of personal injury lawyers will split $43 million, which
means each one will pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars and
some will receive million dollar checks," WV CALA's Roman Stauffer
said. "A family of four that files a claim will barely get $1,000.
In their brief, the personal injury lawyers state the fee is more
than most courts presume is reasonable."

In a May 8 filing, the lawyers followed up on the filing last
month detailing the proposed $151 million settlement agreement
with West Virginia American Water Company and Eastman Chemical
that would provide payment to the nearly 225,000 residents
affected by the chemical spill that left people in nine counties
without water for days in January 2014.

The attorneys seek about $43 million in legal fees and $2.4
million in expenses, according to the court filing. The 2014
chemical spill contaminated the water supply for residents in nine
counties.

Terms of the proposed class-action settlement were revealed April
27 in federal court documents. Attorneys involved in the case
asked District Judge John Copenhaver Jr. to give his preliminary
approval to the 220-page settlement.

West Virginia American Water has agreed to pay $126 million, and
Eastman Chemical has agreed to pay $25 million.

"A family of four that was affected for up to nine days without
water will likely get just over $100 a day for their hardships,"
Stauffer said. "On the other hand, many of these personal injury
lawyers will collect million dollars checks. This is in addition
to the expenses that have been requested separately.

"Lawsuit greed knows no bounds. These personal injury lawyers are
willing to cash million dollar checks, taking money from families
that didn't have water for up to nine days."

According to settlement documents, households that choose the
simple claim form will receive $525 for the first resident and
$170 for each additional resident. Businesses, non-profit
organizations and government entities that choose the simple form
can receive between $6,250 and $40,000, depending on their size.

"We are hopeful that the fees awarded to these greedy personal
injury lawyers will be reduced so more money will go to families
and businesses that were affected by the water crisis," Stauffer
said. "This money should not pay for new mansions, fancy
airplanes, and flashy sports cars for a handful of greedy personal
injury lawyers."

One of the lead attorneys on the case, however, said all of the
details and work involved in such a case often aren't known by
most people.

"The important thing for the public to understand is often not
explained sufficiently," Stuart Calwell said. "A case like the
water case is three years or more in the making. As a plaintiffs
lawyer, nobody pays you. There is no one to send a monthly
statement. And while you're prosecuting a major case, payroll has
to be met, motions have to be filed, experts have to be retained.
And like I said, there is no one to send a bill to."

Calwell, who owns The Calwell Practice in Charleston, said the
cost of operating a firm like his before any profit is realized is
more than $4 million a year.

"Take this case, for example," he said. "An expensive, risky case
like the water case where everyone was blaming Freedom, we had to
spend over $2 million unearthing the failures of the water company
and the failures of Eastman to put together a case against
defendants that could afford to pay and be held accountable.

"It's a gamble. If we had not succeeded, then all that was
invested both in expenses for experts and in keeping the firm
operational would be lost."

He said one way to look at it is to think of the average person.

"Now, ask a person on the street if he is willing to mortgage his
house, borrow from banks all on the gamble that somehow at the end
of the day, he might get his money back and get paid for his
troubles," Calwell said. "Not many would do that. So what happens
when you see a long, involved case come to conclusion and a
seemingly large amount for fees, all of that has been risked and
gambled over time."

He cited the Monsanto class action he spearheaded.

"To bring that case to conclusion after fighting it for eight
years, we had borrowed and financed over $20 million to bring that
case to fruition," he said. "Had we lost, we'd be sharing space in
bankruptcy court with Freedom Industries. The water case is just
like that."

Three firms, including Calwell's practice, were name class
counsel.

"Yes, class counsel was appointed, but there also are 20 to 30
other law firms that will share in that money," he said. "It's not
a situation where all of the sudden some lawyer pockets $45
million and starts living on a yacht in the South of France. It's
a risky business.

"Check the billings of all of the defense firms that worked on
this case. They're in the tens of millions of dollars. The major
companies have insurance for instances such as this.

But nobody complains about the defense side being paid $10s of
millions of dollars. We paid six lawyers' salaries for the three-
year period. It's a risky undertaking, and there's a lot more to
it."

Calwell said a big settlement like the one requested in the water
case doesn't mean a windfall for anybody.

"It's a fair settlement," he said. "On the defense side, it's the
same amount of time and money. It's a confluence of insurance
companies, huge defense firms and plaintiffs law firms that have
the resources to bring this cases. And like Paul Harvey used to
say, here's the rest of the story. There are a lot of moving
parts, a lot of dynamics.

"But in this case, the settlement does deliver a very meaningful
compensation to those who were injured by the outage of water. In
this case, I don't have buyer's remorse. I think it's good the way
the numbers worked out, the guarantees that are there and the easy
claims procedure. Those who don't file a claim still get a check.

"It's one big piece of complex litigation. The settlement, I'm
very satisfied with it."

The president of the West Virginia Association for Justice, a
group for trial attorneys, said the pronouncement is typical of
CALA.

"Roman Stauffer and CALA are again attempting to advance their
agenda by distorting facts and misleading West Virginians about
the water case," Jane Peak said Jane Peak. "It would have been
nearly impossible for an affected resident, family or business to
pursue an individual water crisis case because an individual case
would have been too expensive. The amount of attorney time and
expert fees would have been cost prohibitive.

"Over the last three years, nearly 130 attorneys and legal
professionals worked a total of more than 55,000 hours to
represent the 220,000 people affected. These attorneys represented
those affected for free before both the West Virginia Public
Service Commission and in bankruptcy court. To build the case,
they advanced nearly $20 million in expenses. The attorneys are
being compensated for the millions spent in time and expenses paid
out of pocket without any guarantee that the case would be won and
they would be reimbursed.

"Also, although many individuals and businesses can fill out a
simple form and get a set amount, those whose damages were higher
can also request additional actual damages. It's a matter of
filling out a separate form. Even after attorneys' fees, the
victims of the water crisis will be fully compensated -- something
that would not be happening had these lawyers not put justice
above their bottom lines and risked millions to prove the case for
these West Virginians." [GN]


WHIRLPOOL: Judge Denies Vision II Oven Class Action Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland at Cook County Record reports a federal judge has
denied class certification to Whirlpool customers who said the
company sold them defective, overheating ovens, saying their
expert witness couldn't help them establish that all of their oven
problems arose from the same source.

In an opinion issued May 9 in Chicago, Judge Amy J. St. Eve said,
despite expert testimony, she would grant Whirlpool's request and
deny class certification to Beth Kljajic and Kathleen Cates, who
said the company's Vision II platform wall ovens have an inherent
defect that results in instability during self-cleaning cycles.

The women sought class certification for customers in 15 states
and the District of Columbia who purchased a Whirlpool oven with a
self-cleaning mechanism, and a different class for those who
purchased those ovens from IKEA. Kljajic was pursuing breach of
express warranty and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
They also sought classes for Illinois residents and one for
Illinois IKEA customers, under which they had additional claims
for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, breach of
implied warranty and unjust enrichment. They also sought a South
Carolina class to pursue an unjust enrichment claim.

Alternatively, the women sought certification of injunctive relief
classes, both multi-state and multi-state IKEA customers. All
claims related to the Vision II platform, which involved single,
double and combination microwave ovens in 24-, 27- and 30-inch
widths sold under the Whirlpool, KitchenAid and IKEA brands. More
than 2 million ovens in 322 different base models have been sold
from 1998, though production ended in 2014.

The women relied on the opinion of expert witness Albert de
Richemond, but Whirlpool moved to exclude that testimony under
federal evidence rules and the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. St. Eve said de
Richemond testified at an April 17 Daubert hearing.

St. Eve noted de Richemond's input was intended to establish "an
inherent defect in every oven," as opposed to one confined to a
subset. But, she noted, the women "continually moved the goalpost
with respect to identifying a common defect. The operative
complaint in this case lists a wide variety of defect candidates."
She noted one suggestion "the defect is a confluence of several
design issues," other parts implying the defect was related to
airflow and ultimately defining "the defect broadly as the Ovens
being 'prone to overheat and lock up when the self-cleaning cycle
is used.'"

But the description changed in a reply brief, suggesting the ovens
fail because the design leads to "ineffective heat flow regulation
and removal" during self-cleaning, at which time temperatures
exceed 850 degrees. And the theory changed again during the April
17 hearing, during which de Richemond said the defect had multiple
possible causes.

In arguing to suppress de Richemond's testimony, Whirlpool did not
dispute his credibility, but rather said he offered no proof of a
common defect and that his opinions were unreliable. St. Eve
agreed, noting "he failed to disclose any methodology, let alone
one that is reliable in his field, to substantiate his hypotheses
regarding a common Oven defect." She also said he did not provide
details to support his opinions that the problems do not occur in
the ovens of other manufacturers.

"There is too large an analytical gap between de Richemond's
methodology and his conclusion that all 2 million ovens suffer
from a common defect," St. Eve wrote, leading her to disqualify
his expert testimony.

With that decision made, St. Eve said the plaintiffs failed to
comply with Rule 23 commonality requirements because they have not
sufficiently alleged a defect common to every oven sold to
putative class members.

Plaintiffs were represented in the action by attorneys with the
firms of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, of Washington, D.C.; Sullivan
Law LLC, of Bloomington, Ind.; Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, of
Chicago; Jones Ward Plc, of Louisville, Ky.; and Onder Shelton, of
Webster Groves, Mo., as well as attorney Francis Joseph Flynn Jr.,
Esq. -- francisflynn@gmail.com -- of Los Angeles.

Whirlpool was defended by the firms of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell
LLP, of Denver, and Barnes & Thornburg, of Chicago. [GN


WILLBROS GROUP: Suit over 2014 Earnings Statement Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Willbros Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company is
vigorously defending against the remaining allegations in the
litigation related to the Company's October 21, 2014 press release
announcing the restatement of condensed consolidated financial
statements for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

After the Company announced it would be restating its Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas ("USDC") on October 28,
2014 seeking class action status on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock and alleging damages on their behalf arising from
the matters that led to the restatement. The original defendants
in the case were the Company, its former chief executive officer,
Robert R. Harl, and its current chief financial officer.

On January 30, 2015, the court named two employee retirement
systems as Lead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed their
consolidated complaint, captioned In re Willbros Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation, on March 31, 2015, adding as a defendant
John T. McNabb, II, the former chief executive officer who had
succeeded Mr. Harl, and claims regarding the restatement of the
Company's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

On June 15, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated complaint, seeking unspecified damages and asserting
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), based on alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in the SEC filings and other
public disclosures in 2014, primarily regarding internal controls,
the performance of the Oil & Gas segment, compliance with debt
covenants and liquidity, certain financial results and the
circumstances surrounding Mr. Harl's departure.

On July 27, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case.
At a hearing on May 24, 2016, the court granted the motion to
dismiss in part and denied it in part. On July 22, 2016, the
Company filed an answer to the suit denying the remaining
allegations in the case, which complain of alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in violation of the Act regarding
internal controls, the performance of the Oil & Gas segment and
Mr. Harl's departure.

The Company is vigorously defending against the remaining
allegations, which the Company believes are without merit. The
Company is not able at this time to determine the likelihood of
loss, if any, arising from this matter.

Willbros Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its
subsidiaries, is a specialty energy infrastructure contractor
serving the oil and gas and power industries with offerings that
primarily include construction, maintenance and facilities
development services.


* Greensfelder Comments on Enforceability of Arbitration Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Metha with Greensfelder Hemker & Gale PC writing for
Lexology reports recent Supreme Court decisions permitting class
action waivers in arbitration agreements opened the door to the
question of whether such an agreement would be enforceable under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). (See
American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant and AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion.) The wave of class action litigation
over 401(k) and 403(b) fees has created a forum for addressing
this question, and courts are beginning to provide an answer.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is the only
appellate court to address class action waivers in ERISA
documents. Hendricks v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., 546 F. App'x 514
(5th Cir. 2013). Although the circuit court enforced the
arbitration agreement, it determined that the arbitration panel
should decide "whether the class waiver requires the Plaintiffs to
arbitrate on an individual basis."

More recently, the Central District of California denied the
University of Southern California's motion to compel arbitration
of a lawsuit challenging the fees charged in its 403(b) and
retirement savings plans. Munro v. University of Southern
California, No. 16-6191, 2017 WL 1654075 (C.D. Ca. March 23,
2017). The plaintiffs signed arbitration agreements at the start
of their employment, but they argued that their ERISA claims were
not subject to arbitration because it is contrary to ERISA's
policies. The court first found that ERISA claims were subject to
arbitration. However, the court then found that there was not a
valid arbitration agreement because the ERISA plans had not
consented to the agreement. Although the participants could waive
their individual right to file ERISA lawsuits, they could not
waive the right to sue on behalf of the plans.

Charles Schwab Corporation filed a similar motion to compel
individual arbitration of a purported ERISA class action lawsuit.
Severson v. Charles Schwab Corp., No. 4:17-cv-00285 (N.D. Cal.
motion filed April 7, 2017). However, Charles Schwab's plan
contains an arbitration provision, suggesting Charles Schwab may
have a more favorable outcome. DST Systems, Inc. also has a
similar motion pending. Ducharme v. DST Systems, Inc., No 4:17-cv-
00022, Dkt. 27 (W.D. Mo. motion filed Feb. 22, 2017). These cases
will lay the groundwork for future decisions on the issue.

The Supreme Court recently agreed to address a similar issue of
whether arbitration agreements with class action waivers are
permissible under the National Labor Relations Act. NLRB v. Murphy
Oil USA, Inc., No. 16-307. The court will hear arguments in the
case next term. If the court follows its recent trend of endorsing
class action waivers, it could inspire more district courts to
compel individual arbitration of ERISA class actions when the
participant and plan have consented to arbitration. [GN]




                         *********


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  * * *