CAR_Public/170529.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Monday, May 29, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 106



                            Headlines

1MDB: Class Action Mulled Over US$1.2 Billion Payments to IPIC
ABBVIE: Judge Limits Expert Testimony in Androgel Class Action
ADVANCE TANK: Faces "Hennigan" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
AKARI THERAPEUTICS: July 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Appeal in "Williams" Suit Pending

ALLSTATE CORPORATION: "Jimenez" Parties Await Trial Plan Approval
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Discovery Underway in "Perez" Suit
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: "Rosenberg" Suit Dismissed
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Briefing in Romero Proceedings Underway
ALTRIA GROUP: Faces 7 Smoking and Health Class Actions in Canada

ALTRIA GROUP: 6 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial Thru June 30
ALTRIA GROUP: Class Certification Denied in 60 Cases v. PM USA
ALTRIA GROUP: Class Certification Denied in 21 "Lights" Cases
ALTRIA GROUP: Appeal in "Larsen" Suit Still Pending
ALTRIA GROUP: Still Defends "Carroll" Suit in Delaware

ALTRIA GROUP: "Gwynn" Lawsuit Still Pending in California
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Seeks Dismissal of Farmers' Suit
AT&T: Faces Customer Complaints Over Promotions Overcharging
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Settlement Fairness Hearing in July
BAKER HUGHES: Booth Family Trust Files Suit Over GE Merger

BARRICK GOLD: "Broadfoot" Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop
BAYFRONT HMA: MSPA Claims Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
BIMBO FOODS: Faces "Franze" Lawsuit Alleging Misclassification
BUMBLE BEE: Walmart's Price Fixing Suit Amended to Add Defendants
CANADA: Six Nations Class Action Against HDI Can Proceed

CANADA: CFB Esquimalt Blocks Ad Seeking Sexual Assault Victims
CARDINAL HEALTH: 58 IVC Product Liability Lawsuits Pending
CELADON GROUP: "Depickere" Sues Over Share Price Drop
CELADON GROUP: Block & Leviton Expands Class Period
CEMIG: Chairman da Silva Faces Class Suit over Misconduct

CEMIG: Awaits Judgment in Consumer Classification Case Appeal
CEMIG: Unit Still Faces Suit over Excessive Tariffs
CEMIG: To Appeal Judgment in Favor of CET Employees
CEMIG: AMAR's Class Action Appeal Tossed
CEMIG: Class Suits Want Funding for Environmental Protection

CEMIG: Class Suits Want Formation of Preservation Areas
COLUMBINE EMERGENCY: "Nitzkorski" Seeks to Recover Upaid OT Wages
COREPOWER: Yoga Students Want $1.65MM Wage Settlement Approved
CVS HEALTH: Discovery Underway in Indiana Pension Fund Suit
CVS HEALTH: Still Defends Corcoran & Podgorny Suits in N.D. Ill.

CVS HEALTH: Amended Complaint in "Barchock" Suit Dismissed
CVS HEALTH: Still Defends Barnett & Boss Suits in New Jersey
DAVITA INC: Faces Class Suit by Peace Officers' Annuity Fund
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Judge Has Yet to Rule on Class Action
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Judge Hears Motion to Dismiss Class Action

DIAMOND RESORTS: Fournier Seeks to Terminate Timeshare Membership
DIGITALGLOBE INC: "Bussey" Sues Over Shadowy Merger Deal
F. MILLER: "Hannon" Sues Over FLSA Violations
FERNANDEZ BROTHERS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
FRESNO, CA: Second Group of Residents Joins Water Class Action

GENERAL MOTORS: Defends Subpoena in Ignition Switch MDL
GERBER PRODUCTS: "Hobbs" Alleges False Ad of Good Start Gentle
HALYARD HEALTH: To Challenge $450MM Surgical Gown Suit Verdict
HALYARD HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss "Jackson" Suit Pending
HCP INC: Boynton Beach Action in Early Stages

HERSHEY'S: Motion to Dismiss Reese Slack Fill Class Action Denied
JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs' Appeal in ERISA Action Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Settlement of Quebec Action Remains Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Faces Interchange Litigation
JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Defends LIBOR & Other Benchmark Rate Suits

K & C ENTERPRISE: "Broscious" Action Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
KIA MOTORS: "Centko" Sues Over Defective Bearings
MAJOR LEAGUE: Appeals Ruling in Calif. Wage & Hour Class Action
MDC PARTNERS: Class Action Litigation in Canada Underway
MGM: Plaintiff Fights Bid to Dismiss James Bond DVD Box Lawsuit

MISONIX INC: "Scalfani" Class Suit in Earliest Stages
MURRAY GOULBURN: Federal Court New Venue for Class Action
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Two Retired Buffalo Players Join Concussion Case
NEXUS BUSINESS: "Brown" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
NHCASH.COM: Suit Alleges Misrepresentation in Debt Collection

PACIFIC COAST OIL: Final Approval Hearing Continued to June 12
PIZZA HUT: Allan Myers Represents Franchisees in Appeal Case
POP WARNER: Calif. Court Dismisses Concussion Class Action
PRIDE MOBILITY: Class Representative Withdraws Scooter Suit
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Charges

RACKSPACE HOSTING: Pension Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop
RDAP LAW: Hormozdi Law Sues Over Faxed Ad, Alleges TCPA Violation
REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Appellate Brief Due June 13
RETAILMENOT INC: Boening Files Suit Over Sale to Harland
SABRE CORPORATION: Still Defends Class Suit in New York

SABRE CORPORATION: Suits over Hotel Reservation Fees Pending
SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Class Action Alleges Wrongful Termination
SCOTTRADE: Consumer Class Actions Remanded to State Court
SEC ENERGY: Faces "Martinez" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
SHASTA COUNTY, CA: Inmates' Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status

SNAP INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
SPENDSMART NETWORKS: "Marchelos" TCPA Class-Action Stayed
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Awaits Court Approval of PAGA Case Deal
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert. Bid Pending in Mares & McKinsty
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Barker and Fritsch Complaints in Discovery

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Settlement in "Castro" Suit Pending
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert. Bid in "Julian" Suit Pending
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Hedglin" Class Suit in Discovery
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Garza" Suit Pending in Maricopa Court
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Appeal in "Sheer" Class Suit Pending

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Settlement Finalized in "Ciluffo" Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert. Motion in "Banks" Suit Pending
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: No Trial Date Set Yet in "Anderson" Suit
THAILAND: Civil Court Can Consider BTS Accessibility Class Action
TRINET GROUP: Sept. 20 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit

UCP INC: Faces "Tola" Lawsuit Over Century Communities Merger
UNITED STATES: High Court Set to Decide on Immigration Cases
UNITED STATES: Judge Brown Derides $380MM Cy Pres Decision
VALEANT PHARMA: Objects to Class Action Notification Procedures
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Class Certification Granted in Securities Suit

WAL-MART: Court Okays $7.5MM Settlement in Same-Sex Benefits Case
WEHNER MULTIFAMILY: Faces "Long" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
WELLS FARGO: Judge Questions $142MM Sham Accounts Settlement
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Still Defends Drivers' Suit in Nebraska
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Still Defends Meal and Rest Breaks Suit

XG SECURITY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ZILLOW: Homeowner Files Class Action Over "Zestimate" Tool
ZIMBABWE: Mbare Families File Class Action v. Harare City Council

* Securities Class Action Defendants Face Challenges
* Securities Case Spike Attributed to Change in Legal Strategy
* Slater & Gordon's Top Class Action Lawyers Quit








                            *********


1MDB: Class Action Mulled Over US$1.2 Billion Payments to IPIC
--------------------------------------------------------------
V Anbalagan, writing for Free Malaysia Today, reports that a
letter of demand will be sent to Najib Razak and the 1MDB board of
directors to stop making US$1.2 billion in payments to
International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC) to cover the
default in interest payments on bonds.

Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said a notice would be issued
and a suit would be filed here if the demands are not complied
with.

"We will go to the court to obtain a declaration that the
settlement between 1MDB and IPIC is against public policy.  We
will also get an injunction to stop the payment," he said at a
news conference here on May 15.

On May 4, Amanah deputy youth chief Muhammad Faiz Fadzil had
submitted a memorandum to Najib in his capacity as finance
minister, questioning the delay in action against those
responsible for the 1MDB money trail.

Faiz said seven years after 1MDB began operations, its debts had
now mounted to RM50 billion and the money trail was being
investigated globally in the United States, Singapore, Switzerland
and Hong Kong.

Following the expiry of the 10-day deadline, a new group, Gerakan
Anakmuda Tolak Najib (Ganti) has emerged to take the matter to the
people and to the court.

Ganti comprises youth members from DAP, PKR, PPBM and Deklarasi
Rakyat.

Haniff, who previously represented PPBM chairman Dr Mahathir
Mohamad, has been appointed lawyer to conduct the legal
proceedings on behalf of Ganti and Deklarasi Rakyat.

1MDB previously claimed it had paid IPIC's subsidiary, British
Virgin Island-registered Aabar Investment PJS Limited ("Aabar
BVI"), a total of RM3.51 billion between 2012 and 2014, something
that IPIC disputed last year, claiming it never received the
money.

The question in the minds of many is this: If 1MDB claimed it had
made the payment before, why did the company agree to make another
payment?

According to filings with the London Stock Exchange, IPIC said it
will receive US$1.2 billion in two equal payments on July 31 and
Dec 31.

The agreement is conditional on the Arbitration Tribunal in London
making a "consent award" by May 31.

The filing indicates that the settlement involved only part of the
total US$6.5 billion sought by IPIC, the remainder of which is
believed to be subject to further negotiations.

On May 15, Faiz and Ganti said they would form a secretariat
to begin legal action against Najib and 1MBD's board of directors.

"We call upon the public, irrespective of their political
affiliations to sign the petition so that they could be included
as plaintiffs in the suit," he said.

He said a class-action could be filed to demonstrate that the
right of the people, who were also taxpayers, could not be
trampled upon.

"The youth must also understands that they will in future bear the
burden of 1MDB debts due to the financial mismanagement and abuse
of power by Najib," Faiz said.

Deklarasi Rakyat coordinator Khairuddin Abu Hassan said 1MDB was
set up to steal the people's money through dubious means.
"Now, Najib is using funds from public institutions and imposing
the GST to settle the 1MDB debts," he added.

Khairuddin, who together with his lawyer Matthias Chang, was
cleared of sabotaging the Malaysian financial system, said the
people should lodge police reports nationwide over the 1MDB
scandal.

"We must put pressure on the enforcement agencies to take action
against the culprits involved," he said.

Khairuddin said as coordinator of Deklarasi Rakyat, he would get
the people to sign the petition during political meetings and also
explain the matter for better understanding of the masses. [GN]


ABBVIE: Judge Limits Expert Testimony in Androgel Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Palmer, writing for FiercePharma, reports that a federal
judge hearing the bellwether lawsuit for "low-T" drug marketing
decided the plaintiff's case was suffering from a lack of support
for some of its claims.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly said the plaintiffs couldn't
support their contention the drugs had a "negligent design
defect," tossing those claims, the Cook County Record reports. But
the judge denied AbbVie's effort to dismiss off-label marketing
claims that contend the drugs not only didn't work, but increased
patients' risk of heart attack.

"Plaintiffs here have presented evidence sufficient to permit a
reasonable jury to find that AbbVie had knowledge that its
advertisements contained false or misleading statements," Kennelly
ruled recently.

The decision came in the cases of six plaintiffs against AbbVie's
testosterone replacement drug Androgel, that are set to go to
trial next month in Chicago and which will serve as a test for
about 2,000 other cases in class-action litigation against AbbVie
and other testosterone drug makers, including Eli Lilly and
GlaxoSmithKline.

The judge also agreed to limit the testimony of six medical
experts lined up by the plaintiffs to testify.

The cases began popping up in 2014 after studies suggested the
class of drugs, which includes Eli Lilly's Axiron and
GlaxoSmithKline's Testim, might be tied to increased risks of
heart attack or stroke.

Up to that point the drugs were big sellers, led by AndroGel,
which became a $1-billion-plus hit, driven by AbbVie's ad campaign
that popularized the term "low-T" and talked up the benefits of
taking a testosterone replacement to relieve fatigue and improve
sexual function.

AndroGel sales started plummeting in 2014 after the FDA ordered
drugmakers to note the cardio risks on their labels and to spell
out that the drugs were approved only to treat hypogonadism, a
serious testosterone deficiency.

AbbVie and others have defended their drugs as supported by
clinical and safety data.

Recent studies have been mixed on the risks of taking a
testosterone replacement.  One showed the drugs contributed to a
build-up of plaque in the heart, an early sign of heart disease.
Another that followed men with the androgen deficiency found that
those taking the testosterone replacements actually had a lower
risk of heart attack than patients who never took the drugs. [GN]


ADVANCE TANK: Faces "Hennigan" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN HENNIGAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCE TANK AND CONSTRUCTION CO.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01456 (S.D. Tex., May 10, 2017),
alleges that Defendant failed to take into account all
remunerations when calculating employees' regular hourly and
overtime rates. Consequently, Defendant's compensation policy
violates the mandate of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
complaint asserts.

Advance Tank is a fully integrated industrial construction company
that specializes in the design, fabrication and erection of above
ground welded steel plate structures.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a manual laborer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd Slobin, Esq.
     Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
     SHELLIST, LAZARZ, SLOBIN LLP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 621-2277
     Fax: (713) 621-0993
     E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net
             rprieto@eeoc.net


AKARI THERAPEUTICS: July 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors that they have until July 11, 2017 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against Akari Therapeutics, Plc (Nasdaq:AKTX), if they purchased
the Company's securities between March 30, 2017, and May 11, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Akari Therapeutics and would like
to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you
and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com).
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by July 11, 2017.

About the Lawsuit

Akari Therapeutics and certain of its executives are charged with
failing to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include,
but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company's CEO, and possibly
others, caused false information about the Company to be
published, including but not limited to, false information
regarding the Phase 2 PNH trial of Coversin; (ii) the Company
lacked adequate measures to prevent such behavior; and (iii) as a
result of the foregoing, Akari Therapeutics' financial statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On this news, the price of Akari Therapeutics' shares plummeted.

                  About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com-- whose partners include the
Former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law
firm focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions,
along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation
against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The
firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. [GN]


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Appeal in "Williams" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The appeal in the case, Christopher Williams, et al. v. Allstate
Insurance Company, remains pending, The Allstate Corporation 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 case, Christopher Williams, et al. v. Allstate Insurance
Company, is pending in Los Angeles Superior Court and was filed in
December 2007. The case involves two classes. The first class
includes auto field physical damage adjusters employed in the
state of California from January 1, 2005 to the date of final
judgment, to the extent the Company failed to pay for off-the-
clock work to those adjusters who performed certain duties prior
to their first assignments. The other class includes all non-
exempt employees in California from December 19, 2006 until June
2011 who received pay statements from Allstate which allegedly did
not comply with California law.

On April 13, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to
decertify both classes; both classes are thus dissolved unless and
until the appellate court orders the classes recertified.

On May 17, 2016, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal.
Plaintiff's opening brief was filed on November 22, 2016.
Allstate's response was due May 9, 2017.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: "Jimenez" Parties Await Trial Plan Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jack Jimenez, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company,
no trial date has been scheduled because the parties continue to
wait for the court's approval of a trial plan, The Allstate
Corporation 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 case, Jack Jimenez, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in September 2010.  The plaintiffs allege that they
worked off-the-clock; they also allege other California Labor Code
violations resulting from purported unpaid overtime.

In April 2012, the court certified a class that includes all
adjusters in the state of California, except auto field adjusters,
from September 29, 2006 to final judgment.

Allstate appealed the court's decision to certify the class, first
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme
Court. On June 15, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Allstate's
petition for a writ of certiorari.

The case was scheduled for trial on September 27, 2016. On May 4,
2016, the court vacated that trial date in part because the court
had not approved a trial plan.  No trial date has been scheduled
because the parties continue to wait for the court's approval of a
trial plan.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Discovery Underway in "Perez" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, Maria Victoria Perez and Kaela Brown, et
al. v. Allstate Insurance Company, are currently engaged in
discovery, The Allstate Corporation 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 case of Maria Victoria Perez and Kaela Brown, et al. v.
Allstate Insurance Company was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that no-
fault claim adjusters have been improperly classified as exempt
employees under New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The case was filed in April 2011, and the plaintiffs are seeking
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, compensatory
and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

On September 16, 2014, the court certified a class of no-fault
adjusters under New York Labor Law and refused to decertify a Fair
Labor Standards Act class of no-fault adjusters. There are 105
members of the Fair Labor Standards Act class and 137 members of
the New York Labor Law class.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: "Rosenberg" Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation 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 case, Randy
Rosenberg, et al. v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company,
Allstate Insurance Company, and Allstate Property & Casualty
Insurance Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, has been dismissed.

The Florida personal injury protection statute permits insurers to
pay personal injury protection benefits for reasonable medical
expenses based on certain benefit reimbursement limitations which
are authorized by the personal injury protection statute
(generally referred to as "fee schedules") resulting from
automobile accidents. The Company has been involved in litigation
challenging whether the Company's personal injury protection
policies include sufficient language providing notice of the
Company's election to apply the fee schedules.

On January 26, 2017, the Florida Supreme Court issued its decision
in Allstate Insurance Company v. Orthopedic Specialists, et al.,
holding that Allstate's language was clear and unambiguous and
provided adequate notice of its intent to use the fee schedules.

On February 7, 2017, Orthopedic Specialists filed a motion for
rehearing, which the Florida Supreme Court denied on March 27,
2017. Thus, the Florida Supreme Court's decision is final.

In light of this ruling, the fee schedule issue will be resolved
favorably to Allstate in other pending cases. There are three
cases with petitions for leave to appeal to the Florida Supreme
Court pending. In those cases, three District Courts of Appeal had
previously ruled in favor of Allstate. The Florida Supreme Court
has issued "show cause" orders in each of those appeals directing
the providers to file a response explaining why the Orthopedic
Specialists decision is not controlling and why the Florida
Supreme Court should not decline to exercise jurisdiction. In one
appeal, the provider has acknowledged that Orthopedic Specialists
governs. In the other two appeals, the providers assert that their
petitions to appeal should be granted because Orthopedic
Specialists was wrongly decided, repeating the arguments
previously asserted. Allstate's responses are due May 8, 2017.

"We expect the Florida Supreme Court to decline exercising
jurisdiction," the Company said.

The Company was also litigating one class action on this issue,
Randy Rosenberg, et al. v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance
Company, Allstate Insurance Company, and Allstate Property &
Casualty Insurance Company, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. This case had been stayed by the
Illinois federal court pending a decision on this issue by the
Florida Supreme Court. On March 31, 2017, the court entered an
order pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation, dismissing this
case with prejudice.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Briefing in Romero Proceedings Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation 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 briefing in the Romero
I and II consolidated proceedings is scheduled to be completed by
May 30, 2017.

The Company is defending certain matters in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to the
Company's agency program reorganization announced in 1999. The
principal focus in these matters has related to a release of
claims signed by the vast majority of the former agents whose
employment contracts were terminated in the reorganization
program. The court recently entered a schedule for determining the
merits of certain claims asserted in the matters described below,
with the release issue to be addressed in unspecified future
proceedings.

                             Romero I

In 2001, approximately 32 former employee agents, on behalf of a
putative class of approximately 6,300 former employee agents,
filed a putative class action alleging claims for age
discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA"), interference with benefits under ERISA, breach of
contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs also assert a
claim for a declaratory judgment that the release of claims
constitutes unlawful retaliation and should be set aside.
Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole relief,"
including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated
damages, lost investment capital, attorneys' fees and costs, and
equitable relief, including reinstatement to employee agent status
with all attendant benefits.

                            Romero II

A putative nationwide class action was also filed in 2001 by
former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA
("Romero II"). This action has been consolidated with Romero I.
The Romero II plaintiffs, most of whom are also plaintiffs in
Romero I, are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension
Plan and seek to have service as exclusive agent independent
contractors count toward eligibility for benefits under the Agents
Pension Plan. Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole"
or other equitable relief, including loss of benefits as a result
of their conversion to exclusive agent independent contractor
status or retirement from the Company between November 1, 1999 and
December 31, 2000. They also seek repeal of the challenged
amendments to the Agents Pension Plan with all attendant benefits
revised and recalculated for thousands of former employee agents,
and attorneys' fees and costs. The court granted the Company's
initial motion to dismiss the complaint. The Third Circuit Court
of Appeals reversed that dismissal and remanded for further
proceedings.

             Romero I and II Consolidated Proceedings

In 2004, the court ruled that the release was voidable and
certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents
who had signed the release, for purposes of effectuating the
court's declaratory judgment that the release was voidable. In
2007, the court vacated its ruling and granted the Company's
motion for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiffs appealed and
in July 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
vacated the trial court's entry of summary judgment in the
Company's favor, remanded the case to the trial court for
additional discovery, and instructed the trial court to address
the validity of the release after additional discovery. Following
the completion of discovery limited to the validity of the
release, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment with
respect to the validity of the release.

On February 28, 2014, the trial court denied plaintiffs' and the
Company's motions for summary judgment, concluding that the
question of whether the releases were knowingly and voluntarily
signed under a totality of circumstances test raised disputed
issues of fact to be resolved at trial. Among other things, the
court also held that the release, if valid, would bar all claims
in Romero I and II.

On May 23, 2014, plaintiffs moved to certify a class as to certain
issues relating to the validity of the release. The court denied
plaintiffs' class certification motion on October 6, 2014,
stating, among other things, that individual factors and
circumstances must be considered to determine whether each release
signer entered into the release knowingly and voluntarily. The
court entered an order on December 11, 2014, (a) stating that the
court's October 6, 2014 denial of class certification as to
release-related issues did not resolve whether issues relating to
the merits of plaintiffs' claims may be subject to class
certification at a later time, and (b) holding that the court's
October 6, 2014 order restarted the running of the statute of
limitation for any former employee agent who wished to challenge
the validity of the release. In an order entered January 7, 2015,
the court denied reconsideration of its December 11, 2014 order
and clarified that all statutes of limitations to challenge the
release would resume running on March 2, 2015.

Since the court's January 7, 2015 order, a total of 459 additional
individual plaintiffs have filed separate lawsuits similar to
Romero I or sought to intervene in the Romero I action. Trial
proceedings commenced to determine the question of whether the
releases of the original named plaintiffs in Romero I and II were
knowingly and voluntarily signed. Additionally, plaintiffs
asserted two equitable defenses to the release which were to be
determined by the court and not the jury.

As to the first trial proceeding involving ten plaintiffs, the
jury reached verdicts on June 17, 2015 finding that two plaintiffs
signed their releases knowingly and voluntarily and eight
plaintiffs did not sign their releases knowingly and voluntarily.

On January 28, 2016, the court entered its opinion and judgment
finding in Allstate's favor as to all ten plaintiffs on the two
equitable defenses to the release. The trial result is not yet
final and may be subject to further proceedings. The remaining two
trials for the original Romero I and II plaintiffs were scheduled
to commence in the fourth quarter of 2015; however, the order
setting these trials was subsequently vacated.

On February 1, 2016, these cases were reassigned to a new judge
who initially entered orders addressing pending motions for
reconsideration of the dismissal of plaintiffs' state law claims,
but then vacated those orders.

On April 12, 2016, these cases were again reassigned to a new
judge. On May 2, 2016, the new judge entered an order vacating the
setting of additional release trials, consolidating all of the
original and intervening plaintiffs' claims, and granting leave to
file a Consolidated Amended Complaint by May 20, 2016.

The court entered a second order on May 2, 2016, scheduling
deadlines for completion of discovery and filing of summary
judgment motions on the merits of plaintiffs' ERISA and ADEA
claims, and setting a non-jury ERISA trial to occur in December
2016. The court's order also set deadlines for completion of
discovery and summary judgment motions with regard to the
remaining claims and defenses by the first quarter of 2017, with a
jury trial on those claims and defenses to occur in May 2017.

The court subsequently clarified the scope of the scheduled
trials, ruling that (a) the December 2016 non-jury trial shall
only resolve liability on plaintiffs' claims challenging certain
plan amendments under ERISA ("Phase I"); (b) the second trial was
scheduled for May 2017 to resolve alleged interference with
employee benefits under ERISA and disparate impact under the ADEA,
with the court deciding the ERISA claim ("Phase II"); and (c)
plaintiffs' ADEA disparate treatment claims will not be resolved
in the second trial but will be resolved in a manner to be
determined at a later date. On May 4, 2016, the court entered an
order denying Allstate's post-trial motion for judgment as a
matter of law with respect to the jury's June 17, 2015 verdicts in
favor of eight plaintiffs on the issue whether they knowingly and
voluntarily signed their releases.

On May 20, 2016, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on
behalf of 499 plaintiffs, most of whom had previously filed
separate lawsuits or intervened in Romero I. Allstate filed a
partial motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint,
which the court granted in part and denied in part on July 6,
2016. Among other things, the court denied without prejudice
Allstate's motion to dismiss the state law claims, granted
dismissal of plaintiffs' retaliation claims under the ADEA and
ERISA.

Phase I discovery closed and the Company filed a motion for
summary judgment as to all Phase I claims. Plaintiffs did not move
for summary judgment. On November 22, 2016, the court granted in
part, and denied in part, Allstate's Phase I summary judgment
motion. The court determined that there were material issues of
disputed fact requiring a trial on plaintiffs' claim challenging
certain Plan amendments. The court granted the motion with respect
to one plaintiff whose claim the court determined was barred by
the statute of limitations. Further, the court granted the motion
with respect to two other claims: 1) a claim that a 1993 Plan
amendment resulted in an unlawful cutback of benefits; and 2) a
claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The parties thereafter
proceeded to a bench trial on December 5-6, 2016.

On April 27, 2017, the court issued its Phase I findings and
opinion and ruled that (a) the Company's 1991 amendments to the
Plan did not violate ERISA by improperly cutting back on
plaintiffs' benefits, and (b) the Company's interpretation of the
Plan's definition of "retire" violated ERISA's anti-cutback rule.
The court's order requires the parties to provide further
information to determine whether any plaintiffs suffered a loss
based on any such cutback.

Discovery in Phase II closed, and the Company filed motions for
summary judgment on plaintiffs' ADEA claims and ERISA interference
with employee benefits claim. Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for
summary judgment on the ERISA claim. On April 21, 2017, the court
entered an order granting Allstate's motion for summary judgment
on plaintiffs' disparate impact claim under the ADEA. The court
reserved resolution of plaintiffs' disparate treatment claim under
the ADEA for later individual proceedings. The court also entered
an order granting Allstate's motion for summary judgment, and
denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, on the ERISA
claim. The Phase II trial which had been scheduled to commence on
May 8, 2017, was canceled.

With respect to the claims not included in Phase I or II, the
Company filed a motion requesting that the court sever the claims
of all individual plaintiffs who reside outside the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania and then transfer those claims to each
respective plaintiff's home jurisdiction. The court has not yet
ruled on that motion. On April 27, 2017, the court issued an order
allowing the parties to file supplemental memoranda addressing
their positions on severance and case management in light of the
Phase I and II rulings. Briefing on this issue is scheduled to be
completed by May 30, 2017.

On September 2, 2016, in two cases asserting similar claims to
those asserted in Romero I that had been filed on May 15, 2015,
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered
judgment in Allstate's favor on statute of limitations and other
grounds. Plaintiffs did not appeal the judgments.

Based on the trial court's February 28, 2014 order in Romero I and
II, if the validity of the release is decided in favor of the
Company for any plaintiff, that would preclude any damages or
other relief being awarded to that plaintiff. The final resolution
of these matters is subject to various uncertainties and
complexities including how trials, post trial motions, possible
appeals with respect to the validity of the release, and any
rulings on the merits will be resolved.

In the Company's judgment, a loss is not probable.


ALTRIA GROUP: Faces 7 Smoking and Health Class Actions in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria 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 as of April 27, 2017,
Philip Morris USA is a named defendant in 10 health care cost
recovery actions in Canada, eight of which also name Altria Group,
Inc. as a defendant. PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are also named
defendants in seven smoking and health class actions filed in
various Canadian provinces.

As of April 27, 2017, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named as
defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven
class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario.
In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and
Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of
individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases,
including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart
disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the
actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs
seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked
defendants' cigarettes.

Altria Group, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiaries included Philip
Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), which is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes in the United States; John Middleton Co.
("Middleton"), which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
machine-made large cigars and pipe tobacco and is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of PM USA; Sherman Group Holdings, LLC and its
subsidiaries ("Nat Sherman"), which are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of super premium cigarettes and the sale of premium
cigars; and UST LLC ("UST"), which through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, including U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC
("USSTC") and Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd. ("Ste. Michelle"),
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of smokeless tobacco
products and wine. Altria Group, Inc.'s other operating companies
included Nu Mark LLC ("Nu Mark"), a wholly-owned subsidiary that
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of innovative tobacco
products, and Philip Morris Capital Corporation ("PMCC"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary that maintains a portfolio of finance
assets, substantially all of which are leveraged leases.  Other
Altria Group, Inc. wholly-owned subsidiaries included Altria Group
Distribution Company, which provides sales, distribution and
consumer engagement services to certain Altria Group, Inc.
operating subsidiaries, and Altria Client Services LLC, which
provides various support services in areas such as legal,
regulatory, finance, human resources and external affairs, to
Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries.


ALTRIA GROUP: 6 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial Thru June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria 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 as of April 27, 2017,
six Engle progeny cases are set for trial through June 30, 2017.

There are no individual smoking and health cases and no
"Lights/Ultra Lights" class actions or medical monitoring cases
against Philip Morris USA set for trial during this period. Cases
against other companies in the tobacco industry are scheduled for
trial during this period. Trial dates are subject to change.

Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts
have been returned in 61 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra Lights"
and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a
defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were
returned in 41 of the 61 cases. These 41 cases were tried in
Alaska (1), California (7), Florida (10), Louisiana (1),
Massachusetts (2), Mississippi (1), Missouri (4), New Hampshire
(1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1),
Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2). A motion
for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in Florida and in
the case in Alaska.

In the Alaska case (Hunter), the trial court withdrew its order
for a new trial upon PM USA's motion for reconsideration. In
December 2015, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the trial court
decision and remanded the case with directions for the trial court
to reassess whether to grant a new trial. In March 2016, the trial
court granted a new trial and PM USA filed a petition for review
of that order with the Alaska Supreme Court, which the court
denied in July 2016. The retrial began in October 2016. In
November 2016, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed
to reach a verdict. The plaintiff subsequently moved for a new
trial, which is scheduled to begin October 16, 2017.

Of the 20 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs, 18 have reached final resolution.

As of April 27, 2017, 108 state and federal Engle progeny cases
involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida
Supreme Court's Engle decision as follows: 60 verdicts were
returned in favor of plaintiffs; 45 verdicts were returned in
favor of PM USA. Three verdicts in favor of plaintiffs were
partially or entirely reversed on appeal.

Judgments Paid and Provisions for Tobacco and Health Litigation
Items (Including Engle Progeny Litigation)

After exhausting all appeals in those cases resulting in adverse
verdicts associated with tobacco-related litigation, since October
2004, PM USA has paid in the aggregate judgments and settlements
(including related costs and fees) totaling approximately $474
million and interest totaling approximately $183 million as of
March 31, 2017. These amounts include payments for Engle progeny
judgments (and related costs and fees) totaling approximately $83
million, interest totaling approximately $21 million and payment
of approximately $43 million in connection with the Federal Engle
Agreement.

Altria Group, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiaries included Philip
Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), which is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes in the United States; John Middleton Co.
("Middleton"), which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
machine-made large cigars and pipe tobacco and is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of PM USA; Sherman Group Holdings, LLC and its
subsidiaries ("Nat Sherman"), which are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of super premium cigarettes and the sale of premium
cigars; and UST LLC ("UST"), which through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, including U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC
("USSTC") and Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd. ("Ste. Michelle"),
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of smokeless tobacco
products and wine. Altria Group, Inc.'s other operating companies
included Nu Mark LLC ("Nu Mark"), a wholly-owned subsidiary that
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of innovative tobacco
products, and Philip Morris Capital Corporation ("PMCC"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary that maintains a portfolio of finance
assets, substantially all of which are leveraged leases.  Other
Altria Group, Inc. wholly-owned subsidiaries included Altria Group
Distribution Company, which provides sales, distribution and
consumer engagement services to certain Altria Group, Inc.
operating subsidiaries, and Altria Client Services LLC, which
provides various support services in areas such as legal,
regulatory, finance, human resources and external affairs, to
Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries.


ALTRIA GROUP: Class Certification Denied in 60 Cases v. PM USA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria 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 class certification
has been denied or reversed by courts in 60 smoking and health
class actions involving Philip Morris USA.

Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs
have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits
in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases
purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state
or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope)
and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical
injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 60
smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1),
California (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2),
Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1),
Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York
(2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto
Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).

Altria Group, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiaries included Philip
Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), which is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes in the United States; John Middleton Co.
("Middleton"), which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
machine-made large cigars and pipe tobacco and is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of PM USA; Sherman Group Holdings, LLC and its
subsidiaries ("Nat Sherman"), which are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of super premium cigarettes and the sale of premium
cigars; and UST LLC ("UST"), which through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, including U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC
("USSTC") and Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd. ("Ste. Michelle"),
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of smokeless tobacco
products and wine. Altria Group, Inc.'s other operating companies
included Nu Mark LLC ("Nu Mark"), a wholly-owned subsidiary that
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of innovative tobacco
products, and Philip Morris Capital Corporation ("PMCC"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary that maintains a portfolio of finance
assets, substantially all of which are leveraged leases.  Other
Altria Group, Inc. wholly-owned subsidiaries included Altria Group
Distribution Company, which provides sales, distribution and
consumer engagement services to certain Altria Group, Inc.
operating subsidiaries, and Altria Client Services LLC, which
provides various support services in areas such as legal,
regulatory, finance, human resources and external affairs, to
Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries.


ALTRIA GROUP: Class Certification Denied in 21 "Lights" Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altria 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 as of April 27, 2017,
20 state courts in 21 "Lights" cases have refused to certify class
actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class
certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of
Philip Morris USA.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory
fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in
certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been
brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group,
Inc. or its other subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who
purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including
Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and
Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in
these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation,
injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability
under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies
with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. As of
April 27, 2017, a total of 5 such cases are pending in various
U.S. state courts.

Altria Group, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiaries included Philip
Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), which is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes in the United States; John Middleton Co.
("Middleton"), which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
machine-made large cigars and pipe tobacco and is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of PM USA; Sherman Group Holdings, LLC and its
subsidiaries ("Nat Sherman"), which are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of super premium cigarettes and the sale of premium
cigars; and UST LLC ("UST"), which through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, including U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC
("USSTC") and Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd. ("Ste. Michelle"),
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of smokeless tobacco
products and wine. Altria Group, Inc.'s other operating companies
included Nu Mark LLC ("Nu Mark"), a wholly-owned subsidiary that
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of innovative tobacco
products, and Philip Morris Capital Corporation ("PMCC"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary that maintains a portfolio of finance
assets, substantially all of which are leveraged leases.  Other
Altria Group, Inc. wholly-owned subsidiaries included Altria Group
Distribution Company, which provides sales, distribution and
consumer engagement services to certain Altria Group, Inc.
operating subsidiaries, and Altria Client Services LLC, which
provides various support services in areas such as legal,
regulatory, finance, human resources and external affairs, to
Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries.


ALTRIA GROUP: Appeal in "Larsen" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Altria 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 one certified class
action remains pending on appeal.

In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class
certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which
potential class members can qualify to become part of the class.
The class period remains 1995-2003. In June 2010, PM USA's motion
for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' request for
punitive damages was denied. In April 2010, plaintiffs moved for
partial summary judgment as to an element of liability in the
case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case
brought by the Department of Justice.  The plaintiffs' motion was
denied in December 2010.

In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions
challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling
that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on
allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro
Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment
motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October
2011, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach
a verdict.

In January 2014, the trial court reversed its prior ruling
granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs' "more
dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to pursue that claim. In
October 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class and for
partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim,
which the court denied in June 2015. Upon retrial, in April 2016,
the jury returned a verdict in favor of PM USA.

In May 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, which PM
USA opposed in June 2016. In August 2016, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal and PM USA cross-appealed. In November 2016, the court of
appeals dismissed PM USA's cross-appeal without prejudice upon
joint motion of the parties.

Altria Group, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiaries included Philip
Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), which is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes in the United States; John Middleton Co.
("Middleton"), which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
machine-made large cigars and pipe tobacco and is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of PM USA; Sherman Group Holdings, LLC and its
subsidiaries ("Nat Sherman"), which are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of super premium cigarettes and the sale of premium
cigars; and UST LLC ("UST"), which through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, including U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC
("USSTC") and Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd. ("Ste. Michelle"),
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of smokeless tobacco
products and wine. Altria Group, Inc.'s other operating companies
included Nu Mark LLC ("Nu Mark"), a wholly-owned subsidiary that
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of innovative tobacco
products, and Philip Morris Capital Corporation ("PMCC"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary that maintains a portfolio of finance
assets, substantially all of which are leveraged leases.  Other
Altria Group, Inc. wholly-owned subsidiaries included Altria Group
Distribution Company, which provides sales, distribution and
consumer engagement services to certain Altria Group, Inc.
operating subsidiaries, and Altria Client Services LLC, which
provides various support services in areas such as legal,
regulatory, finance, human resources and external affairs, to
Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries.


ALTRIA GROUP: Still Defends "Carroll" Suit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------
Altria 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 "Carroll" lawsuit
remains pending in Delaware court.

In December 2009, the state trial court in Carroll (formerly known
as Holmes) (pending in Delaware) denied Philip Morris USA's motion
for summary judgment based on an exemption provision in the
Delaware Consumer Fraud Act. In January 2011, the trial court
allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint substituting
class representatives and naming Altria Group, Inc. and PMI as
additional defendants.

In February 2013, the trial court approved the parties'
stipulation to the dismissal without prejudice of Altria Group,
Inc. and PMI, leaving PM USA as the sole defendant in the case.

In March 2015, plaintiffs moved for class certification and, in
July 2015, PM USA filed a summary judgment motion seeking to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims in their entirety on preemption
grounds.

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

Altria Group, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiaries included Philip
Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), which is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes in the United States; John Middleton Co.
("Middleton"), which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
machine-made large cigars and pipe tobacco and is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of PM USA; Sherman Group Holdings, LLC and its
subsidiaries ("Nat Sherman"), which are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of super premium cigarettes and the sale of premium
cigars; and UST LLC ("UST"), which through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, including U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC
("USSTC") and Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd. ("Ste. Michelle"),
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of smokeless tobacco
products and wine. Altria Group, Inc.'s other operating companies
included Nu Mark LLC ("Nu Mark"), a wholly-owned subsidiary that
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of innovative tobacco
products, and Philip Morris Capital Corporation ("PMCC"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary that maintains a portfolio of finance
assets, substantially all of which are leveraged leases.  Other
Altria Group, Inc. wholly-owned subsidiaries included Altria Group
Distribution Company, which provides sales, distribution and
consumer engagement services to certain Altria Group, Inc.
operating subsidiaries, and Altria Client Services LLC, which
provides various support services in areas such as legal,
regulatory, finance, human resources and external affairs, to
Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries.


ALTRIA GROUP: "Gwynn" Lawsuit Still Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Altria 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 continues
to defend against the "Gwynn" lawsuit in California.

UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries have been named in certain
actions in West Virginia brought by or on behalf of individual
plaintiffs against cigarette manufacturers, smokeless tobacco
manufacturers and other organizations seeking damages and other
relief in connection with injuries allegedly sustained as a result
of tobacco usage, including smokeless tobacco products. Included
among the plaintiffs are three individuals alleging use of USSTC's
smokeless tobacco products and alleging the types of injuries
claimed to be associated with the use of smokeless tobacco
products. USSTC, along with other non-cigarette manufacturers, has
remained severed from such proceedings since December 2001.

UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries also have been named in a
number of other individual tobacco and health suits over time.
Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on
various theories of recovery, such as negligence, strict
liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to
warn, breach of implied warranty, addiction and breach of consumer
protection statutes. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief,
including compensatory and punitive damages, and certain equitable
relief, including but not limited to disgorgement. Defenses raised
in these cases include lack of causation, assumption of the risk,
comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, and statutes of
limitations.

In July 2016, USSTC and Altria Group, Inc. were named as
defendants, along with other named defendants, in one such case in
California (Gwynn).  In August 2016, defendants removed the case
to federal court. In September 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand the case back to state court, which the court granted in
January 2017.

Altria Group, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiaries included Philip
Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), which is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes in the United States; John Middleton Co.
("Middleton"), which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
machine-made large cigars and pipe tobacco and is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of PM USA; Sherman Group Holdings, LLC and its
subsidiaries ("Nat Sherman"), which are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of super premium cigarettes and the sale of premium
cigars; and UST LLC ("UST"), which through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, including U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC
("USSTC") and Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd. ("Ste. Michelle"),
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of smokeless tobacco
products and wine. Altria Group, Inc.'s other operating companies
included Nu Mark LLC ("Nu Mark"), a wholly-owned subsidiary that
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of innovative tobacco
products, and Philip Morris Capital Corporation ("PMCC"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary that maintains a portfolio of finance
assets, substantially all of which are leveraged leases.  Other
Altria Group, Inc. wholly-owned subsidiaries included Altria Group
Distribution Company, which provides sales, distribution and
consumer engagement services to certain Altria Group, Inc.
operating subsidiaries, and Altria Client Services LLC, which
provides various support services in areas such as legal,
regulatory, finance, human resources and external affairs, to
Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries.


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Seeks Dismissal of Farmers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland 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, that the Company has
moved to dismiss state court actions by farmers and other parties
pending in Illinois state court.

The Company is a party to numerous lawsuits pending in various
U.S. state and federal courts arising out of Syngenta
Corporation's (Syngenta) marketing and distribution of genetically
modified corn products, Agrisure Viptera and Agrisure Duracade, in
the U.S. First, the Company brought a state court action in
Louisiana against Syngenta in 2014, alleging that Syngenta was
negligent in commercializing its products before the products were
approved in China.

Second, the Company is a putative class member in a number of
purported class actions filed beginning in 2013 by farmers and
other parties against Syngenta in federal courts and consolidated
for pretrial proceedings in a multidistrict litigation (MDL)
proceeding in federal court in Kansas City, Kansas, again alleging
that Syngenta was negligent in commercializing its products.

In the fourth quarter of 2015, Syngenta filed third-party claims
against the Company and other grain companies seeking contribution
in the event that Syngenta is held liable in these lawsuits; the
courts dismissed these third-party claims on April 4, 2016, and
the Company is therefore no longer a third-party defendant in the
MDL.

Third, the Company and other grain companies have been named as a
defendant in numerous individual and purported class action suits
filed by farmers and other parties in state and federal courts
beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015, alleging that the Company
and other grain companies were negligent in failing to screen for
genetically modified corn. On September 6, 2016, the court in the
Minnesota state MDL proceedings granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaints against the Company in those actions, and
on January 4, 2017, a federal court in the Southern District of
Illinois similarly dismissed all of the pending complaints against
the Company there.

Currently, the Company remains a defendant in only certain state
court actions by farmers and other parties pending in Illinois
state court, which the Company has moved to dismiss as well. The
Company denies liability in all of the actions in which it has
been named as a third-party defendant or defendant and is
vigorously defending itself in these cases. All of these actions
are in pretrial proceedings. At this time, the Company is unable
to predict the final outcome of this matter with any reasonable
degree of certainty, but believes the outcome will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows.


AT&T: Faces Customer Complaints Over Promotions Overcharging
------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Werner and Megan Towey, writing for CBS News, reports that
Gary Raia signed up for an AT&T promotion -- internet and DirecTV
for around a $100 a month for two years.  When his first bill in
July was nearly double that, he complained to AT&T.

"Every month you open up your envelope and you go, 'OK, what's the
surprise this month?'"

"As I am talking to them, I get on the internet and I look at the
special," Raia told CBS News. "Their special is $99.99 and I say,
'can you just look at the internet?'"

Months later, he was still paying a lot more.

"That tells me that they're cheating people," he said.

In an AT&T commercial a voiceover can be heard advertising: The
bundle price you sign up for is guaranteed to stay the same price
for two years.

AT&T told CBS News they "fully honor the terms" of their
promotions.

But CBS News' investigation uncovered more than 4,000 complaints
against AT&T and DirecTV related to deals, promotions and
overcharging in the past two years.

One woman in Florida tried to call AT&T to have them explain her
account charges.

"I keep getting bills for $79.49 and my contract says I was only
going to pay $24.99 for two years," she told AT&T over the phone.

Over three hours, five different representatives gave her five
different explanations.

A female AT&T representative is heard saying: "There's some
specials on discounts that I'm thinking was actually being removed
in error.  Your bills are no longer combined. It wasn't done on
our end -- it was done on your end."

A second female representative said: "The pricing you were getting
was because you were a new customer with the services, now you are
an existing customer."

The customer then declares: "But you guys gave me a two-year
agreement."

And that lower price she was promised?

A male AT&T representative is heard saying: "I know this is no
shape or form it is your fault.  But that's an expired promotion.
Once it's gone . . . it's gone now."

And customers who then decide to cancel the service often have to
pay an early termination fee, which can cost hundreds of dollars.

Paul Bland is a lawyer who specializes in consumer law.  He told
CBS News all of AT&T's contracts require customers to use
arbitration -- paid for by AT&T.

"There's nothing they're going to be able to do for you," said
Bland, who works for Public Justice.

The company says it's faster and cheaper for consumers.  But CBS
News found that -- out of nearly 150 million customers -- only 18
went through arbitration for small claims in the past two years.

"So it turns out to be a license to steal," he said.  "In my
experience, when a large company has a lot of consumers coming
forward and saying we feel like we were bait and switched.  We
were promised one thing and then we got something else.  The
company knows about it."

That's something customers might claim in a class-action lawsuit -
- except AT&T's contract also forbids class actions.

CBS News reached out to AT&T multiple times for comment. They sent
us this statement but otherwise would not comment:

"Like other companies, we frequently introduce promotions to
provide our customers with the best services and products at the
best price.  These special offers vary in terms of pricing and
duration.  If a customer signs up for one of these offers, we
fully honor the terms through the promotion's completion.
Customers who enrolled in one of our promotional offers and
believe they did not receive the full benefits should contact
customer service."  [GN]


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Settlement Fairness Hearing in July
----------------------------------------------------------
Avalonbay Communities, 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 fairness hearing
will be held in July 2017 to determine whether the settlement of
the Edgewater Casualty Loss class action will receive final
approval.

In January 2015, a fire occurred at the Company's Avalon at
Edgewater apartment community located in Edgewater, New Jersey
("Edgewater"). Edgewater consisted of two residential buildings.
One building, containing 240 apartment homes, was destroyed. The
second building, containing 168 apartment homes, suffered minimal
damage and has been repaired.

The Company has established protocols for processing claims from
third parties who suffered losses as a result of the fire, and
many third parties have contacted the Company's insurance carrier
and settled their claims.

Three class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company on
behalf of occupants of the destroyed building and consolidated in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The Company has agreed with class counsel to the terms of a
proposed settlement which would provide a claims process (with
agreed upon protocols for instructing the adjuster as to how to
evaluate claims) and, if needed, an arbitration process to
determine damage amounts to be paid to individual claimants
covered by the class settlement.

In March 2017 the District Court granted preliminary approval of
the class action settlement and in July 2017 a fairness hearing
will be held to determine whether the settlement will receive
final approval.

A fourth class action, being heard in the same federal court, was
filed against the Company on behalf of residents of the second
Edgewater building that suffered minimal damage. Recently, a fifth
class action lawsuit was filed against the Company seeking to
certify a class on behalf of both buildings and other third
parties. That action is currently stayed pending the decision by
those plaintiffs either to be included in the class settlement or
to formally opt-out.

In addition to the class action lawsuits described, 19 lawsuits
representing approximately 146 individual plaintiffs have been
filed and are currently pending in the Superior Court of New
Jersey Bergen County -- Law Division. All of these state court
cases have been consolidated by the court. These plaintiffs, if
eligible to be class members under the class settlement that has
been preliminarily approved as described above, must formally opt-
out of that class action settlement by May 17, 2017 if they want
to continue their individual actions. The Company believes that it
has meritorious defenses to the extent of damages claimed in all
of the suits.

There are also five subrogation lawsuits that have been filed
against the Company by insurers of Edgewater residents who
obtained renters insurance; it is the Company's position that in
the majority of the applicable leases the residents waived
subrogation rights. One of these lawsuits has been dismissed on
that basis and the other four are currently pending in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District
Court recently denied the Company's motions seeking dismissal on
this basis. The Company will reassess the viability of this
defense after conducting additional discovery.

Having settled many third party claims through the insurance
claims process, the Company currently believes that any potential
remaining liability to third parties (including any potential
liability to third parties determined in accordance with the class
settlement described above, if approved) will not be material to
the Company and will in any event be substantially covered by the
Company's insurance policies. However, the Company can give no
assurances in this regard and continues to evaluate this matter.

AvalonBay Communities, Inc., is a Maryland corporation that has
elected to be treated as a real estate investment trust ("REIT")
for federal income tax purposes under the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (the "Code"). The Company focuses on the development,
redevelopment, acquisition, ownership and operation of multifamily
communities primarily in New England, the New York/New Jersey
metro area, the Mid-Atlantic, the Pacific Northwest, and Northern
and Southern California.


BAKER HUGHES: Booth Family Trust Files Suit Over GE Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Booth Family Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Baker Hughes Incorporated, Martin S.
Craighead, Gregory D. Brenneman, Clarence P. Cazalot, Jr., William
H. Easter III, Lynn L. Elsenans, Anthony G. Fernandes, Claire W.
Gargalli, Pierre H. Jungels, James A. Lash, J. Larry Nichols,
James W. Stewart and Charles L. Watson, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-
cv-01457 (S.D. Tex., May 10, 2017), seeks to enjoin the
stockholder vote on the merger of Baker Hughs with General
Electric.

Baker Hughes will combine with General Electric Company's oil and
gas business wherein Newco LLC will own the combined businesses of
Baker Hughes and GE Oil and Gas.

The complaint asserts that Merger documents fails to set forth any
of the employment related discussions and negotiations that
occurred between GE and Baker Hughes' executive officers, whether
any of GE's prior proposals or indications of interest mentioned
management retention or the potential for Board members to sit on
the combined company's board of directors as well as
communications regarding post-transaction employment during the
negotiation of the merger and confidentiality agreements with a
subsidiary of GE and other strategic companies and financial
sponsors that expressed an interest in an acquisition of Baker
Hughes' core completions business, and control business in the
Gulf of Mexico and offshore cementing businesses.

Baker Hughes is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 17021 Aldine Westfield Road, Houston,
Texas, 77073. The Company is a supplier of oilfield services,
products, technology and systems for the oil and natural gas
industry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
      THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
      700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 227-7720

             - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025
      Fax: (212) 682-3010


BARRICK GOLD: "Broadfoot" Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shepard Broadfoot, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Barrick Gold Corporation, Kelvin
Dushnisky, Catherine Raw, Richard Williams and Jorge Palmes,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03507 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2017), seeks
compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff, including interest
thereon, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further
relief for violation of the Securities and Exchange Act.

Barrick is a gold mining company that purportedly engages in
exploration and mine development and also produces and sells gold
and copper. Company has a history of pipe ruptures and chemical
spills at its Valedero mine in the San Juan Province of Argentina.
On March 28, 2017, the Veladero pipe carrying gold-bearing
solution ruptured. On this news, the Company's share price
declined $2.15 per share, or 11.3%, to close at $16.89 per share
on April 25, 2017, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Defendants failed to disclose that the pipes and safety systems at
the Veladero mine were not robust enough to prevent spills, and
that Argentinian authorities would restrict the addition of
cyanide to the Veladero mine's heap leach facility and require
remedial work. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

             - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160


BAYFRONT HMA: MSPA Claims Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The action styled MSPA Claims I, LLC v. Bayfront HMA Medical
Center, LLC d/b/a Bayfront Medical Center, pending in the Circuit
Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade
County, Florida, has been removed to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 10, 2017, and
assigned Case No. 17-005774 CA.

The case is originally captioned MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida
limited Liability company, as assignee of Florida Healthcare Plus,
on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated Medicare
Advantage Organizations in the State of Florida, Plaintiff, v.
BAYFRONT HMA MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, d/b/a BAYFRONT MEDICAL CENTER, a
Florida Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-21733-DPG.

Plaintiff asserted three claims against Bayfront in the complaint:
(i) a private cause of action under the Medicare Secondary Payor
Act, (ii) a claim for violation of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and (iii) a claim for unjust
enrichment.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

     Alan D. Lash, Esq.
     Greg J. Weintraub, Esq.
     LASH & GOLDBERG LLP
     Suite 1200, Miami Tower
     100 Southeast Second Street
     Miami, FL 33131-2100
     Phone: (305) 347-4040
     Fax: (305) 347-4050
     E-mail: alash@lashgoldberg.com
             gweintraub@lashgoldberg.com


BIMBO FOODS: Faces "Franze" Lawsuit Alleging Misclassification
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS FRANZE & GEORGE SCHRUFER, JR. on behalf of themselves,
And of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, against
BIMBO FOODS BAKERIES DISTRIBUTION, INC., FiKlA GEORGE WESTON
BAKERIES DISTRIBUTION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-03556
(S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2017), challenges Defendant's alleged unlawful
misclassification of Plaintiffs as independent contractors instead
of employees. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and New York Labor Law.

Defendant Bimbo is in the business of wholesale distribution of
fresh bakery products to retail and food outlets, restaurants and
institutions. Plaintiffs delivered and picked up baked goods and
performed merchandising duties of retail bakery products on behalf
of Defendants in New York.  Bimbo calls these Distributors
"Independent Operators".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Randy J. Perlmutter, Esq.
     KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
     747 Chestnut Ridge Road - Suite 200
     Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
     Phone: (845) 356-2570
     Fax: (845) 356-4335
     E-mail: rperlmutter@kgglaw.com


BUMBLE BEE: Walmart's Price Fixing Suit Amended to Add Defendants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Rice, writing for San Diego Reader, reports that a class-
action lawsuit filed by retail giant Walmart accuses canned tuna's
three biggest players -- including San Diego's Bumble Bee and
Chicken of the Sea -- of conspiring to fix prices on "shelf
stable" seafood products.

While the suit has been pending since late last year, it was
amended recently, naming 56 alleged parties involved.  These
include a host of senior vice presidents, as well as John
Signorino, former President and CEO of Chicken of the Sea, and
Chris Lischewski, who occupies the same role at Bumble Bee.
Starkist, a Pittsburg-based competitor, also had its CEO and
President In Soo Cho listed among the accused.

The CEOs, which also include current Chicken of the Sea/Thai Union
leader Shue Wing Chan, allegedly "spoke frequently" in order to
"discuss pricing and customers."

According to the suit, plaintiffs claim that the defendants
colluded to reduce can sizes across the industry, issue secret
price lists, limit promotions and discounts, and collectively
refuse to offer consumer products containing tuna without fish
aggregating devices.  The last practice is among those that drew
criticism from environmentalists at Greenpeace in a report rating
the industry last month.

The Department of Justice announced that two defendants at Bumble
Bee, former executives Ken Worsham and Walter Scott Cameron, had
agreed to plead guilty to federal price fixing charges between
2011 and 2013, and to cooperate with investigators.  The company
has agreed to pay a $25 million criminal fine, which could rise as
high as $81.5 million, while Cameron is expected to personally be
fined $25,000 and face a 10-to-16-month prison sentence.  Though
the offenses carry a sentence of up to 10 years, Cameron is
expected to testify against other defendants in exchange for
leniency.

The class action, however, accuses the canners of much more
widespread corruption, dating back to "at least" the beginning of
2003, and continuing into 2015, when lawsuits against the big
three began to emerge.  The main suit has been split into four
parts, with tracks for wholesalers, consumer purchases,
restaurateurs, and those who choose to opt out of any class action
settlement. [GN]


CANADA: Six Nations Class Action Against HDI Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Jim Windle, writing for, reports that Ontario Justice R.A. Lococo
has been assigned the class action case against the HDI and lawyer
Aaron Detlor on behalf of members of the Men's Fire and Six
Nations people at large.  The date is yet to be set; however, Mr.
Justice Arrel has assigned the case to Justice Lococo, who is this
region's only class action justice.

Contrary to reports elsewhere, the class action case is not dead
and is in fact making its way through the courts. When the case is
opened by Justice Lococo, lawyer Aaron Detlor and financial
advisor Elvera Garlow will be cross examined on statements made
earlier in discovery regarding the affairs of the Haudenosaunee
Development Institute which Mr. Detlor was instrumental in
establishing on behalf of the Confederacy Chiefs.

For several years since its inception at around the same time as
the Caledonia standoff, Six Nations band members have been trying
to get answers from the HDI relative to specific financial
arrangements it has made with developers and energy companies. But
more so, about who is making what from the HDI deals, including
Mr. Detlor's retainer agreement with the HCCC, the money paid to
Turtle Island News publisher Lynda Powless' to act as HDI's media
person. They also want answers about any other unspecified
salaries or funds paid to individuals.

Frustrated with stonewalls, Wilfred Davie and Bill Monture
launched a class action suit on behalf of the community.  The men
themselves insist they are not seeking any kind of personal
financial reward, only that the HDI become transparent with the
people they are supposed to represent.

It has been the HDI's stance that they work for the Haudenosaunee
Confederacy Chiefs Council and not the people, per se.  As such,
they believe a forensic investigation of the HDI's finances is in
order.

The court agreed and moved the case on to Justice Lococo to
determine if the HDI will be ordered to reveal certain aspects of
their operation that until now, which the Men's Fire and others
allege have been kept secret from the Six Nations public at large.
[GN]


CANADA: CFB Esquimalt Blocks Ad Seeking Sexual Assault Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Smart and Katie Derosa, writing for Times Colonist, report
that Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt has blocked an advertisement
in the base newspaper asking survivors of sexual harassment,
assault and discrimination to come forward, saying it might
"amplify the sexual harassment issue."

The rejection conflicts with statements by Canadian Forces top
brass that they are committed to rooting out sexual misconduct in
the military ranks, lawyer Rajinder Sahota said.

His law firm, Acheson, Sweeney, Foley, Mr. Sahota, attempted to
place the ad in the Lookout in December, but was told it didn't
meet the intent of the newspaper.

"If their words matched their deeds, they would permit this type
of advertisement to be published within the Lookout, as opposed to
trying to censor it," Mr. Sahota said.

The law firm is preparing a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
survivors of sexual misconduct in the military.  Mr. Sahota said
more than 100 survivors have come forward.

He said the ad offered support to survivors beyond legal advice,
including counselling and psychiatric support and "a safe, open,
honest and privileged or confidential space to share your story."

It quoted Gen. Jonathan Vance, chief of the defence staff, saying:
"Harmful sexual behaviour is a real and present threat in our
institution. Those who commit such acts are betraying the values
of the country they are sworn to defend."

Mr. Sahota said he went back and forth with the editor of the
Lookout, who suggested changes to the ad.

"Our newspaper cannot be used as a vehicle to further amplify the
sexual harassment issue currently in the mainstream media," editor
Melissa Atkinson said in an email to Mr. Sahota.

"We welcome a generic ad that makes no reference to CAF, DND, and
the military."

An earlier email forwarded from an advertising representative said
the paper can't quote uniformed personnel in a business
advertisement, regardless of subject, since the military can't be
seen to support one business over others.

The ad request was forwarded up the command chain to the base
commander's office and the public affairs department.

Capt. Jenn Jackson, public affairs officer for CFB Esquimalt, said
the proposed advertisement did not meet the intent of the base
newspaper.

"It is important to note that Canadian Armed Forces newspapers are
a public affairs tool for the chain of command, and in reviewing
ads, we seek to strike the most appropriate balance between
meeting the information needs of the military community and the
potential impact on the Department of National Defence and the
Canadian Armed Forces," she said in an email.

The topic itself wasn't considered controversial, she said.

"The chain of command takes this issue extremely seriously and
continues to employ a variety of strategies and approaches to
instil institutional change."

In December, Mr. Sahota also filed a notice of civil claim against
the attorney general of Canada, on behalf of client Nicola
Peffers, alleging sexual assault and harassment of women and LGBTQ
members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

The proposed suit alleges the institutional culture of the
military fosters an environment where assault and harassment are
the norm, and lack of effective leadership permits a culture of
abuse to fester.

Ms. Peffers, the lead plaintiff, said she was sexually assaulted
by her supervisors and peers.

Mr. Sahota said the law firm hopes to certify the class action
this year.  Although the ad never ran, the firm has connected with
more than 100 complainants, he said, through social media and word
of mouth.

Almost all of those are from B.C., with the majority on Vancouver
Island, he said.

A Statistics Canada survey released in November found 4.8 per cent
of female Canadian Forces members reported being sexually
assaulted over the past year, compared with 1.2 per cent of male
members.

"If I'm in a position with DND, I shouldn't be concerned about a
lawsuit, I should be concerned about how to stop this kind of
behaviour from being pervasive in the ranks," Mr. Sahota said.

Two law firms in Ontario and one in the Maritimes have also filed
class actions, Mr. Sahota said. [GN]


CARDINAL HEALTH: 58 IVC Product Liability Lawsuits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, 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 as of April 28, 2017,
the Company and its Cordis business have been named as defendants
in 58 product liability lawsuits involving claims by approximately
500 plaintiffs that allege personal injuries associated with the
use of Cordis OptEase and TrapEase inferior vena cava (IVC) filter
products. These lawsuits seek a variety of remedies, including
unspecified monetary damages.

"We are vigorously defending ourselves in these lawsuits," the
Company said.

Cardinal Health, Inc. is an Ohio corporation formed in 1979 and is
a globally integrated healthcare services and products company
providing customized solutions for hospital systems, pharmacies,
ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories and physicians'
offices.


CELADON GROUP: "Depickere" Sues Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------
Sven Depickere, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Celadon Group, Inc., Bobby L. Peavler and
Paul A. Will, Defendants, Case 2:17-cv-03319 (D.N.J. Sup., May 10,
2017) seeks damages in the amount of her respective unpaid
overtime compensation, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to New York Labor Laws.

Celadon provides long-haul, full-truckload freight service across
the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Its subsidiary, Celadon
Trucking Service, Inc., also provides supply chain management
solutions such as warehousing and dedicated fleet services, as
well as freight brokerage services.

Defendants failed to disclose that Celadon's equity contribution
to its joint venture with Element Financial Corp. was $68.2
million, rather than the $100 million contribution as reported in
its public filings; that Celadon is being actively investigated by
the SEC; and that its financial statement for quarter ended
December 31, 2016 could not be relied upon.

Shares of the Company fell $0.85 per share or approximately 14%
from its previous closing price to close at $5.40 per share on
April 5, 2017, damaging investors including the Plaintiff, says
the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is 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


CELADON GROUP: Block & Leviton Expands Class Period
---------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, on May 17 announced an expanded Class Period
in securities class actions against Celadon Group Inc. ("CGI" or
the "Company") (NYSE: CGI) and reminds shareholders of the June
19, 2017 lead plaintiff deadline.

On May 17, 2017, Block & Leviton filed a securities fraud lawsuit
against CGI, expanding the class period from January 27, 2016
through May 2, 2017, inclusive ("Class Period").

Shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired CGI securities
during the Class Period and have questions about their legal
rights or want to become involved in the litigation are encouraged
to contact attorney Bradley Vettraino at (617) 398-5600, by email
at Bradley@blockesq.com or by visiting www.blockesq.com/cgi.

On April 5, 2017, Prescience Point Research Group published a
report on the investor website Seeking Alpha alleging that "CGI
has used . . .. manipulative accounting practices to hide its
insolvent condition from investors and creditors."  On this news,
CGI shares fell nearly 14%, to close at $4.20 on April 19, 2017.

On April 19, the same research group published a follow-up report
claiming that the research group was denied information about CGI
from the government due to an apparent ongoing SEC investigation.
On this news, shares to fall another 5% to close at $4.20 on April
19, 2017.

Then, on May 1, 2015, CGI disclosed that "the Company's financial
statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 and quarters
ended September 30 and December 31, 2016, and related reports of
[CGI's auditor], should not be relied upon."

On this news, shares plunged 55% to close at $1.80 on May 2, 2017,
causing tens of millions in losses to investors.

The lead plaintiff deadline in the securities actions against CGI
is June 19, 2017.  As a member of the class, you may seek to file
a motion to serve as a lead plaintiff by June 19, 2017, or take no
action and remain an absent class member.

Confidentiality assured to whistleblowers or others with
information relevant to this investigation is assured.

Block & Leviton LLP -- -- http://www.blockesq.com-- is a Boston-
based law firm representing investors nationwide.  The firm's
lawyers have collectively been prosecuting securities cases on
behalf of individual and institutional investors for over 50
years, and have recovered billions of dollars on their behalf.
Block & Leviton's investigations into corporate wrongdoing were
recently covered by the New York Times. [GN]


CEMIG: Chairman da Silva Faces Class Suit over Misconduct
---------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais disclosed in its Form 20-F
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
16, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Mr.
Jose Afonso Bicalho Beltrao da Silva is a defendant in a Civil
Class Action involving administrative misconduct.

On October 20, 2015, Mr. Jose Afonso Bicalho Beltrao da Silva, the
Chair of CEMIG Holding's Board of Directors, was convicted in
Brazilian federal court (1st Federal Circuit) for reckless
management in connection with the granting of irregular loans when
he was the CEO of Banco do Estado de Minas Gerais, between 1995
and 1998. As a result of this conviction, Mr. Da Silva was
prohibited from holding executive or management positions at
financial institutions in Brazil for a period of eight years.

Immediately thereafter, Mr. Da Silva appealed to the Court of
Appeals of the 1st Federal Circuit, on the grounds that the ruling
judge did not have the necessary authority to hear the case, as
Mr. Da Silva is currently the Secretary of Minas Gerais State
Treasury and, therefore, the case should have been heard and
trialed by the Minas Gerais State Court of Appeals, and not by a
Brazilian federal court. The appeal is currently pending.

CEMIG is a Brazilian power company headquartered in Belo Horizonte
capital of the state of Minas Gerais. The company is one of the
largest power generators and distributors in Brazil being
responsible for 12% of the national distribution.


CEMIG: Awaits Judgment in Consumer Classification Case Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais disclosed in its Form 20-F
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
16, 2017 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that CEMIG
Distribuicao S.A. and Agencia Nacional de Energia Eletrica
continue to await judgment in an appeal from a consumer
classification case filed by the Federal Public Attorneys' Office.

The Federal Public Attorneys' Office filed a class action against
CEMIG D and ANEEL, to avoid exclusion of consumers from
classification in the Low-income Residential Tariff Sub-category,
and also requesting an order for CEMIG D to pay 200% of the amount
allegedly paid in excess by consumers in that sub-category.
Judgment at first instance was given in favor of the Federal
Public Attorneys, and CEMIG D and ANEEL have filed an appeal with
TRF.  A decision by the Court in this case has been pending since
March 2008.

As of December 31, 2016 the amount involved in this case was
approximately R$ 254 million. The chance of loss has been
classified as 'possible' due to the existence of other judgments,
both in the judiciary and in the administrative sphere, that are
in favor of the argument put forward by CEMIG D.

CEMIG is a Brazilian power company headquartered in Belo Horizonte
capital of the state of Minas Gerais. The company is one of the
largest power generators and distributors in Brazil being
responsible for 12% of the national distribution.


CEMIG: Unit Still Faces Suit over Excessive Tariffs
---------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais disclosed in its Form 20-F
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2017
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that CEMIG
Distribuicao S.A. still faces class action over post-2002 tariffs.

CEMIG D is a defendant in several legal actions, and in particular
a class action filed by the Municipal Association for Protection
of the Consumer and the Environment (Associacao Municipal de
Protecao ao Consumidor e ao Meio Ambiente, or "Amprocom"),
challenging amounts of tariffs charged by CEMIG D after 2002 and
its method of calculation, and applying for restitution, to all
the consumers allegedly damaged in the processes of Periodic
Review and Annual Adjustment of tariffs, in the period 2002 to
2009, of any amounts allegedly unduly charged.

As of December 31, 2016, the amount involved in this action was R$
317 million. The chance of loss in this action has been assessed
as 'possible', due to the fact that there is no precedent for the
matter in dispute in this case.

CEMIG is a Brazilian power company headquartered in Belo Horizonte
capital of the state of Minas Gerais. The company is one of the
largest power generators and distributors in Brazil being
responsible for 12% of the national distribution.


CEMIG: To Appeal Judgment in Favor of CET Employees
---------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais disclosed in its Form 20-F
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
16, 2017 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the
company intends to appeal a judgment against CEMIG Distribuicao
S.A. that requires it to pay damages for pain and suffering to
employees of a subcontractor.

On November 7, 2016 subsidiary judgment was given in the first
instance against CEMIG D in a class action brought by the Federal
Public Attorneys' Office for Labor-related Cases (Ministerio
Publico do Trabalho), in which a turnkey subcontractor, CET
Engenharia Ltda, and its shareholders, were also defendants,
ordering them to pay damages for pain and suffering to employees
of CET, and R$ 2,500 (two thousand five hundred Reais) as
indemnity to each of the employees named in the action, who had
allegedly been subjected to working conditions analogous to
slavery that violated Employment Ministry Regulatory Rules No. 7
and 10. The court found that the employees had not been subject to
any restraint on their freedom of movement.

The judgment also ordered that, after passing of any final appeal,
communicating documents should be issued to the Federal Public
Attorneys and the State Public Attorneys of Minas Gerais, due to
the conclusion that workers had been submitted to conditions
analogous to slavery.

The Company will appeal against the judgment in relation to
payment of the amounts stated in it, based on all the inspection
documentation made during the execution of the contract entered
into with the service providing company, and also on the
understanding that there was no demonstration of any act practiced
by CEMIG D related to the case in question, nor was there any
procedural weakness on its part during the execution of the
agreement, capable of turning the Company's liability under the
terms of the Precedent No. 331 of the Superior Labor Court.

Also, in relation to the order to pay indemnity for non-compliance
with Employment Ministry Rules, the STF has already stated the
position that there can be no characterization of work as being in
conditions analogous to slavery when there is no restriction upon
the workers' freedom of movement.

As of December 31, 2016, the total amount involved in this lawsuit
was approximately R$ 1.4 million and the chance of loss was
assessed as 'possible' in the light of the above statement.

CEMIG is a Brazilian power company headquartered in Belo Horizonte
capital of the state of Minas Gerais. The company is one of the
largest power generators and distributors in Brazil being
responsible for 12% of the national distribution.


CEMIG: AMAR's Class Action Appeal Tossed
----------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais disclosed in its Form 20-F
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
16, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that AMAR's
appeal in a class action lawsuit has been denied by the 2nd Civil
Chamber of the Minas Gerais Appeal Court.

The Company, CEMIG Geracao e Transmissao S.A., Southern Electric
and FEAM are defendants in a class action filed on February 5,
2007, by the Regional Environmental Association of Patrocinio,
which involves a claim for indemnifying and redressing
environmental damages caused by the Nova Ponte hydroelectric power
plant.

As of December 31, 2013, the amount involved in this action was
approximately R$1.8 billion. However, taking into account the
phase of the case, and the changes in the legislation subsequent
to the distribution of the action, it was possible for the
technical staff to reappraise the claims and for the amount to be
disbursed in the event of loss in the action to be re-evaluated,
and reduced.

As of December 31, 2015, the amount involved in this case was
approximately R$ 1.3 billion. Of this total, the part for which
the chance of loss was assessed as 'possible' was R$ 314 million;
and the part for which the chance of loss was assessed as 'remote'
was approximately R$ 1 billion.

On March 11, 2016, judgment was given against the application by
the plaintiff AMAR. Therefore, AMAR filed an appeal, which was
denied by the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Minas Gerais Appeal Court
on March 3, 2017.

As of December 31, 2016, the total amount involved in this case
was approximately R$ 1.5 billion, and the chance of loss was
assessed as 'remote.'

CEMIG is a Brazilian power company headquartered in Belo Horizonte
capital of the state of Minas Gerais. The company is one of the
largest power generators and distributors in Brazil being
responsible for 12% of the national distribution.


CEMIG: Class Suits Want Funding for Environmental Protection
------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais disclosed in its Form 20-F
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2017
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company is
facing class action lawsuits requiring it to invest for
environmental protection.

The Public Attorney's Office of the State of Minas Gerais has
brought class actions requiring the Company to invest at least
0.5% of the gross annual operational revenue, since 1997, of the
Emborcacao, Pissarrao, Funil, Volta Grande, Poquim, Parauna,
Miranda, Nova Ponte, Rio de Pedras and Peti plants, in
environmental protection and preservation of the water tables of
the municipalities where Cemig's power plants are located, and
proportional indemnity for allegedly irreparable environmental
damage caused, arising from omission to comply with Minas Gerais
State Law 12503/97.

CEMIG is a Brazilian power company headquartered in Belo Horizonte
capital of the state of Minas Gerais. The company is one of the
largest power generators and distributors in Brazil being
responsible for 12% of the national distribution.


CEMIG: Class Suits Want Formation of Preservation Areas
-------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais disclosed in its Form 20-F
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2017
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Public
Attorneys' Office of Minas Gerais State has filed class actions
requiring the formation of a Permanent Preservation Area (APP)
around the reservoir of the Capim Branco hydroelectric plant,
suspension of the effects of the environmental licenses, and
recovery of alleged environmental damage.

Based on the opinion of its legal advisors in relation to the
changes that have been made in the new Forest Code and in the case
law on this subject, the Company has classified the probability of
loss in this dispute as 'possible'. The estimated value of the
contingency is R$ 71 million (R$ 64 million on December 31, 2015).

CEMIG is a Brazilian power company headquartered in Belo Horizonte
capital of the state of Minas Gerais. The company is one of the
largest power generators and distributors in Brazil being
responsible for 12% of the national distribution.


COLUMBINE EMERGENCY: "Nitzkorski" Seeks to Recover Upaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GUNNAR NITZKORSKI, in his individual capacity and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COLUMBINE EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES INC., d/b/a Columbine Ambulance Service,
COLUMBINE OXYGEN SERVICE, INC. d/b/a Columbine Oxygen and Medical,
and VINCENT CISSELL, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01158 (D. Col., May 10, 2017), alleges that Defendants paid
Plaintiff and others similarly situated a set amount per shift,
but neglected to pay them overtime premium pay for all hours over
40 worked in the workweek.

The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, as
implemented by the Colorado Minimum Wage Order.

Plaintiff Gunnar Nitzkorski worked for Columbine Ambulance Service
as a paramedic and ambulance driver.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Penn A. Dodson, Esq.
     ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
     11 Broadway, Suite 615
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: 212.961.7639
     E-mail: (646) 998-8051
     E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com

        - and -

     Alexander L. Gastman, Esq.
     ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
     11 Broadway, Suite 615
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: 212.961.7639
     Fax: (646) 998-8051
     E-mail: alex@andersondodson.com


COREPOWER: Yoga Students Want $1.65MM Wage Settlement Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that yoga students
have asked a federal judge in San Francisco to approve a $1.65
million settlement to resolve allegations that a national chain of
yoga studios violated wage and hour laws with two clean-for-yoga
programs.

In a motion filed on May 16, the students told U.S. Magistrate
Judge Maria-Elena James that the settlement would fairly
compensate class members who participated in CorePower Yoga's
cleaning programs. One program, which ended in 2015, allowed
students to exchange cleaning services for free classes, while the
second paid students but required them to spend a large portion of
those wages to buy discounted memberships, the students said. [GN]


CVS HEALTH: Discovery Underway in Indiana Pension Fund Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation 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 discovery has
commenced in the case, Indiana State District Council of Laborers
and HOD Carriers Pension and Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. et al.
(U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky).

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed and subsequently consolidated. The
consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its
officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on
behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from
August 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers
who bought shares of Omnicare common stock in Omnicare's public
offering in December 2005. The complaint alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and sought, among other things, compensatory damages
and injunctive relief. After dismissals and appeals to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the United States
Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court. In October
2016, Omnicare filed an answer to plaintiffs' third amended
complaint, and discovery commenced.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to better
health.


CVS HEALTH: Still Defends Corcoran & Podgorny Suits in N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation 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 continues
to defend against the cases, Corcoran et al. v. CVS Health
Corporation (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California) and Podgorny et al. v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois).

These putative class actions were filed against the Company in
July and September 2015. The cases were consolidated in United
States District Court in the Northern District of California.
Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a class
of consumers who purchased certain prescription drugs under the
consumer protection statutes and common laws of certain states.
Several third-party payors filed similar putative class actions on
behalf of payors captioned Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20
Welfare and Benefit Fund v. CVS Health Corp. (U.S. District Court
for the District of Rhode Island) and Plumbers Welfare Fund, Local
130 v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island) in February and August 2016.

In all of these cases the plaintiffs allege the Company
overcharged for certain prescription drugs by not submitting as
the pharmacy's usual and customary price the price available to
members of the CVS Health Savings Pass program.

In the consumer case (Corcoran), the Court denied plaintiffs'
motion for certification of an 11-state class without prejudice.
The Company continues to defend these actions.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to better
health.


CVS HEALTH: Amended Complaint in "Barchock" Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation 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 recently
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended
complaint in the case, Barchock et al. v. CVS Health Corporation
et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island).

In February 2016, an ERISA class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company, the Benefit Plans Committee of the Company, and
Galliard Capital Management, Inc., by Mary Barchock, Thomas
Wasecko, and Stacy Weller, purportedly on behalf of the 401(k)
Plan and the Employee Stock Ownership Plan of the Company (the
"Plan"), and participants in the Plan. The complaint alleges that
the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs
and the Plan by investing too much of the Plan's Stable Value Fund
in short-term money market funds and cash management accounts.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to better
health.


CVS HEALTH: Still Defends Barnett & Boss Suits in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation 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 continues
to defend against the cases, Barnett et al. v. Novo Nordisk Inc.,
et al. and Boss, et al. v. CVS Health Corporation, et al.(both
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey).

These putative class actions were filed against the Company and
other pharmacy benefit managers ("PBMs") and manufacturers of
insulin in March 2017. Plaintiffs in both cases allege that the
PBMs and manufacturers have engaged in a conspiracy whereby the
PBMs sell access to their formularies by demanding the highest
rebates, which in turn causes increased list prices for insulin.
The primary claims are antitrust claims, claims under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"),
violations of state unfair competition and consumer protection
laws and in Boss, claims pursuant to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act ("ERISA").

The Barnett plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of all
persons who paid any portion of the purchase prices for a
prescription for certain insulin products at a price calculated by
reference to a benchmark.

The Boss plaintiffs purport to represent multiple nationwide
classes including a non-ERISA Employee/Exchange Plan class, an
ERISA class, a Medicare class and an uninsured class.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
pharmacy innovation company helping people on their path to better
health.


DAVITA INC: Faces Class Suit by Peace Officers' Annuity Fund
------------------------------------------------------------
DaVita 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 defending against the
Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia Securities
Class Action Civil Suit.

On February 1, 2017, the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund
of Georgia filed a putative federal securities class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
against the Company and certain executives. The complaint covers
the time period of August 2015 to October 2016 and alleges,
generally, that the Company and its executives violated federal
securities laws concerning the Company's financial results and
revenue derived from patients who received charitable premium
assistance from an industry-funded non-profit organization. The
complaint further alleges that the process by which patients
obtained commercial insurance and received charitable premium
assistance was improper and "created a false impression of
DaVita's business and operational status and future growth
prospects." The Company disputes these allegations and intends to
defend this action accordingly.

DaVita operates two major divisions, DaVita Kidney Care (Kidney
Care) and DaVita Medical Group (DMG, formerly known as HealthCare
Partners or HCP).


DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Judge Has Yet to Rule on Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Riotta, writing for Newsweek, reports that a class action
lawsuit alleging the Democratic National Committee worked in
conjunction with Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign to keep Bernie
Sanders out of the White House has been raging on in the
courtrooms for months on end--and yet, most people have no idea of
its existence, in large part thanks to the mainstream media's
total lack of coverage.

Jared Beck, a Harvard Law graduate and one of the several
attorneys who filed the suit against the DNC and its former
chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, wants retribution for
donations made by supporters to the Vermont senator's campaign,
citing six legal claims of the DNC's deceptive conduct, negligent
misrepresentation and fraud.  The DNC violated Article 5, Section
4 of its own charter by working with a single campaign to
effectively choose who would win the Democratic ballot, the
attorneys stated in the suit.

Sanders' supporters have faced an uphill battle in the courts ever
since August, when the DNC managed to block hearings from
beginning by successfully claiming it wasn't served the lawsuit
correctly.  The committee then immediately requested the lawsuit
be dismissed after it was refiled September 2, according to
Observer.  Since then, Schultz and the DNC's attorneys have
defended the organization against accusations that it failed in
its duties to maintain neutrality throughout last year's
Democratic primaries.

The most recent court hearing on the case was held on April 25,
during which the DNC reportedly argued that the organization's
neutrality among Democratic campaigns during the primaries was
merely a "political promise," and therefore it had no legal
obligations to remain impartial throughout the process.

Attorneys behind the lawsuit also said the DNC failed to properly
secure Sanders' donor information.

A pending order from the judge will determine whether the court
sides with the DNC, which faced backlash after leaked emails
showed CNN allegedly gave the Clinton campaign planned questions
ahead of a debate between the former secretary of state, and
Sanders, who quickly rose to prominence and popularity among
liberals but failed to garner enough votes to secure the
Democratic ticket.

The court decision could have major consequences for a party
internally grappling with how to define itself in Trump's America.
Sanders, who represented a leftward shift from the Clinton and
Obama centrists who typically receive large backings from wealthy
Democratic donors, has become the symbolic face of the resistance
under the new White house administration.  He's also the most
popular politician alive in the U.S., according to recent polling.

At a time when most Americans no longer feel represented by the
Democratic or Republican Party, a class action lawsuit could prove
millions of supporters of an embattled progressive campaign right,
or further support President Donald Trump's notion that the 2016
election was, in fact, rigged.  [GN]


DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Judge Hears Motion to Dismiss Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Eastman, writing for Legal Insurrection, reports that, by
now, every Legal Insurrection reader will likely have been exposed
to a deluge of media related to the Washington Post's assertions
about President Donald Trump disclosing highly classified
information in his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister and
Ambassador.

However, the intense media focus on the White House has meant
substantially less ink, electrons and time have been spent
covering two, significant class action lawsuits against the
Democratic National Committee:

   (1) It's shenanigans during the primary to weigh the nomination
in Hillary Clinton's favor.

   (2) Failure to pay its campaign workers for overtime.

DNC'S MOTION TO DISMISS HEARING

This class action lawsuit has been making its way through the
court system since October of 2016, and reports are now available
covering the hearing in the U.S. District Court of Southern
Florida in which the DNC requested the base be dismissed.

The lawsuit alleges that the DNC and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman
Schultz violated the DNC charter and helped tip the scales in
favor of Hillary Clinton.

As most conservatives usually have little interest in liberal
politics, and the media has even less desire to cover this topic,
it took some searching to discover interesting analysis from
Bernie supporter and Washington DC show host Tim Black and
Huffington Post author H.A. Goodman: Seven Jaw-Dropping
Revelations From DNC Fraud Lawsuit's Motion to Dismiss.

The article they discuss was a report on the hearing itself that
discussed these seven revelations, and analyzed them in full.

1. The crux of the Motion to Dismiss asserts the Judge is not in a
position to determine how the Democratic Party conducts its
nominating process.
2. The Democratic Party views itself as having authority to favor
a candidate without any legal repercussions.
3. Judge Zloch appeared skeptical, noting the Democrats' interest
to obscure the guarantee of the Party's impartiality clause.
4. The Democrats insist that "impartial" cannot be defined, so the
DNC's impartiality clause is akin to a political promise in that
it can not be guaranteed.
5. DNC's legal counsel appeared unaware of any procedures in place
to determine how the DNC supports state parties as they conduct
individual primary nominating contests.
6. The Democrats' lawyers takes the position that while the
Democrats are not legally obligated to conduct the primary fairly,
they did in fact conduct the 2016 primary fairly.
7. In closing remarks, U.S. Federal Court district judge
emphasized: "Democracy demands the truth".

To the 7th point, the DNC is likely to be a bit unhappy with the
judge's line of questioning.

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME

The second class-action lawsuit charges that the DNC and others
involved in the 2016 national convention in Philadelphia failed to
pay overtime wages to some 50 national field organizers.

The DNC adopted an official plank at the convention calling for a
$15 an hour national minimum wage, more than double the current
federal level of $7.25 an hour.  "The Democratic Party believes
that supporting workers through higher wages, workplace
protections, policies to balance work and family, and other
investments," it said.

That apparently didn't extend to the organizers, many of whom
worked 80-hour weeks, according to Justin Swidler, a Cherry Hill,
Pa., lawyer who filed the lawsuit.  "They got paid a flat salary
of $3,000 a month, which isn't even minimum wage for some of the
hours that they were working," Mr. Swidler told CBS.

Meanwhile, the Philadelphia 2016 Host Committee used some of the
leftover money it raised for the DNC to pay nearly $1 million
bonuses to staff and volunteers.  The rewards ranged from $500 for
interns to $310,000 for executive director Kevin Washo.

It looks as if I will have to monitor the developments because it
seems our elite media has no desire to report on real scandals
involving Democrats. [GN]


DIAMOND RESORTS: Fournier Seeks to Terminate Timeshare Membership
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gisele Fournier and Rejean Fournier, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Diamond Resorts
International Club, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00911 (C.D. Cal., May 10, 2017),
seeks statutory, actual and treble damages, equitable and
injunctive relief, restitution, costs and reasonable attorney's
fees and such other and further relief for violations of the Truth
in Lending Act, Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991,
California False Advertising Act of the California Business and
Professions Code, Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the California
Welfare and Institutions Code.

Defendant sells timeshare contracts where Plaintiffs obtained a
membership whereby they would acquire timeshare that could then be
redeemed in exchange for the right to use and occupy
accommodations at various resorts. Plaintiffs grew dissatisfied
with their membership due to the unavailability of accommodations
and inability to make reservations at certain times of the year.
Plaintiffs also contest the fees and their confusing statement of
account which reflected unexpected dues and interests. Fournier
now wants to terminate their timeshare and get a refund of their
2016 payments. Their calls were met with answering machines. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
      8032 West Third Street, Suite 201
      Los Angeles, CA 90048
      Tel (323) 937-0400
      Fax (866) 288-9194


DIGITALGLOBE INC: "Bussey" Sues Over Shadowy Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Royce Bussey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Digitalglobe, Inc., General Howell M.
Estes III, Nick S. Cyprus, Roxanne Decyk, Lawrence A. Hough,
Warren C. Jenson, L. Roger Mason, Jr., Jeffrey R. Tarr, Kimberly
Till, Eddy Zervigon, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01159, (D.
Colo., May 10, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently
enjoin defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing
the acquisition of DigitalGlobe by MacDonald, Dettwiler and
Associates Ltd.  The suit further seeks rescissory damages in case
the merger is consummated, costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees
and such other and further relief under the Securities and
Exchange Act.

McDonald will acquire all of the outstanding shares of
DigitalGlobe common stock for $17.50 in cash. Transaction was
valued at approximately $35 per share, or $2.4 billion.

The merger deal is allegedly marred with conflicts of interest on
the part of the management during the negotiation process,
rendering it unfair to Plaintiff.

DigitalGlobe provides imagery solutions and other services to
customers for a wide variety of uses, including mission-planning,
mapping and analysis, environmental monitoring, oil and gas
exploration, and infrastructure management. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025

             - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Tel: (202) 524-4290


F. MILLER: "Hannon" Sues Over FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------
SHANNON HANNON, MELISSA TORRES, SHELLY GUIDRY, Plaintiffs VERSUS
F. MILLER PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00304-JWD-
EWD (M.D. La., May 10, 2017), was brought on behalf of Plaintiff
and all other similarly situated employees, including but not
limited to (a) Class I: all persons employed by Miller at any
location as a waiter/server who suffered deductions from cash
wages for employee meal credit, (b) Class II: all employees who
were told they had to make up in tips the difference between their
cash wage and $7.25 per hour in order to earn minimum wage,
and/or (c) Class III: all employees subject to minimum wage tip
credit who regularly spent more than 20% of their work time
bussing tables, washing dishes and performing janitorial work not
directly related to customer service.

The Defendant operates restaurants.  Plaintiffs were employed as
servers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Zaunbrecher, Esq.
     413 Travis Street, Suite 200
     Post Office Drawer 51367
     Lafayette, LA 70505-1367
     Phone: (337) 237-4070
     Fax: (337) 233-8719


FERNANDEZ BROTHERS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that employees have filed a class-action lawsuit against Fernandez
Brothers Inc., citing alleged unpaid wages and violation of
minimum wage and workers' compensation laws.

Regina Gonzales Gomez and Fidel Guerrero Comofort filed a
complaint on April 4 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging that the defendants failed to pay
them fair wages.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they
suffered damages from not being paid minimum wages and from not
being paid all wages upon termination. The plaintiffs hold the
defendants responsible for allegedly failing to provide adequate
meals and rest breaks to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek damages for unpaid
minimum wages, liquidated damages, unpaid rest period wages,
unpaid premium wages, restitution, penalties for inaccurate wage
statements, unpaid wages, actual damages, statutory damages,
interest, all legal fees and any other relief as the court deems
just.  They are represented by Gregory N. Karasik --
greg@karasiklawfirm.com -- of Karasik Law Firm in Los Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 5:17-cv-01863-HRL [GN]


FRESNO, CA: Second Group of Residents Joins Water Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Sheehan, writing for Fresno Bee, reports that a second group
of northeast Fresno residents are suing the city over water
problems -- including lead and discoloration -- that they say
lasted for years before officials took concerted action to solve
the concerns.

Brian Kabateck, an attorney from Los Angeles, is leading the team
representing homeowners Jackie Flannery, Guadalupe Meza, Ronda
Rafidi, Shann Conner, Marirose Larkin, Patricia Wallace-Rixman,
Harry Rixman and Kelly Unruh in the potential class-action suit
filed on May 17 in Fresno County Superior Court.

The case revolves around water provided by the city's Northeast
Surface Water Treatment Facility.  It treats canal water from
Millerton and Pine Flat lakes to distribute to about 15,000 homes
and other water customers throughout that part of the city.

The suit alleges that the city for years ignored reports from
residents about discolored water coming from faucets in homes
plumbed with galvanized pipes since shortly after the plant opened
in 2004.  In early 2016, social media posts sparked a realization
among homeowners that problems were not isolated to only a few
residences, but were more widespread than they had realized.

The grounds for the suit are similar to one filed last fall by a
legal team led by Raymond Boucher, an attorney in Woodland Hills -
- the problems are related to water chemistry issues at the
treatment plant and how the treated water differs from pumped well
water that for years exclusively served city residents. Experts
last fall said the differences in the water likely caused deposits
of scale and rust to be dislodged from inside of galvanized pipes,
causing discoloration.  Testing of some homes indicated the
presence of lead in the water, in some instances at levels higher
than "action levels" set by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.

Both suits assert that the city knew before it built the plant,
from a consultant's 1998 report, that a change in the water supply
could cause problems for homeowners.

"This case shines a spotlight on how the city, rather than
protecting its residents from the dangers of lead in its drinking
water, actively promoted, designed and approved changes to its
water supply systems that it knew would lead to the risk of
corrosion and leaching of metals in its piping, including the
introduction of iron and lead into residents' drinking water," the
new lawsuit states.

Mr. Kabateck told The Bee on May 17 that he believes it is "very
likely" that the two cases will ultimately be merged into one. His
team, which includes attorney Frank Pitre of Burlingame and
Michael Gatto of Oakland, has been working collaboratively with
Mr. Boucher, New Jersey attorney Esther Berezofsky and Stuart
Chandler of Fresno since last year.

The second lawsuit aims to represent owners of homes built with
galvanized pipes before 2004, when the treatment plant began
producing water.  The number of potential clients is unknown, Mr.
Kabateck said, "but we believe it's a fairly large number in the
thousands."

Messrs. Kabateck and Boucher both worked on a 2001 case in
Southern California's Santa Clarita Valley, where more than 4,600
home and condo owners sued developers and pipe manufacturers over
defective galvanized pipes imported from South Korea. The case
eventually led to a $41 million settlement in which each plaintiff
received up to $9,000 to cover the cost of repairs to their homes
for damage caused by the faulty plumbing.

The water chemistry issues at the core of the lawsuit could
reverberate well beyond northeast Fresno.  The city is in the
process of building another surface water treatment plant in
southeast Fresno that would serve many more residents in areas
where there is likely a greater concentration of homes plumbed
with galvanized pipes.  Since last year, Fresno's public utilities
department has been tinkering with treatment strategies to reduce
the instances of water discloration; experts are continuing to
conduct tests in hopes of prevent a repeat of the problems when
the southeast plant becomes operational in 2018. [GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: Defends Subpoena in Ignition Switch MDL
-------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Boysen, John Kennedy and Cara Salvatore, writing for Law360,
report that GM fought back on May 16 against efforts to quash a
subpoena it issued to a class action website for information about
ads placed there by attorneys representing drivers suing the
automaker over allegedly defective ignition switches, saying the
information is both relevant and not privileged.

GM subpoenaed all documents involving communications between Top
Class Actions and the drivers' attorneys two weeks ago, after
several plaintiffs recently testified they'd found out about the
ongoing ignition switch multidistrict litigation through ads on
the site.

The drivers' attorneys shot back, saying the information was
subject to attorney-client privilege and also irrelevant, calling
the subpoena a fishing expedition for "evidence of improper
solicitation of plaintiffs."  GM said in the May 16 letter that's
not true, pointing to several disclaimers on TCA's site to back up
its claims.

"The TCA website warns plaintiffs and all others that 'LEGAL
INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE' . . . [and] advises TCA's users
that 'content and/or information provided by user to TCA through
this web site is non-confidential and non-proprietary," GM said.
The site "further cautions users that TCA 'cannot guarantee that
the information you submit to us will not end up in the hands of
the company . . . that you are complaining about."

GM says facts such as whether or not drivers claimed to have
experienced an alleged defect when corresponding with attorneys
through the site, and whether they claimed their vehicles had lost
value as a result of the alleged defects are "clearly relevant" to
the MDL.  GM also claims that, because TCA is a third-party, the
drivers' attorneys have no standing to quash the subpoena.

A spokeswoman for TCA told Law360 the company is still reviewing
GM's response.  TCA's president, Scott Hardy, said this is the
first time in its 10-year existence that it has ever been
subpoenaed for information relating to a court case that's been
covered on the site.

"Frankly, we're not sure why we were subpoenaed in this case, but
we're working closely with legal counsel to make sure that our
viewers, clients and business are protected," Mr. Hardy told
Law360.

TCA is a website that provides class action news and other
resources to consumers, and describes itself as a service aimed at
helping consumers find, submit claims for and get compensation for
class action settlements.

GM says the warnings described above and various others that
appear on TCA's site clearly indicate to its users that their
information is not protected by attorney-client privilege,
contrary to what the drivers' attorneys argued, and therefore it
should be allowed to subpoena them.

The faulty switch suits, which have since been consolidated into
an MDL, allege that design defects in certain models of GM cars
led keys to slip out of the ignition switch in car crashes,
shutting off the car and preventing the air bags from deploying,
among other things.  Hundreds of deaths have been attributed to
the design flaws, which vary from model to model, and GM initiated
an extensive recall of the affected cars in 2014.

GM has been fighting the suits tooth-and-nail for years, and the
next round of bellwether trials, which centers on the switches
placed in Cadillacs, is set to begin later this year.

As is customary, both sides have been pulling out all the stops in
preparation for those trials, hotly contesting what evidence will
be admitted and what arguments are permissible, among other
things.

Last month, GM even tried to resurrect an earlier defense that had
been shot down by the Second Circuit last year, saying a
subsequent ruling by the same court meant the MDL claims should be
thrown out wholesale, because GM's 2009 bankruptcy process
shielded the automaker from them.

That argument was strongly denounced by the drivers' attorneys,
and it doesn't appear U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman has
addressed it yet one way or the other.

GM declined to comment on May 17, and the drivers' counsel did not
respond to a request for comment.

The drivers are represented by Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman,
Elizabeth J. Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser and Bob Hilliard of
Hilliard Munoz.

GM is represented by Richard Godfrey --
richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- and Andrew Bloomer --
andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

The case is In re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation,
case number 1:14-md-02543, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. [GN]


GERBER PRODUCTS: "Hobbs" Alleges False Ad of Good Start Gentle
--------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA HOBBS, individually and as a representative of the class,
Plaintiff, vs. GERBER PRODUCTS CO., a corporation, d/b/a NESTLE
NUTRITION, NESTLE INFANT NUTRITION, AND NESTLE NUTRITION NORTH
AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03534 (N.D. Ill., May 10,
2017), accuses Defendants of committing a pattern of deceit and
unfair business practices in the marketing and sale of Good Start
Gentle, a line of infant formula.

Gerber Products Company, doing business as Nestle Infant
Nutrition, manufactures and markets food and care items for
infants and children from birth through age 3.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
     Adam Prom, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 W. Monroe St. #3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 312-346-2222
     Fax: 312-346-0022
     Email: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
     Email: ap@wexlerwallace.com

        - and -

     Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
     Paul V. Sweeny, Esq.
     SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
     32 East 57th St., 12th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 421-6492
     Fax: (212) 421-6553
     Email: stephen@sfclasslaw.com
     Email: paul@sfclasslaw.com

        - and -

     Daniel Keller, Esq.
     Dan C. Bolton, Esq.
     KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON LLP
     28720 Canwood Street, Suite 200
     Agoura Hills, CA 91301
     Phone: (818) 342-7442
     Fax: (818) 342-7616
     Email: dkeller@kfjlegal.com
     Email: dbolton@kfjlegal.com


HALYARD HEALTH: To Challenge $450MM Surgical Gown Suit Verdict
--------------------------------------------------------------
Halyard Health, 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 intends to
file a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which will
argue that the court should reverse a jury's verdict in related to
the surgical gown litigation.

The Company said, "We have an Indemnification Obligation for, and
have assumed the defense of, the matter styled Bahamas Surgery
Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health,
Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.) ("Bahamas"), filed on
October 29, 2014. In that case, the plaintiff brought a putative
class action asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative
misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) and violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law in connection with our
marketing and sale of MicroCool surgical gowns. On November 8,
2016, the court certified a California-only class arising from
fraud by omission, but it rejected certification of a California-
only class for damages and injunctive relief arising from
affirmative fraud, and it also rejected certification of a
nationwide "issue" class. The court also rejected the plaintiff's
request for "full restitution" damages, meaning the full value of
the gowns. Instead, the court determined that damages, if any,
would be based on the difference between the actual purchase price
of the gowns and what the purchase price would have been had the
allegedly omitted information been known by the purchasers at the
time of purchase."

"On April 7, 2017, after a two-week trial, a jury returned a
verdict for the plaintiff, finding that Kimberly-Clark was liable
for $4 million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment
interest) and $350 million in punitive damages, and that Halyard
was liable for $0.3 million in compensatory damages (not including
prejudgment interest) and $100 million in punitive damages. We
intend to challenge the verdict through post-trial motions and, if
necessary, appeal to a higher court. For instance, we intend to
file a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which will
argue that the court should reverse the jury's verdict in whole or
in part because it was based on insufficient facts and/or did not
correctly apply the law. As an alternative, we may seek a new
trial.

"Additionally, we intend to challenge the jury's punitive damages
award as not being supported by the facts and for being excessive
in violation of due process under the U.S. Constitution. The U.S.
Supreme Court has stated that the Constitutional outer limit for
the ratio between punitive damages and compensatory damages in
cases such as ours is approximately 9 to 1 or lower, and we
believe that in a case such as this one the ratio should be lower.
We intend to rely on this and other legal authority in seeking to
reduce the jury's punitive damages award, which totaled more than
100 times the compensatory damages assessed against the defendants
(including a ratio of approximately 382 to 1 as to the Company).
We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the Bahamas matter.

"We have notified Kimberly-Clark that we have reserved our rights
to challenge any purported obligation to indemnify Kimberly-Clark
for the punitive damages awarded against them. In connection with
our reservation of rights, on May 1, 2017, we filed a complaint in
the matter styled Halyard Health, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark
Corporation, Case No. BC659662 (County of Los Angeles, Superior
Court of California). In that case, we seek a declaratory judgment
that we have no obligation, under the Distribution Agreement or
otherwise, to indemnify, pay, reimburse, assume, or otherwise
cover punitive damages assessed against Kimberly-Clark in Bahamas
Surgery Center, LLC, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and
Halyard Health, Inc., No. 14-CV-08390 (C.D. Cal., originally filed
on October 29, 2014), or any Expenses or Losses (as defined in the
Distribution Agreement) associated with an award of punitive
damages.

"On May 2, 2017, Kimberly-Clark filed a complaint in the matter
styled Kimberly-Clark Corporation v. Halyard Health, Inc., Case
No. 2017-0332-____ (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware).
In that case, Kimberly-Clark seeks a declaratory judgment that (1)
we must indemnify them for all damages, including punitive
damages, assessed against them in the Bahamas matter, (2) we have
anticipatorily and materially breached the Distribution Agreement
by our failure to indemnify them, and (3) we are estopped from
asserting, or have otherwise waived, any claim that we are not
required to indemnify them for all damages, including punitive
damages, that may be awarded in the Bahamas matter."

Halyard Health, Inc. is a medical technology company focused on
eliminating pain, speeding recovery and preventing infection for
healthcare providers and patients.


HALYARD HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss "Jackson" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the case, Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc.,
Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., remains pending,
Halyard Health, 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.

The Company said, "We were served with a complaint in a matter
styled Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy,
Steven E. Voskuil, et al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), filed
on June 28, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative
class action against the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, our
Chief Financial Officer and other defendants, asserting claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and
20(a). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain information
about the safety and effectiveness of our MicroCool gowns and
thereby artificially inflated the Company's stock prices during
the respective class periods. The alleged class period for
purchasers of Kimberly-Clark securities who subsequently received
Halyard Health securities is February 25, 2013 to October 21,
2014, and the alleged class period for purchasers of Halyard
Health securities is October 21, 2014 to April 29, 2016."

"On February 16, 2017, we moved to dismiss the case. We intend to
continue our vigorous defense of this matter."

Halyard Health, Inc. is a medical technology company focused on
eliminating pain, speeding recovery and preventing infection for
healthcare providers and patients.


HCP INC: Boynton Beach Action in Early Stages
---------------------------------------------
HCP, 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 class action lawsuit by Boynton
Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund is in its early stages.

On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters'
Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
the Company, certain of its officers, HCRMC, and certain of its
officers, asserting violations of the federal securities laws. The
suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that the Company made
certain false or misleading statements relating to the value of
and risks concerning its investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing
to disclose that HCRMC had engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by
the U.S. Department of Justice in a pending suit against HCRMC
arising from the False Claims Act. The plaintiff in the suit
demands compensatory damages (in an unspecified amount), costs and
expenses (including attorneys' fees and expert fees), and
equitable, injunctive, or other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

As the Boynton Beach action is in its early stages and a lead
plaintiff has not yet been named, the defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint. The Company believes the suit to be
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.

HCP, Inc., a Standard & Poor's ("S&P") 500 company, is a Maryland
corporation that is organized to qualify as a real estate
investment trust ("REIT") which, together with its consolidated
entities (collectively, "HCP" or the "Company"), invests primarily
in real estate serving the healthcare industry in the United
States ("U.S."). The Company acquires, develops, leases, manages
and disposes of healthcare real estate and provides financing to
healthcare providers. The Company's diverse portfolio is comprised
of investments in the following reportable healthcare segments:
(i) senior housing triple-net ("SH NNN"); (ii) senior housing
operating portfolio ("SHOP"); (iii) life science and (iv) medical
office.


HERSHEY'S: Motion to Dismiss Reese Slack Fill Class Action Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Margolies, writing for KCUR, reports that a federal judge has
denied Hershey's motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit alleging
Reese's Pieces boxes are deceptively packaged.

What would Elliot, dear friend of E.T. the Extra Terrestrial, say?

When Elliot scattered a trail of Reese's Pieces for his alien
friend in Stephen Spielberg's classic movie, he probably wasn't
thinking about the candy's packaging.

But Columbia, Missouri, resident Robert Bratton was.

Mr. Bratton bought several boxes of Reese's Pieces and Whoppers
malted milk balls at a Gerbes grocery story in Columbia for $1
apiece.

He says he was influenced by the size of the opaque boxes, which
led him to believe he was buying more candy than he did.  Turns
out the boxes, as is commonplace in the industry, had a lot of
"slack-filled" -- or empty -- space.

So Mr. Bratton did what any candy-loving American would do: He
sued the maker of the candies, The Hershey Company.  The class-
action lawsuit, originally filed in state court last year, was
moved by Hershey to federal court.

And in a setback for the company on May 17, the judge denied its
motion to throw out the case.  Although surviving a motion to
dismiss is a fairly low bar -- Mr. Bratton only had to allege
facts stating a plausible claim for relief -- it means that
Mr. Bratton may yet get his day in court.

Mr. Bratton sued Hershey under the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act (MMPA), a 50-year-old law aimed at protecting
consumers from unfair and deceptive business practices.

In her 22-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey found
that Mr. Bratton had "plausibly alleged, at minimum, that the
packaging unfairly suggests the boxes contain more product than
they actually do, or tends to or has the capacity to mislead
consumers or to create a false impression, which is sufficient for
purposes of alleging an unlawful practice under the MMPA."

"The Court cannot conclude as a matter of law and at this stage of
the litigation that the packaging is not misleading," Judge
Laughrey wrote.

Judge Laughrey made her finding even as she noted that the boxes
specifically list their net weight, the number of pieces per
serving (51 in Reese's Pieces' case, 18 in Whoppers' case) and the
number of servings per container ("about 3" in Reese's Pieces'
case, "about 3.5" in Whoppers' case).

But as Mr. Bratton complained, about 29 percent of the Reese's
Pieces boxes and about 41 percent of the Whoppers boxes consisted
of "slack-filled," or empty, space.

That, he said, led him to suffer "an ascertainable loss" because
"the actual value of the Products as purchased was less than the
value of the Products as represented."

Hershey joins several other candy makers, including Nestle USA
Inc. Mondelez International Inc., that have been sued recently for
allegedly under-filling their candy boxes.

Hershey can take some consolation in the May 16 ruling.  Judge
Laughrey deferred a decision on whether Bratton could pursue his
claims for unjust enrichment on behalf of others. And unless
Laughrey decides to certify the case as a class action, it's
unlikely Bratton will be able to pursue it as an individual case.
That's because his individual damages would likely be so miniscule
as to make it economically unfeasible. [GN]


JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs' Appeal in ERISA Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 an appeal by
plaintiffs related to the dismissal of one ERISA class action
remains pending.

The Firm is one of a number of foreign exchange dealers defending
a class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York by U.S.-based plaintiffs,
principally alleging violations of federal antitrust laws based on
an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange rates (the
"U.S. class action").

In January 2015, the Firm entered into a settlement agreement in
the U.S. class action. Following this settlement, a number of
additional putative class actions were filed seeking damages for
persons who transacted FX futures and options on futures (the
"exchanged-based actions"), consumers who purchased foreign
currencies at allegedly inflated rates (the "consumer action"),
participants or beneficiaries of qualified ERISA plans (the "ERISA
actions"), and purported indirect purchasers of FX instruments
(the "indirect purchaser action"). Since then, the Firm has
entered into a revised settlement agreement to resolve the
consolidated U.S. class action, including the exchange-based
actions, and that agreement has been preliminarily approved by the
Court.

The District Court has dismissed one of the ERISA actions, and the
plaintiffs have filed an appeal. The consumer action, a second
ERISA action and the indirect purchaser action remain pending in
the District Court.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., a financial holding company incorporated
under Delaware law in 1968, is a leading global financial services
firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the United
States of America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide; the Firm
had $2.5 trillion in assets and $255.9 billion in stockholders'
equity as of March 31, 2017.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Settlement of Quebec Action Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 Court approval of the
settlement of a Quebec class action lawsuit remains pending.

In September 2015, two class actions were filed in Canada against
the Firm as well as a number of other FX dealers, principally for
alleged violations of the Canadian Competition Act based on an
alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of currency purchased in the
FX market. The first action was filed in the province of Ontario,
and seeks to represent all persons in Canada who transacted any FX
instrument. The second action was filed in the province of Quebec,
and seeks authorization to represent only those persons in Quebec
who engaged in FX transactions.

In late 2016, the Firm settled the Canadian class actions, subject
to Court approval. The Court in the Ontario action granted
approval of that settlement in April 2017, and Court approval of
the settlement of the Quebec action remains pending.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., a financial holding company incorporated
under Delaware law in 1968, is a leading global financial services
firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the United
States of America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide; the Firm
had $2.5 trillion in assets and $255.9 billion in stockholders'
equity as of March 31, 2017.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Faces Interchange Litigation
--------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend the Interchange
Litigation, 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.

A group of merchants and retail associations filed a series of
class action complaints alleging that Visa and MasterCard, as well
as certain banks, conspired to set the price of credit and debit
card interchange fees, enacted respective rules in violation of
antitrust laws, and engaged in tying/bundling and exclusive
dealing. The parties entered into an agreement to settle the cases
for a cash payment of $6.1 billion to the class plaintiffs (of
which the Firm's share is approximately 20%) and an amount equal
to ten basis points of credit card interchange for a period of
eight months to be measured from a date within 60 days of the end
of the opt-out period. The agreement also provided for
modifications to each credit card network's rules, including those
that prohibit surcharging credit card transactions.

In December 2013, the District Court granted final approval of the
settlement.

A number of merchants appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, which, in June 2016, vacated the
District Court's certification of the class action and reversed
the approval of the class settlement.

Both the plaintiffs and the defendants filed petitions seeking
review by the U.S. Supreme Court of the Second Circuit's decision,
and those petitions were denied in March 2017. The case has been
remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent
with the appellate decision.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., a financial holding company incorporated
under Delaware law in 1968, is a leading global financial services
firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the United
States of America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide; the Firm
had $2.5 trillion in assets and $255.9 billion in stockholders'
equity as of March 31, 2017.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Defends LIBOR & Other Benchmark Rate Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend against LIBOR and Other
Benchmark Rate litigation, 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.

JPMorgan Chase has received subpoenas and requests for documents
and, in some cases, interviews, from federal and state agencies
and entities, including the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"),
the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC"), the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and various state
attorneys general, as well as the European Commission ("EC"), the
U.K. Financial Conduct Authority ("FCA"), the Canadian Competition
Bureau, the Swiss Competition Commission ("ComCo") and other
regulatory authorities and banking associations around the world
relating primarily to the process by which interest rates were
submitted to the British Bankers Association ("BBA") in connection
with the setting of the BBA's London Interbank Offered Rate
("LIBOR") for various currencies, principally in 2007 and 2008.

Some of the inquiries also relate to similar processes by which
information on rates is submitted to the European Banking
Federation ("EBF") in connection with the setting of the EBF's
Euro Interbank Offered Rates ("EURIBOR") and to the Japanese
Bankers' Association for the setting of Tokyo Interbank Offered
Rates ("TIBOR"), as well as processes for the setting of U.S.
dollar ISDAFIX rates and other reference rates in various parts of
the world during similar time periods. The Firm is responding to
and continuing to cooperate with these inquiries.

As previously reported, the Firm has resolved EC inquiries
relating to Yen LIBOR and Swiss Franc LIBOR. In December 2016, the
Firm resolved ComCo inquiries relating to these same rates.
ComCo's investigation relating to EURIBOR, to which the Firm and
other banks are subject, continues. In December 2016, the EC
issued a decision against the Firm and other banks finding an
infringement of European antitrust rules relating to EURIBOR. The
Firm has filed an appeal with the European General Court. In June
2016, the DOJ informed the Firm that the DOJ had closed its
inquiry into LIBOR and other benchmark rates with respect to the
Firm without taking action. Other inquiries have been discontinued
without any action against JPMorgan Chase, including by the SEC,
FCA and the Canadian Competition Bureau.

In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with
other banks in a series of individual and putative class actions
filed in various United States District Courts. These actions have
been filed, or consolidated for pre-trial purposes, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In
these actions, plaintiffs make varying allegations that in various
periods, starting in 2000 or later, defendants either individually
or collectively manipulated the U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR,
Swiss franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, EURIBOR, Singapore Interbank
Offered Rate ("SIBOR"), Singapore Swap Offer Rate ("SOR") and/or
the Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate ("BBSW") by submitting rates
that were artificially low or high. Plaintiffs allege that they
transacted in loans, derivatives or other financial instruments
whose values are affected by changes in U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen
LIBOR, Swiss franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, EURIBOR, SIBOR, SOR or
BBSW and assert a variety of claims including antitrust claims
seeking treble damages. These matters are in various stages of
litigation.

The Firm has agreed to settle the putative class actions related
to Yen LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR and Swiss franc LIBOR.  Those
settlements are subject to further documentation and approval by
the Court.

In the EURIBOR action, the District Court dismissed all claims
except a single antitrust claim and two common law claims, and
dismissed all defendants except the Firm and Citibank.

In the U.S. dollar LIBOR-related actions, the District Court
dismissed certain claims, including the antitrust claims, and
permitted other claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and common
law to proceed. In May 2016, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the antitrust
claims and remanded the case to the District Court to consider,
among other things, whether the plaintiffs have standing to assert
antitrust claims. In July 2016, JPMorgan Chase and other
defendants again moved in the District Court to dismiss the
antitrust claims, and in December 2016, the District Court granted
in part and denied in part defendants' motion, finding that
certain plaintiffs lacked standing to assert antitrust claims.

The Firm is one of the defendants in a number of putative class
actions alleging that defendant banks and ICAP conspired to
manipulate the U.S. dollar ISDAFIX rates. Plaintiffs primarily
assert claims under the federal antitrust laws and Commodity
Exchange Act. In April 2016, the Firm settled the ISDAFIX
litigation, along with certain other banks. Those settlements have
been preliminarily approved by the Court.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., a financial holding company incorporated
under Delaware law in 1968, is a leading global financial services
firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the United
States of America ("U.S."), with operations worldwide; the Firm
had $2.5 trillion in assets and $255.9 billion in stockholders'
equity as of March 31, 2017.


K & C ENTERPRISE: "Broscious" Action Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Broscious, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. K & C Enterprise Group LLC (d/b/a 656
SPORTS Bar) and Kina Jackson, Defendants, 1:17-cv-01688 (N.D. Ga.,
May 10, 2017), seeks payment of federally mandated minimum wages
and overtime wages to Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

656 Sports Bar is a restaurant and bar located at 656 Pryor
Street, Atlanta, Georgia, 30312 owned by Defendants. Plaintiff,
worked as a bartender for Defendants between May 2015 and February
2017. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul J. Sharman, Esq.
      THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC
      11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100
      Alpharetta, GA 30022
      Phone: (678) 242-5297
      Fax: (678) 802-2129
      Email: paul@sharman-law.com


KIA MOTORS: "Centko" Sues Over Defective Bearings
-------------------------------------------------
Cara Centko and Jenn Lazar, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kia Motors America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00838 (C.D. Cal., May 10, 2017), seeks
actual, general, special, incidental, statutory, punitive and
consequential damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on
monetary relief, injunctive or declaratory relief including
repair, recall or replacement of defective vehicles and extend the
applicable warranties to a reasonable period of time, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and such further relief resulting from
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, breach
of express and implied warranty of merchantability, and for
violation of California's Fair Advertising Law and Unfair
Competition Law.

Kia vehicles equipped with the connecting rod bearings in the GDI
engines undergo a prolonged failure as metal debris circulates
throughout the engine via the engine oil. Over time, the
connecting rod bearings begin to fracture with metal debris
beginning to accumulate in the engine oil until the oil filter
clogs. Additionally, as the connecting rod bearings continue to
fracture, the acceptable tolerances between the bearings, the
connecting rod, and the crankshaft rapidly deteriorate, producing
a knocking sound, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      402 W Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Phone: (619) 756-6994
      Fax: (619) 756-6991
      Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

             - and -

      Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Fax: (412) 231-0246
      Email: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com

             - and -

      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
      THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
      85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
      Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
      Telephone: (854) 705-9460
      Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
      Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
             Gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com

             - and -

      Melissa W. Wolchansky (to be admitted pro hac vice)
      Amy E. Boyle, Esq.
      HALUNEN LAW
      1650 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 605-4098
      Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
      Email: boyle@halunenlaw.com
             Wolchansky@halunenlaw.com

             - and -

      Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
      WALSH PLLC
      PO Box 7
      Bly, OR 97622
      Telephone: (541) 359-2827
      Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
      Email: bonner@walshpllc.com


MAJOR LEAGUE: Appeals Ruling in Calif. Wage & Hour Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for California Labor Law News, reports that
as the major league baseball season continues to roll along, a
wage & hour lawsuit against Major League Baseball brought by minor
leaguers over rates of pay and other issues continues to traverse
a rocky path akin to the bases loaded in the 9th, with nobody out
in a tie game and you're the team pitching . . .

Earlier in the proposed class action lawsuit US Chief Magistrate
Judge Joseph C. Spero had denied the plaintiffs' efforts to secure
class action status, suggesting that there were flaws in the
plaintiffs' submission, and that there was insufficient continuity
of activity amongst all the proposed class members to warrant
status as a class, due to the degree of difficulties involved.
The plaintiffs came back with changes to their wage & hour
lawsuit, removing claims associated with off-site winter
conditioning, amongst other alterations.

Plaintiffs also narrowed the class to include only minor league
players in the state of California, making it a California wage
and hour lawsuit.  Plaintiffs scored a small victory in March,
when Judge Spero reversed an earlier decision and agreed to
certify the plaintiffs' claims as a class action, as well as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

But now everything is in limbo again, as Major League Baseball has
appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit, with Judge Spero giving
the defendants pause to facilitate their appeal.

The proposed class action lawsuit is itself now on pause -- call
it an extended rain delay -- until the appellate panel of the
Ninth Circuit has the opportunity to hear the appeal.

It could be a long delay, according to court records and those
conversant with the case load of the Ninth Circuit: "Given the
state of the Ninth Circuit's docket," writes Nathaniel Grow,
professor of legal studies at the University of Georgia, "if the
circuit court doesn't expedite the appeal, it could easily take a
year and a half or longer just to get an appellate ruling on the
class certification issue," he said.  "So instead of looking at a
possible trial later this year, you're probably into 2019, maybe
even 2020 before this goes to trial."

The wage and hour lawsuit was originally filed early in 2014, with
minor league ball players claiming, through their wage and hour
lawyer, unpaid overtime and wages that did not meet minimum wage
standards, or so it has been alleged.  Some players assert they
collected as little as $1,100 per month in spite of working 200
hours in an average month, or 50 hours in a week.

At issue is a uniform player contract observed by teams in the
minor leagues -- and plaintiffs assert this has been going on for
some time now: the wage and hour class action seeks to represent
players having played under the uniform contract dating back to
2010.

Some 2,200 minor league players had opted into the wage and hour
lawsuit before it was decertified in 2016. When plaintiffs
narrowed their focus, Judge Spero reversed his earlier decision
and in March of this year gave the green light to the California
wage and hour class and collective action.

But now Major League Baseball -- the defendant in the case --
wants to appeal and Judge Spero maintains the defendants have the
right to do that.

"The court concludes that these questions involve controlling
questions of law as to which there is substantial ground for
difference of opinion because of the dearth of relevant case law
and tension in the relevant legal standards," the judge said.
"Because these questions have crucial implications for whether a
collective may be certified in this action, the court concludes
that an immediate appeal from its March 7, 2017, order may
materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation."

Major League Baseball and its clubs could suffer 'significant
harm' depending upon which way the Ninth Circuit rules -- and
that's if the Ninth Circuit agrees to hear the appeal at all.

"Should the Ninth Circuit reverse this court's [order], defendants
will suffer substantial harm if this action is not stayed pending
appeal as they will have devoted very substantial time and
resources on the litigation, particularly with respect to the
completion of discovery, dispositive motions and trial preparation
on class claims," the judge said.

For now, the plaintiffs wait in a rain delay. . .

The case is Aaron Senne et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of
Baseball et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00608, in the US District Court
for the Northern District of California. [GN]


MDC PARTNERS: Class Action Litigation in Canada Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
MDC Partners 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 MDC has served a
motion to address the scope of the proposed class definition in
the class action litigation in Canada.

On August 7, 2015, Roberto Paniccia issued a Statement of Claim in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the City of Brantford,
Ontario seeking to certify a class action suit naming the
following as defendants: MDC, former CEO Miles S. Nadal, former
CAO Michael C. Sabatino, CFO David Doft and BDO U.S.A. LLP. The
Plaintiff alleges violations of section 138.1 of the Ontario
Securities Act (and equivalent legislation in other Canadian
provinces and territories) as well as common law misrepresentation
based on allegedly materially false and misleading statements in
the Company's public statements, as well as omitting to disclose
material facts with respect to the SEC investigation.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this Canadian
suit on the same basis as which the U.S. class action was
previously dismissed. A first case management meeting has been
held. The plaintiff has served his material for leave to proceed
under the Securities Act. MDC has served a motion to address the
scope of the proposed class definition.


MGM: Plaintiff Fights Bid to Dismiss James Bond DVD Box Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Cullins, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that the
definitions of "all" and "every" are at the center of the suit.
Do Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton,
Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig constitute all of the onscreen
personifications of charismatic super spy James Bond, or must one
include David Niven?

That question is before a Washington federal judge, as he
evaluates whether a class action over a 50th anniversary DVD box
set should be allowed to move forward.

Mary Johnson sued MGM and 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment in
April, claiming that she was promised all the Bond films when she
bought the set but it was missing two of them: Casino Royale
(1967) and Never Say Never Again (1983).  Bond connoisseurs may
argue that the two films are not actually true 007 flicks.  The
original Casino Royale is a Columbia Pictures spoof starring
Niven, Peter Sellers and Woody Allen that isn't associated with
Bond producer Eon Productions or MGM.  Meanwhile, Never Say Never
Again was made by screenwriter Kevin McClory who worked with
iconic Bond author Ian Fleming to create the Thunderball story and
was given the green light by a London court to make his own film
after claiming co-authorship of the characters and elements.

That debate aside, in a motion to dismiss MGM argued that "no
reasonable purchaser would expect that a box set would contain
films that are not included on the list of titles clearly printed
on its packaging."

Johnson's attorney Alexander Kleinberg says that argument is
factually and legally defective, relying on the assumption that
the customer would be able to "decipher the list of films printed
in barely readable print" on the back of the box.  "More
importantly, it impermissibly imposes on that reasonable purchaser
the obligation to be a James Bond expert who would know every
single James Bond film ever produced, marketed, and sold," writes
Kleinberg.

He also argues that MGM is twisting the meanings of the wording it
used to describe the set.  "It presumes that the reasonable
purchaser will interpret the all-inclusive language that
Defendants chose to use to describe the Sets -- 'All of the Bond
films gathered for the first time in this one-of-a-kind box set
-- every gorgeous girl, nefarious villain and charismatic star
from Sean Connery, the legendary actor who started it all' -- to
mean that 'all' means some and that 'every' means only certain.

Johnson says were it not for her belief that those two films would
be included in the Bond 50 set she wouldn't have paid $106.44 to
order it on Amazon.com. "To prove that a practice is deceptive,
neither intent to deceive nor actual deception is required,"
writes Kleinberg. "The question is whether the conduct has the
capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public."

Kleinberg also argues that it would be premature for the court to
determine at this stage whether MGM Holdings or 21st Century Fox
should be dismissed. The parent companies are named as defendants,
he argues, because Johnson claims all four of the corporations are
responsible for marketing and selling the sets and each profits
from them.

If U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez denies MGM's motion to
dismiss, the studio's attorney John Devlin has alternatively asked
him to strike the nationwide class allegations, arguing that the
class definition, which essentially includes anyone who bought the
box set, is "impermissibly overbroad." Kleinberg disagrees, adding
that would chill class certification in false advertising cases.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss, the full reply to which is
posted below, was currently set for May 26. [GN]


MISONIX INC: "Scalfani" Class Suit in Earliest Stages
-----------------------------------------------------
Misonix, 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 class action
lawsuit by Richard Scalfani is at its earliest stages.

On September 19, 2016, Richard Scalfani, an individual shareholder
of Misonix, filed a lawsuit against the Company and its former CEO
and CFO in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The
complaint alleges that the Company's stock price was artificially
inflated between November 5, 2015 and September 14, 2016 as a
result of alleged false and misleading statements in the Company's
securities filings concerning the Company's business, operations,
and prospects and the Company's internal control over financial
reporting. Scalfani filed the action seeking to represent a
putative class of all persons (other than defendants, officers and
directors of the Company, and their affiliates) who purchased
publicly traded Misonix securities between November 5, 2015 and
September 14, 2016. Scalfani seeks an unspecified amount of
damages for himself and for the putative class under the federal
securities laws.

On March 24, 2017, the Court appointed Scalfani and another
individual Misonix shareholder, Tracey Angiuoli, as lead
plaintiffs for purposes of pursuing the action on behalf of the
putative class.

The Company believes it has various legal and factual defenses to
the allegations in the complaint, and intends to vigorously defend
the action. The case is at its earliest stages; there has been no
discovery and there is no trial date. The Company is not able to
estimate the amount of potential loss it may recognize, if any,
from this claim. The Company believes that its insurance coverage
is sufficient to cover a potential loss, after payment of the
policy retention of $250,000.

Misonix designs, manufactures, develops and markets therapeutic
ultrasonic devices. These products are used for precise bone
sculpting, removal of soft tumors, and tissue debridement in the
fields of orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery, neurosurgery,
podiatry and vascular surgery. In the United States, the Company
sells its products through a network of commissioned agents
assisted by Company personnel. Outside of the United States, the
Company sells to distributors who then resell the product to
hospitals. The Company operates as one business segment.


MURRAY GOULBURN: Federal Court New Venue for Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
John Durie, writing for The Australian, reports that the ACCC will
push ahead with its legal actions against former Murray Goulburn
executives and the co-op despite the recent decision to forgive
the debt at the centre of the case.

The regulator is alleging unconscionable conduct and misleading
statements by the co-op and former chief Gary Helou and former
finance chief Brad Hingle.

The ACCC is not seeking damages against the co-op because this
would only hurt the farmers it is trying to help.  And now the co-
op has reversed the decision under attack, arguably there is no
need for the action.

The case is being managed in the Federal Court by Competition
Tribunal chief John Middleton.

The Federal Court will also now be the venue for a class action
brought on behalf of shareholders and unit holders.

This was previously scheduled to be heard in the Victorian Supreme
Court.

ASIC is also still pursuing a potential case against the co-op on
behalf of unit holders alleging misleading statements.

The court moves come as Murray Goulburn has denied competitor
claims that it has refused to consider selling its proposed closed
plants to rivals.

Earlier this month it said it would shut three of its plants, in
Rochester and Kiewa in Victoria and Edith Creek in Tasmania.

The Rochester Plant near Echuca is considered the most desirable
option but the view within MG is it wants to rationalise
production plants in the region so handing the facility onto a
competitor would negate that effect.

Arguably a competitor sale would maximise returns to dairy farmer
members.

Rochester is a cheese and dryer facility and MG says it is first
looking to see whether the plant can be used elsewhere before it
decides what to do with the land.

The Tasmanian Government is considering what alternate uses may be
possible for the Edith Creek facility

ACCC action is aimed as deterrence to the entity involved and also
to other companies, which explains why it is pursuing the case
even though the policy has changed.

It is also seeking court declarations that the behaviour in
question was unacceptable if that is how the court decides.

The ACCC is seeking penalties against the former executives. [GN]


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Two Retired Buffalo Players Join Concussion Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Vogl, writing for Buffalo News, reports that if the retired
players suing the NHL about concussions win in court this summer,
everyone who played in the league will become part of the class
action lawsuit.  Until then, it's a personal decision to join.

Two more players who skated in Buffalo have signed up.

Paul Andrea, who was part of the inaugural Sabres, and Jim
Krulicki, who played for the Buffalo Bisons of the American Hockey
League, have become part of the lawsuit.  They are among 12
players who have joined more than 100 others in suing the NHL.

The former players allege the league was negligent in its care and
fraudulently concealed the long-term risks of head injuries. They
are seeking medical monitoring and compensatory damages.

Mr. Andrea had 11 goals and 32 points in 47 games with Buffalo in
1970-71.  The 75-year-old claims to have suffered multiple head
traumas in the NHL, which included stints with the New York
Rangers, Pittsburgh Penguins and California Golden Seals.

He suffers daily from depression, sleeplessness, dizziness, memory
loss, impulse control, neurocognitive disorder,
irritability/anxiousness, numbness in calves and feet, anger
issues and ringing of the ears, according to court documents filed
in U.S. District Court in Minnesota.

Mr. Krulicki joined the Bisons for the 1970 AHL playoffs.  He
played in seven games, recording three goals and five points.  The
69-year-old claims to have suffered multiple head injuries while
playing for the Rangers and Detroit Red Wings.

Mr. Krulicki, according to the lawsuit, suffers from loss of
judgment, decision making, multitasking and planning capabilities,
and he has lost awareness and insight regarding his own condition.
He suffers from mood swings, disinhibition, impulsivity and change
of personality.  He was diagnosed with frontotemporal lobar
degeneration (a form of dementia), probable behavioral variant
frontotemporal dementia (a neurodegenerative disease) and
idiopathic focal dystonia (perception and reflex problems).

Like the others in the lawsuit, Andrea and Krulicki believe they
have enhanced risk of developing the brain disorder known as
chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

Mr. Krulicki joins friend and former teammate Mike Robitaille in
the lawsuit.  They played together with Kitchener of the Ontario
Hockey Association and Omaha of the Central Hockey League in the
1960s.

There are 17 former Sabres suing the NHL, including Mr.
Robitaille, Grant Ledyard, Shawn Anderson, Craig Muni, Mike
Hartman and the family of late defenseman Steve Montador.

The first lawsuit against the league was filed in 2013. A motion
for class certification is scheduled to be heard July 11 in
Minnesota.  If the class is certified, it will include all living
and deceased NHL hockey players (plus their spouses, dependents
and estates) who suffered a concussion or repeated, sub-concussive
blows. [GN]


NEXUS BUSINESS: "Brown" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Alicia Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective action,
Plaintiff, v. Nexus Business Solutions, LLC, Defendant Case 1:17-
cv-01679 (N.D. Ga., May 10, 2017) seeks overtime wages,
compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages, declaratory and
injunctive relief including costs and attorneys' fees under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by Nexus as Business Development
Managers, working as marketers promoting GM cars. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
      MITCHELL L. FELDMAN, ESQ., P.A.
      1201 Peachtree Street, NE
      400 Colony Square, #200
      Atlanta, GA 30361
      Tel: (877) 946-8293
      Fax: (813) 639-9376
      Email: mlf@feldmanlegal.us


NHCASH.COM: Suit Alleges Misrepresentation in Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that five
consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against a New
Hampshire financial business, alleging misrepresentation in debt
collection.

Tine Hunter, Steven Pike, Dawn Mays-Johnson, Julie Johnson and
Dianne Turner filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, May 8 in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia against NHCash.com, LLC, NHCash SPV
LLC, NHCash Holdings Inc., Steven Mello and LTD Financial Services
LP, alleging false representations regarding the status of the
debt of the plaintiffs.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs were damaged due to the
high-interest loans and unlawful collection practices by the
defendants. The plaintiffs allege the defendants made loans to the
plaintiffs without a consumer finance license.

The plaintiffs seek damages, declaratory and injunctive relief,
attorney fees and court costs and all other proper relief.  They
are represented by attorneys Kristi C. Kelly --
kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com -- and Andrew J. Guzzo --
aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com -- of Kelly & Crandall, PLC in
Fairfax, Virginia, and by James Speer of Virginia Poverty Law
Center in Richmond.[GN]

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Case
number 3:17-cv-00348-HEH


PACIFIC COAST OIL: Final Approval Hearing Continued to June 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
The final hearing to approve the settlement of a class action
lawsuit against Pacific Coast Oil Trust has been continued until
June 12, 2017, Pacific Coast Oil Trust 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 1, 2014, Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy
Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and
others.

The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the
Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and the
prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement that
became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the
prospectuses issued thereto. The complaint states that the
plaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims under
the Securities Act and alleges that both such registration
statements contained numerous untrue statements of material facts
and omitted material facts. The plaintiff seeks class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission on
certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court
may deem just and proper.

On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a second putative class
action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast
Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC
and others. The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims and
makes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as are
made in the Welch complaint. In November 2014, the Welch and
Berliner actions were consolidated into a single action.

On December 8, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to settle the
consolidated action. On September 14, 2016, the Court entered an
order granting preliminary approval of the settlement, and set a
hearing for March 2, 2017 to determine whether to grant final
approval of the settlement and enter final judgement. On March 2,
2017, the final approval hearing was continued until June 12,
2017. The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC
against any liability or expense it might incur in connection with
the consolidated action.

Pacific Coast Oil Trust (the "Trust") is a statutory trust formed
in January 2012 under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to
a Trust Agreement among Pacific Coast Energy Company LP ("PCEC"),
as trustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as
Trustee (the "Trustee"), and Wilmington Trust, National
Association, as Delaware Trustee (the "Delaware Trustee"). The
Trust was created to acquire and hold net profits and royalty
interests in certain oil and natural gas properties located in
California (the "Conveyed Interests") for the benefit of the Trust
unitholders pursuant to the Trust Agreement. The Conveyed
Interests represent undivided interests in underlying properties
consisting of PCEC's interests in its oil and natural gas
properties located onshore in California (the "Underlying
Properties"). The Conveyed Interests were conveyed by PCEC to the
Trust concurrently with the initial public offering of the Trust's
units of beneficial interest ("Trust Units") in May 2012.


PIZZA HUT: Allan Myers Represents Franchisees in Appeal Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Adele Ferguson, writing for The Australian Financial Review,
reports that the $170 billion franchise industry -- and its
lobbyists -- will nervously watch a court case about to be
unleashed in the Federal Court between Pizza Hut franchisees and
their former franchisor, US-based fast food giant Yum!

The appeal case, which was set to begin on May 15, comes as the
relationship between franchisors and franchisees is being
scrutinised by experts, regulators and politicians.

It is a topic that has been doing the rounds of senators in the
past few weeks after a Protecting Vulnerable Workers Bill was
introduced into parliament earlier this year.

The bill was designed to beef up penalties for wage fraud and make
franchisors jointly responsible for workplace abuses if they have
a "significant degree of influence or control" over the
franchisee's affairs.

The stakes are high.  There are more than 1000 franchise networks
and 79,000 franchisees creating more than 460,000 jobs.

Until now franchisors have enjoyed a disproportionate amount of
power, with some franchisees likening the relationship to
indentured slavery.

The relationship between franchisees and franchisors hit the
spotlight after a series of wage fraud scandals were exposed in
high profile franchise networks 7-Eleven, Domino's, Caltex, United
Petroleum, Pizza Hut and many others.

The scandals highlighted limitations in the law, which Minister
for Employment Michaelia Cash sought to fix in the new bill.

In 7-Eleven's case, the Fair Work Ombudsman found that the
franchisor "compounded" the problems of wage fraud by failing to
use systems and processes to detect or address deliberate worker
exploitation.

Nobody is suggesting franchisors should be automatically liable
for the wrongdoings of a franchisee, but if the business model
creates a situation that encourages wage fraud or the franchisor
knows, or should know, what is going on, they should be held
accountable.

However, not all franchisors see it that way.  The franchise
industry, most notably the Franchise Council of Australia, is
fighting to dilute the bill before it passes through the senate.

The industry is also studying the legal battle Pizza Hut
franchisees have launched against Yum!

The action was initiated by liquidator Bob Jacobs at Auxilium
Partners late last year.  Mr. Jacobs had witnessed the plight of
Pizza Hut franchisees when he became liquidator of eight stores in
2014.  The stores collapsed after the franchisor, Yum! rolled out
a "value strategy" that required its franchisees slash the prices
of a range of pizzas by 50 per cent.

More than 90 per cent of Pizza Hut franchisees joined the original
class action, alleging unconscionable conduct, losses and business
collapses as a direct consequence of the price war.

But the case was lost in 2016 and months later Yum! sold the Pizza
Hut business to private equity operator Allegro, which has
embarked on a strategy to reinvigorate demand and take on
Domino's.

Allegro went on to buy another franchised pizza chain Eagle Boys,
which got into strife due to fierce competition and questionable
strategies.

Jacobs decided to appeal the case, putting up $50,000 of his own
money to lodge the claim.

He then cleverly filed an application with the Australian Taxation
Office for an indemnity available to insolvency practitioners
under The Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.

Allan Myers, QC, will represent the franchisees.

Yum! is defending its actions.  In its outline of submissions to
the Federal Court it says the half-price pizza strategy was
designed to improve franchisee profitability and grow its own
business and revenues.

At the end of the day, the court of appeal will make its own
decisions, but the appellant's outline of submissions captures the
current environment: "holding franchisors to account for the
adverse impact of the exercise of their powers has been the
subject of increased focus by policy makers."

It goes on to say "the proper application of an objective test of
reasonableness, rather than a subjective test of honesty, will
have significant social utility in ensuring competent decisions
are made by franchisors in the interests of the sector as a
whole."

There's a lot at stake for the franchise industry besides a
potential damages claim of tens of millions of dollars.

It is why the sector will be watching closely the legal action and
the final wording of Vulnerable Workers Bill legislation.

The bill attracted a number of submissions, including one from the
Franchise Council of Australia (FCA) which has been lobbying
senators that the legislation is heavy-handed and unnecessary
because accessorial liability provisions are working and in "heavy
use".

In its submission it wheels out the argument that the bill needs
to be amended to "avoid serious harm" to the franchise sector.  It
says if the bill is adopted in its current form it will reduce
franchising activity, growth and investment in Australia.

It also argues that the legislation currently catches all
franchise systems due to the breadth of the definition of
"responsible franchisor entity" and where there hasn't been any
evidence of systematic Fair Work Act contraventions.

However, in the past year there have been a multitude of cases of
systemic wage fraud in different franchise models and by small and
large franchisors.  For example, last year Paul Sadler Swimland, a
franchise network that runs 15 swimming schools, was caught
underpaying hundreds of young swimming instructors over six years.

In its submissions, the FCA suggests a number of amendments to the
wording of the bill.  It wants it changed from "the person has a
significant degree of influence or control over the franchisee
entity's affairs" to read "the person has a substantial degree of
control over the franchisee entity's workplace terms and
conditions".

Independent Contractors Australia has studied the FCA's suggested
wording changes and warns that if the senate adopts them, it would
make it meaningless.  These word changes would allow franchisors
to go to court and argue that they didn't have substantial control
over the workplace terms and conditions of the franchisee and
therefore shouldn't bear any responsibility or liability for wage
fraud across its network.

"These changes would essentially retain the status quo, where
franchisors could deliberately seek not to exercise any influence
over workplace terms and conditions and therefore avoid any
responsibility for worker underpayment," it says.

The ICA also rejects the assertion that the bill would create high
compliance costs.  "Remember that franchisors create, own and
control a business system . . . They require franchisees to comply
with strict marketing, product, pricing, shop design, purchasing,
supply chain and many other imposed private sector regulations,"
the ICA says.  The franchisors monitor and audit franchisees to
ensure compliance.

It also points out that franchisors must comply with regulations
such as food safety, workplace safety, competition laws, zoning
regulations and financial regulations.  In turn, franchisors must
ensure their franchisees comply with these regulations otherwise
the franchisor will be in breach.  "The business of franchisors is
to specialise in the running of their own private and government-
created regulations.  That is their expertise.  Yet when it comes
to the realm of worker wage rates the FCA seems to want
franchisors to avoid any exercise of that very expertise."

The ICA believes if the language of the bill is changed it will
become a legislative sham.  "The legislation would give the
appearance of doing something to prevent franchise wage fraud but
do essentially nothing to achieve that aim.  Parliament would have
been conned into conning Australians."

Between the class action and legislative reform, the franchise
industry has been under the microscope like never before.  There
have been some shocking cases of wage fraud across the franchise
sector, which has raised questions about the balance of power.
It's time this was properly dealt with. [GN]


POP WARNER: Calif. Court Dismisses Concussion Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Steven M. Sellers, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that
concussion claims against USA Football, the governing body of
youth football leagues nationwide, must be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction, the Central District of California ruled May 12
(Archie v. Pop Warner Little Scholars, Inc., C.D. Cal., No. 16-cv-
06603, 5/12/17).

The ruling ends concussion litigation against three defendants in
the would-be class action brought by the parents of two young men
diagnosed with chronic traumatic encephalopathy after their
deaths, and two others who claim their sons are at increased risk
of developing the disease.

CTE is a degenerative brain disease associated with repetitive
head traumas, such as those the occur in football. The condition
can only be diagnosed after death.

The would-be class action isn't over yet.  The dismissed
allegations may be revived and four other California Pop Warner
leagues, who weren't parties to the dismissal motions, remain in
the litigation.

"We are not surprised by the court's ruling and we look forward to
amending the complaint," plaintiffs' counsel Robert Finnerty, of
Girardi & Keese, Los Angeles, told Bloomberg BNA May 15 in an
email.

Gary Wolensky, of Buchalter in Irvine, California, who represents
USA Football Inc., declined to comment on the ruling May 15.

Requests for comment sent to counsel for two other defendants in
the case, Pop Warner Little Scholars Inc. and the National
Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment, didn't
receive an immediate response May 15.

CTE Alleged in Former Youth Players

Paul Bright Jr. and Tyler Cornell played youth football beginning
in the 1990s. Both died in 2014 and autopsies showed they had CTE,
according to the complaint.

The boys' parents, Kimberly Archie and Jo Cornell, claim Pop
Warner Little Scholars Inc. and USA Football Inc. misled them
about the safety of youth football and the helmets used in the
sport.

Debra McCrae and Shannon Barnes, parents of two other players,
claim their sons are at risk of chronic brain diseases because of
playing in California Pop Warner leagues.

The proposed class action would extend to all youths "who
participated in the Pop Warner youth tackle football program
between 1997 to the present and are suffering or have suffered
from brain injuries, damage or disease."  A second class would
consist of adults who enrolled their children in the program those
years.

Ms. Barnes's claimed risk of developing CTE didn't show an injury-
in-fact necessary for the court to hear the case, the court said.

And Archie, Cornell and McCrea couldn't show any wrongful conduct
by USA Football, which launched coaching education programs in Pop
Warner leagues years after the players participated, the court
said.

The claims against NOCSAE, a national commission formed in 1969 to
reduce sports injuries through helmet performance standards,
weren't viable because its contacts with the state of California
were too limited to confer jurisdiction.

"Here, there are no allegations that NOCSAE's promotion of safety
standards or licensing of its logo is at all targeted at
California manufacturers, retailers or football leagues, let alone
youth tackle football programs involved in this case," the court
said.

Nor could federal jurisdiction be exercised over Pop Warner Little
Scholars Inc., based in Langhorn, Pennsylvania, the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California said.

That organization, based in Langhorn, Pennsylvania, presented
evidence that youth football leagues in the state are independent
corporations over which Pop Warner has no control.

U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez wrote the decision.

The law offices of Giraldi & Keese represented the plaintiffs.

Boornazian Jensen & Garthe, as well as Wilson Elser Moskowitz
Edelman & Dicker and Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith represented
Pop Warner Little Scholars.

Dentons represented NOCSAE. [GN]


PRIDE MOBILITY: Class Representative Withdraws Scooter Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Kroh, writing for Law360, reports that the proposed
representative of a class of mobility scooter purchasers has
declined to move forward with a collective price-fixing proceeding
against Pride Mobility Products Ltd. in a case that had been
touted as the first under the U.K.'s class action regime, her
lawyer confirmed on May 16.

Dorothy Gibson decided to withdraw her request for an opt-out
collective proceedings order from the U.K.'s Competition Appeal
Tribunal, after the panel found in March that the estimated losses
in the case exceeded those attributable to Pride's infractions and
adjourned Gibson's application to allow her to amend the claim.

"After reassessing the value of the claim as required with her
expert, she decided the case is not worth enough to proceed given
the costs versus potential benefits for class members," Leigh Day
associate solicitor Chris Haan -- chaan@leighday.co.uk -- said in
an email.

The CAT will now determine how much, if any, of Pride's legal
costs Gibson must pay, Mr. Haan said.

The action is a follow-on suit to a 2014 decision by the country's
Office of Fair Trading, which had found that Pennsylvania-based
Pride and eight U.K. dealers of mobility scooters agreed that the
dealers would not advertise certain models of Pride scooters
online at rates below a price set by Pride.  Ms. Gibson, the
general secretary of a national pensioners group, sought
authorization to represent a class of some 30,000 people who had
purchased a Pride scooter between February 2010 and February 2012.

In its March ruling on Ms. Gibson's request of an order
authorizing an opt-out collective proceeding, the CAT determined
there was no obstacle under European Union law to allowing the
claim to go forward, but said that Ms. Gibson's expert did not
correctly approach the definition of subclasses in the case and
that the estimate of the losses sustained by the class was
therefore too great.

The panel also noted that should the claim be amended, it could
still face "considerable difficulties."

Pride did not respond to a request for comment on May 16.

The OFT, which was superseded by the U.K. Competition and Markets
Authority, in 2014 found that the agreements Pride made with the
dealers infringed competition law.  A market study by the agency
found that prices for the same model of scooter could vary by as
much as GBP3,000 (now equivalent to $3,875).

Ms. Gibson's case was the first to be brought under the U.K.'s
class action rules, which went into effect in October 2015.  In
another case to come forward under the new regime, U.K. consumers
hit MasterCard Inc. with a GBP14 billion antitrust suit alleging
they overpaid on credit and debit card transactions from 1992 to
2008 because of anti-competitive interchange fees. [GN]


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
Open Minds reports that on April 6, 2017, lawsuits were filed
against Quest Diagnostics Inc. and Laboratory Corporation of
America Holdings (LabCorp) alleging that the two laboratories
charged consumers excessively high rates for diagnostic tests not
covered by the consumers' health plans.  The plaintiffs had no
agreement with the respective labs, and when their insurance
companies did not pay their claims, the labs unilaterally charged
the consumers excessive, non-market based rates.  No hearing date
has been set.  Both complaints seek class-action status.

The plaintiffs' attorney is Robert Finkel with the law firm Wolf
Popper LLP. [GN]


RACKSPACE HOSTING: Pension Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------
City of Warwick Municipal Employees Pension Fund, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Rackspace Hosting, Inc., William Taylor Rhodes and Karl Pichler,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03501 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2017), seeks
compensatory damages including interest, reasonable costs and
expenses incurred including counsel fees and expert fees,
rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and such
equitable/injunctive or other relief for violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Rackspace is a cloud computing company that provides data hosting
and other related services to business customers around the world.
Its cloud computing services offer public, private, and hybrid
cloud hosting, that include dedicated servers, databases, storage
and networking. Its biggest client is Vodafone Group PLC, a U.K.-
based multinational telecommunications provider.

Defendants intentionally concealed the impending loss of the
Vodafone contract and the attendant impact on the company's growth
prospects. It never disclosed the financial impact of the Vodafone
Contract non-renewal on Rackspace's reported financial results and
future growth. The Vodafone deal represented 32 percent of the
company's 2015 revenue. The price of Rackspace shares stock
dropped upon this news.

Plaintiff purchased Rackspace securities at artificially-inflated
price and lost substantially. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
     Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
     Francis P. McConville, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Tel: (212) 907-0700
     Email: ckeller@labaton.com
            ebelfi@labaton.com
            fmcconville@labaton.com


RDAP LAW: Hormozdi Law Sues Over Faxed Ad, Alleges TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HORMOZDI LAW FIRM, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
RDAP LAW CONSULTANTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01687-SCJ
(N.D. Ga., May 10, 2017), alleges that Defendant transmitted by
facsimile machine a one-page unsolicited advertisement to
Plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant, RDAP Law Consultants, LLC, is a limited liability
company that specializes in supporting federal sentencing, post-
conviction, and prison consulting for criminal defendants
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles M. Clapp, Esq.
     5 Concourse Parkway NE, Suite 3000
     Atlanta, GA 30328
     Phone: 404.585.0040
     Fax: 404.393.8893
     E-mail: charles@lawcmc.com


REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Appellate Brief Due June 13
------------------------------------------------
Regional Management Corp. 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 Plaintiffs/Appellants'
appellate brief is due on or before June 13, 2017.

On May 30, 2014, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "Court") against the Company and certain of its current
and former directors, executive officers, and stockholders
(collectively, the "Defendants"). The complaint alleged violations
of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act Claims") and sought
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock in the
September 2013 and December 2013 secondary public offerings. On
August 25, 2014, Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement
System and City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System were
appointed as lead plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs").

An amended complaint was filed on November 24, 2014. In addition
to the 1933 Act Claims, the amended complaint also added claims
for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934
Act Claims") seeking unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between May 2, 2013 and October 30, 2014, inclusive.

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

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

On March 30, 2016, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety. On May 23,
2016, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third amended
complaint. The Defendants' opposition brief was filed on June 9,
2016, and the Plaintiffs' reply was filed on June 20, 2016.

On January 27, 2017, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file a third amended complaint and directed entry of
final judgment in favor of the Defendants. On January 30, 2017,
the Court entered final judgment in favor of the Defendants.

On March 1, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Plaintiffs/Appellants' appellate brief is due on or before June
13, 2017.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and will continue to defend against the litigation vigorously.

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


RETAILMENOT INC: Boening Files Suit Over Sale to Harland
--------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Boening, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Retailmenot, Inc., Thomas Ball, Jeff
Crowe, Eric Korman, Jules Maltz, Gokul Rajaram, Greg Santora,
Brian Sharples, Tamar Yehoshua, Cotter Cunningham, Harland Clarke
Holdings Corp. and R Acquisition Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00474, (D. Del., May 10, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the acquisition by Harland Clarke
Holdings, or rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding
rescissory damages in case defendants consummate the merger.  The
suit further seeks costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

RetailMeNot, Inc. will be acquired by Harland Clarke Holdings
Corp.  and its wholly-owned subsidiary, R Acquisition Sub, Inc.
and parent, Harland Clarke Holdings for $11.60 per share in cash.
Plaintiff allege that the acquisition by Harland Clarke is
inadequate given the current financial standing and forecast of
the company, stating that the intrinsic value of the company is
materially in excess of the amount offered. Boening also disputes
the legality of the lock-in and no-solicitation clause of the said
transaction.

RetailMeNot is a savings destination that connects consumers with
retailers, restaurants, and brands, both online and in store. The
Company enables consumers to find hundreds of thousands of digital
offers to save money while they shop or dine out. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
             bdl@rl-legal.com
             gms@rl-legal.com

            - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, D.C. 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
      Email: denright@zlk.com
             etripodi@zlk.com


SABRE CORPORATION: Still Defends Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation 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 plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit may appeal the court's dismissal of their state law
claims upon a final judgment.

The Company said, "In July 2015, a putative class action lawsuit
was filed against us and two other GDSs, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
plaintiffs, who are asserting claims on behalf of a putative class
of consumers in various states, are generally alleging that the
GDSs conspired to negotiate for full content from the airlines,
resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers, in violation of
various federal and state laws. The plaintiffs sought an
unspecified amount of damages in connection with their state law
claims, and they requested injunctive relief in connection with
their federal claim."

"In July 2016, the court granted, in part, our motion to dismiss
the lawsuit, finding that plaintiffs' state law claims are
preempted by federal law, thereby precluding their claims for
damages. The court declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claim seeking
an injunction under federal antitrust law. The plaintiffs may
appeal the court's dismissal of their state law claims upon a
final judgment.

"We believe that the claims associated with this case are neither
probable nor estimable and therefore have not accrued any losses
as of March 31, 2017. We may incur significant fees, costs and
expenses for as long as this litigation is ongoing. We intend to
vigorously defend against the remaining claims."

Sabre Corporation is a technology solutions provider to the global
travel and tourism industry.  It operates through two business
segments: (i) Travel Network, its global travel marketplace for
travel suppliers and travel buyers, and (ii) Airline and
Hospitality Solutions, an extensive suite of travel industry
leading software solutions primarily for airlines and hoteliers.


SABRE CORPORATION: Suits over Hotel Reservation Fees Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation continues to defend two class action lawsuits
related to misrepresentations concerning the description of the
fees received in relation to facilitating hotel reservations, 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, "Two consumer class action lawsuits have been
filed against us in which the plaintiffs allege that we made
misrepresentations concerning the description of the fees received
in relation to facilitating hotel reservations. Generally, the
consumer claims relate to whether Travelocity provided adequate
notice to consumers regarding the nature of our fees and the
amount of taxes charged or collected. One of these lawsuits is
pending in Texas state court, where the court is currently
considering the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action; and
the other is pending in federal court, but has been stayed pending
the outcome of the Texas state court action. We believe the notice
we provided was appropriate and therefore have not accrued any
losses related to these cases."

Sabre Corporation is a technology solutions provider to the global
travel and tourism industry.  It operates through two business
segments: (i) Travel Network, its global travel marketplace for
travel suppliers and travel buyers, and (ii) Airline and
Hospitality Solutions, an extensive suite of travel industry
leading software solutions primarily for airlines and hoteliers.


SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Class Action Alleges Wrongful Termination
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a DT&R
field specialist recently filed a class-action lawsuit against
Schlumberger Technology Corporation and Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company for alleged denial of benefits and wrongful
termination.

Jack Venable Jr. filed a complaint on September 22 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Lafayette
Division alleging that the defendants violated the Louisiana
Employment Discrimination Law.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he was
forced to take disability leave due to chronic ankle and back pain
on Sept. 23, 2015.  He immediately informed defendant MetLife and
made his claim for benefits.  Hours after he made the claim, he
was allegedly terminated without explanation.  The defendants'
alleged actions resulted in lost wages and employment benefits.
The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible for allegedly
rejecting his claim for benefits because his employment had
already ended.  It also denied his appeal on April 6, 2016 for the
same reason.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against
each defendant for all disability benefits due, interest, attorney
fees, costs of suit and all other relief as the facts may provide.
He is represented by James F. Willeford and Reagan L. Toledano of
Willeford & Toledano in New Orleans.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
Lafayette Division Case number 6:16-cv-01336  [GN]


SCOTTRADE: Consumer Class Actions Remanded to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the discount
brokerage Scottrade did everything right when it was hit with
multiple class actions after a 2013 hack exposed the personal
information of some of its customers.  Scottrade persuaded
plaintiffs' lawyers to agree to transfer their cases to a single
federal district, St. Louis, Missouri.  Then the brokerage moved
for the dismissal of its customers' consolidated class action,
arguing that plaintiffs could not establish their constitutional
right to sue in federal court because they couldn't show a
concrete injury.

Scottrade's strategy worked perfectly.  Citing the U.S. Supreme
Court's 2016 ruling in Spokeo v. Robins, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Shirley Mensah tossed the consolidated class action last July.
When she entered judgment for Scottrade a few weeks later, she
dismissed the case with prejudice.

End of litigation, right?

Wrong. One group of plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the 8th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, as you'd expect given uncertainty
in the appellate courts about interpreting Spokeo.  But more
intriguingly, two other sets of plaintiffs, in Florida and
California, filed class actions in state court that essentially
repeated allegations from the dismissed federal-court class
action, albeit on behalf of statewide customer classes.

As you would expect, Scottrade defense lawyers from Thompson
Coburn removed the Florida and California class actions to federal
court under the Class Action Fairness Act.  Scottrade then asked
for the cases to be dismissed, arguing that customer claims have
already been dismissed with prejudice in the St. Louis federal
magistrate's decision.  Plaintiffs, who are represented by the
same lawyers in both the state court class actions and the 8th
Circuit appeal, responded that federal judges in California and
Florida can't dismiss the cases at all but must remand them to
state court for lack of jurisdiction.

According to the plaintiffs' theory, Scottrade is absolutely right
that Judge Mensah's decision in the consolidated federal-court
class action in St. Louis has a res judicata effect.  Her finding
that Scottrade customers lack constitutional standing binds all
federal courts.  But the proper course for federal judges
overseeing follow-on statewide class actions removed to federal
court, according to the Scottrade plaintiffs, is to remand the
cases to state court.

There's case law to back that theory.  The most important
precedent for plaintiffs is the 9th Circuit's 2016 in Polo v.
Innoventions International, in which the 9th Circuit reversed a
federal trial judge's grant of summary judgment for a defendant
facing a consumer class action originally filed in state court.
The appeals court said, in language that applies to situations
like those in the Scottrade data breach litigation, that once the
trial judge determined the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue
in federal court, she should have remanded the class action to
state court.

"Remand is the correct remedy because a failure of federal
subject-matter jurisdiction means only that the federal courts
have no power to adjudicate the matter," the 9th Circuit said in
Polo.  "State courts are not bound by the constraints of Article
III."  That rule, the appeals court added, applies to class action
removed to federal court under CAFA as well as to any other case.

Last January, in the California wing of the Scottrade data breach
case, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller of San Diego agreed with
plaintiffs that their class action should be sent back to
California state court, not dismissed outright.  Judge Miller
acknowledged that the 9th Circuit has previously allowed federal
judges to dismiss removed cases if they conclude the litigation
would undoubtedly fail in state court, he said the 9th Circuit's
Polo ruling cast doubt on the futility doctrine.  Moreover, the
judge held, the case raises "legitimate issues" about whether the
St. Louis dismissal precludes a California state-court class
action -- and no federal court can answer the question because
they don't have jurisdiction under the St. Louis standing
decision.

The Florida branch of the case is several months behind
California.  Plaintiffs' lawyers from Blood Hurst & O'Reardon,
Siprut, Cohelan Khoury & Singer and other firms asked U.S.
District Judge James Whittemore of Tampa to remand their state-
court class action, noting, of course, that his California
counterpart did just that in January. (The remand brief also
refutes a new argument by Scottrade that the Florida class action
belongs in federal court under the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act.)

Defendants ought to be watching to see whether Judge Whittemore
agrees with Judge Miller and sends the statewide class action back
to state court.  The implications, if federal judges allow class
actions to proceed in state court after they've been bounced out
of federal court on Article III grounds could undermine whatever
benefit defendants have received from CAFA and Spokeo. Consumer
class action defendants will be stuck right back in state court,
exactly the venue they've worked so hard to escape.

Timothy Blood of Blood Hurst, who's leading all of the Scottrade
cases, told me the Florida and California state class actions were
less a stroke of brilliance than a necessity after the brokerage
won dismissal of the consolidated class action in federal court in
St. Louis.  "Calling it a strategy overstates it," he said.  "It
was just the logical conclusion of what the defendants are doing."

Mr. Blood agreed that the state court strategy will have to change
if the 8th Circuit finds they had federal court standing after
all. (Covering all of his bases, Blood actually argued the 8th
Circuit case for plaintiffs in April.)  But in the meantime, he
said, if defendants intend to bounce class actions out of federal
court for lack of standing, he'll keep filing statewide class
actions asserting the same claims.

"This is one of those times you can say, 'Hey defendants! Be
careful what you ask for,'" Mr. Blood said.

Scottrade's counsel is Brandi Burke of Thompson. [GN]


SEC ENERGY: Faces "Martinez" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself individually, and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED Plaintiffs, v. SEC ENERGY PRODUCTS & SERVICES,
L.P., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01444 (S.D. Tex., May 10, 2017),
alleges that SEC Energy does not pay its welders overtime as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Instead, SEC Energy
Products & Services, L.P. pays its Welders straight time, not time
and a half for overtime hours worked.

SEC Energy Products & Services, L.P. is a full-service compression
design and manufacturing company.  Daniel Martinez worked for SEC
Energy Products & Services, L.P. as a welder.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
     THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
     3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
     Houston, TX 77054
     Phone: (832) 778-8182
     Fax: (832) 778-8353
     E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


SHASTA COUNTY, CA: Inmates' Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
On April 5, 2017, a federal judge granted class-action status to a
lawsuit filed by inmates of the Shasta County Jail to protest the
jail's lack of accommodation for disabilities.  The class includes
all current and future detainees and prisoners at Shasta County
Jail with mobility disabilities who, because of their
disabilities, need appropriate accommodations, modifications,
services, and and/or physical access in accordance with federal
and state disability laws. A settlement conference is to take
place in May 2017.

The complaint, Jewett v. California Forensic Medical Group, et
al., was filed in 2016 by the inmates. [GN]


SNAP INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Gene Maddaus, writing for Variety, reports that a law firm filed a
securities class action suit on May 16 against Snap Inc., alleging
the company made false and misleading statements about its user
growth.

Pomerantz LLP, which specializes in such cases, is seeking to
represent shareholders in the company which went public just two
months ago.

The suit notes that Snap's stock price plunged $4.93, or 21.45%,
after its first quarterly report showed disappointing user growth.
The suit also cites the claims of Anthony Pompliano, a former
growth lead for Snapchat, who has filed his own lawsuit alleging
that the company was using inflated metrics during his brief
tenure there in 2015.

A Snap Inc. spokesman issued this response: "Lawsuits like this
are not uncommon and we are focused on growing our business."

Snap has rebounded somewhat since its precipitous drop after the
report.  The stock closed the day on May 16 at $20.78, up $2.73 a
share from its low on May 11.

The Pomerantz law firm filed a similar suit last year against
Twitter, alleging that the company had likewise made misleading
statements about its user metrics.  That case was subsequently
consolidated with a similar case and the firm of Motley Rice was
named lead counsel for the plaintiffs.  Twitter recently filed a
motion to dismiss. [GN]


SPENDSMART NETWORKS: "Marchelos" TCPA Class-Action Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
SpendSmart Networks, Inc., disclosed in its Form 20-F report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the case captioned,
Peter Marchelos, et al v. Intellectual Capital Management, et al,
remains stayed.

On July 8, 2015, the Company and Intellectual Capital Management,
LLC d/b/a SMS Masterminds were named in a potential class-action
lawsuit entitled Peter Marchelos, et al v. Intellectual Capital
Management, et al, filed in the United States District Court
Eastern District of New York relating to alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

The complaint alleges that SMS Masterminds sent unsolicited text
messages to the plaintiff and other recipients without the prior
express invitation or permission of the recipients and such
plaintiff is now seeking unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief, costs and attorneys' fees.  The case is currently stayed.

The Company believes Plaintiff's allegations have no merit and
will vigorously defend against Plaintiff's claims.

SpendSmart Networks, Inc is a national full-service mobile and
loyalty marketing agency that offers a means for small and large
business owners alike to better connect with their consumers and
generate sales. The Company does business under the name "SMS
Masterminds."


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Awaits Court Approval of PAGA Case Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
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, Swift Transportation Company provided updates on the
case: "California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") Class
Action."

The plaintiff alleges that the Company violated California law by
failing to timely pay wages and failing to reimburse employees for
business expenses.

Plaintiff: Theron Christopher

Defendant: Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC

Date instituted: July 8, 2016

Court or agency currently pending in: Superior Court of
California, County of Riverside

Recent Developments and Current Status: The parties have agreed to
a settlement of this matter and are currently seeking court
approval of the settlement. The expected settlement amount is not
material to the Company's financial statements.

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2017, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 18,656 tractors (comprised of 14,017
company tractors and 4,639 owner-operator tractors), 63,207
trailers, and 9,130 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Refrigerated
(formerly "Swift Refrigerated"), and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert. Bid Pending in Mares & McKinsty
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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, Swift Transportation Company provided updates on the
case: "California Wage, Meal, and Rest: Driver Class Actions"

The plaintiffs generally allege one or more of the following: that
the Company 1) failed to pay the California minimum wage; 2)
failed to provide proper meal and rest periods; 3) failed to
timely pay wages upon separation from employment; 4) failed to pay
for all hours worked; 5) failed to pay overtime; 6) failed to
properly reimburse work-related expenses; and 7) failed to provide
accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff(s)       Defendant(s)                Date instituted
------------       --------------              ---------------
John Burnell        Swift Transportation
                    Co., Inc                     March 22, 2010

James R. Rudsell    Swift Transportation
                    Co. of Arizona, LLC and
                    Swift Transportation
                    Company                      April 5, 2012

Lawrence Peck       Swift Transportation Co.
                    of Arizona, LLC              September 25,
                                                 2014

Lawrence Peck       Swift Transportation Co.
                    of Arizona, LLC, et al.      November 20, 2014

Sadashiv Mares      Swift Transportation Co.
                    of Arizona, LLC              February 27, 2015

Rafael McKinsty     Swift Transportation Co.
                    of Arizona, LLC, et al.      April 15, 2015

Thor Nilsen         Swift Transportation Co.
                    of Arizona, LLC              October 15, 2015

Court or agency currently pending in: United States District Court
for the Central District of California

Recent Developments and Current Status: Before and during 2016,
the Rudsell, Peck, Peck PAGA, Mares, McKinsty, and Nilsen
complaints were stayed, pending resolution of earlier-filed cases.
In May 2016, the Burnell plaintiffs were denied class
certification. Their subsequent petition to appeal the
decertification order was also denied. Following the Burnell
plaintiffs' failure to certify the class, the stays on certain
cases were lifted. The Peck case is currently in discovery. The
parties in the Mares and McKinsty cases are currently completing
class certification briefing. Based on the current procedural
nature of the cases, the final disposition of the matter and
impact to the Company cannot be determined at this time. The
likelihood that a loss has been incurred is remote.

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2017, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 18,656 tractors (comprised of 14,017
company tractors and 4,639 owner-operator tractors), 63,207
trailers, and 9,130 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Refrigerated
(formerly "Swift Refrigerated"), and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Barker and Fritsch Complaints in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
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, Swift Transportation Company provided updates on the
case: "California Wage, Meal, and Rest: Yard Hostler Class
Actions"

The plaintiffs, representing yard hostlers employed by the Company
in California, generally allege one or more of the following: that
the Company 1) failed to pay minimum wage; 2) failed to pay
overtime and doubletime wages required by California law; 3)
failed to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; 4) failed to
timely pay wages upon separation from employment; 5) failed to
reimburse for business expenses; and 6) failed to provide proper
meal and rest periods.

Plaintiff: Grant Fritsch

Defendants: Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC and Swift
Transportation Company

Date instituted: January 28, 2016

Court or agency currently pending in: Superior Court of
California, County of San Bernardino


Plaintiff: Bill Barker, Tab Bachman, and William Yingling

Defendant: Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC

Date instituted: April 1, 2016

Court or agency currently pending in: United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California

Recent Developments and Current Status: The Barker and Fritsch
complaints are currently in discovery. The Company retains all of
its defenses against liability and damages related to these
lawsuits. Additionally, the Company intends to vigorously defend
against the merits of the claims and to challenge certification.
The final disposition of these matters and the impact on the
Company cannot be determined at this time. The likelihood that a
loss has been incurred is remote.

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2017, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 18,656 tractors (comprised of 14,017
company tractors and 4,639 owner-operator tractors), 63,207
trailers, and 9,130 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Refrigerated
(formerly "Swift Refrigerated"), and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Settlement in "Castro" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
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, Swift Transportation Company provided updates on the
case: "National Customer Service Misclassification Class Action"

The plaintiff, a former Customer Service Representative IV,
alleges that the Company failed to pay overtime under the FLSA.
Additionally, with respect to California state law, the plaintiff
alleges that the Company: 1) failed to pay overtime; 2) failed to
pay timely final wages; 3) failed to provide meal and rest
periods; and 4) violated the unfair competition law.

Plaintiff: Salvador Castro

Defendant: Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC

Date instituted: May 11, 2016

Court or agency currently pending in: United States District Court
for the Central District of California

Recent Developments and Current Status: Castro, along with five
other former Customer Service Representative IV employees opted
into this collective action lawsuit, which was being pursued under
the FLSA. In addition to the Castro collective action, thirteen
Customer Service Representative IV employees pursued similar
claims in individual arbitrations. The parties conducted three
arbitrations regarding the individual claimants. The parties
agreed to mediation, which was held in January 2017. The parties
have reached a global settlement to the collective action and the
individual arbitrations. The individual arbitration claimants have
been paid pursuant to this settlement and the parties are seeking
court approval of the settlement in the collective action.

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2017, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 18,656 tractors (comprised of 14,017
company tractors and 4,639 owner-operator tractors), 63,207
trailers, and 9,130 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Refrigerated
(formerly "Swift Refrigerated"), and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert. Bid in "Julian" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
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, Swift Transportation Company provided updates on the
case: "Arizona Fair Labor Standards Act Class Action"

The plaintiff alleges that the Company violated the FLSA by
failing to pay its trainee drivers minimum wage for all work
performed and by failing to pay overtime.

Plaintiff: Pamela Julian

Defendant: Swift Transportation Inc., et al.

Date instituted: December 29, 2015

Court or agency currently pending in: United States District Court
for the District of Arizona

Recent Developments and Current Status: In March 2016, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's overtime claims, which
was granted by the district court in May 2016. The parties
recently completed briefing on the plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Class Certification and are awaiting a ruling on the
Motion from the Court. The Company retains all of its defenses
against liability and damages for the remaining claims.
Additionally, the Company intends to vigorously defend against the
merits of the claims and to challenge certification. The final
disposition of the matter and the impact on the Company cannot be
determined at this time. The likelihood that a loss has been
incurred is remote.

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2017, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 18,656 tractors (comprised of 14,017
company tractors and 4,639 owner-operator tractors), 63,207
trailers, and 9,130 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Refrigerated
(formerly "Swift Refrigerated"), and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Hedglin" Class Suit in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------
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, Swift Transportation Company provided updates on the
case: "Washington Overtime Class Actions"

The plaintiffs allege one or more of the following, pertaining to
Washington state-based drivers: that the Company 1) failed to pay
minimum wage; 2) failed to pay overtime; 3) failed to pay all
wages due at established pay periods; 4) failed to provide proper
meal and rest periods; 5) failed to provide accurate wage
statements; and 6) unlawfully deducted from employee wages.

Plaintiff: Troy Slack

Defendant: Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC and Swift
Transportation Corporation

Date instituted: September 9, 2011

Court or agency currently pending in: United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington


Plaintiff: Julie Hedglin

Defendant: Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC and Swift
Transportation Corporation

Date instituted: January 14, 2016

Court or agency currently pending in: United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington

Recent Developments and Current Status: The parties in the Slack
matter are currently completing dispositive motion briefing. The
case is scheduled for trial in September 2017. The Hedglin matter
is currently in discovery. The Company retains all of its defenses
against liability and damages for both matters. Additionally, the
Company intends to vigorously defend against the merits of the
claims and to challenge certification. The final disposition of
the matter and the impact on the Company cannot be determined at
this time. The likelihood that a loss has been incurred is remote.

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2017, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 18,656 tractors (comprised of 14,017
company tractors and 4,639 owner-operator tractors), 63,207
trailers, and 9,130 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Refrigerated
(formerly "Swift Refrigerated"), and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Garza" Suit Pending in Maricopa Court
------------------------------------------------------------
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, Swift Transportation Company provided updates on the
case: "Arizona Owner-operator Class Action"

The putative class alleges that the Company improperly compensated
owner-operators (later expanding the class to include employee
drivers) using the contracted and industry standard remuneration
based upon dispatched miles, instead of using a method of
calculating mileage that the plaintiffs allege would be more
accurate.

Plaintiff: Leonel Garza

Defendant: Swift Transportation Co., Inc.

Date instituted: January 30, 2004

Court or agency currently pending in: Maricopa County Superior
Court

Recent Developments and Current Status: The original trial court's
decision was to deny class certification of the owner-operators,
which was reversed and reinstated several times by various courts
prior to 2016. The class is currently certified, based on an
appellate court's decision from July 2016. The Company filed a
petition for review with the Arizona Supreme Court in August 2016,
which was denied in January 2017. The matter will now proceed in
the Maricopa County Superior Court. The final disposition of the
matter and impact to the Company cannot be determined at this
time. The likelihood that a loss has been incurred is remote.

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2017, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 18,656 tractors (comprised of 14,017
company tractors and 4,639 owner-operator tractors), 63,207
trailers, and 9,130 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Refrigerated
(formerly "Swift Refrigerated"), and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Appeal in "Sheer" Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
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, Swift Transportation Company provided updates on the
case: "Ninth Circuit Owner-operator Misclassification Class
Action"

The putative class alleges that the Company misclassified owner-
operators as independent contractors in violation of the FLSA and
various state laws, and that such owner-operators should be
considered employees. The lawsuit also raises certain related
issues with respect to the lease agreements that certain owner-
operators have entered into with IEL.

Plaintiff: Joseph Sheer, Virginia Van Dusen, Jose Motolinia,
Vickii Schwalm, Peter Wood

Defendant: Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Interstate Equipment
Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew

Date instituted: December 22, 2009

Court or agency currently pending in: United States District Court
of Arizona and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Recent Developments and Current Status: For several years, the
parties have been arguing over the proper venue in which to
proceed. The plaintiffs argue that they signed contracts of
employment, thus exempting them from arbitration under the Federal
Arbitration Act, and claim that their case should be heard in
court by a judge. The Company takes the position that these
individuals signed independent contractor agreements and therefore
can properly be required to submit their claims to arbitration. In
January 2017, the district court issued an order finding that the
plaintiffs had signed contracts of employment and thus the case
could properly proceed in court. The Company has appealed this
decision to the Ninth Circuit and the district court stayed the
proceedings, pending resolution of the appeal. The Company intends
to vigorously defend against any proceedings. The final
disposition of the matter and impact to the Company cannot be
determined at this time. The likelihood that a loss has been
incurred is remote.

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2017, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 18,656 tractors (comprised of 14,017
company tractors and 4,639 owner-operator tractors), 63,207
trailers, and 9,130 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Refrigerated
(formerly "Swift Refrigerated"), and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Settlement Finalized in "Ciluffo" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
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, Swift Transportation Company provided updates on the
case: "Utah Collective and Individual Arbitration"

The plaintiffs allege that the Central Parties (defined below)
misclassified owner-operator drivers as independent contractors
and were therefore liable to these drivers for minimum wages and
other employee benefits under the FLSA. The complaint also alleges
a federal forced labor claim under U.S.C. Sec. 1589 and Sec. 1595,
as well as fraud and other state-law claims.

Plaintiff: Gabriel Ciluffo, Kevin Shire, and Bryan Ratterree

Defendant: Central Refrigerated Service, Inc., Central Leasing,
Inc., Jon Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes (the "Central Parties"), as
well as Swift Transportation Company

Date instituted: June 1, 2012

Court or agency currently pending in: American Arbitration
Association

Recent Developments and Current Status: In June 2016, mediation
commenced, but there was ultimately no settlement of the matter.
In October 2016, the arbitrator ruled that approximately 1,300
Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. drivers were improperly
classified as independent contractors, when they should have been
classified and compensated as employees. The arbitrator ruled that
damages could ultimately be assessed in a collective proceeding
and denied the Company's motion to decertify the collective
proceeding. Based upon the October 2016 arbitration ruling, the
Company increased its legal accrual related to this matter for the
quarter ended September 30, 2016. On April 14, 2017, the Company
proposed a tentative settlement arrangement, which was finalized
by and between the parties on April 28, 2017, subject to final
court approval. As such, the Company increased its legal accrual
again for the quarter ended March 31, 2017. The likelihood that a
loss has been incurred is probable.

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2017, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 18,656 tractors (comprised of 14,017
company tractors and 4,639 owner-operator tractors), 63,207
trailers, and 9,130 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Refrigerated
(formerly "Swift Refrigerated"), and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert. Motion in "Banks" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
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, Swift Transportation Company provided updates on the
case: "Indiana Fair Credit Reporting Act Class Action"

The plaintiff alleges that Central Refrigerated Service, Inc.
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide job
applicants with adverse action notices and copies of their
consumer reports and statements of rights.

Plaintiff: Melvin Banks

Defendant: Central Refrigerated Service, Inc.

Date instituted: March 18, 2015

Court or agency currently pending in: United States District Court
for the District of Utah

Recent Developments and Current Status: The first phase of
discovery, regarding potential for identifying and certifying a
class of affected job applicants, has been completed. The parties
recently completed class certification briefing and the Company
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Rulings on these Motions are
pending from the court. The Company retains all of its defenses
against liability and damages. Additionally, the Company intends
to vigorously defend against the merits of the claims and to
challenge certification. The final disposition of the matter and
the impact on the Company cannot be determined at this time. The
likelihood that a loss has been incurred is remote.

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2017, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 18,656 tractors (comprised of 14,017
company tractors and 4,639 owner-operator tractors), 63,207
trailers, and 9,130 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Refrigerated
(formerly "Swift Refrigerated"), and Intermodal.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: No Trial Date Set Yet in "Anderson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
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, Swift Transportation Company provided updates on the
case: "California Class and Collective Action for Pre-employment
Physical Testing"

The plaintiff alleges that pre-employment tests of physical
strength administered by a third party on behalf of Central
Refrigerated Service, Inc. had an unlawfully discriminatory impact
on female applicants and applicants over the age of 40. The suit
seeks damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
age Discrimination Act, and parallel California state law
provisions, including the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act.

Plaintiff: Robin Anderson

Defendant: Central Refrigerated Service, Inc., Workwell Systems,
Inc., and Swift Transportation Company

Date instituted: October 6, 2014

Court or agency currently pending in: United States District Court
for the Central District of California

Recent Developments and Current Status: Litigation is at a very
preliminary stage and no trial date has been set. Additionally,
there is a motion for class certification pending, for which the
Company is preparing a response. The Company intends to vigorously
defend against the merits of the plaintiff's claims and to oppose
certification of any class of plaintiffs. The final disposition of
this case and the financial impact cannot be determined at this
time. The likelihood that a loss has been incurred is remote.

Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona. As of March 31, 2017, the Company's fleet of
revenue equipment included 18,656 tractors (comprised of 14,017
company tractors and 4,639 owner-operator tractors), 63,207
trailers, and 9,130 intermodal containers. The Company's four
reportable segments are Truckload, Dedicated, Refrigerated
(formerly "Swift Refrigerated"), and Intermodal.


THAILAND: Civil Court Can Consider BTS Accessibility Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sasiwan Mokkhasen, writing for Khaosod English, reports that the
Civil Court said on May 18 it has the authority to consider a
class-action suit filed against City Hall for failing to make the
BTS Skytrain system accessible to people with disabilities.

Rejecting a motion filed by the Bangkok Metropolitan
Administration that the case did not fall within its purview, the
Civil Court said it is the proper legal venue because the suit
seeks financial compensation for violating the disabled welfare
law and not for action by officials, which would have placed it in
the Administrative Court.

"It calls for compensation, not for action," said Sonthipong
Mongkonsawat, the attorney representing the disabled rights group,
which brought the suit.  "We don't have the channel to seek
compensation under the procedure of Administrative Court."

In January, Transportation for All filed the class-action suit on
the second anniversary of the landmark 2015 court decision decided
in their favor. The suit demands compensation because City Hall
failed to satisfy an Administrative Court giving it one year to
install elevators at all of the original 23 BTS Skytrain stations.

It seeks 1,000 baht for each plaintiff to join the class for each
day that passed since the court-ordered deadline for the work to
be completed passed on Jan. 21, 2016.  It seeks four times that
amount, or 4,000 baht, for every day since they filed the suit on
Jan. 21, plus 7.5 percent annual interest.

In March, a city lawyer filed a motion challenging the Civil Court
as the proper arena for the suit.  It said the dispute belonged
back in the Administrative Court because it was between officials
and private parties.

The Civil Court's decision will go to the Administrative Court who
can register any objections before a final decision is rendered by
the Adjudication Committee for Power and Duty of Court, which has
authority over the courts.

Both City Hall and the activist group were due to go to the court
again on Aug. 7 which Sonthipong believed the judgement should be
made on which court is authorized to consider the suit.

As of May 17, only three of the original 23 BTS stations have a
sable elevators, according to disabled rights group Accessibility
is Freedom.

City Hall has promised that all stations would be fully equipped
by the end of the year, citing problems with land ownership and
underground infrastructure. [GN]


TRINET GROUP: Sept. 20 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
TriNet 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 court set
September 20, 2017, for a hearing on the motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit.

The Company said, "In August 2015, Howard Welgus, a purported
stockholder, filed a putative securities class action lawsuit,
Welgus v. TriNet Group, Inc. et al., under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 in the United States District Court (the Court) for
the Northern District of California. The complaint was later
amended in April 2016. The amended complaint generally alleges
that TriNet and the other defendants caused damage to purchasers
of our stock by misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose facts
generally pertaining to alleged trends affecting health insurance
and workers' compensation claims. The other defendants include
certain of our officers and directors, General Atlantic, LLC, a
former significant shareholder, and the underwriters of our IPO."

"In November 2016, the parties appeared at a hearing before the
Court on our motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its
entirety.

"In January 2017, the Court issued an order granting TriNet's and
the other defendants' motions to dismiss. The Court dismissed the
plaintiff's claims in part with prejudice and in part without. As
a result, the Court gave the plaintiff until March 3, 2017 to file
a second amended complaint with respect to claims not dismissed
with prejudice.

"The plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on March 3,
2017. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 17, 2017.
The court set September 20, 2017 for a court hearing on the motion
to dismiss.

"We are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range
of losses, if any, arising from this litigation."

TriNet Group Inc., a professional employer organization (PEO)
founded in 1988, provides comprehensive human resources (HR)
solutions for small to midsize businesses (SMBs) under a co-
employment model.


UCP INC: Faces "Tola" Lawsuit Over Century Communities Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH TOLA, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. UCP, INC., MICHAEL C. CORTNEY, DUSTIN L.
BOGUE, ERIC H. SPERON, PETER H. LORI, KATHLEEN R. WADE, MAXIM C.W.
WEBB, CENTURY COMMUNITIES, INC., and CASA ACQUISITION CORP.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02713-WHA (N.D. Cal., May 10, 2017),
seeks to enjoin a proposed transaction announced on April 11,
2017, pursuant to which UCP will be acquired by Century
Communities, Inc. through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Casa
Acquisition Corp.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, stockholders of UCP
will receive $5.32 in cash and 0.2309 of a share in the newly
combined company for each share they own.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement that omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement
false and misleading.

Specifically, says the complaint, the Registration Statement omits
material information regarding the Company's financial
projections, Century's financial projections, and the analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor, Citigroup Global
Markets Inc.; material information regarding potential conflicts
of interest of the Company's officers and directors and Citi; and
material information regarding the background of the Proposed
Transaction.

UCP, INC. is a homebuilder and land developer with expertise in
residential land acquisition, entitlement, and development, as
well as home design, construction, and sales.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Phone: (302) 295-5310
     Fax: (302) 654-7530


UNITED STATES: High Court Set to Decide on Immigration Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Sherman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Supreme Court decisions in a half-dozen cases dealing with
immigration over the next two months could reveal how the justices
might evaluate Trump administration actions on immigration,
especially stepped up deportations.

Some of those cases could be decided as early as May 15, when the
court was set to meet to issue opinions in cases that were argued
over the past six months.

The outcomes could indicate whether the justices are retreating
from long-standing decisions that give the president and Congress
great discretion in dealing with immigration, and what role
administration policies, including the proposed ban on visits to
the United States by residents of six majority Muslim countries,
may play.

President Donald Trump has pledged to increase deportations,
particularly of people who have been convicted of crimes.  But
Supreme Court rulings in favor of the immigrants in the pending
cases "could make his plans more difficult to realize," said
Christopher Hajec, director of litigation for the Immigration
Reform Litigation Institute. The group generally supports the new
administration's immigration actions, including the travel ban.

For about a century, the court has held that, when dealing with
immigration, the White House and Congress "can get away with
things they ordinarily couldn't," said Temple University law
professor Peter Spiro, an immigration law expert.  "The court has
explicitly said the Constitution applies differently in
immigration than in other contexts."

Two of the immigration cases at the court offer the justices the
possibility of cutting into the deference that courts have given
the other branches of government in this area.  One case is a
class-action lawsuit brought by immigrants who've spent long
periods in custody, including many who are legal residents of the
United States or are seeking asylum.  The court is weighing
whether the detainees have a right to court hearings.

In the other case, the court has taken on a challenge to an
unusual federal law that makes it easier for children born outside
the United States to become citizens if their mother is an
American and harder for them if their father is the U.S. citizen.
Even after legislation in 1986, children of American fathers face
higher hurdles claiming citizenship for themselves.

Both cases were argued before Trump became president in January,
and the Obama administration opposed the detainees' claims and the
citizenship challenge.

Even if the positions haven't changed, the context has, Spiro
said.

"The court has got to be conscious of how these rulings are going
to apply to Trump administration activity," Spiro said.

The decisions may directly affect people who are targeted by
immigration authorities for quick deportation, or expedited
removal, and immigrants who were brought to the United States as
children and offered protection from deportation by the Obama
administration, said Steven Vladeck, a University of Texas law
professor.

"An open question in immigration law concerns how much authority
the government has and how strong the Constitution is as a
constraint," Mr. Vladeck said. For Trump, he said a major question
is how much discretion the president has.  "It's at the heart of a
lot of what the Trump administration wants to do,"
Mr. Vladeck said.

Other cases involve discrete sections of the immigration law in
which the decisions either will free or constrain immigration
authorities from deporting people convicted of certain crimes.

In one case, a Mexican immigrant is facing deportation after he
was convicted in California of having sex with someone under 18
and more than three years younger than he was.  The charge covered
a period before and after his 21st birthday when the woman, his
girlfriend, was 16.  That's a crime in California, but not in most
of the rest of the country and the immigrant says it should not
count as sexual abuse of a minor, which under immigration law
would subject him to deportation.

In another case, an immigrant convicted of burglary is challenging
a provision of immigration law that counts the crime as serious
enough to warrant automatic deportation.  Several federal appeals
courts have sided with immigrants who have contended the provision
is too vague.

Another issue before the court also involves sending people back
to their native countries, in a case in which an immigrant
received bad legal advice that led to a guilty plea and certain
deportation.

Immigration almost certainly will continue to be a very active
part of the Supreme Court's docket.  The travel ban itself could
be at the court in the coming months.  On May 15, the federal
appeals court in San Francisco is hearing the administration's
appeal of an order striking down the ban.  Appellate judges in
Richmond, Virginia, heard a similar case recently. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Judge Brown Derides $380MM Cy Pres Decision
----------------------------------------------------------
Cogan Schneier, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
is it legal to direct leftover funds from a class action
settlement to nonprofit groups? One D.C. federal judge offered a
resounding "no" in her dissenting opinion on May 16.

The 2-1 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit allows the use of the controversial practice, known as cy
pres, in a decades-old class action discrimination case.  The
majority opinion, written by Judge Harry Edwards on May 16, upheld
the District Court's approval of a revised settlement agreement to
distribute the bulk of the $380 million in unclaimed compensation
funds to nonprofits working with American Indian farmers.

But Judge Janice Rogers Brown, in a red-hot dissent, wrote that
only Congress has the power to distribute government funds -- not
the courts -- and that the leftover money should be returned to
the Treasury.

"Cy pres permits the judiciary to take more than half the taxpayer
money Congress authorized to pay claims in this case and
appropriate the money for something else," Judge Brown wrote.
"This is not justice.  It is not even law."

The majority opinion in this case did not address the legality of
cy pres because the plaintiffs never raised the issue in the lower
court, Judge Edwards wrote.  And Judge Brown's dissent does not
inherently side with the appellants, who want all of the remaining
funds to be distributed to successful class action claimants.

But Judge Brown wrote that allowing the executive branch to direct
money from the Treasury violates the promise of the Constitution's
appropriations clause that only Congress has the power to disburse
money.

"Perhaps one day, I will possess my colleagues' schadenfreude
toward the Executive Branch raiding hundreds-of-millions of
taxpayer dollars out of the Treasury, putting them into a slush
fund disguised as a settlement, and then doling the money out to
whatever constituency the Executive wants bankrolled.  But, that
day is not today," Judge Brown wrote.

Judge Robert Wilkins, in a concurring opinion, criticized Judge
Brown's dissent.  He wrote the settlement was reached via the rule
of law and good-faith negotiations.

"The dissent spins a tale of corruption and conspiracy, in which
the plaintiffs and the Government were complicit in bilking the
nation's taxpayers to pay a political ransom," Wilkins wrote.
The use of cy pres settlements has met with mixed support from
circuit courts, and judges have been quick to blast the agreements
when most or all settlement funds go to a charity, leaving little
or nothing for class members.

Joseph Sellers -- jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- a partner at Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll who represents the underlying class of
farmers, said he doesn't think the use of cy pres in this case is
something to be concerned about.

"The successful claimants got somewhere between $50,000 and
$250,000 a piece," Mr. Sellers said.  "That's hardly a situation
where what they received was negligible or nothing."

The lawsuit, Keepseagle v. Perdue, was originally filed in 1999
and accused the U.S. Department of Agriculture of discriminating
against American Indian farmers and ranchers when processing loan
applications. A decade of litigation followed, and a $680 million
settlement was reached in 2011.

But more than half the money was leftover once the claims were
processed, and a provision in the settlement called for those
funds to be distributed to nonprofit organizations that serve
Native American farmers.  The plaintiffs' lawyers initially
expected a fraction of the settlement would remain, so they sought
to renegotiate with USDA.

The district court in D.C. approved a revised settlement reached
by the class counsel and the government in April 2016.  It gives
some of the money back to claimants, some will go to the
nonprofits right away, and roughly $265 million will go to a trust
to be distributed to nonprofits over time.

Two members of the class were unhappy with the revised agreement
and appealed the district court's decision last June.
They're now considering options to appeal the D.C. Circuit's
decision, too.  A lawyer for one of the appellants, William
Sherman -- william.sherman@dinsmore.com -- of Dinsmore & Shohl,
declined to say whether they will submit a petition for an en banc
review, or submit a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
But Mr. Sherman did say there are "plenty of issues for appeal."

Attorney Donivon Craig Tingle, the other appellant who represented
himself, said he plans to petition the high court, saying the
original agreement was supposed to give the leftover money to
charity on the assumption it would be a residual amount.
"$380 million? No one could ever consider that to be residue," Mr.
Tingle said.

The Justice Department did not immediately return a request for
comment.

Mr. Sellers said he hopes the case has come to a close since the
leftover money continues to sit unused.  The money will continue
to sit unused if an appeal moves forward.

"I hope, in the end, this is the last chapter and we can put aside
the differences that divided people before.  It's a lot of money,
and I think it makes an enormous difference," Mr. Sellers said.
[GN]


VALEANT PHARMA: Objects to Class Action Notification Procedures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hill and Melissa Daniels, writing for Law360, report that
Valeant Pharmaceuticals and Pershing Square Capital Management LP
have objected to the notification procedures proposed in a newly
certified class action over insider trading claims related to an
attempted $55 billion takeover of Allergan Inc., telling a
California federal court on May 15 that the investors behind the
suit aren't giving derivative traders an adequate chance to
participate.

The firms urged the court to require the investors to provide
individual notices of the class action to derivatives traders who
might have been harmed by the alleged scheme involving Allergan
stock and derivatives, even though they are not covered in the
class of Allergan common stock holders that was certified by the
court in March.

"Given that plaintiffs seek a judgment that would, in practical
effect, bar further recovery for the absent derivatives traders,
the same standards that apply to providing notice to the class
should also apply to derivative traders," the firms told the
court.

Because civil penalties for these insider trading claims are
capped at the amount of the allegedly ill-gotten gains, the firms
have argued that a victory by the investor class would wipe out
any potential award for the derivatives traders before they ever
had a chance to bring their own claims.

To mitigate these due process concerns, the investors said during
the certification process that derivatives traders could be
notified of the action at the same time as the common stock
holders. They proposed in April to alert the traders collectively
via summary notices published through The New York Times, The Wall
Street Journal, Financial Times and PR Newswire, which they said
would constitute the "best notice that is practicable under the
circumstances."

But Valeant and Pershing said these published notices would not
reliably reach enough potentially affected derivatives traders to
fulfill the investors' pledge to provide proper notice.

"Plaintiffs offer no evidence that they made any reasonable effort
to ascertain the identities of derivatives sellers," the firms
told the court.  "Instead, they simply speculate that it will be
too difficult.  That is not enough."

Valeant and Pershing also objected to the language included in the
draft notices, which the firms said did not satisfactorily
disclose that an investor win could effectively preclude claims by
others.  The firms asked the court to require their suggested
edits be adopted by the investor class, and they requested more
time for filing summary judgment motions so that those deadlines
would fall after the 60-day opt-out period included in the draft
notices.

The suit, first brought in December 2014, said Allergan investors
were damaged by the "straightforward" scheme in which Valeant
allegedly tipped off Bill Ackman's Pershing Square Capital about
its hostile takeover of Allergan in exchange for $400 million.

Ackman and his fund "covertly" acquired a massive 10 percent stake
and gleaned billions in illegal profits by selling on the news of
the takeover bid, which caused a surge in Allergan's share price,
the investors have alleged.

Counsel for the investors could not be reached for comment on
May 16.

A representative for Pershing Square declined to comment. Counsel
and representatives for Valeant were also not immediately
available for comment.

The investor class is represented by Richard D. Gluck, Mark
Lebovitch, Jeremy P. Robinson, Michael D. Blatchley and Edward G.
Timlin of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP and Eli R.
Greenstein, Stacey M. Kaplan, Paul A. Breucop and Rupa Nath Cook
of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.

Valeant is represented by Robert A. Sacks, Edward E. Johnson and
Brian T. Frawley of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

Pershing Square and Ackman are represented by Mark Holscher --
mark.holscher@kirkland.com -- Robert Boldt and Michael Shipley --
michael.shipley@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and John
P. Coffey -- scoffey@kramerlevin.com -- Seth F. Schinfeld --
sschinfeld@kramerlevin.com -- and Eileen M. Patt --
epatt@kramerlevin.com -- of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.

The case is In re Allergan Inc. Proxy Violation Securities
Litigation, case number 8:14-cv-02004, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California. [GN]


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Class Certification Granted in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Salvatore, writing for Law360, reports that a New York
federal judge on May 15 granted class certification in a
securities class action against Virtus Investment Partners Inc.
over alleged public misstatements, but simultaneously denied
certification in another suit with similar allegations.
Investors in Virtus common stock claimed they were misled by
financial assurances based on F-Squared Investment Inc.'s
AlphaSector investment strategy, pointing to revelations that
AlphaSector's success claims were based on simulations. F-Squared
eventually went bankrupt.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley III granted class certification
to investors who owned Virtus common stock from January 2013 to
May 2015 over claims that the company misstated by seven years the
launch date of a fund family and neglected in 2013 to tell
investors that the company's good performance was based, at least
partially, on the misstatement.

Virtus had argued that the truth came out in the news before stock
drops on three specific days in late 2014 and early 2015, which
must mean the drops had nothing to do with the revelations. But
Judge Pauley said he wasn't convinced that supposed revelations in
December 2013 and May 2014 actually did get the bad news out to
investors beforehand, because they may have named F-Squared but
not Virtus.

"Defendants' theory is undermined by evidence that investors were
still in the dark throughout the class period.  First, it is not
clear that the December 2013 and May 2014 articles revealed the
truth to Virtus Partners investors.  Those news articles focused
on an SEC probe into F-Squared, not Virtus, regarding possible
wrongdoing based on buy/sell signals generated by an unnamed
wealth management firm," the judge said.

The allegations state, in essence, that Virtus told investors that
AlphaSector's strategy was confirmed by live trading back to 2001.
But it was later discovered that the trading strategy was
developed through a "back-testing" simulation and wasn't developed
until 2008, according to the complaints.

The judge also shot down Virtus' questions about the would-be lead
plaintiff's qualifications for the job.  Virtus had taken issue
with the fact that lead plaintiff Arkansas Teacher Retirement
System bought and sold Virtus shares multiple times during the
class period.  But the judge said that didn't violate Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23, which contains the guidelines for class
certification, because it's not necessarily atypical of all class
members' behavior.

Virtus had also pointed to the fact that ATRS bought Virtus stock
again after the dates when Virtus said the market knew fully of
the issues with Virtus' public statements.  Judge Pauley
disagreed.

"Even though lead plaintiff's final purchase of Virtus stock
occurred just 16 days after news of F-Squared's Wells notice, that
purchase preceded the time in May 2015 when the truth was fully
revealed to the market," he said.

Meanwhile, however, Judge Pauley denied class certification in
another suit, this one by mutual fund investors in Virtus
Opportunities Trust and led by Mark Youngers, saying that they'd
missed the boat on alleging one key element of such securities
class claims: reliance on the supposed misstatement in their
investing decisions.

"Without a class-wide presumption of reliance, each plaintiff will
have to prove reliance individually. As a result, because
individual issues of reliance will predominate, class
certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is inappropriate," the judge
said.

Representatives for the Youngers and ATRS plaintiffs were not
immediately available for comment.  A lawyer for Virtus declined
to comment.

Virtus is represented by Joseph McLaughlin --
jmclaughlin@stblaw.com -- and George Wang -- gwang@stblaw.com --
of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Mr. Youngers is represented by Laurence Rosen and Jonathan Stern
of The Rosen Law Firm PA.

ATRS is represented by John Esmay and Michael Rogers of Labaton
Sucharow LLP and John Browne and Jesse Jensen of Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

The cases are Mark Youngers v. Virtus Investment Partners Inc. et
al., case number 1:15-cv-08262, and In re Virtus Investment
Partners Inc. Securities Litigation, case number 1:15-cv-01249,
both in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York. [GN]


WAL-MART: Court Okays $7.5MM Settlement in Same-Sex Benefits Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a $7.5 million class action
settlement between Wal-Mart and a former employee who challenged
the retail chain's lack of health insurance benefits for her same-
sex spouse was approved by a federal judge on May 15.

The settlement will pay for claims by current and former Wal-Mart
associates in the U.S. and Puerto Rico that they were unable to
obtain health insurance for their same-sex spouses from 2011 to
2013. About 380 claims have been submitted.

U.S. District Judge William Young approved the settlement after a
brief hearing in federal court in Boston.

The lawsuit was filed in 2015 by Jacqueline Cote, a Wal-Mart
associate from Massachusetts who said the company denied medical
insurance for her wife. Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. began offering benefits for same-sex spouses in 2014.

Cote, whose wife died of ovarian cancer in 2016, said she was
pleased Wal-Mart was willing to resolve the issue for her and
other associates who are married to someone of the same sex.

"It's a relief to bring this chapter of my life to a close," she
said in a statement.

Wal-Mart's senior vice president for global benefits, Sally
Welborn, said the company was happy to resolve the case.

"We will continue to not distinguish between same and opposite sex
spouses when it comes to the benefits we offer under our health
insurance plan," Welborn said in a statement.

Cote was represented by the Boston-based group GLBTQ Legal
Advocates & Defenders, the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights & Urban Affairs and private law firms. [GN]


WEHNER MULTIFAMILY: Faces "Long" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
LISA LONG, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. WEHNER MULTIFAMILY, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-01258-N (N.D. Tex., May 10, 2017), alleges that Wehner
failed to compensate Ms. Long fully for the overtime she worked,
and moreover, failed to pay her the overtime during the pay period
in which the work was performed in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Wehner Multifamily is a full-service property management
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Javier Perez, Esq.
     Matthew R. Scott, Esq.
     SCOTT, PEREZ LLP
     Founders Square
     900 Jackson Street, Suite 550
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: 214-965-9675 / 214-965-9680
     E-mail: matt.scott@scottperezlaw.com
             javier.perez@scottperezlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Judge Questions $142MM Sham Accounts Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
James Rufus Koren, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that a
San Francisco federal judge is leaning toward rejecting some of
the terms of a $142-million settlement aimed at ending a bevvy of
class-action lawsuits against Wells Fargo & Co. over its sham
accounts scandal.

In a filing on May 17, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria asked
attorneys on both sides for more information about claims made by
plaintiffs' attorneys that as many as 3.5 million bogus checking,
savings and credit card accounts may have been created by the
bank.

That figure is far more than the 2.1 million accounts the bank had
estimated when it reached a $185-million settlement with
regulators in September.

Judge Chhabria, in a request for additional information,
questioned whether the parties have the ability to accurately
estimate the number of bank customers who may be eligible to
participate in the settlement.

"If so, what are those estimates and how were they reached? If
not, why not?" asked Judge Chhabria, who was set to preside over a
hearing on the proposed settlement on May 18.

The estimate of 2.1 million was based on a review by the bank of
accounts created between May 2011 and July 2015, while the new
figure is an estimate of unauthorized accounts created between
2002 and this year.

The higher figure was predicated on a recent internal
investigation by the bank that concluded the practice of opening
unauthorized accounts may have started as early as 2002.

Bank spokesman Ancel Martinez has called the higher figure an
unverified estimate that is "based on a hypothetical scenario."

Judge Chhabria has other issues with the proposed settlement too,
suggesting that some terms will have to be changed.

For instance, attorneys representing clients in a separate class-
action lawsuit over improper bank overdraft practices argued in a
recent filing that the terms of the unauthorized accounts
settlement could force their clients to give up their claims
against the bank.

Judge Chhabria said he thinks the settlement agreement should be
rewritten to make clear that the overdraft claims are separate and
not covered by the unauthorized accounts settlement.

Alexandra Lahav, a professor at the University of Connecticut
School of Law, said Judge Chhabria's demand for additional
information from the parties suggests there's at least a chance
the settlement could be in trouble.

"I think the judge is signaling that he sees problems," Ms. Lahav
said.  "This sometimes happens and the parties fix the settlement.
However, depending on the answers the lawyers give, he may reject
the settlement."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to a request for
comment. Martinez said the bank supports the settlement as is.

"We believe this agreement is an important step in our journey to
make things right for our customers and rebuild trust," he said.
"We are reviewing the questions from the court and preparing a
response." [GN]


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Still Defends Drivers' Suit in Nebraska
-----------------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, Inc. continues to defend a class action
lawsuit by drivers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska, 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, "We are involved in class action litigation in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, in which the
plaintiffs allege that we owe drivers for unpaid wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Nebraska Wage Payment and
Collection Act and that we failed to pay minimum wage per hour for
drivers in our student driver training program, related to short
break time and sleeper berth time. The period covered by this
class action suit dates back to 2008 through March 2014."

"In August 2015, the court denied our motion for summary judgment
and granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ruling in
plaintiff's favor on both theories of liability (short breaks and
sleeper berth time). During second quarter 2016, the court issued
two rulings, the first of which dismissed plaintiff's claims under
the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act (but not the FLSA)
and the second of which granted our motion to strike plaintiff's
untimely damages calculations.

"As a result, we reduced our accrual in second quarter 2016, and
we had a $1.2 million estimated liability at March 31, 2017
related to the short break matter.

"In February 2017, the court revised the decision from August 2015
and denied summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the sleeper berth
issue. In doing so, the court also ruled that the Company had not
willfully violated the law on the sleeper berth claim and
dismissed the liquidated damages portion of the case, related to
the sleeper berth claim.

"Based on the knowledge of the facts related to the sleeper berth
matter, management does not currently believe a loss is probable,
thus we have not accrued for the sleeper berth matter. We are
currently unable to determine the possible loss or range of loss.
We intend to vigorously defend the merits of these claims and to
appeal any adverse verdict in this case."

Werner operates in the truckload and logistics sectors of the
transportation industry.


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Still Defends Meal and Rest Breaks Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, 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
involved in certain class action litigation in which the
plaintiffs allege claims for failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, unpaid wages, unauthorized deductions and other items.

"Based on the knowledge of the facts, management does not
currently believe the outcome of these class actions is likely to
have a material adverse effect on our financial position or
results of operations. However, the final disposition of these
matters and the impact of such final dispositions cannot be
determined at this time," the Company said.

Werner operates in the truckload and logistics sectors of the
transportation industry.


XG SECURITY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
former field technician has filed a class-action lawsuit against a
software company over allegations that he was not paid the
appropriate rate for overtime work.

Joseph Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint on May 5 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana against XG Security Services
LLC alleging that the software company violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he worked
for the defendant from January to March of this year at its
Elmwood office.

The plaintiff holds XG Security Services LLC responsible because
the defendant allegedly failed to pay overtime wages at a rate of
time-and-one-half and reimburse costs he incurred when driving his
personal vehicle to perform work, and retaliated against him by
terminating his employment when he kept inquiring about unpaid
mileage.

The plaintiff seeks an order certifying this action as a
collective action, award for unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
costs and attorneys' fees and all further relief as the court
deems just and equitable.  He is represented by Amanda Hilgendorf
and Gregory Miller of Miller, Hampton & Hilgendorf in Baton Rouge
and Michele R. Fisher -- fisher@nka.com -- and Jason D. Friedman -
- jfriedman@nka.com -- of Nichols Kaster PLLP in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case
number 2:17-cv-04749
[GN]


ZILLOW: Homeowner Files Class Action Over "Zestimate" Tool
----------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Harney, writing for Washington Post, reports that it
was bound to happen: A homeowner has filed suit against online
realty giant Zillow, claiming the company's "Zestimate" tool
repeatedly undervalued her home, creating a "tremendous road
block" to its sale.

The suit, which may be the first of its kind, was filed in Cook
County Circuit Court in Chicago by Barbara Andersen, the Glenview,
Illinois, homeowner and also a real-estate lawyer.  She alleges
that despite Zillow's denial that Zestimates constitute
"appraisals," they meet that state's definition of an appraisal,
given that they offer market-value estimates and "are promoted as
a tool for potential buyers."

Not only should Zillow be licensed to perform appraisals before
offering such estimates, the suit argues, but it should obtain
"the consent of the homeowner" before posting them online for
everyone to see.

In an interview, Andersen said she had been approached about
turning the matter into a class-action lawsuit, but she's not
seeking monetary damages, for the time being.

In the suit, Andersen said that she has been trying to sell her
townhouse, which is in a prime location, for $626,000 -- roughly
what she paid for it in 2009.  Homes across the street, but with
more square footage, sell for $100,000 more.  But Zillow's
valuation system has apparently used sales of newly built houses
from a less costly part of town as comparables in valuing her
townhouse, she says.  The most recent Zestimate is $562,000.

Emily Heffter, a spokeswoman for Zillow, dismissed Andersen's
litigation as "without merit."  A publicly traded real-estate
marketing company based in Seattle, Zillow has been offering
Zestimates since 2006 and it has more than 110 million -- whether
the homes are for sale or not.  The estimates are based on public
records and other data using "a proprietary formula," according to
Zillow.

The Zestimate feature is the cornerstone of Zillow's business
model.  Its website pulls in millions of home shoppers, allowing
the company to sell advertising space to real-estate agents. In
the first quarter of this year, Zillow reported $245.8 million in
revenue.

Zillow acknowledges estimate errors.  Nationwide, Ms. Heffter
said, it has a median error rate of 5 percent.  Zestimates are
within 5 percent of the sale price 53.9 percent of the time,
within 10 percent 75.6 percent of the time and within 20 percent
89.7 percent of the time, Zillow claims.

Though the 5 percent median error rate sounds modest, that can
translate into tens of thousands of dollars or more.  And in some
counties, error rates zoom beyond the 5 percent median -- 33.9
percent, for example, in Ogle County, Illinois, and 10 to 20
percent in a handful of counties in Ohio, Florida and Illinois.

"They've been playing appraiser without being licensed for years
and doing a bad job," said Pat Turner, a Richmond, Virginia,
appraiser.  "It's about time they got called on it." [GN]


ZIMBABWE: Mbare Families File Class Action v. Harare City Council
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paidamoyo Muzulu, writing for News Day, reports that forty-seven
Mbare families have taken a class action against the Harare City
Council and are demanding $100 000 compensation after their
properties were damaged by flash floods believed to have been
caused by the city's poor drainage system.

The residents, through their lawyers Allen Moyo Attorneys, claimed
they lost various movable and immovable properties in last year's
flash floods in the populous high-density suburb.

The residents' class action was filed under case number HC4127/17.

Tressie Taruvinga and 46 others accused the city authorities of
negligently approving construction of Sunshine Bazaar Mall along
Simon Mazorodze Road without conducting a proper environmental
impact assessment of the project.

The residents further argue that the construction of the mall
congested the drainage system, resulting in the flash floods that
destroyed their homes and household goods.

"As a result of the defendant's negligence in properly assessing
the construction of the said Sunshine Bazaar Mall, the plaintiffs
suffered loss and defendant has the obligation to compensate for
the loss suffered," the lawyers said.

They added: "Our clients are seeking compensation in the sum of
$100 556,70. The money is broken down as $57 556,70 for property
and items damaged and swept away while $43 000 as compensation for
shock, loss of sleep and alternative accommodation."

The flash floods affected Mbare residents, particularly those who
reside along Dumbutshena, Mwamuka, Mbirimi and Chinamhora streets.

The residents also argued the city, through its chief engineer
Jonathan Mutimukulu, the city did not inspect the clogged pipes
caused by the construction of the complex and if they had noted
the fault in time they would have fixed it.

The city is yet to respond to the summons. [GN]


* Securities Class Action Defendants Face Challenges
----------------------------------------------------
Douglas W. Greene, Esq. -- greened@lanepowell.com -- of Lane
Powell PC, in an article for Lexology, analyzes why plaintiffs are
winning the securities class action war and what defendants can do
about it.

At stake is a system of securities litigation that sets up one
side or the other to win more cases in the long term.  It has
real-world consequences for directors and officers -- they expect
companies, D&O insurers and brokers, and the securities defense
bar to fight for a system of securities litigation defense that
will allow them to get through a securities case comfortably and
safely.

But despite winning many battles, defendants are losing the war.

Part I of this three-part post explained that the plaintiffs' bar
is back, and better than ever.  It comprises a small group of
about a dozen firms with lead partners who are full-time national
securities litigators. Given the size and focus, the plaintiffs'
bar is specialized and has the capacity to coordinate.

Part II explained that, in contrast, the defense bar is
splintered, relatively inexperienced, and highly inefficient.

This third and final part discusses how defendants can overcome
these disadhttp://www.dandodiscourse.com/2017/01/31/be-careful-
what-you-wish-for-part-i-does-the-reform-act-need-
reforming/vantages and close the gap between the plaintiffs' bar
and defense bar.

The Potential Paths Forward

Because the current path is leading to a strategic and economic
cliff -- as I've mapped out in Part I and Part II -- we need to
backtrack, examine the landscape, and pick the right path forward.
What are the possible paths?

Elimination or Further Reform of Securities Class Actions

One alternative path is to try to kill securities class actions,
or further undermine them.  Over the years, various constituents
have sought to eliminate or reform securities cases.  Most
recently, in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 134 S.
Ct. 2398 (2014), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others supported
Halliburton in trying to abolish the fraud-on-the-market
presumption established in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224
(1988) -- the legal mechanism that allows securities cases to
proceed as class actions.  And, of course, industry groups
achieved a significant legislative victory in 1995, through the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

Continuing to try to kill securities class actions would be an
enormous error.  Securities class actions are far superior for
defendants than the alternatives.  If securities class actions
didn't exist, the plaintiffs' bar would adjust, not perish.  In
place of class actions, they would file non-class securities
actions that would be vastly less manageable than class actions.
For evidence of what would happen without a class action
mechanism, we need look no further than the global securities
class action landscape in the wake of Morrison v. National
Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010).  And without securities class
actions as an enforcement safety net, the SEC would doubtless
increase enforcement. Companies are better off with one of a
handful of plaintiffs' lawyers as an adversary than an often-
unknown and aggressive SEC enforcement lawyer. (I examined this
question in depth, in my post "Be Careful What You Wish For, Part
II: Would Companies Be Better Off Without the Fraud-on-the-Market
Doctrine?")

Further legislative reform could be helpful.  The Reform Act
mostly has helped defendants -- though it has come with a steep
price tag, as I mentioned in Part I. Although I could come up with
some additional defendant-friendly reforms, they would mostly be
about correcting problems the Reform Act has caused (see, for
example, my post "Be Careful What You Wish For, Part I: Does the
Reform Act Need Reforming?") or improving litigation procedures
(see, for example, my post "5 Wishes for Securities Litigation
Defense: Early Damages Analysis and Discovery").

Most defense lawyers would probably suggest further raising the
pleading standards.  I don't think that would help much.  I've
always believed that the top of the plaintiffs' bar isn't really
bothered by higher pleading burdens -- at core, pleading a fraud
claim involves convincing a judge that the defendants are bad-
guys, and a good motion to dismiss involves convincing a judge
that the defendants are good-guys.  The pleading standards are
just a way to convey those arguments.  Plaintiffs' lawyers are
still able to get past motions to dismiss in a high percentage of
cases and certainly in the lion's share of difficult cases.  Even
with even higher pleading standards, the plaintiffs would still
file cases they think are the right ones, and I'd predict they'd
defeat motions to dismiss at roughly the same rate.

Formation of Industry Groups to Oversee Securities Class Actions

Another alternative path is to form industry groups to create
cohesion among groups of defendants -- for example, technology
companies, biotechs, retailers, etc.  Many years ago, this type of
securities-litigation cohesion worked for accounting firms who, as
a group, were a formidable foe.  They were represented by a small
group of lawyers -- there were just a few key lawyers. Although
the accounting firms were fierce competitors in the business of
auditing, they took a big-picture approach to the industry's
litigation risk.  Together, they basically chased off the
plaintiffs' securities bar.  Indeed, today accounting firms are
typically joined as a securities class action defendant along with
its audit client only in the very largest cases.

Part of accounting firms' success, and the reason they aren't sued
much anymore, is the Supreme Court's abolition of aiding-and-
abetting liability, in Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate
Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164 (1994).  But it's more than that.
Auditors make statements that can still yield primary liability --
most typically, by opining that a company's financial statements
conform with GAAP and the audit was performed in accordance with
GAAS.  But accounting firms, with their small bar of specialized
lawyers, helped to largely insulate those statements from attack
under the securities laws. And when accounting firms were sued
along with their audit clients, the accounting firms' specialized
and experienced lawyers brought significant firepower to the
defense group--making the claim against the main defendants, the
company and their officers and directors, more difficult.  As a
result, plaintiffs' firms have sued accounting firms less and
less.

Can public companies adopt this type of cohesive approach as a
path forward? Unfortunately, a number of factors suggest it
wouldn't work.  The types of companies sued in securities class
actions are far more numerous and diverse than the Big-X
accounting firms.  I watch the cases come over the transom, and
the companies sued are a real mishmash, even if the types of cases
seem to align in a dozen or so buckets.  Even the technology
industry -- historically the most frequently sued type of company,
and the industry that primarily spurred the adoption of the Reform
Act -- isn't sued with the consistency it once was. Biotech
companies are probably the best candidate for a cohesive approach,
but most of those companies have their heads down working on their
drug candidates, without the time or resources necessary to
coordinate.

But most fundamentally, it's hard to imagine that any group of
potential-defendant companies could come together and agree on a
small, focused set of securities defense specialists to defend
cases against them -- or to engage in enough repeat hiring that
such a set would naturally develop.  Once again, one of the core
problems with securities litigation defense is the hordes of
lawyers who comprise the so-called "securities defense bar." Until
that fundamental problem is fixed, the quality of defense will
continue to suffer, and the cost of even the current low-quality
defense will remain ridiculously high.

Greater Control by D&O Insurers Is the Only Clear Path

While there is no group of defendants that can replicate the
accounting-firm model, D&O insurers can play a similar unifying
role across all categories of defendants.

In nearly every securities class action, there is a group of D&O
insurer representatives associated with the defense of the
litigation.  D&O insurers are the only repeat players on the
defense side and as a group, they see the big picture in a way no
defense firm ever could.  They have the greatest economic interest
in the outcome -- both overall and in individual cases. A victory
for the defendants is a victory for them.  They employ highly
experienced claims professionals, many of whom have been involved
in exponentially more securities class actions than even the most
experienced defense lawyers.  I have achieved superior results for
many clients by working collegially with insurers -- from helping
shape motion-to-dismiss arguments, to learning insights about
particular plaintiffs' lawyers and their latest tricks, to
selecting the right mediator for a particular case, to achieving
favorable settlements that don't leave the impression of guilt.

Given this expertise and alignment of interests, defense counsel
should involve insurers in the defense of the case as part of
their responsibility to their clients.  Defense counsel should
involve insurers in key strategic decisions -- working with them
to help find the right defense counsel for the particular case, to
help shape the overall defense strategy at the inception of the
case, and to help make good decisions about the use of policy
proceeds.  And defense counsel who involve insurers undoubtedly
help their clients make it through securities cases more
successfully, efficiently, and comfortably than those who don't.

Yet insurers usually are shut out of meaningful involvement in the
defense, with most defense lawyers treating them almost like
adverse parties and other defense lawyers merely humoring them as
they would a rich relative.  Although this dysfunction is rooted
in a complex set of factors, it could easily be fixed.

When the general public thinks about insurance, they usually think
of auto insurance or other duty-to-defend insurance, under which
the insurer assumes the defense of the claim for the insureds.
But public-company D&O insurance is indemnity insurance: The
insurer is obligated to reimburse the company and its directors
and officers for reasonable and necessary defense costs and
settlement payments, up to the policy's liability limit.

Indemnity insurance gives the defendants control over the
litigation, including counsel selection and strategic approach,
with the insurer retaining limited rights to participate in key
decisions.  Although those rights give insurers a foot in the
door, the rights are not robust or frequently exercised.

Insurers often take a relatively hands-off approach to D&O claims
because they assume that their customers want them to stay out of
the defense of the claim.  But in my experience, this is a
misconception.  The priority for most companies and their
directors and officers is simply the greatest protection possible,
including assurances that they will not be left to pay any
uncovered legal fees or settlement payments.  In fact, not only do
most insureds not want to be stuck paying their lawyers for short-
pays, they don't even want to write any checks at all after
satisfying the deductible.  Instead, they prefer that the insurer
take charge of the bills and pay the lawyers and vendors directly.

In other words, most public companies actually want their D&O
insurance to respond more like duty-to-defend insurance,
particularly if it were offered at a slightly lower price or with
lower self-insured retentions.  This is especially so for smaller
public companies, for which the cost of D&O insurance and the
self-insured retention can be real hardships and who often lack
the resources of larger companies, such as in-house counsel.
Significantly, these are the types of companies against which the
plaintiffs' bar is bringing more and more securities class
actions.  Outside directors also lack intense allegiance to any
particular defense firm. Loyalty to particular law firms is
typically rooted at the level of in-house counsel, who are often
beholden to particular law firms for personal reasons. In
contrast, smaller public companies and outside directors typically
just want to be defended well, at no cost to them.

So why do insurers mistakenly think that the insureds would rather
have them stay out of the defense of the claim? To be sure, after
a claim is filed, the insurer often gets an earful from the
insureds' lawyers and broker about the insureds' indemnity-
insurance freedoms.  But these aggressive positions are typically
not the positions of the insureds themselves.  Instead, these
positions are driven by defense counsel, usually for self-
interested reasons: to get hired, to justify excessive billing, or
to settle a case for a bloated amount because the defense is
compromised by mounting costs or the defense lawyer's inability to
take the case to trial.

Frequently, defense lawyers will set the stage for their clients
to have a strained relationship with their insurers by feeding
them a number of stock lines:

"This is a bet-the-company case that requires us to go all-out to
defend you, so we have to pull out all the stops and do whatever
is necessary, no matter what the insurer has to say."

"The insurer may ask you to interview several defense firms before
choosing your lawyers.  Don't do that.  They'll just want to get
some inferior, cut-rate firm that will save them money. But you'll
get what you pay for -- we're expensive for a reason! And don't
forget that we've stood by you through thick and thin since before
your IPO, back when you were a partner here.  Plus, we gave you
advice on your disclosures and stock sales, so we're in this thing
together."

"The business of any insurance company is to try to avoid paying
on claims, so the insurer may try to curtail our level of effort
and even refuse to pay for some of our work.  But trust us to do
what we need to do for you.  You might need to make up the
difference between our bills and what the insurer pays, but we can
go after the insurer later to try to get them to pay you back for
those amounts."

"We'll need you to support us in these insurance disputes. You
don't have to get involved directly -- we can work with the
insurer and broker directly if you agree.  Agree? Good."

That's how defense lawyers set the insurer up as an adversary, but
these self-serving talking points get several key things wrong:

Most importantly, D&O insurers are not the insured's adversaries
in the defense of a securities class action.  To the contrary,
insurers' economic interests are aligned with those of the
insureds.  Insurers want to help minimize the risk of liability
through good strategic decisions.  Although keeping defense costs
to a reasonable level certainly benefits the insurer, it also
benefits the insureds by preserving policy proceeds for related or
additional claims on the policy, so that the insureds will not
need to pay any defense or settlement costs out-of-pocket, and
will avoid a significant premium increase upon renewal.

Insurers want their insureds to have superior lawyers -- inferior
lawyers would increase their exposure.  Their interest in counsel
selection is to help their insureds choose the defense counsel
that is right for the particular case.  The key to defense counsel
selection in securities class actions, for insureds and insurers
alike, is to find the right combination of expertise and economics
for the particular case--in other words, to find good value.

A D&O insurer's business is not to avoid paying claims. D&O
insurance is decidedly insured-friendly, which isn't surprising
given its importance to a company's directors and officers.  D&O
insurers pay billions of dollars in claims each year, and there is
very little D&O insurance coverage litigation.  Although D&O
insurance excludes coverage for fraud, the fraud exclusion
typically requires a final adjudication -- it does not even come
into play when the claim is settled, and even if the case went to
trial and there was a verdict for the plaintiffs, it would only be
triggered under limited circumstances.

If utilized correctly, D&O insurers can be highly valuable
colleagues in securities class action defense.  Because they are
repeat players in securities class actions, they are able to offer
valuable insights in defense-counsel selection, motion-to-dismiss
strategy, and overall defense strategy.  They have the most
experience with securities class action mediators and plaintiffs'
counsel, and they often have key strategic thoughts about how to
approach settlement.  The top outside lawyers and senior claims
professionals for the major insurers have collectively handled
many thousands of securities class actions. Although their role is
different from that of defense counsel, these professionals are
more sophisticated about securities litigation practice than the
vast majority of defense lawyers.
D&O insurers most definitely have the practical ability to effect
these changes.  Although the number of insurers may seem large to
many, from my perspective it is a relatively small and close-knit
group.  Every major D&O insurer has highly experienced internal or
external claims personnel who track securities litigation
developments very closely, in individual cases and the big
picture.  There is a relatively small number of primary insurers
who write the lion's share of primary D&O policies.  And there is
a handful of professionals who drive thought leadership.  Without
question, the D&O insurance community is well-suited to be the
glue that fixes the fractured defense bar.

All that would be necessary are a few simple D&O insurance
contract modifications.  A duty to defend structure for a
"Securities Claim" would work best, and I am certain it would be
highly attractive to smaller companies, if offered at a lower
premium or with a lower self-insured retention.  Since very few
cases actually involve exclusion of coverage under the fraud
exclusion, the lurking problem of conflicts of interest is often
not present, and in any event can be cured by Cumis counsel (i.e.,
an attorney employed by a defendant in a lawsuit when there is a
liability insurance policy covering the claim and there is a
conflict between the defendant and the insurer arising from a
coverage issue).

But even within the current indemnity structure, D&O insurers
could easily tweak terms to give insurers a stronger voice in
three areas:

Select the right defense counsel for the particular case -- which
would tend to create a defense bar that rivals the specialization
of the plaintiffs' bar. Insurers don't need to choose counsel for
defendants to make sure that they have the right counsel in place.
They can require insureds to conduct an interview process that
includes firms that they believe would be right for the case for
strategic and/or economic reasons.  Currently, insurers can't
unreasonably refuse to consent to the insureds' choice of counsel.
Although stronger counsel-selection language could easily be
added--for example, that the insurer can propose a range of firms,
and the insureds can't unreasonably refuse to consent to the
insurers' options -- even the current formulation allows insurers
to reasonably refuse to consent to counsel who aren't sufficiently
experienced or are too expensive for the particular case.

Make defendant-focused strategic and settlement decisions--which
would approximate the strategic coherence of the plaintiffs' bar.
Insurers don't need to have an attorney-client relationship with
defense counsel to have a meaningful say in strategic decisions.
The current cooperation clause already gives them this right, and
it could be slightly enhanced to make clear that insurers can and
should provide strategic input about the full range of decisions.
In this way, insurers could not only make a difference in
individual cases, but in the big picture, similar to a portfolio
manager's investment decision-making.

Use policy proceeds only for defense costs that further the
defendants' interests -- which would allow defendants to approach
the efficiency the plaintiffs' bar achieves through their
contingent- fee structure. Insurers should be allowed to refuse to
pay defense expenses that are not in the interests of the
defendants -- including billing rates and staffing practices that
exceed what is reasonable and necessary. Insurers simply need the
contractual right to require a defense firm to live with the
insurers' decisions and prevent a defense firm from seeking
reimbursement of unpaid amounts from the defendants.  In my
experience, defendants actually believe that insurers are better
able to judge what is reasonable than they are and are perfectly
willing to defer to the insurer.  The rancor typically comes from
defense counsel, not the insureds.

Again, a duty-to-defend option would be the very best way to
accomplish necessary change. But even these types of modest
changes within the current indemnity-contract framework would
enable D&O insurers to greatly improve securities class action
defense.

A key consideration, of course, is whether brokers would be
motivated to sell policies with these modifications. I'm
absolutely certain that directors and officers would want to buy
them.

And I'm confident that client-focused brokers would want to give
their clients the option to purchase a policy that would help the
particular client and the broader public-company community to
defend securities class actions better.

Conclusion

The only way for defendants to win the securities class action war
is to make the defense bar more effective and efficient.  And the
only way to do so is for D&O insurers to have greater control of
claims.  Defendants are entitled to a defense that allows them to
get through securities litigation safely and comfortably, and
without any real financial risk.  Indeed, they already expect that
their D&O insurers will take care of them.  Giving insurers a
greater role in defending securities class actions will allow
insurers to do exactly that. [GN]


* Securities Case Spike Attributed to Change in Legal Strategy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a
dramatic increase in class action securities lawsuits can be
attributed partly to a handful of plaintiff law firms that are
pursuing smaller companies, say experts.

But, at least in the immediate future, the rise in litigation is
not expected to affect the directors and officers liability
insurance market, where rates are still declining, because of the
high amount of capital in the market and the fact that many of the
claims fall within policyholders' retentions.

In 2016, the number of federal securities class action litigation
filings rose to their highest level in 20 years.

That trend continued in the first quarter of 2017, with plaintiffs
filing a record 127 federal class action securities cases, which
was almost twice the 64 filed in 2016's first quarter, according
to a report issued by Boston-based Cornerstone Research and
Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse in
Stanford, California.

"It's an interesting phenomenon because we typically see an
increase in securities litigation filings when the market is more
volatile," said Glenn K. Vanzura -- gvanzura@irell.com -- a
partner with Irell & Manella L.L.P. in Los Angeles.  Given the
eight-year bull market, litigation rates would typically be
expected to decline "or at best remain steady," he said.

Experts say at least one factor contributing to the trend is a
handful of plaintiff law firms that are pursuing litigation
against smaller companies.  "There's a segment of the plaintiffs
bar" consisting of smaller firms "that were less active prior to
2009, but they've gotten to the point where they're filing nearly
half of the (Securities and Exchange Commission) class action
lawsuits," particularly against life sciences companies, said
Kevin LaCroix, executive vice president of RT ProExec, a division
of R-T Specialty L.L.C. in Beachwood, Ohio.

"You almost have this split in the plaintiffs bar between larger,
more established firms that are filing relatively fewer cases and
these more active, emerging firms that are pursuing a high-volume
case strategy," he said.

One reason these law firms may be targeting smaller companies is
they are less likely to attract larger firms' attention, making
the smaller firms more likely to be named as class counsel in
litigation rather than being pushed aside, Mr. LaCroix said.

The lawsuits targeting smaller companies "may not be as attractive
to some of the marquee plaintiff firms," because they may not
consider it worthwhile to invest in the litigation, said Jackie
Waters, Chicago-based managing director and practice leader of Aon
Risk Solutions' financial services group legal and claims
practice.

Lawsuits are being filed "any time there seems to be any bad news,
or any noticeable decline in the stock price, frankly, without
regard to the merit of their claims," said Mr. Vanzura of Irell &
Manella.

Ms. Waters said, however, "The dismissal rate is still very high,
so it remains to be seen how successful that group will be."

Experts say there are other factors contributing to rise in
litigation, including the shift of merger-objection lawsuits from
federal to state courts, following the rejection in January 2016
of a disclosure-only settlement by the Delaware Chancery Court.

A disclosure-only lawsuit is litigation filed by plaintiff
attorneys following a merger or acquisition that results in them
being awarded legal fees when all they did was force defendants to
provide largely immaterial disclosures about the deal.

"Rather than pushing and pushing in the state of Delaware" many
moved to federal court, said Ms. Waters.

Increasing M&A activity has also contributed to the increase in
shareholder litigation, said Mr. Vanzura. As those deals continue,
"one would expect to see increased filings," he said.

Mr. LaCroix said the increase also reflects the large number of
lawsuits being filed against life science companies, particularly
biotechnology and pharmaceutical firms.

"The plaintiff lawyers seem to be targeting that industry class,"
said Mr. LaCroix.  Although these firms have always been
litigation targets, "it just seems like part of the plaintiffs bar
is really bearing down," on this segment.

But the rise in filings over the past quarter may not reflect a
trend, he said.  "A single calendar quarter might be too short  to
use as a basis for generalization," he said.  "I think we need to
keep an eye on it and see how it's going to develop as the rest of
the year progresses."

A continuation of the rise will likely depend on future
developments, said Mr. Vanzura. For example, if the there is a
"bursting of the bubble" and a stock market slide, there will be
more "traditional" shareholder litigation.

"But if the market continues its run, we can expect to see some of
the plaintiffs firms continue their business approach of filing
any time there is the slightest decline" in individual companies'
stock price, he said.

And the outcome of the M&A suits filed in federal courts will also
affect the volume of future litigation, Ms. Waters said.

In addition, "if there's some traction" by the lawsuits being
filed against smaller firms "then maybe the larger plaintiffs
firms will be interested in driving those as well, but I still
think the dismissal rate is good," she said.

Meanwhile, excess insurance capacity and higher self-insured
retentions than in the past will likely suppress rate increases,
despite the rise in litigation, experts said.

A survey issued earlier this month by Aon Risk Solutions reported
lower D&O insurance rates for both the fourth quarter of 2016 and
the entire year.

Mark Weintraub, Atlanta-based vice president, insurance, and
claims counsel for Lockton Cos. L.L.C., said, "The market has set
retentions at such a point," certainly for merger objection
lawsuits, that insurers are "not feeling the pain at this point."

The retentions "are doing what they're designed to do," and there
are not a disproportionate number of claims breaching their
retention levels from the additional claims, he said.

"Because a number of these cases either settle for small dollars,
or never make it beyond the pleading stage in many instances, it's
the companies that are out of pocket, because the defense costs
only marginally exceed, or don't exceed, the retention amount,"
said Mr. Vanzura. "You haven't shifted the landscape much for D&O
insurers." [GN]


* Slater & Gordon's Top Class Action Lawyers Quit
-------------------------------------------------
Sarah Thompson, Anthony Macdonald and Joyce Moullakis, writing for
Australian Financial Review, report that Slater & Gordon's top
class actions lawyers including team leader Ben Phi are quitting
the beleaguered firm, according to sources.

The listed law firm, which posted a $425.1 million half-year loss
in February, is understood to have put Phi and two other leading
class actions lawyers on gardening leave while they serve out
their notice.

A Slater & Gordon spokeswoman said the firm would not "comment on
employee matters, as per our policy".

The dramatic departures come as the firm finalises critical
recapitalisation plans with hedge funds.  The four core funds
driving the process -- Anchorage Capital, Davidson Kempner, York
Capital Management and Taconic Capital -- are set to finalise a
scheme of arrangement before June-end that will see them take
about 95 per cent of the company's equity.

There are questions over what the funds might want to do in the
multi-million dollar class actions space.  Slaters was a market
leader in the zone when it listed in 2007 -- becoming the first
law firm in the world to go public -- but the risks associated
with high-stakes claims and the lumpy nature of settlements may
make it a less attractive enterprise for shareholders.

On its website, Slaters touts "experience in running some of
Australia's most complex and large-scale class actions", claiming
title as "one of Australia's leading class action law firms".

The firm has over 20 class actions on foot, including against
infant formula maker Bellamy's for misleading the market on
regulatory change in China and a number of banks for financial
planning failures including ANZ, National Australia Bank and NAB.

Phi's scorecard

London-based Phi has led the class actions team across Australia
and the UK since August 2016, and the national team for almost two
years before that.  He has worked at Slaters for his entire
career, beginning in 2003.  Significant wins brokered for the firm
include a $75 million settlement against GPT Group, $57.5 million
against Sigma Pharmaceuticals and $46.6 million against Nufarm.

It is not known whether any other lawyers or clerks among the 35-
strong class actions team at Slaters will join the three who are
leaving.

It was revealed the firm is chasing GBP600 million ($1 billion) in
damages from Watchstone, the UK company which sold it the plagued
Quindell.  The firm first flagged it would take legal action on
the disastrous acquisition in September. [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  * * *