CAR_Public/170605.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Monday, June 5, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 111



                            Headlines

99 CENTS ONLY: Still Defends Suit on Employees' Graveyard Shifts
ABC CORP: Masseurs File Suit Over Unpaid Wages
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Magpayo Moves for Certification of Class Action
ALLIED CONCRETE: Court Grants Gonzalez's Bid to Certify Class
AMGEN INC: Hanks Appeals Ruling in "Harris" Suit to Ninth Circuit

AMTEX FOOD: Adult Club Entertainers Sue Over Unpaid Wages
ANTHEM INC: Conn. Supreme Court Affirms Demutualization Ruling
ANTHEM INC: Still Defends Consolidated Antitrust Suit in Alabama
ANTHEM INC: Still Defends Class Action on ERISA Breach
ANTHEM INC: Plaintiffs in Cyber Attack Lawsuit Seek Class Status

BARU MIDTOWN: "Hernandez" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
BLUE STAR: "Pavlack" Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
BRF SA: Still Defends in 2 ASAPREV Class Actions on Health Plans
BURNER FIRE: Court Certifies Technicians Class in "Viator" Suit
CANADIAN PACIFIC: No Date Yet for Quebec Trial on Rail Accident

CANADIAN PACIFIC: Appeal over Wrongful Death Claims Pending
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Shareholder Plaintiff Renews Complaint
COMBINED INSURANCE: Dolmage Appeals Ruling to Seventh Circuit
COMPLETE HIGHWAY: "Nolasco" Seeks Payment of OT Wages, Damages
CONOPCO INC: "Hain" Sues Over "Suave NATURALS" Deceptive Ads

COSAN LTD: Has BRL445-Mil. Labor Claim Provisions at Dec. 31
COSAN LTD: Environmental Civil Class Litigation Still Suspended
CPFL ENERGIA: Appeal on Dismissed Claim vs. Unit Still Pending
CSX CORPORATION: Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Suit vs. Unit Ongoing
CUESTA CONSTRUCTION: "Melo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Pay

DOLLAR GENERAL: "Weller" Files Suit for Time-shaving, Unpaid OT
DONALD TRUMP: "Nolley" Sues Over Dismissed Complaint
EDLS INC: Frasher Files Suit Over Uncompensated Hours
ELAINES ASIAN: "Da" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
ELGINEX CORP: North Shore Seeks Certification of Three Classes

FOODSERVICE REFRIGERATION: Torres Moves for Collective Suit Cert.
FRITO-LAY INC: Faces "Hicks" Suit Under FLSA, Ark. Min. Wage Act
GATEWAY AIRPORT: "Cid" Suit Seeks Full Payment of OT Wages
GNC HOLDINGS: Unit Still Faces California Wage and Break Claims
GNC HOLDINGS: Appeal in Fluctuating Workweek Class Suit Pending

HUNTSMAN CORP: Still Faces Various Civil Antitrust Litigations
IBI ARMORED: Armored Car Driver Sues Over Unpaid Wages
INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Class Suits on Derma Acquisition Dismissed
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: June 29 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
ITAU UNIBANCO: Still Defends Consumer-Related Class Action Suits

KENON HOLDINGS: ZIM Still Defends Class Action on Local Charges
KOHLBERG VENTURES: Wojciechowski Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit
LIMBACH HOLDINGS: R. Garfield's Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
LPL FINANCIAL: "Denson" Securities Suit Removed to E.D. Texas
LULAROE LLC: "Heinichen" Sues Over Poor Quality Leggings

MATTRESS FIRM: Faces "Cordada" Lawsuit Alleging FCRA Violation
MC MIAMI ENTERPRISES: "Prado" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
MGT CAPITAL: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Class Suit
NATIONAL PROCESSING: Faces "East" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
NELSON WATSON: Maldonado Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement

NEW MEXICO, USA: Seeks 10th Cir. Review of "Cummings" Suit Ruling
NEW YORK, USA: Harris Appeals Judgment in "Jackson" Class Suit
NEW YORK, USA: Ross Appeals Order in "Jackson" Suit to 2nd Cir.
NEW YORK, USA: Shark Appeals Judgment in "Jackson" Class Suit
NEW YORK, USA: Snow Appeals Order in "Jackson" Suit to 2nd Cir.

NEW YORK, USA: Elmore Appeals Judgment in "Jackson" Class Suit
NEW YORK, USA: Kroger Appeals Judgment in "Jackson" Class Suit
NEW YORK, USA: Myers Appeals Judgment and Order in "Jackson" Suit
NEW YORK, USA: Robinson Appeals Judgment in "Jackson" Class Suit
NICE LTD: Settlement Reached in Shareholders Class Suits

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Still Faces Consolidated Antitrust Class Suit
NORTH AMERICAN CO: Chambers Appeals Orders & Judgment to 8th Cir.
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Delaware Shareholders Suit Underway
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Lead Plaintiffs Won't Amend Suit
NQ MOBILE: "Finocchiaro" Shareholder Class Action Still Ongoing

PANERA BREAD: Unit Settles 4 Class Action Suits in California
PANERA BREAD: Still Faces Friscia's Purported Class Suit
PEL-STATE: "Harris" Files Suit Over Refusal to Pay All OT Wages
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Two Classes Certified in AA Suncoast Suit
PROGRESSIVE WASTE: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

QUALCOMM INC: 3226701 Canada Securities Class Action Continues
QUALCOMM INC: Securities Class Lawsuits Filed in 2017 Underway
QUALCOMM INC: N.D. Calif. to Hear Consumer Class Suits
ROOT9B HOLDINGS: Tenth Circuit Appeal Underway
SAULSBURY INDUSTRIES: "Kilmon" Suit Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages

SEAWORLD PARKS: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Herman" Suit
SEI INVESTMENTS: "Lillie" Class Action Litigation Still Pending
SITO MOBILE: Read Oak Funds Named as Lead Plaintiff
SIX FLAGS: Class Action Suit on Biometric Information Underway
SOUTH MILLWORK: "Forte" Suit Seeks Full Overtime Compensation

STEAK 'N SHAKE: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Ruling in "Mielo" Suit
SUNRUN INC: "Sanogo" Sues Over Share Price Drop
TANGOE INC: "McArthur" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal with Marlin
TEJAS COURIER: "Armstrong" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
TEXAS, USA: McGuire Appeals Decision to Second Court of Appeals

TOTAL CARD: Faces "Ackerman" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
TRANSUNION: Defends 8 Suits on Enhanced Public Record Standards
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Still Faces 3 Class Suits on ET Plus System
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Consolidated Shareholder Class Suit Stayed
UNITED AIRLINES: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Martin" Suit

VANTIV INC: Has Deal to Resolve Class Action vs. Mercury
VIZIO INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Larsen" Class Suit
WINDOWS USA: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hudson" Class Suit

                            *********


99 CENTS ONLY: Still Defends Suit on Employees' Graveyard Shifts
----------------------------------------------------------------
99 Cents Only Stores LLC continues to defend itself in lawsuit
filed on behalf of its retail employees who worked the graveyard
shift at any time beginning January 1, 2012, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended January 27, 2017.

The case, Sofia Wilton Barriga v. 99รต Only Stores, was filed by a
former store associate against the Company on August 5, 2013, in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside
alleging on behalf of the plaintiff and all others allegedly
similarly situated under the California Labor Code that the
Company failed to pay wages for all hours worked, provide meal
periods, pay wages timely upon termination, and provide accurate
wage statements.  The plaintiff also asserted a derivative claim
for unfair competition under the California Business and
Professions Code.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all non-exempt
employees who were employed in California in the Company's retail
stores who worked the graveyard shift at any time from January 1,
2012, through the date of trial or settlement.  Although the class
period as originally pled would extend back to August 5, 2009, the
parties have agreed that any class period would run beginning
January 1, 2012,  because of the preclusive effect of a judgment
in a previous matter.  The plaintiff seeks to recover alleged
unpaid wages, statutory penalties, interest, attorney's fees and
costs, and restitution.

On September 23, 2013, the Company filed an answer denying all
material allegations.  A case management conference was held on
October 4, 2013, at which the court ordered that discovery may
proceed as to class certification issues only.  After discovery
commenced, mediation was held on March 12, 2015, resulting in a
confidential mediator's proposal, which the parties verbally
accepted.  The parties were unable to negotiate and finalize a
written settlement agreement.  Subsequent settlement discussions
directly and through the mediator, as well as a court-ordered
settlement conference, were unsuccessful.

Discovery resumed and plaintiff's motion for class certification
has been fully briefed.  Plaintiff has also brought a motion to
strike the evidence submitted in support of the Company's
opposition to class certification.  At the Court's request the
parties agreed to mediate this matter prior to any ruling on the
class certification motion and the motion to strike.  That
mediation took place on March 2, 2017, and did not result in a
settlement.  The motion for class certification and motion to
strike were heard on April 20, 2017, and taken under submission by
the Court.

On October 26, 2015, plaintiffs' counsel filed another action in
Los Angeles Superior Court, entitled Ivan Guerra v. 99 Cents Only
Stores LLC (Case No. BC599119), which asserts PAGA claims based in
part on the allegations at issue in the Barriga action.  By
stipulation of the parties, the Guerra action has been transferred
to Riverside Superior Court and was mediated along with the
Barriga action on March 2, 2017.

99 Cents said, "The Company cannot predict the outcome of these
lawsuits or the amount of potential loss, if any, that could
result from such lawsuits."

99 Cents Only Stores LLC operates retail stores in the United
States.  Its stores offer consumable products and other household
items, and seasonal items, as well as domestic and imported fresh
produce, deli, dairy, and frozen and refrigerated food products.
The Company was founded in 1965 and is based in City of Commerce,
California.  99 Cents Only Stores LLC is a subsidiary of Number
Holdings, Inc.


ABC CORP: Masseurs File Suit Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------
Zhen Biao, a.k.a. "Jason" Han, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, against ABC Corp. d/b/a
Tranquility Day Spa & Salon, Charles Tran, Chinh Tran, Anderson
"Doe" (Last Name Unknown), Rachel "Doe" (Last Name Unknown), and
Jenny "Doe" (Last Name Unknown), Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00794 (D. Conn., May 15, 2017), was filed on behalf of non-exempt
employees within the meaning of the Connecticut Labor Law and have
not been paid wages and overtime wages in violation of the
Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.  The case also alleges violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff works as a masseur at Defendants' massage
parlor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: 718.353.8588
     E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Magpayo Moves for Certification of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned CRIXENIA MAGPAYO,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ADVOCATE HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:16-cv-01176
(N.D. Ill.), moves the Court for an order:

   A. granting her motion for class action certification under
      the Fair Labor Standards Act and certifying her Illinois
      Minimum Wage Law and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
      Act claims as a class action;

   B. authorizing the sending of notice to each putative class
      member and requiring the Defendant to provide the names and
      last known addresses of all class members;

   C. appointing her as Class Representative; and

   D. appointing Douglas M. Werman, Esq., and Maureen A. Salas,
      Esq., as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XOhS9eI3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
          Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com
                  sarendt@flsalaw.com
                  zflowerree@flsalaw.com


ALLIED CONCRETE: Court Grants Gonzalez's Bid to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joseph F. Bianco granted the motion for class
certification filed in the lawsuit captioned TRINIDAD GONZALEZ, ET
AL. v. ALLIED CONCRETE INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:14-cv-
04771-JFB-AKT (E.D.N.Y.).

"For the reasons set forth on the record during today's telephone
conference, it is hereby ordered that the motion for class
certification (ECF No. 123) and the motion for partial summary
judgment (ECF No. 130) are granted," Judge Bianco stated.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5jl9ZNzC


AMGEN INC: Hanks Appeals Ruling in "Harris" Suit to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Donald Hanks filed an appeal from a court ruling relating
to the lawsuit titled Steve Harris, et al. v. Amgen, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-05442-PSG-PLA, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
involves claims that Amgen violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act by failing to yank the Company stock option when its
executives knew or should have known that the stock's price was
inflated.

Amgen stock prices tanked by one third when safety concerns about
its anemia drugs Epogen and Aranes became public, but the
Company's retirees say Amgen had the results of damning clinical
trials since the late 1990s and early 2000s.

The appellate case is captioned as Steve Harris, et al. v. Amgen,
Inc., et al., Case No. 17-55680, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by June 9, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on September 7, 2017;

   -- Appellant Donald Hanks' opening brief is due on October 17,
      2017;

   -- Appellees Jacqueline Allred, Amgen Fiduciary Committee,
      Amgen Global Benefits Committee, Amgen Manufacturing,
      Limited, Amgen Plan Fiduciary Committee, Amgen, Inc., David
      Baltimore, Charles Bell, Frank J. Biondi Jr., Albert Cappa,
      Raul Cermeno, Jerry D. Choate, Jackie Crouse, Dennis M.
      Fenton, Fiduciary Committee of the Amgen Manufacturing
      Limited Plan, Global Benefits Committee of the Board of
      Directors of Amgen, Plan Fiduciary Committee, Frederick W.
      Gluck, Steve Harris, Frank C. Herringer, Lori Johnston,
      Michael Kelly, Richard Nanula, Gilbert S. Omenn, Judith C.
      Pelham, Dennis F. Ramos, Leonard D. Schaeffer, Kevin W.
      Sharer, The Fiduciary Committee and Jorge Torres' answering
      brief is due on November 16, 2017; and

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

Objector-Appellant DONALD HANKS is represented by:

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
          E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees STEVE HARRIS, DENNIS F. RAMOS, AKA Dennis
Ramos, JORGE TORRES and ALBERT CAPPA, On Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated, are represented by:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP
          750 B Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          E-mail: Gregorek@whafh.com
                  manifold@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Keller, Esq.
          KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON, LLP
          18425 Burbank Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 342-7442
          Facsimile: (818) 342-7616
          E-mail: dkeller@kfjlegal.com

               - and -

          Thomas James McKenna, Esq.
          GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
          E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com

Defendants-Appellee AMGEN, INC., AMGEN MANUFACTURING, LIMITED,
FRANK J. BIONDI, Jr., JERRY D. CHOATE, FRANK C. HERRINGER, GILBERT
S. OMENN, DAVID BALTIMORE, JUDITH C. PELHAM, KEVIN W. SHARER,
FREDERICK W. GLUCK and LEONARD D. SCHAEFFER are represented by:

          Emily Seymour Costin, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          950 F Street, NW, 8th Floor
          Washington, DC 20004-1404
          Telephone: (202) 239-3695
          Facsimile: (202) 654-4995
          E-mail: emily.costin@alston.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Rose, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          950 F Street, NW, 8th Floor
          Washington, DC 20004-1404
          Telephone: (202) 239-3300
          Facsimile: (202) 239-3333
          E-mail: jonathan.rose@alston.com

               - and -

          Steven Feldman, Esq.
          Moez Kaba, Esq.
          HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
          523 West 6th Street, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 788-4340
          E-mail: sfeldman@hueston.com
                  mkaba@hueston.com

               - and -

          John Charles Hueston, Esq.
          HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
          620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1300
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 226-6740
          Facsimile: (949) 226-6740
          E-mail: jhueston@hueston.com

Defendants-Appellee AMGEN, INC., AMGEN MANUFACTURING, LIMITED,
FRANK J. BIONDI, Jr., JERRY D. CHOATE, FRANK C. HERRINGER, GILBERT
S. OMENN, DAVID BALTIMORE and JUDITH C. PELHAM are represented by:

          Evan Michael Wooten, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
          E-mail: ewooten@mayerbrown.com

Defendants-Appellees DENNIS M. FENTON, RICHARD NANULA, THE
FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE and AMGEN FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE are represented
by:

          Steven Oliver Kramer, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
          E-mail: skramer@sheppardmullin.com

Defendants-Appellees CHARLES BELL, JACQUELINE ALLRED, AMGEN PLAN
FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE, RAUL CERMENO, JACKIE CROUSE, FIDUCIARY
COMMITTEE OF THE AMGEN MANUFACTURING LIMITED PLAN, LORI JOHNSTON
and MICHAEL KELLY are represented by:

          Russell Laurence Hirschhorn, Esq.
          Myron D. Rumeld, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: rhirschhorn@proskauer.com
                  MRumeld@Proskauer.com

               - and -

          Shawn Scott Ledingham, Jr., Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          2049 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
          Telephone: (310) 284-5659
          Facsimile: (310) 557-2193
          E-mail: sledingham@proskauer.com


AMTEX FOOD: Adult Club Entertainers Sue Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA PARKER Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. AMTEX FOOD & BEVERAGE, INC. d/b/a CASSIDYS
POLO CLUB, TEDDY BALLARD and MIKE GILES, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-00089-J (N.D. Tex., May 17, 2017), alleges that
Defendants refuse to compensate entertainers at an adult
entertainment club at the applicable minimum wage and overtime
rates of pay required by Federal law. In fact, Defendants do not
pay these employees any wages at all. Their only compensation is
in the form of tips received directly from patrons.

Defendants' conduct allegedly violates the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendants employ entertainers at an adult entertainment club in
Amarillo known as Cassidys Polo Club.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
     Collin Wynne, Esq.
     YOUNG &NEWSOM, PC
     1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
     Amarillo, TX 79101
     Phone: (806) 331-1800
     Fax: (806) 398-9095
     E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com
             collin@youngfirm.com


ANTHEM INC: Conn. Supreme Court Affirms Demutualization Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2017, the Connecticut Supreme Court unanimously affirmed
the trial court's judgment in the Anthem, Inc.'s favor regarding a
class action case related to the 2001 demutualization of Anthem
Insurance, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017.

The Company is defending a certified class action filed as a
result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance.  The
lawsuit names Anthem Insurance as well as Anthem, Inc. and is
captioned Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al.

Anthem Insurance's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan, provided
for the conversion of Anthem Insurance from a mutual insurance
company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law.
Under the Plan, Anthem Insurance distributed the fair value of the
company at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory
Members, or ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in
exchange for their membership interests in the mutual company.

Plaintiffs in Gold allege that Anthem Insurance distributed value
to the wrong ESMs.  A trial on liability was held in October 2014.

In June 2015, the court entered judgment for Anthem Insurance on
all issues, finding that (i) Anthem Insurance correctly determined
the state of Connecticut to be an ESM, not Plaintiffs; (ii) Anthem
Insurance acted in good faith in making this determination, while
Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to override a
presumption that Anthem Insurance's ESM determination was correct;
and (iii) Plaintiffs failed to prove the breach of any contractual
obligation.

In July 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
judgment entered for Anthem Insurance.  In December 2015, the
Connecticut Supreme Court decided it would hear the appeal
directly rather than the appeal going to the intermediate
appellate court.  Oral arguments were held in October 2016.

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States.  It operates through three
segments: Commercial and Specialty Business, Government Business,
and Other.  The Company offers a spectrum of network-based managed
care health benefit plans to large and small employer, individual,
Medicaid, and Medicare markets.  The Company was formerly known as
WellPoint, Inc. and changed its name to Anthem, Inc. in December
2014.  Anthem, Inc. was founded in 1944 and is headquartered in
Indianapolis, Indiana.


ANTHEM INC: Still Defends Consolidated Antitrust Suit in Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. continues to defend itself in a consolidated
antitrust litigation which were filed by two putative nationwide
classes of plaintiffs, among others, pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company is a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were
initially filed in 2012 against the Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association (BCBSA), an association of independent health benefit
plans, as well as Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees across
the country.  The cases were consolidated into a single multi-
district lawsuit called In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust
Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama.

Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have
engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally allocate geographic
markets through license agreements, best efforts rules (which
limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan),
restrictions on acquisitions, rules governing the BlueCard and
National Accounts programs and other arrangements in violation of
the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws.

The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of
plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers.  Subscriber and
provider plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints in
July 2013.  The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was also
brought on behalf of putative state classes of health plan
subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii,
Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss in September 2013.

In June 2014, the court denied the majority of the motions, ruling
that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts at this stage of the
litigation to avoid dismissal of their claims.  Following the
subsequent filing of amended complaints by each of the subscriber
and provider plaintiffs, the Company filed its answer and asserted
its affirmative defenses in December 2014.  No date has been set
for either the pretrial conference or trials in these actions.

Since January 2016, subscribers have filed additional actions
asserting damage claims in Indiana, Kansas, Kansas City,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia, all of which have been consolidated
into the multi-district lawsuit.

In November 2016 and April 2017, subscriber plaintiffs and
provider plaintiffs filed new consolidated amended complaints
adding new named plaintiffs and new factual allegations.

In February 2017, the Court granted in part defendants' motion for
summary judgment based on the filed rate doctrine finding that the
damages claims of certain named Alabama subscribers are barred
under federal law.  Subscribers filed a motion to reconsider the
Court's order which remains pending.

The Company said, "We intend to vigorously defend these suits;
however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States.  It operates through three
segments: Commercial and Specialty Business, Government Business,
and Other.  The Company offers a spectrum of network-based managed
care health benefit plans to large and small employer, individual,
Medicaid, and Medicare markets.  The Company was formerly known as
WellPoint, Inc. and changed its name to Anthem, Inc. in December
2014.  Anthem, Inc. was founded in 1944 and is headquartered in
Indianapolis, Indiana.


ANTHEM INC: Still Defends Class Action on ERISA Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. continues to defend itself in a purported class
action suit on ERISA violations, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

Anthem and its pharmacy benefit management vendor Express Scripts,
Inc., were named as defendants in the purported class action
lawsuit filed in June 2016 in the Southern District of New York by
three members of ERISA plans alleging ERISA violations captioned
Karen Burnett, Brendan Farrell, and Robert Shullich, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Express Scripts,
Inc. and Anthem, Inc.

The lawsuit was then consolidated with a similar lawsuit that was
previously filed against Express Scripts.  A first amended
consolidated complaint was filed in the consolidated lawsuit,
which is captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation.
The first amended consolidated complaint was filed by six
individual plaintiffs against Anthem and Express Scripts on behalf
of all persons who are participants in or beneficiaries of any
ERISA or non-ERISA health care plan from December 1, 2009 to the
present in which Anthem provided prescription drug benefits
through a PBM Agreement with Express Scripts and who paid a
percentage based co-insurance payment in the course of using that
prescription drug benefit.

As to the ERISA members, the plaintiffs allege that Anthem
breached its duties under ERISA (i) by failing to adequately
monitor Express Scripts' pricing under the PBM Agreement and (ii)
by placing its own pecuniary interest above the best interests of
Anthem insureds by allegedly agreeing to higher pricing in the PBM
Agreement in exchange for the US$4,675.0 million purchase price
for the Company's NextRx PBM business.

As to the non-ERISA members, the plaintiffs assert that Anthem
breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
implied in the health plans under which the non-ERISA members are
covered by (i) negotiating and entering into the PBM Agreement
with Express Scripts that was detrimental to the interests of such
non-ERISA members, (ii) failing to adequately monitor the
activities of Express Scripts, including failing to timely monitor
and correct the prices charged by Express Scripts for prescription
medications, and (iii) acting in Anthem's self-interests instead
of the interests of the non-ERISA members when it accepted the
US$4,675.0 million purchase price for NextRx.

Plaintiffs seek to hold Anthem and Express Scripts jointly and
severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the
proposed class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-
gotten gains, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs and
interest.

In November 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all of the
claims brought against Anthem.  In response, the plaintiffs filed
in March 2017, a second amended consolidated complaint adding two
self-insured accounts as plaintiffs and asserting an additional
purported class of self-insured accounts.

In April 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the claims
brought against Anthem.  In January 2017, Express Scripts filed a
motion to transfer the case to a federal court in Missouri, which
the Company opposed.  Following a hearing in March 2017, Express
Scripts' motion to transfer was denied.

The Company said, "We intend to vigorously defend this suit;
however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States.  It operates through three
segments: Commercial and Specialty Business, Government Business,
and Other.  The Company offers a spectrum of network-based managed
care health benefit plans to large and small employer, individual,
Medicaid, and Medicare markets.  The Company was formerly known as
WellPoint, Inc. and changed its name to Anthem, Inc. in December
2014.  Anthem, Inc. was founded in 1944 and is headquartered in
Indianapolis, Indiana.


ANTHEM INC: Plaintiffs in Cyber Attack Lawsuit Seek Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a case against Anthem, Inc. regarding a February
2015 cyber attack incident have requested for a class
certification, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017.

Specifically, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification and trial plan in March 2017.  The Company filed its
opposition to class certification, motions to strike the testimony
of three of the plaintiffs' experts and trial plan in April 2017.

In February 2015, the Company reported that it were the target of
a "sophisticated" external cyber attack.  The attackers gained
unauthorized access to certain of its information technology
systems and obtained personal information related to many
individuals and employees, such as names, birthdays, health care
identification/social security numbers, street addresses, email
addresses, phone numbers and employment information, including
income data.

The Company said, "To date, there is no evidence that credit card
or medical information, such as claims, test results or diagnostic
codes, were targeted, accessed or obtained, although no assurance
can be given that we will not identify additional information that
was accessed or obtained.

"Upon discovery of the cyber attack, we took immediate action to
remediate the security vulnerability and retained a cybersecurity
firm to evaluate our systems and identify solutions based on the
evolving landscape.  We are providing credit monitoring and
identity protection services to those who have been affected by
this cyber attack.  We have continued to implement security
enhancements since this incident.  We have incurred expenses
subsequent to the cyber attack to investigate and remediate this
matter and expect to continue to incur expenses of this nature in
the foreseeable future.  We recognize these expenses in the
periods in which they are incurred."

Actions have been filed in various federal and state courts and
other claims have been or may be asserted against the Company on
behalf of current or former members, current or former employees,
other individuals, shareholders or others seeking damages or other
related relief, allegedly arising out of the cyber attack.
Federal and state agencies, including state insurance regulators,
state attorneys general, the Health and Human Services Office of
Civil Rights and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are
investigating events related to the cyber attack, including how it
occurred, its consequences and the Company's responses.  In
December 2016, the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners, or NAIC, concluded its multistate targeted market
conduct and financial exam.  In connection with the resolution of
the matter, the NAIC requested the Company provide, and the
Company agreed to provide, a customized credit protection program,
equivalent to a credit freeze, for the Company's members who were
under the age of eighteen on January 27, 2015.  No fines or
penalties were imposed on the Company.

The Company stated, "Although we are cooperating in these
investigations, we may be subject to fines or other obligations,
which may have an adverse effect on how we operate our business
and our results of operations."

With respect to the civil actions, a motion to transfer was filed
with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, or the Panel,
in February 2015 and was subsequently heard by the Panel in May
2015.  In June 2015, the Panel entered its order transferring the
consolidated matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, or the U.S. District Court.  The U.S.
District Court entered its case management order in September
2015.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss ten of the counts
that were before the U.S. District Court.

In February 2016, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part its motion, dismissing three counts with
prejudice, four counts without prejudice and allowing three counts
to proceed.  Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in March
2016, and the Company subsequently filed a second motion to
dismiss.  In May 2016, the court issued an order granting in part
and denying in part the Company's motion, dismissing one count
with prejudice, dismissing certain counts asserted by specific
named plaintiffs with or without prejudice depending on their
individualized facts, and allowing the remaining counts to
proceed.

In July 2016, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint which the
Company answered in August 2016.  Fact discovery was completed in
December 2016.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and trial
plan in March 2017.  The Company filed its opposition to class
certification, motions to strike the testimony of three of the
plaintiffs' experts and trial plan in April 2017.

Two state court cases related to the cyber attack are presently
proceeding outside of this Multidistrict Litigation.

The Company further disclosed, "We have contingency plans and
insurance coverage for certain expenses and potential liabilities
of this nature.  While a loss from these matters is reasonably
possible, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses
because our investigation into the matter is ongoing, the
proceedings remain in the early stages, alleged damages have not
been specified, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a
class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class
if certified, and there are significant factual and legal issues
to be resolved.  We intend to vigorously defend these suits;
however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States.  It operates through three
segments: Commercial and Specialty Business, Government Business,
and Other.  The Company offers a spectrum of network-based managed
care health benefit plans to large and small employer, individual,
Medicaid, and Medicare markets.  The Company was formerly known as
WellPoint, Inc. and changed its name to Anthem, Inc. in December
2014.  Anthem, Inc. was founded in 1944 and is headquartered in
Indianapolis, Indiana.


BARU MIDTOWN: "Hernandez" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Perez Hernandez and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Baru Midtown, LLC (d/b/a Biter Truth) and Hector
Antunez, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21849 (S.D.
Fla., May 18, 2017), seeks to recover half-time overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's
fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant operates "Biter Truth," a bar-restaurant located at 3252
NE 1st Avenue, Miami Florida 33137 where Hernandez worked as
dishwasher, kitchen helper and cleaning employee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


BLUE STAR: "Pavlack" Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------Eric
S. Pavlack, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Blue Star Cruises, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01647 (S.D. Ind., May 18, 2017), seeks common-law and
statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, injunctive
relief, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other
just and proper relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Blue Star used an automatic telephone dialing systems to initiate
calls to Plaintiff's wireless cellular telephone using an
artificial and/or prerecorded voice soliciting vacation packages
without prior express consent.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      G. John Cento, Esq.
      CENTO LAW, LLC
      334 N. Senate Avenue
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Tel: (317) 908-0678
      Email: cento@centolaw.com


BRF SA: Still Defends in 2 ASAPREV Class Actions on Health Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRF S.A. continues to face two class action lawsuits filed by
ASAPREV, an association of retirees, related to "BRF/Sadia
Autogestao" health-plan policies, according to the Company's Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On January 16, 2015 and on November 16, 2016, the two class
actions were filed.  Both actions report the existence of two
different "BRF/Sadia Autogestao" health-plan policies, one
directed to employees and another one to former employees, which
would mainly violate the provisions of the Brazilian law for
private health plans.  Based on that allegation, the association
pleads: (i) the invalidity of several clauses of the "BRF/Sadia
Autogestao" health plan, (ii) the recognition of the right of
retirees to remain in "BRF/Sadia Autogestao" health plan under the
same conditions applicable to current employees; (iii) double
refund of all amounts improperly charged by BRF from each
associate, with indexation and interests; (iv) the payment of
punitive damages to each associate not inferior to BRL35,000.

The Company said, "Since both proceedings are still at their
preliminary stages, no substantial provisions have been recorded
on these proceedings as of this moment."

BRF S.A. focuses on raising, producing, and slaughtering poultry
and pork in Brazil, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, and Asia.  The Company also processes, produces and sells
fresh meat, processed foods, pasta, sauce, mayonnaise, frozen
vegetables and soybean by-products.  The Company was formerly
known as BRF-Brasil Foods S.A. and changed its name to BRF S.A. in
April 2013.  BRF S.A. was founded in 1900 and is headquartered in
Itajai, Brazil.


BURNER FIRE: Court Certifies Technicians Class in "Viator" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst granted the Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for conditional certification and notice filed in
the lawsuit styled WAYNE M. VIATOR, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. BURNER FIRE CONTROL, INC., Case
No. 6:16-cv-01008-RFD-CBW (W.D. La.).

The Court conditionally certifies, subject to the right of the
Defendant to seek decertification, the following as conditionally
certified class members:

     Current or former Offshore Water Curtain Technicians
     employed by Burner Fire Control, Inc. from three years prior
     to the date of certification to the present who were paid,
     in whole or part, on a day rate basis.

Judge Whitehurst approved the Plaintiff's Proposed Notice of
Collective Action Lawsuit and Consent Form, the Proposed E-mail to
Putative Class Members, and the Proposed Telephone Scripts.  The
Plaintiff is authorized to disseminate by first class U.S. Mail
and by e-mail the proposed Notice and Consent to Join Forms, in
accordance with the sought schedule and procedure.

The Order is issued with reservation of and without prejudice to
the rights, claims, defenses and objections of the parties and
without any stipulation of facts and with the right of Burner Fire
Control, Inc., to file a motion to decertify the class, Judge
Whitehurst noted.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wgb3B5ux


CANADIAN PACIFIC: No Date Yet for Quebec Trial on Rail Accident
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017 that a trial date has yet to be fixed
for the class action in the Quebec Superior Court regarding a
train accident in Lac-Megantic, Quebec.

On July 6, 2013, a train carrying crude oil operated by Montreal
Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMA") or a subsidiary, Montreal Maine
& Atlantic Canada Co. ("MMAC" and collectively the "MMA Group")
derailed and exploded in Lac-Megantic, Quebec.  The accident
occurred on a section of railway owned and operated by the MMA
Group.  The previous day CP had interchanged the train to the MMA
Group, and after the interchange, the MMA Group exclusively
controlled the train.

A class action lawsuit has been filed in the Quebec Superior Court
on behalf of persons and entities residing in, owning or leasing
property in, operating a business in or physically present in Lac-
Megantic at the time of the derailment (the "Class Action").  That
lawsuit seeks derailment damages, including for wrongful death,
personal injury, and property harm.

On August 16, 2013, CP was added as a defendant.  On May 8, 2015,
the Quebec Superior Court authorized (certified) the Class Action
against CP, the shipper - Western Petroleum, and the shipper's
parent - World Fuel Services (collectively, the "World Fuel
Entities").  The World Fuel Entities have since settled.  The
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint, but
subsequently withdrew it.

On October 24, 2016, the Quebec Superior Court authorized class
action proceedings against two additional defendants in the same
matter discussed, i.e. against MMAC and Mr. Thomas Harding.

On December 9, 2016, the Superior Court granted CP's motion
seeking to confirm the validity of the opt-outs from this class
action by most of the estates of the deceased parties following
the train derailment who had opted out to allow them to sue in the
United States instead.  Draft Case Protocols setting out proposed
timetables for the conduct of this lawsuit were submitted to the
Superior Court in mid-March 2017 by both the plaintiffs and
defendants.

On March 27, 2017 the Superior Court adopted several of the steps
included in the Case Protocol submitted by CP.  Under the Case
Protocol, CP's statement of defense will be submitted by June 2
and thereafter production of documents, examinations for discovery
and the exchange of expert reports by the parties is to occur
between mid-2017 and the end of 2018.  A trial date has yet to be
fixed.

Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, together with its subsidiaries,
owns and operates a transcontinental freight railway in Canada and
the United States.  The Company offers rail and intermodal
transportation services over a network of approximately 12,400
miles, serving the business centers of Canada from Montreal,
Quebec to Vancouver, British Columbia; and the United States
Northeast and Midwest regions.  In addition, the Company offers
transload, leasing, and logistics services.  Canadian Pacific
Railway Limited was founded in 1881 and is headquartered in
Calgary, Canada.


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Appeal over Wrongful Death Claims Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017, that the appeal on a Maine court's
order dismissing all wrongful death and personal injury actions on
several grounds "has yet to be docketed by the appellate court."

On July 6, 2013, a train carrying crude oil operated by Montreal
Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMA") or a subsidiary, Montreal Maine
& Atlantic Canada Co.  ("MMAC" and collectively the "MMA Group")
derailed and exploded in Lac-Megantic, Quebec.  The accident
occurred on a section of railway owned and operated by the MMA
Group.  The previous day CP had interchanged the train to the MMA
Group, and after the interchange, the MMA Group exclusively
controlled the train.

Lac-Megantic residents and wrongful death representatives
commenced a class action and a mass action in Texas and wrongful
death and personal injury actions in Illinois and Maine.  CP
removed all of these lawsuits to federal court, and a federal
court thereafter consolidated those cases in Maine.  These actions
generally charge CP with misclassification and mis-packaging (that
is, using inappropriate DOT-111 tank cars) negligence.

On CP's motion, the Maine court dismissed all wrongful death and
personal injury actions on several grounds on September 28, 2016.
The plaintiffs' subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied
on January 9, 2017.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on
January 19, 2017.  The appeal has yet to be docketed by the
appellate court.

The Company stated, "Once docketed, and if not dismissed by the
appellate court on its own motion, CP will file a motion to
dismiss the appeal.  If the ruling is upheld on appeal these cases
will be litigated, if anywhere, in Canada."

Many of these plaintiffs had previously opted-out of the related
class action pending in Quebec in order to bring their claims in
the United States.  CP brought a motion on December 1, 2016 to
seek a declaration from the Quebec Superior Court that the
plaintiffs who had opted out were precluded from opting back into
the Quebec Class Action.  CP's motion was successful.
Accordingly, if these plaintiffs seek to sue CP, they would have
to do so in Quebec in individual actions (they could also join
their individual claims in the same individual action).

Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, together with its subsidiaries,
owns and operates a transcontinental freight railway in Canada and
the United States.  The Company offers rail and intermodal
transportation services over a network of approximately 12,400
miles, serving the business centers of Canada from Montreal,
Quebec to Vancouver, British Columbia; and the United States
Northeast and Midwest regions.  In addition, the Company offers
transload, leasing, and logistics services.  Canadian Pacific
Railway Limited was founded in 1881 and is headquartered in
Calgary, Canada.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Shareholder Plaintiff Renews Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a shareholder class action against Chipotle
Mexican Grill, Inc. has filed an amended complaint, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.
Specifically, on April 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint to its case, which the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York has previously dismissed by granting
the Company's motion to dismiss.

On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the District
Court on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of
the Company's common stock between February 4, 2015 and January 5,
2016.  The complaint purports to state claims against the Company,
each of the co-Chief Executive Officers serving during the claimed
class period and the Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and related rules, based on the
Company's alleged failure during the claimed class period to
disclose material information about the Company's quality controls
and safeguards in relation to consumer and employee health.

The complaint asserts that those failures and related public
statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the
market price of the Company's stock was artificially inflated
during the claimed class period.  The complaint seeks damages on
behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest,
and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other
costs.

On March 8, 2017, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, with leave to amend.  The plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on April 7, 2017.

Chipotle Mexican said, "The Company intends to defend this case
vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from the case."

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops and operates restaurants that serve a focused menu of
burritos, tacos, burrito bowls and salads, made using fresh, high-
quality ingredients.  The Company was founded in 1993 and is based
in Denver, Colorado.


COMBINED INSURANCE: Dolmage Appeals Ruling to Seventh Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Anne Dolmage filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Anne Dolmage v. Combined Insurance Company of
America, Case No. 1:14-cv-03809, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The appellate case is captioned as Anne Dolmage v. Combined
Insurance Company of America, Case No. 17-8010, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 8,
2017, the Hon. Chief Judge Ruben Castillo denied the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

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

The Court will hold a status hearing in open court on June 20,
2017 at 9:45 a.m.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner ANNE DOLMAGE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          BARNOW & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60602-0000
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com

Defendant-Respondent COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, an
Illinois Corporation, is represented by:

          Francis A. Citera, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          77 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-0000
          Telephone: (312) 456-8400
          E-mail: citeraf@gtlaw.com


COMPLETE HIGHWAY: "Nolasco" Seeks Payment of OT Wages, Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson A. Nolasco, and other similarly-situated individuals, v.
Complete Highway Identity, Inc. and Mirnesa Hasanovic,
individually Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21864 (S.D. Fla., May
18, 2017), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees as
well as damages for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Complete Highway is a provider of highway, roadway, traffic
control and street guide signs where Plaintiff worked as signing
technician and installer. He claims to have been denied overtime
premium, worked off-the-clock and through mandated meal and rest
periods. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


CONOPCO INC: "Hain" Sues Over "Suave NATURALS" Deceptive Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG HAIN, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CONOPCO, INC., d/b/a UNILEVER, Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-03656 (C.D. Cal., May 15, 2017), is a lawsuit
against Conopco for misleading consumers about the ingredients of
its personal care products sold under the "Suave NATURALS"
("Suave Naturals," the "Products") brand name, when in fact these
products contain unnatural and synthetic ingredients.

Defendant sells several types of personal care products, including
shampoo, conditioner, body wash, and body lotion, under the "Suave
NATURALS" brand that are widely used by both children and
adults.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
     Joel D. Smith, Esq.
     Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
     Thomas A. Reyda, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Phone: (925) 300-4455
     Fax: (925) 407-2700
     E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
             jsmith@bursor.com
             ykrivoshey@bursor.com
             treyda@bursor.com

        - and -

     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (212) 989-9113
     Fax: (212) 989-9163
     E-Mail: scott@bursor.com


COSAN LTD: Has BRL445-Mil. Labor Claim Provisions at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Cosan Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, that provisions for labor claims, including
those in class actions filed by the labor prosecutor's office,
amounted to BRL445.0 million as of December 31, 2016 and BRL467.9
million as of December 31, 2015.

Cosan, its subsidiaries and jointly-controlled entities are
parties to a number of labor claims filed by former employees and
service providers challenging, among other matters, the payment of
overtime, night shift premiums and risk premiums, the recognition
of employment relationships and the reimbursement of discounts
from payroll, such as social contribution and trade union charges.

Additionally, the Company is involved in several labor
administrative and judicial proceedings such as labor
investigations and class actions filed by the labor prosecutor's
office regarding alleged non-compliance with certain labor
regulations, including work and safety rules, labor conditions and
work environment, and social assistance plans.

Moreover, the Company entered into certain consent orders (Termos
de Ajustamento de Conduta) with Brazilian authorities and in the
event it fails to comply with such consent orders, it could be
subject to fines.

Cosan Limited, together with its subsidiaries, engages in fuel and
natural gas distribution, logistics, lubricant, sugar and ethanol,
and fuel businesses primarily in Brazil and internationally. The
Company was incorporated in 2007 and is based in Sao Paulo,
Brazil.


COSAN LTD: Environmental Civil Class Litigation Still Suspended
---------------------------------------------------------------
An environmental civil class action against Cosan Limited, among
other defendants, remains suspended due to a plea from the Public
Prosecutor's Office, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.

Cosan is being sued by the Municipality of Ulianopolis by means of
the civil class action No. 0000749-68.2011.8.14.0130, for
environmental damages related to alleged irregular waste disposal
in a landfill located in the Municipality of Ulianopolis, in the
state of Para.  Eight other companies are involved in the same
lawsuit, and the plaintiff intends to declare all of them as
jointly liable for restoring the environmental damage involved
therein.  The plaintiff seeks BRL145.7 million but the specific
amount needed to restore the damage cannot be estimated.

The Company said, "It is also important to highlight that more
than 50 companies are involved in the same matter by means of
other lawsuits and a civil investigation currently being held by
the State of Para's Public Prosecutor's Office.  Therefore, it is
expected by some of these companies that any settlement or
condemnation in this matter should comprise all of them.

The lawsuit is currently suspended due to a plea from the Public
Prosecutor's Office.  According to the Company's information, the
amount under discussion in these proceedings is BRL145.7 million,
which BRL13.2 million is classified as a possible risk of loss and
BRL132.4 million is classified as a remote risk of loss.

Cosan Limited, together with its subsidiaries, engages in fuel and
natural gas distribution, logistics, lubricant, sugar and ethanol,
and fuel businesses primarily in Brazil and internationally. The
Company was incorporated in 2007 and is based in Sao Paulo,
Brazil.


CPFL ENERGIA: Appeal on Dismissed Claim vs. Unit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
CPFL Energia S.A. is awaiting court ruling on an appeal to the
dismissed class action suit in Sao Paolo, Brazil, against a
Company subsidiary, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.

Subsidiary Companhia Paulista de Forca e Luz is a defendant in a
class action suit commenced by the Consumer Protection Office
(Promotoria de Defesa do Consumidor - PROCON) of Campinas in the
State of Sao Paulo, seeking to suspend the tariff adjustment
authorized by ANEEL for 2009.  The claim against the Company was
rejected by the court of first instance, but the Consumer
Protection Office appealed the decision.  The tariff adjustment
remains in force until a ruling on appeal is made.

The Company said, "We believe that the risk of loss in these
proceedings is possible and therefore have not recorded any
accounting provision in this respect."

CPFL Energia S.A., together with its subsidiaries, generates,
transmits, distributes, and commercializes electricity to
residential, industrial, and commercial customers in Brazil.  The
company generates electricity through wind, biomass-powered
thermal, solar, and hydroelectric power plants.  CPFL Energia S.A.
was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


CSX CORPORATION: Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Suit vs. Unit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation's principal operating subsidiary, CSX
Transportation, Inc., continues to defend itself in a fuel
surcharge antitrust litigation, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws.  In November 2007, the class action
lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of
Columbia, where they are now pending.  The suit seeks treble
damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as
attorneys' fees and other relief.  Plaintiffs are expected to
allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action.  The decision was not a ruling on the merits of
plaintiffs' claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs
to seek to prove the case as a class.  The defendant railroads
petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for
permission to appeal the District Court's class certification
decision.

In August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the
class certification decision and remanded the case to the District
Court to reconsider its class certification decision.  The
District Court remand proceedings are underway and the class
certification hearing was held in September 2016.  The District
Court has delayed proceedings on the merits of the case pending
the outcome of the class certification remand proceedings.  The
court has given no indication of timing on its ruling regarding
class certification.

The Company said, "CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices
were arrived at and applied lawfully and that the case is without
merit.  Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself
vigorously.  However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can
be severe, and resolution of this matter or an unexpected adverse
decision on the merits could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity
in that particular period."

CSX Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides rail-
based transportation services in the United States and Canada.
The company offers rail services, as well as transports intermodal
containers and trailers.  CSX Corporation was founded in 1978 and
is based in Jacksonville, Florida.


CUESTA CONSTRUCTION: "Melo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mario L. Melo, Julio C. Galvez, Yoahy Sabogal and other similarly-
situated individuals, v. Cuesta Construction Corp., All
Construction & Developers South Florida LLC, Monman Lightning Bath
Center Corp., Jairo Vives and Domingo L. Montenegro, Individually,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-21876, (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime pay, liquidated
damages, retaliatory damages and any other relief for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Cuesta Construction Corp. is the general contractor for the
construction and remodeling of Lennox Hotel, located at 1900
Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida 33139 while All Construction
& Developers South Florida LLC and Monman Lightning Bath Center
Corp. are subcontractors of Cuesta. Plaintiffs worked in the
Lennox Hotel Project as tile installers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


DOLLAR GENERAL: "Weller" Files Suit for Time-shaving, Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Weller, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dollar General Corp., Case No.
5:17-cv-02292, (E.D. Pa., May 18, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
regular and overtime wages, as well as all other available relief
resulting from unjust enrichment and pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Dollar General is a nationwide chain of discount retail stores
where Weller worked as a warehouse staff at their Bethel,
Pennsylvania store. Plaintiff claims time-shaving by the Defendant
and unpaid pre-shift overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Noah Axler, Esq.
      Marc Goldieh, Esq.
      AXLER GOLDICH LLC
      1520 Locust Street, Suite 301
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Tel: (267) 534-7400
      Fax: (267) 534-7407
      Email: naxler@axgolaw.com
             mgoldich@axgolaw.com

             - and -

      Samuel A. Dion, Esq.
      DION & GOLDBERGER
      1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1199
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 546-6033
      Fax: (215) 546-6269
      Email: samueldion@aol.com

             - and -

      Mitchell L. Paul, Esq.
      1845 Wa1nut Street, Suite 1199
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 546-6811
      Fax: (215) 546-6812
      Email: mpaul@gaullaw.net


DONALD TRUMP: "Nolley" Sues Over Dismissed Complaint
----------------------------------------------------
Louise K. Nolley and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Donald Trump, Defendant, 1:17-cv-00439 (W.D. N.Y., May 18, 2017),
seeks relief under Section 1983 of the U.S. Constitution.

On or about October 20, 2016, the plaintiff filed an injunction
naming Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as respondents. Plaintiff
felt neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton were qualified to
represent the United States and sought postponement of the
election of the President and requesting President Barrack Obama
remain in office until someone with more experience can be sought.
On November 7, 2016, Hon. William Sketny dismissed the complaint
with prejudice, denying the request for an injunction and leave to
appeal. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented pro se.


EDLS INC: Frasher Files Suit Over Uncompensated Hours
-----------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA FRASHER, on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated v. EDLS, INC. d/b/a Tasty Waffle, and LEFTERIS
ELEFTERDIADIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-3701 (N.D. Ill., May
17, 2017), was filed on behalf of servers who allegedly worked
uncredited and uncompensated hours, who had deductions made to
their wages, and who were paid less than the applicable minimum
wage because of a violation of the tip credit requirements.  The
case raises allegations of violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Edls Inc. (trade name Crispy Waffle) is in the ethnic food
restaurants business. Plaintiff worked for Tasty Waffle within the
past three years as a server.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David J. Fish, Esq.
     Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
     John Kunze, Esq.
     THE FISH LAW FIRM
     200 E 5th Ave Suite 123
     Naperville, IL 60563


ELAINES ASIAN: "Da" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Da Yong Li, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Elaine's Asian Bistro Corp.
d/b/a Elaine's Bistro and Grill, Hongtao Xie, Jimin "Jimmy" Zhou,
Elaine Ho and Sue-Kee Ho, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03020,
(E.D. N.Y., May 18, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, unpaid "spread of hours" premium, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New
York Labor Law, New York Wage Theft Prevention Act and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate Elaine's Bistro and Grill located at 8 Bond
St., Great Neck, NY 11021. Da was hired by Defendants to work as a
Sushi Chef for Defendants' restaurant. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     Hang & Associates, PLLC
     136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Tel: (718) 353-8588
     Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


ELGINEX CORP: North Shore Seeks Certification of Three Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
North Shore Physical Wellness, Ltd., asks the Court to enter an
order determining that its lawsuit entitled NORTH SHORE PHYSICAL
WELLNESS, LTD., on behalf of plaintiff and the class members
defined herein v. ELGINEX CORPORATION, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case
No. 1:17-cv-03677 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action
against Elginex.

The Plaintiff defines the classes as:

     For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
     Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff
     seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons
     with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date four years
     prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658),
     (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Elginex
     Corporation, promoting its goods or services for sale (d)
     with respect to which defendant Elginex Corporation does not
     have evidence of consent or an established business
     relationship prior to sending the fax;

     For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
     Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, plaintiff seeks to
     represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with
     Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years
     prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by
     or on behalf of defendant Elginex Corporation, promoting its
     goods or services for sale (d) with respect to which
     defendant Elginex Corporation does not have evidence of
     consent or an established business relationship prior to
     sending the fax; and

     For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, and Count
     IV, alleging trespass to chattels, plaintiff seeks to
     represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with
     Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date five years
     prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by
     or on behalf of defendant Elginex Corporation, promoting its
     goods or services for sale (d) with respect to which
     defendant Elginex Corporation does not have evidence of
     consent or an established business relationship prior to
     sending the fax.

North Shore further asks that it be appointed class representative
and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed
counsel for the class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Heather Kolbus, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  hkolbus@edcombs.com


FOODSERVICE REFRIGERATION: Torres Moves for Collective Suit Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Torres moves for an order for conditional certification of
the collective action titled MATTHEW TORRES, for himself and on
behalf of those similarly situated v. FOODSERVICE REFRIGERATION,
INC., a Florida Corporation, Case No. 6:17-cv-00701-GAP-GJK (M.D.
Fla.), and permitting, under supervision, notice to:

     all current and former hourly-paid employees who assisted in
     the servicing and in installation of refrigeration units who
     worked overtime hours for Defendant, FOODSERVICE
     REFRIGERATION, INC., ("FOODSERVICE" or "Defendant"), in the
     three (3) years preceding the date this action was filed,
     and through the date notice is mailed in this matter, and
     were paid a shift differential, per diem amounts, or for
     travel time in weeks in which they worked overtime hours.

Mr. Torres contends that Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 provides, among other things, that an action
to recover unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation
may be maintained against any employer in any federal or state
court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for
and on behalf of himself or themselves and other employees
similarly situated.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vG8gq56k

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
          E-mail: Amurthy@forthepeople.com


FRITO-LAY INC: Faces "Hicks" Suit Under FLSA, Ark. Min. Wage Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HICKS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated vs. FRITO-LAY, INC., and ROLLING FRITO-LAY SALES, LP,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00330-JLH (E.D. Ark., May 17, 2017), alleges that
Defendant hired Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to
deliver snack foods, and they worked more than 40 hours per week
without receiving overtime premiums as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Frito-Lay's primary business purpose is to sell snack foods and
employs drivers to accomplish this goal.  Plaintiff was employed
by Defendant as a truck driver.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     Daniel Ford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787-2040
     E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
             daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com


GATEWAY AIRPORT: "Cid" Suit Seeks Full Payment of OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
DAIRON CID and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff(s),
v. GATEWAY AIRPORT CONCESSIONS, INC, AIRPORT CONCESSIONS GROUP,
INC, GLOBAL CONCESSIONS, INC, d/b/a GLOBAL MIAMI JOINT VENTURE,
a/k/a NATHAN'S FAMOUS HOT DOGS, and MARLON ANDINO, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21847-KMW (S.D. Fla., May 17, 2017),
alleges that Plaintiff worked five days per week from 4:30 AM to
2:30 PM, (10.5 hours daily), or 52.5 hour per week. Plaintiff was
unable to take bona fide lunch periods. Plaintiff punched in and
out. However, Plaintiff was paid for just 50 hours, with 10
overtime hours per week. Plaintiff was not properly compensated
for the remaining 2.5 overtime hours during 107 weeks.  The case
alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a retail business, operating as restaurant.
Plaintiff was hired to do general restaurant work, and he
performed as a cook, cashier, server, and cleaning person.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma., Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Phone: (305) 446-1500
     Fax: (305) 446-1502
     E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


GNC HOLDINGS: Unit Still Faces California Wage and Break Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of GNC Holdings, Inc. continues to face California
wage and break claims in the Country of Alameda, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On February 29, 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth
Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Alameda.  The
complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, among other
matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations for which
indeterminate money damages for wages, penalties, interest, and
legal fees are sought.

GNC Holdings said, "As of March 31, 2017, an immaterial liability
has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements.  GNC
intends to conduct further discovery and file a motion to
decertify the class action prior to trial, which is scheduled for
July 2018."

GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products.
Its products include protein, performance supplements, weight
management supplements, vitamins, herbs and greens, wellness
supplements, health and beauty, food and drink, and other general
merchandise.  The company sells its products under the GNC
proprietary brands, as well as under third-party brands. It
operates a network of approximately 9,000 locations under the GNC
brand worldwide.  The company sells its products through company-
owned retail stores; Websites, including GNC.com and
LuckyVitamin.com, as well as Drugstore.com; domestic and
international franchise activities; and third-party contract
manufacturing.  GNC Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1935 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


GNC HOLDINGS: Appeal in Fluctuating Workweek Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017 that a Pennsylvania superior court has yet to
schedule a briefing regarding the Company's appeal to a ruling
that the Company violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA)
through the "fluctuating workweek" method.

On September 18, 2013, Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller commenced
a class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania.  Plaintiff asserted a claim against the Company for
a purported violation of the PMWA, challenging the Company's
utilization of the "fluctuating workweek" method to calculate
overtime compensation, on behalf of all employees who worked for
the Company in Pennsylvania and who were paid according to the
fluctuating workweek method.

In October 2014, the Court entered an order holding that the use
of the fluctuating workweek method violated the PMWA.

In September 2016, the Court entered judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs and the class related to damages and ultimately legal
fees for a combined immaterial amount, which has been accrued in
the accompanying interim consolidated financial statements.

The Company appealed from the adverse judgment.  The Superior
Court has not yet announced a briefing schedule on the appeal.

GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products.
Its products include protein, performance supplements, weight
management supplements, vitamins, herbs and greens, wellness
supplements, health and beauty, food and drink, and other general
merchandise.  The company sells its products under the GNC
proprietary brands, as well as under third-party brands. It
operates a network of approximately 9,000 locations under the GNC
brand worldwide.  The company sells its products through company-
owned retail stores; Websites, including GNC.com and
LuckyVitamin.com, as well as Drugstore.com; domestic and
international franchise activities; and third-party contract
manufacturing.  GNC Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1935 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Still Faces Various Civil Antitrust Litigations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation continues to face civil antitrust suits, some
of which are class action complaints, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company was named as a defendant in consolidated class action
civil antitrust suits filed on February 9 and 12, 2010 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that the
Company, its co-defendants and other alleged co-conspirators,
conspired to fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in the U.S.
between at least March 1, 2002 and the present.  The other
defendants named in this matter were DuPont, Kronos and Cristal
(formerly Millennium).

On August 28, 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all
U.S. customers who purchased titanium dioxide directly from the
defendants since February 1, 2003 (the "Direct Purchasers").

On December 13, 2013, the Company and all other defendants settled
the Direct Purchasers litigation and the court approved the
settlement. The Company paid the settlement in an amount
immaterial to its condensed consolidated financial statements.

On November 22, 2013, the Company was named as a defendant in a
civil antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota brought by a Direct Purchaser who opted out
of the Direct Purchasers class litigation (the "Opt-Out
Litigation").

The Company said, "On April 21, 2014, the court severed the claims
against us from the other defendants sued and ordered our case
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas. Subsequently, Kronos, another defendant, was also
severed from the Minnesota case and claims against it were
transferred and consolidated for trial with our case in the
Southern District of Texas. On February 26, 2016, we reached an
agreement to settle the Opt-Out Litigation and subsequently paid
the settlement in an amount immaterial to our condensed
consolidated financial statements."

"The Company was also named as a defendant in a class action civil
antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by the purchasers of
products made from titanium dioxide (the "Indirect Purchasers")
making essentially the same allegations as did the Direct
Purchasers.  On October 14, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Class Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs
to those merchants and consumers of architectural coatings
containing titanium dioxide.  On August 11, 2015, the court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Indirect Purchasers
litigation with leave to amend the complaint.  A Third Amended
Class Action Complaint was filed on September 29, 2015 further
limiting the class to consumers of architectural paints.
Plaintiffs have raised state antitrust claims under the laws of 15
states, consumer protection claims under the laws of nine states,
and unjust enrichment claims under the laws of 16 states.

"On November 4, 2015, the Company and its co-defendants filed
another motion to dismiss.  On June 13, 2016, the court
substantially denied the motion to dismiss except as to consumer
protection claims in one state.  The parties are presently
negotiating a settlement for an amount that would not be material
to the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements.

"On August 23, 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in a
fourth civil antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California by an Indirect Purchaser, Home
Depot.  Home Depot is an Indirect Purchaser primarily through
paints it purchasers from various manufacturers.  Home Depot makes
the same claims as the Direct and Indirect Purchasers.  On January
13, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Home Depot
case, which remains pending."

The Company said, "We do not expect this matter to have a material
impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements."

Huntsman Corporation, through its subsidiary, Huntsman
International LLC, manufactures and sells differentiated organic
and inorganic chemical products worldwide.  The Company operates
in five segments: Polyurethanes, Performance Products, Advanced
Materials, Textile Effects, and Pigments and Additives.  Huntsman
Corporation was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in The
Woodlands, Texas.


IBI ARMORED: Armored Car Driver Sues Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS HAYWARD, on behalf of himself, and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against IBI ARMORED SERVICES, INC., and
MICHAEL SHIELDS, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02944 (E.D.N.Y., May
15, 2017), alleges that Defendants knowingly and willfully failed
to pay Plaintiff Travis Hayward lawfully earned wages for hours
worked, in contravention of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.

Plaintiff, Travis Hayward, has been employed by Defendants in
Queens County, New York, as a driver for Defendants' armored car
service known as "IBI Armored Services."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin Cilenti, Esq.
     Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
     CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
     708 Third A venue - 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 209-3933
     Fax: (212) 209-7102
     E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Class Suits on Derma Acquisition Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corporation disclosed in its Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017 that class action
lawsuits regarding the proposed acquisition of Derma Sciences,
Inc. have been dismissed.

The Company said, "The underlying cases were dismissed by
Plaintiffs and the parties settled on US$225,000 for fees to be
paid to Plaintiffs' attorneys for all three cases.  Plaintiffs
will determine how the US$225,000 is split."

Previously, purported stockholders of Derma Sciences had filed
three class action lawsuits challenging the proposed acquisition
of Derma Sciences by Integra and its subsidiary, Integra Derma,
Inc. (the "Proposed Acquisition").

On January 30 and February 3, 2017, complaints captioned Rabadi v.
Derma Sciences, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00628 (the "Rabadi
Complaint") and Klingel v. Derma Sciences, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-00738, were filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey against Derma Sciences, each member of
its board of directors (the "Derma Sciences Board"), Integra, and
Integra Derma, Inc.

On January 31, 2017, a complaint captioned Parshall v. Derma
Sciences, Inc., et al., Case No. 2017-0074 (the "Parshall
Complaint"), was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against Derma Sciences, each member of the Derma Sciences
Board, Integra, and Integra Derma, Inc.

The complaints seek certification of a class action on behalf of
all Derma Sciences' public stockholders.  Each complaint alleges,
among other things, that the process leading up to the Proposed
Acquisition, including Integra's offer to purchase the outstanding
shares of Derma Sciences, was inadequate, and that the Schedule
14D-9 filed by Derma Sciences on January 25, 2017 omits certain
material information, which each complaint alleges renders the
information disclosed materially misleading.

The Rabadi Complaint and the Parshall Complaint also allege that
the members of the Derma Sciences Board breached their fiduciary
duties with respect to the Proposed Acquisition, and that Integra,
Integra Derma, Inc. and Derma Sciences aided and abetted those
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  Each complaint seeks, among
other things, to rescind the Proposed Acquisition or recover money
damages in the event the Proposed Acquisition is consummated.

While the complaints also sought to enjoin the Proposed
Acquisition, on February 9, 2017, plaintiffs agreed to not pursue
preliminary injunctive relief in return for Derma Sciences making
certain additional disclosures.

The Company stated, "Integra and Integra Derma, Inc. believe that
the complaints are wholly without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against these lawsuits."

Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corporation develops, manufactures,
and markets surgical implants and medical instruments for use in
neurosurgery, extremity reconstruction, orthopedics, and general
surgery.  The Company operates through two segments, Specialty
Surgical Solutions; and Orthopedics and Tissue Technologies.  It
offers its products directly through various sales forces and
other distribution channels in the United States, Europe, and
internationally.  Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corporation was
founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Plainsboro, New Jersey.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: June 29 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------
A hearing is scheduled for June 29, 2017, on a motion to dismiss
an amended complaint in a California class action lawsuit against
Intuitive Surgical, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed
against a number of the Company's current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  A substantially identical complaint,
entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365,
was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24,
2013.  The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice
on August 20, 2013.

On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an
amended complaint.  The case has since been re-titled In re
Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013.  The
amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading
statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public
statements and in the Company's filings with the SEC.

On November 18, 2013, the court appointed the Employees'
Retirement System of the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and
appointed lead counsel.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on December 16, 2013, which was granted in part
and denied in part on August 21, 2014.  The plaintiffs elected not
to further amend their complaint at that time.

On October 22, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion for
leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's August
21, 2014, order.  The Company filed its motion for reconsideration
on November 5, 2014.  Following opposition and reply briefing, the
court denied the motion on December 15, 2014, allowing the case to
move forward on the claims that remained.

The plaintiffs moved for class certification on September 1, 2015,
and following opposition and reply briefing, the court held a
hearing on the motion on January 21, 2016.  While that motion
remained pending, on October 11, 2016, the Company sent
plaintiffs' lead counsel Labaton Sucharow LLP a letter enclosing a
draft motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11, primarily based on statements to the court that
lacked a proper factual basis.

In response, on November 1, 2016, plaintiffs' local counsel
withdrew from the case entirely and withdrew their signatures from
the disputed pleadings.  On November 2, 2016, Labaton Sucharow
filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint that did not
include the disputed statements.

On November 16, 2016, the Company filed an opposition to
plaintiffs' motion, along with an independent motion to strike the
amended complaint and the pleadings from which plaintiffs' local
counsel withdrew their signatures.  Following additional briefing,
the motion for leave to amend and motion to strike were fully
submitted to the Court on November 23, 2016, and December 7, 2016,
respectively.

On December 22, 2016, the court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On January 5, 2017,
the Company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from the
order granting class certification in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  The Court of Appeals has not yet ruled on the Company's
petition.

On January 12, 2017, plaintiffs sought leave to file a motion for
partial reconsideration of the court's class-certification order,
which the court granted on March 17, 2017.  Plaintiffs filed the
motion for reconsideration itself on April 3, 2017; the Company
has not yet filed its opposition.

On January 25, 2017, the court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint and denying
the Company's motion to strike.  On February 9, 2017, the Company
moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  Following opposition and
reply briefing, the matter was fully submitted to the court on
March 2, 2017, and a hearing is scheduled for June 29, 2017.

The Company said, "Based on currently available information, the
Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
position, or future results of operations."

Intuitive Surgical, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets da
Vinci surgical systems, and related instruments and accessories.
The company's da Vinci surgical System translates a surgeon's
natural hand movements, which are performed on instrument controls
at a console into corresponding micro-movements of instruments
positioned inside the patient through small incisions or ports.
It markets its products directly and through distributors in the
United States, Europe, Asia, and internationally.  Intuitive
Surgical, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in
Sunnyvale, California.


ITAU UNIBANCO: Still Defends Consumer-Related Class Action Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Itau Unibanco Holding S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016 that it is a defendant in lawsuits filed
by individuals, as well as class actions filed by: (i) consumer
protection associations; and (ii) public attorneys' office
(Ministerio Publico) on behalf of holders of savings accounts.

In connection with these class actions, Itau Unibanco Holding
establishes provisions upon service of the individual claim
requiring the enforcement of a judgment handed down by the
judiciary, using the same criteria used to determine the
provisions of individual actions.

No class actions alleging unfair competition, trust or monopoly
practices were brought against the Company in 2016.

Labor class actions filed against the Company mainly relate to the
continuation of health care plans, safety rules and strikes. The
Company is also defendant in connection with labor claims filed by
the labor prosecution office regarding union classification,
outsourcing, occupational diseases, health and safety and
compliance with the minimum quotas for disabled personnel.  In the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, the Company paid
approximately BRL2,453 million in direct labor expenses, mainly in
settlements and convictions involving former employees, in
accordance to the agreements signed and to the rulings imposed by
labor courts.  Regarding labor claims filed by outsourced service
providers, they generally involve allegations of subsidiary
liability of the companies within the Company's group.

Itau Unibanco Holding S.A. provides a range of financial products
and services to individuals and corporate clients in Brazil and
internationally.  The Company operates in three segments: Retail
Banking, Wholesale Banking, and Activities with the Market +
Corporation.  The Company was formerly known as Itau Unibanco
Banco Multiplo S.A. and changed its name to Itau Unibanco Holding
S.A. in April 2009.  Itau Unibanco Holding S.A. was founded in
1944 and is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


KENON HOLDINGS: ZIM Still Defends Class Action on Local Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenon Holdings Ltd.'s subsidiary, ZIM Integrated Shipping
Services, Ltd., continues to face class action complaint regarding
local rates in Israel, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.

In January 2016, ZIM's wholly-owned agency in Israel, along with
other third party shipping agencies, was served with a motion
approving the filing of a class action.  The applicant alleges,
among other things, that for the previous seven years, the agency
breached applicable port regulations by charging customers higher
rates for services rendered than are allowed under the regulations
and charging for services which are not included in the list of
services detailed in such regulations.

The Company said, "Given the early stage of the proceedings, ZIM's
management has been unable to estimate the probability or the
effect of an adverse outcome of this class action on ZIM's
business, if any.  Therefore, ZIM has not recorded a provision in
relation to the class action."

Kenon Holdings Ltd., through its subsidiaries, owns, develops, and
operates power generation and distribution facilities primarily in
Latin America, the Caribbean, and Israel.  It also designs,
manufactures, distributes, and services passenger vehicles through
a network of independent authorized retail dealers in the People's
Republic of China.  In addition, it develops and owns a
proprietary natural gas-to-liquid technology process.  The Company
is based in Singapore.


KOHLBERG VENTURES: Wojciechowski Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Peter Wojciechowski filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled PETER WOJCIECHOWSKI, on his own behalf and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. KOHLBERG
VENTURES, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-06775-MEJ, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr.
Wojciechowski filed the putative class action lawsuit against
Kohlberg Ventures, LLC, on November 23, 2016.

Kohlberg Ventures is a venture capital firm specializing in early
stage and growth financing. The firm typically invests in digital
media, mobile commerce, consumer product and clean tech companies.

The appellate case is captioned as Peter Wojciechowski v. Kohlberg
Ventures, LLC, Case No. 17-15966, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record must be
      served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1
      on August 18, 2017;

   -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record must be
      served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1
      on September 18, 2017; and

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


LIMBACH HOLDINGS: R. Garfield's Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Limbach Holdings, Inc. continues to defend itself in a class
action complaint filed by Robert Garfield in Illinois, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On May 10, 2016, Robert Garfield, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated public holders of Company's common stock,
filed a Verified Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the
"Complaint") against the Company, Gordon G. Pratt, Hassan R.
Baqar, Larry G. Swets, Jr., John T. Fitzgerald, Joshua Horowitz,
Leo Christopher Saenger III, and Thomas D. Sargent (the
"Defendants") in the Circuit Court of Du Page County, Illinois.

In his Complaint, Mr. Garfield alleges that (1) the Defendants'
efforts to consummate the Business Combination are "ultra vires"
acts in violation of the Company's amended and restated
certificate of incorporation (the "Charter") because the Charter
required Company to liquidate if it had not entered into a letter
of intent or definitive agreement to consummate an initial
business combination by January 21, 2016, and the letter of intent
with Limbach was not entered into until January 29, 2016; (2) the
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders in
negotiating and approving the merger because, among other things,
they had conflicts of interest resulting from their ownership of
insider shares, and (3) the Defendants filed a proxy statement
that was incomplete and misleading because, among other things,
the proxy statement does not disclose certain conflicts of
interest and the violation of Company's Charter.

The Complaint therefore seeks (a) a determination that the action
is a proper class action and that Mr. Garfield is a proper class
representative; (b) a determination that the action is a proper
derivative action; (c) a declaration that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties; (d) a declaration that the merger
agreement is void because it is ultra vires; (e) injunctive relief
enjoining and rescinding the merger; (f) compensatory and/or
rescissory damages; and (g) an award of costs and attorney's fees.

The Company said, "The Defendants intend to vigorously defend this
lawsuit and believe that the Complaint is without merit because,
among other things, the Company entered into a letter of intent
prior to January 21, 2016 with a potential target for a business
combination (other than Limbach) which the Company was unable to
consummate, thereby extending its deadline for completing a
business combination to July 21, 2016, the Defendants did not
breach their fiduciary duties, and the proxy statement is not
incomplete and misleading."

Limbach Holdings, Inc. provides commercial specialty contractor
services in the United States.  It operates in two segments,
Construction and Service.  It serves customers primarily located
in Florida, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, and Washington,
D.C.  The Company was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


LPL FINANCIAL: "Denson" Securities Suit Removed to E.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned ELIJAH DENSON, JR. and OLAN WEEKS, On behalf of
themselves and All others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LPL
FINANCIAL, LLC and JASON N. ANDERSON, Defendants (originally Cause
No. A-199270, November 16, 2016), was removed from the 58th
Judicial District of Jefferson County, Texas to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and assigned Case
No. 1:17-cv-00215-MAC, according to a case docket dated
May 17, 2017.

Plaintiffs' lawsuit seeks to recover civil monetary damages as a
result of "Defendants' alleged unauthorized trading churning, and
mismanagement of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' investment
accounts, retirement accounts, and/or other financial
accounts . . ."

The Original Petition asserts Texas statutory and common claims
for breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, negligence/gross negligence, negligence per se,
violations of the Texas Securities Act, violations of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, unjust
enrichment, quantum meruit, and assumpsit.

LPL Financial LLC is an independent broker-dealer.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

     John P. Kincade, Esq.
     WINSTEAD PC
     2728 N. Harwood Street, Suite 500
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Phone: (214) 745 5400
     Fax: (214) 745 5390
     E-mail: ikincade@winstead.com

        - and -

     Jason R. Bernhardt, Esq.
     600 Travis, Suite 1100
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 650-8400
     Fax: (713) 650-2400
     E-mail: jbernhardt@winstead.com

        - and -

     Eric Paul Edwardson, Esq.
     5 Acadiana Court, Suite B
     Beaumont, TX 77706
     Phone: (409) 924-0802
     Fax: (409) 515-1958
     E-mail: ericedwardson@att.net


LULAROE LLC: "Heinichen" Sues Over Poor Quality Leggings
--------------------------------------------------------
Emma Heinichen and Andrea Rosica, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lularoe, LLC, LLR, INC.
and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-02880,
(N.D. Cal., May 18, 2017), seeks monetary damages, restitution,
injunctive and declaratory relief for violation of the Unfair
Competition Law (California Business & Professions Code),
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act,  and for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and
from unjust enrichment.

Defendants advertise, market, produce and sell leggings and other
clothing. Plaintiffs allege that these are of such poor quality
that they easily rip and tear immediately upon wearing and/or
washing. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
      Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
      Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
      Ethan T. Litney, Esq.
      Alyssa Williams, Esq.
      CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
      110 Laurel Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 238-1811
      Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
      Email: dcasey@cglaw.com
             gmb@cglaw.com
             jrobinson@cglaw.com
             elitney@cglaw.com
             awilliams@cglaw.com


MATTRESS FIRM: Faces "Cordada" Lawsuit Alleging FCRA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CORDADA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. MATTRESS FIRM HOLDING CORP. and
MATTRESS FIRM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00565-UNA (D.
Del., May 15, 2017), was brought under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act because Mattress Firm routinely and systematically procures
consumer reports from applicants and employees based on an
unlawful disclosure form.

Defendant Mattress Firm Holding Corp., through its direct and
indirect subsidiaries, including Defendant Mattress Firm, Inc., is
a specialty bedding retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel C. Herr, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL C. HERR LLC
     1225 N. King Street, Suite 1000
     4300 Shawnee Mission Pkwy, Ste 100
     Fairway, KS 66205
     Phone: (913) 378-9830
     E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com

        - and -

     Paul Mose, Esq.
     MOSE LAW LLC
     3111 Strong Ave.
     Kansas City, KS 66106
     Phone: (913) 432-4484
     E-mail: pablo@moselaw.com


MC MIAMI ENTERPRISES: "Prado" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Prado, on his own behalf and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MC Miami Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-21873 (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid minimum wage compensation, liquidated damages
and other relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Plaintiff worked at "MC MIAMI," a restaurant owned and operated by
the Defendants located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, serving
food, cleaning tables, bussing tables, bartending, and other non-
management/non administrative tasks of serving patrons food and
beverages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard Celler, Esq.
     Noah E. Storch, Esq.
     RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
     7450 Griffin Rd. #230
     Davie, FL 33314, USA
     Tel: (866) 344-9243
     Fax: (954) 337-2771
     Email: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com
            noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


MGT CAPITAL: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
MGT Capital Investments, Inc. continues to defend itself in a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit in New York,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

In September 2016, various shareholders of the Company filed
putative class action lawsuits against the Company, its president
and certain of its individual officers and directors.  The cases
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and allege violations of federal securities
laws and seek damages.

On April 11, 2017 those cases were consolidated into a single
action and two individual shareholders were appointed lead
plaintiffs by the Court.

MGT Capital said, "The Company believes there is no merit to the
Securities Action and intends to defend against the action
vigorously."

MGT Capital Investments, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
focuses on acquiring and developing a portfolio of cybersecurity
technologies.  It intends to address various cyber threats through
protection technologies for mobile and personal tech devices, as
well as corporate networks.  The Company also engages in bitcoin
mining operation.  MGT Capital Investments, Inc. was founded in
1979 and is headquartered in Durham, North Carolina.


NATIONAL PROCESSING: Faces "East" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE EAST, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL PROCESSING ALLIANCE, INC.,
a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 0:17-cv-60961-DPG (S.D.
Fla., May 15, 2017), alleges that Defendant admittedly maintains a
companywide policy that, during an employee's last week(s) of
employment, the employee is paid only at minimum wage, and not the
employee's regular rate of pay, and any overtime worked by each
employee is paid at time and one half minimum wage, not the
employee's regular rate of pay as defined by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

NATIONAL PROCESSING ALLIANCE, INC. is a financial services
company.  Plaintiff worked as a computer/technology based employee
for Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard Celler, Esq.
     RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A
     7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
     Davie, FL 33314
     Phone: (866) 344-9243
     Fax: (954) 337-2771
     E-mail: Richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


NELSON WATSON: Maldonado Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ALFREDO MALDONADO, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. NELSON,
WATSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC; CBE GROUP; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case
No. 2:15-cv-05940-MAH (D.N.J.), asks for an order certifying the
case to proceed as a class action and for final approval of the
parties' class settlement agreement.

Specifically, Mr. Maldonado moves the Court for class
certification on behalf of this class:

     All Consumers who reside in the State of New Jersey to whom
     Nelson, Watson & Associates, LLC or CBE Group mailed a
     written communication during the period beginning August 3,
     2014, and ending August 3, 2015, in an attempt to collect a
     debt on behalf of Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., which were
     mailed in a windowed envelope such that certain alpha
     numeric information associated with the consumer's debt was
     visible from the outside of the envelope.

In his complaint, Mr. Maldonado alleges that the Defendants
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by mailing
consumers collection letters in a windowed envelope, such that
certain alpha numeric information associated with the consumer's
debt was visible from the outside of the envelope.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zMR4PkNa

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 200
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com

               - and -

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
          E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com


NEW MEXICO, USA: Seeks 10th Cir. Review of "Cummings" Suit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Jason Dean filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Cummings, et al. v. Dean, Case No. 1:16-CV-00951-
JAP-KK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
- Albuquerque.

Jason Dean is the Director of the Labor Relations Division of the
Department of Workforce Solutions of the State of New Mexico.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

The appellate case is captioned as Cummings, et al. v. Dean, Case
No. 17-2072, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees RANDY CUMMINGS, CRUZ GALLEGOS, ROBERT J.
GARCIA, RICHARD GONZALES, ELOY A. JARAMILLO, DAVID LARRANAGA,
RICHARD LOPEZ, RICK LOPEZ, DAVID MONTANO, ANGELO RINALDI, CHRIS
SWEENEY, JOSH TILLINGHAST, TOMAS TRUJILLO, JEFFREY S. WADE, JOSHUA
HOSELTON, CHARLES W. LEES, JAIME MARQUEZ, ROBERT MENDOZA, ARMANDO
ANCHONDO, GUSTAVO BERROSPE, REYES CABRIALES, SERGIO ESCOBEDO,
JASON HEAD, NICK HINOJOS, ROBERT G. HITZMAN, MICHAEL LOPEZ, JOSE
RODRIGUEZ, SERGIO A. ROJO, RICHARD TENORIO, CESAR TORRES, GRANT
WILLIS, HAROLD BROWN, RENE CARRILLO, HENRY NEZ, JR., KURT JOHNSON,
JESUS AGUILAR-MURILLO, MARTIN F. ALVAREZ, ARTHUR ARCHULETA,
ENRIQUE CORONA, RONALD HUBBARD, ANDREW M. LUGO, HENRY LUJAN, DAVID
CARR, D. JEREMIAH CORDOVA, KEVIN CHARVEA, NATHAN ESPALIN, LEVI
GUTIERREZ, DENNIS MOORE, ROBERT MORENO, LEVI OLIVAS, THOMAS D.
PAYNE and BRYAN WHEELER, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Stephen Curtice, Esq.
          James Montalbano, Esq.
          Shane Youtz, Esq.
          YOUTZ & VALDEZ, PC
          900 Gold Avenue, SW
          Albuquerque, NM 87102-0000
          Telephone: (505) 244-1200
          Facsimile: (505) 244-9700
          E-mail: stephen@youtzvaldez.com
                  james@youtzvaldez.com
                  shane@youtzvaldez.com

Defendant-Appellant JASON DEAN, and Defendant CELINA BUSSEY,
Secretary of the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions, are
represented by:

          Jason J. Lewis, Esq.
          MORRISSEY LEWIS
          2501 Rio Grande Boulevard, NW, Suite B
          Albuquerque, NM 87104
          Telephone: (505) 247-3800

               - and -

          Sean Olivas, Esq.
          KELEHER & MCLEOD, P.A.
          201 Third Street NW, Suite 1200
          Albuquerque, NM 87103
          Telephone: (505) 346-4646
          Facsimile: (800) 444-1529
          E-mail: so@keleher-law.com


NEW YORK, USA: Harris Appeals Judgment in "Jackson" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Harris, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled
Jackson (Harris) v. Cuomo, Case No. 16-cv-9705, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City), filed an appeal from the District Court's civil judgment
and order of dismissal, both dated April 19, 2017.

The other Plaintiffs are Nahshon Jackson, Kevin Elmore, Charles
Ransom, Larry Ross, Dexter Robinson, Davey Shark, Darryl Kroger,
Michael Hopps, Edwin Myers, Patrick Snow and Others Similarly
Situated.

The lawsuit is brought over prisoner civil rights issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Jackson (Harris) v. Cuomo, Case
No. 17-1517, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Harris, an inmate at the Otisville
Correctional Facility, in Otisville, New York, appears pro se.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees, Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Governor;
and Tina M. Stanford, Chairperson, New York State Board of Parole,
are represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          120 Broadway
          New York, NY 10271
          Telephone: (212) 416-8020
          E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov


NEW YORK, USA: Ross Appeals Order in "Jackson" Suit to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------\
Larry Ross, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Jackson
(Ross) v. Cuomo, Case No. 16-cv-9705, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (New York City), filed an
appeal from the District Court's civil judgment and order of
dismissal, both dated April 19, 2017.

The other Plaintiffs are Nahshon Jackson, Kevin Elmore, Charles
Ransom, Dexter Robinson, Davey Shark, Darryl Kroger, Michael
Hopps, Robert Harris, Edwin Myers, Patrick Snow and Others
Similarly Situated.

The lawsuit is brought over prisoner civil rights issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Jackson (Ross) v. Cuomo, Case
No. 17-1511, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Larry Ross, an inmate at the Otisville
Correctional Facility, in Otisville, New York, appears pro se.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees, Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Governor;
and Tina M. Stanford, Chairperson, New York State Board of Parole,
are represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          120 Broadway
          New York, NY 10271
          Telephone: (212) 416-8020
          E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov


NEW YORK, USA: Shark Appeals Judgment in "Jackson" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Davey Shark, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Jackson
(Shark) v. Cuomo, Case No. 16-cv-9705, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (New York City), filed an
appeal from the District Court's civil judgment and order of
dismissal, both dated April 19, 2017.

The other Plaintiffs are Nahshon Jackson, Kevin Elmore, Charles
Ransom, Dexter Robinson, Darryl Kroger, Michael Hopps, Robert
Harris, Edwin Myers, Larry Ross, Patrick Snow and Others Similarly
Situated.

The lawsuit is brought over prisoner civil rights issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Jackson (Shark) v. Cuomo, Case
No. 17-1520, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Davey Shark, an inmate at the Otisville
Correctional Facility, in Otisville, New York, appears pro se.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees, Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Governor;
and Tina M. Stanford, Chairperson, New York State Board of Parole,
are represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          120 Broadway
          New York, NY 10271
          Telephone: (212) 416-8020
          E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov


NEW YORK, USA: Snow Appeals Order in "Jackson" Suit to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Snow, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled
Jackson (Snow) v. Cuomo, Case 16-cv-9705, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City), filed
an appeal from the District Court's civil judgment and order of
dismissal, both dated April 19, 2017.

The other Plaintiffs are Nahshon Jackson, Kevin Elmore, Charles
Ransom, Dexter Robinson, Davey Shark, Darryl Kroger, Michael
Hopps, Robert Harris, Edwin Myers, Larry Ross and Others Similarly
Situated.

The lawsuit is brought over prisoner civil rights issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Jackson (Snow) v. Cuomo, Case
No. 17-1521, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Patrick Snow, an inmate at the Otisville
Correctional Facility, in Otisville, New York, appears pro se.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees, Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Governor;
and Tina M. Stanford, Chairperson, New York State Board of Parole,
are represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          120 Broadway
          New York, NY 10271
          Telephone: (212) 416-8020
          E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov


NEW YORK, USA: Elmore Appeals Judgment in "Jackson" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Elmore, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled
Jackson (Elmore) v. Cuomo, Case No. 16-cv-9705, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City), filed an appeal from the District Court's civil judgment
and order of dismissal, both dated April 19, 2017.

The other Plaintiffs are Nahshon Jackson, Charles Ransom, Dexter
Robinson, Davey Shark, Darryl Kroger, Michael Hopps, Robert
Harris, Edwin Myers, Patrick Snow, Larry Ross and Others Similarly
Situated.

The lawsuit is brought over prisoner civil rights issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Jackson (Elmore) v. Cuomo, Case
No. 17-1532, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Kevin Elmore, an inmate at the Otisville
Correctional Facility, in Otisville, New York, appears pro se.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees, Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Governor;
and Tina M. Stanford, Chairperson, New York State Board of Parole,
are represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          120 Broadway
          New York, NY 10271
          Telephone: (212) 416-8020
          E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov


NEW YORK, USA: Kroger Appeals Judgment in "Jackson" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Kroger, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Jackson
(Kroger) v. Cuomo, Case No. 16cv-9705, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (New York City), filed an
appeal from the District Court's civil judgment and order of
dismissal, both dated April 19, 2017.

The other Plaintiffs are Nahshon Jackson, Kevin Elmore, Charles
Ransom, Dexter Robinson, Davey Shark, Michael Hopps, Robert
Harris, Edwin Myers, Patrick Snow, Larry Ross and Others Similarly
Situated.

The lawsuit is brought over prisoner civil rights issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Jackson (Kroger) v. Cuomo, Case
No. 17-1528, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Darryl Kroger, an inmate at the Otisville
Correctional Facility, in Otisville, New York, appears pro se.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees, Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Governor;
and Tina M. Stanford, Chairperson, New York State Board of Parole,
are represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          120 Broadway
          New York, NY 10271
          Telephone: (212) 416-8020
          E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov


NEW YORK, USA: Myers Appeals Judgment and Order in "Jackson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Myers, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Jackson
(Myers) v. Cuomo, Case No. 16-cv-9705, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (New York City), filed an
appeal from the District Court's civil judgment and order of
dismissal, both dated April 19, 2017.

The other Plaintiffs are Nahshon Jackson, Kevin Elmore, Charles
Ransom, Dexter Robinson, Davey Shark, Darryl Kroger, Michael
Hopps, Robert Harris, Patrick Snow, Larry Ross and Others
Similarly Situated.

The lawsuit is brought over prisoner civil rights issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Jackson (Myers) v. Cuomo, Case
No. 17-1535, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Edwin Myers, an inmate at the Otisville
Correctional Facility, in Otisville, New York, appears pro se.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees, Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Governor;
and Tina M. Stanford, Chairperson, New York State Board of Parole,
are represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          120 Broadway
          New York, NY 10271
          Telephone: (212) 416-8020
          E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov


NEW YORK, USA: Robinson Appeals Judgment in "Jackson" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dexter Robinson, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled
Jackson (Robinson) v. Cuomo, Case No. 16-cv-9705, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City), filed an appeal from the District Court's civil judgment
and order of dismissal, both dated April 19, 2017.

The other Plaintiffs are Nahshon Jackson, Kevin Elmore, Charles
Ransom, Davey Shark, Darryl Kroger, Michael Hopps, Robert Harris,
Edwin Myers, Patrick Snow, Larry Ross and Others Similarly
Situated.

The lawsuit is brought over prisoner civil rights issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Jackson (Robinson) v. Cuomo,
Case No. 17-1524, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Dexter Robinson, an inmate at the Otisville
Correctional Facility, in Otisville, New York, appears pro se.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees, Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Governor;
and Tina M. Stanford, Chairperson, New York State Board of Parole,
are represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          120 Broadway
          New York, NY 10271
          Telephone: (212) 416-8020
          E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov


NICE LTD: Settlement Reached in Shareholders Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
NICE Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F filed on April 21, 2017 with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that the parties to the consolidated
cases regarding the Company's acquisition of inContact "have
recently completed" the negotiation to settle these cases.  The
Company further said that it expects the action to be "formally
dismissed in the near future."

The Company completed its acquisition of inContact in November
2016.

On June 10, 2016, a complaint captioned Natalie Gordon v.
inContact, Inc., et al., was filed in the Third Judicial District
Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah (the "Court") naming as
defendants inContact and its Board of Directors (the "Gordon
Action").  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 1,
2016.

On July 5, 2016, a complaint captioned David Stern v. inContact,
Inc., et al., was filed in the same court naming as defendants
inContact and its Board of Directors.

On July 8, 2016, a complaint captioned Andre Davis v. inContact
Inc., et al., was filed in the same court naming as defendants
inContact, its Board of Directors, Nice and Victory Merger Sub
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.

On July 14, 2016 the Court ordered the three actions consolidated
and designated the amended complaint in the Gordon action as the
operative complaint.  The consolidated action purported to be a
class action brought by shareholders alleging that the members of
inContact's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the Merger Agreement with NICE pursuant to which
inContact was acquired as a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of
ours.

On August 4, 2016 the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding for the settlement of the three actions.

The Company said, "The parties have recently completed the
negotiation of the settlement agreement, and we expect that this
action will be formally dismissed in the near future."

NICE Ltd. provides enterprise software solutions worldwide.  Its
software solutions help organizations understand their customers
and employees, and predict their intentions and needs to create
customer experiences; understand their workforce to drive
efficiency; and identify suspicious behavior to prevent financial
crime, as well as non-compliant activities.  It operates in two
segments, Customer Engagement and Financial Crime & Compliance.
It sells its solutions and products directly to customers, as well
as indirectly through selected partners.  NICE Ltd. has strategic
alliances with Accenture, Boston Consulting Group, Cisco,
Deloitte, Fuze, IBM, IPC, Motorola, PWC, Ring Central, Tata
Consulting Services, and Verizon.  The company was formerly known
as NICE-Systems Ltd. and changed its name to NICE Ltd. in June
2016.  NICE Ltd. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Ra'anana, Israel.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Still Faces Consolidated Antitrust Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation remains a defendant in a consolidated
antitrust class action filed against Class I railroads, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On November 6, 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against
the Company and other Class I railroads in various Federal
district courts regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the
District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.

On June 21, 2012, the court certified the case as a class action.
The defendant railroads appealed this certification, and the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the District
Court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration.

The Company said, "We believe the allegations in the complaints
are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the cases.  We
do not believe the outcome of these proceedings will have a
material effect on our financial position, results of operations,
or liquidity."

Norfolk Southern Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
engages in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate
products, and finished goods in the United States.  It also
transports overseas freight through various Atlantic and Gulf
Coast ports.  In addition, the company is involved in the
operation of scheduled passenger trains; leasing or sale of rail
property and equipment; development of commercial real estate;
telecommunications; and the acquisition, leasing, and management
of coal, oil, gas, and minerals, as well as the transport of
automotive and industrial products.  The Company was founded in
1883 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia.


NORTH AMERICAN CO: Chambers Appeals Orders & Judgment to 8th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patsy Chambers and Robert Gehrking, the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit
entitled Patsy Chambers, et al. v. North American Company for Life
and Health Insurance, Case No. 4:11-cv-00579-JAJ, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines,
filed an appeal from:

   (1) the order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
       certification, entered on June 13, 2016;

   (2) the order granting the Defendant's motion for summary
       judgment, entered March 31, 2017; and

   (3) the Judgment in a Civil Case, entered April 3, 2017.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act case accuses North
American Company for Life and Health Insurance of defrauding the
elderly with illegal business and marketing tactics to unjustly
enrich itself and its sales agents.

The appellate case is captioned as Patsy Chambers, et al. v. North
American Company for Life and Health Insurance, Case No. 17-2014,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript is due on or before June 19, 2017;

   -- Appendix is due on June 29, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellants Patsy Chambers and Robert Gehrking is
      due on June 29, 2017;

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

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants Patsy Chambers, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and Robert Gehrking are
represented by:

          Steve Berman, Esq.
          Craig R. Spiegel, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101-0000
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  craigs@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Anne Fegan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949
          Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
          Email: beth@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel John Kurowski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1144 Lake Street, Suite 400
          Oak Park, IL 60301-1043
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949
          E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com

Defendant-Appellee North American Company for Life and Health
Insurance is represented by:

          Michael A. Dee, Esq.
          Brian McCormac, Esq.
          BROWN WINICK GRAVES GROSS BASKERVILLE & SCHOENEBAUM PLC
          Ruan Center, Suite 2000
          666 Grand Avenue
          Des Moines, IA 50309-2510
          Telephone: (515) 242-2400
          Facsimile: (515) 242-2488
          E-mail: dee@brownwinick.com
                  mccormac@brownwinick.com

               - and -

          Michael S. Leib, Esq.
          Henry Pietrkowski, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          10 S. Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606-7507
          Telephone: (312) 207-1000
          Facsimile: (312) 207-6400
          E-mail: mleib@reedsmith.com
                  hpietrkowski@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Park, Esq.
          Robert D. Phillips, Jr., Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 576-2687
          Facsimile: (213) 576-1100
          E-mail: samuel.park@alston.com
                  bo.phillips@alston.com


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Delaware Shareholders Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016, that a shareholders lawsuit in
Delaware against the Company (as nominal defendant) and its CEO,
among other defendants, is still ongoing.

On June 19, 2015, two purported shareholders filed a lawsuit in
the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Tharp, et al. v.
Cognate, et al., C.A. 11179-VCG (Del. Ch. filed June 19, 2015),
purportedly suing on behalf of a class of similarly situated
shareholders and derivatively on behalf of the Company.  The
lawsuit names Cognate BioServices, Inc., Toucan Partners, Toucan
Capital Fund III, the Company's CEO Linda Powers and the
individuals who then served on the Company's Board of Directors as
defendants, and names the Company as a "nominal defendant" with
respect to the derivative claims.

The complaint generally challenges certain transactions between
the Company and Cognate and the Toucan entities, in which Cognate
and the Toucan entities provided services and financing to the
Company, or agreed to the conversion of debts owed to them by the
Company into equity.  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary
relief for the Company and the plaintiffs, and various forms of
equitable relief, including disgorgement of allegedly improper
benefits, rescission of the challenged transactions, and an order
forbidding similar transactions in the future.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 6, 2015.
The Company and the other named defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint on January 19, 2016, which are now
fully briefed.

Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company,
discovers and develops immunotherapy products to treat cancer in
the United States and internationally.  It is involved in the
development of DCVax, a platform technology that uses activated
dendritic cells to mobilize a patient's own immune system to
attack cancer.  Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Lead Plaintiffs Won't Amend Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 17,
2017, that the lead plaintiffs in a class action securities
litigation in Maryland has advised that they will not be filing an
amended complaint.

On August 26, 2015, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, captioned Lerner v. Northwest
Biotherapeutics, Inc., et al., No.  15-02532 (D. Md. filed Aug.
26, 2015).  The lawsuit named the Company and its CEO Linda Powers
as defendants.

On December 14, 2015, the court appointed two lead plaintiffs.
The Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 12,
2016, purportedly on behalf of all of those who purchased common
stock in NW Bio between January 13, 2014 and August 21, 2015.

The amended complaint generally claimed that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making misleading statements and/or
omissions on a variety of subjects, including the status and
results of the Company's DCVax trials.  The amended complaint
sought unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Company and Ms. Powers filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On March 31, 2017, the court entered an order
dismissing the case, and on April 12, 2017, the Lead Plaintiffs
submitted a letter advising the court that they do not intend to
file an amended complaint.

Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company,
discovers and develops immunotherapy products to treat cancer in
the United States and internationally.  It is involved in the
development of DCVax, a platform technology that uses activated
dendritic cells to mobilize a patient's own immune system to
attack cancer.  Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.


NQ MOBILE: "Finocchiaro" Shareholder Class Action Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
NQ Mobile Inc., together with certain of its former and current
officers, remains a defendant in a putative shareholder class
action lawsuit filed on August 14, 2015 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned
Finocchiaro v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 15 CIV
06385 (S.D.N.Y.), according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On September 3, 2015, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint.
On November 20, 2015, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
against the Company, its former co-chief executive officer Omar
Sharif Khan and its vice president of capital markets Matthew
Mathison.  The Second Amended Complaint alleges that various press
releases and other disclosures made by the Company during the
alleged class period contained material misstatements and
omissions, in violation of the federal securities laws, and
artificially inflated the value of the Company's ADSs.  The Second
Amended Complaint states that the plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of
their trading activities related to the Company's ADSs from
November 1, 2013 to May 15, 2015, and alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
15 U.S.C. Sections 78(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

On January 19, 2016, the Company, Khan and Mathison submitted a
letter to the court pursuant to the presiding judge's individual
practices to identify the bases for the Company's anticipated
motions to dismiss, or alternatively, to strike the Second Amended
Complaint, and to request a pre-motion conference.  On January 20,
2016, Khan submitted a supplemental letter to the court.  On
January 26, 2016, plaintiffs submitted a letter to the court
responding to the letters submitted by the Company, Mathison and
Khan, in which plaintiffs sought leave to amend the Second Amended
Complaint.

On February 16, 2016, the court issued a ruling that plaintiffs
should promptly file, if they can consistent with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 11, a Third Amended Complaint and then comply with
the notice and lead plaintiff provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.  On March 3, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Third
Amended Complaint.  On May 27, 2016, Daniel Finocchiaro filed a
motion to appoint himself to serve as lead plaintiff and approve
his selection of lead counsel.

On June 10, 2016, the Company and individual defendants submitted
a letter to the court to identify the bases for defendants'
opposition to Daniel Finocchiaro's motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff and approval of selection of lead counsel.  On December
1, 2016, the court denied Finocchiaro's motion for appointment as
lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead counsel, but
allowed for other plaintiffs to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff and seek appointment of lead counsel, if they choose to
do so.

On January 30, 2017, Julien Bourdaillet filed a motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff, which remains pending before the
court.  The action remains in its preliminary stages.

The Company said, "We believe the case is without merit and intend
to defend the action vigorously."

           Consolidated Shareholder Suit Dismissed in 2016

Meanwhile, the Company said the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York has approved a settlement and
dismissed a consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit against
NQ Mobile Inc. with prejudice.

Specifically, on March 11, 2016, after holding a settlement
fairness hearing, the court approved a proposed settlement and
issued a final order and judgment approving the settlement and
dismissing the case with prejudice.

On October 25, 2013, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
against the Company, captioned Kostuk v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 13 CIV 12712 (D. Mass.), was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Shortly thereafter, six more putative shareholder class action
suits against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York:

  * Ho v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 7608
(S.D.N.Y.) (filed on October 28, 2013);

  * Ghauri v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV
7637 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on October 29, 2013);

  * Pang v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 7685
(S.D.N.Y.) (filed on October 30, 2013);

  * Hiller v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV
7713 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on October 30, 2013);

  * Gangaramani v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13
CIV 7858 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on November 5, 2013);

  * Martin v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV
8125 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on November 14, 2013).

On December 2, 2013, another putative shareholder class action
suit against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers, captioned Hsieh v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 13 CIV 1048 (E.D. Tex.), was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

On January 6, 2014, Kostuk v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 13 CIV 12712 (D. Mass.), was voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiff.

On April 9, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York consolidated the six putative
shareholder class action suits filed in that court under the
caption, In re NQ Mobile, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. 13 CIV 7608 (S.D.N.Y.) ("In re NQ Mobile, Inc.  Securities
Litigation"), and appointed a lead plaintiff.

On May 13, 2014, Hsieh v. NQ Mobile, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. 13 CIV 1048 (E.D. Tex.), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York and was
accepted by the Southern District of New York as related to the
consolidated putative shareholder class action, In re NQ Mobile,
Inc.  Securities Litigation.

On July 21, 2014, the lead plaintiff in In re NQ Mobile Inc.
Securities Litigation filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint
(the "Consolidated Complaint") against the Company, its former co-
chief executive officer Henry Yu Lin, former co-chief executive
officer Omar Sharif Khan, chief operating officer and acting chief
financial officer Vincent Wenyong Shi, former chief financial
officer Suhai Ji, former chief financial officer Kian Bin Teo
(collectively the "NQ Defendants"), and the Company's former
auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers ZhongTian LLP and its affiliate,
PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited.

Similar to the previously filed complaints, the Consolidated
Complaint alleges that various press releases, financial
statements and other related disclosures made by the Company
during the alleged class period contained material misstatements
and omissions, in violation of the federal securities laws, and
that such press releases, financial statements and other related
disclosures artificially inflated the value of the Company's ADSs.

The Consolidated Complaint states that the lead plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a
result of their trading activities related to the Company's ADSs
from March 6, 2013 to July 3, 2014, and, similar to previous
complaints filed in the putative class actions, alleges violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C.  Sections 78(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 (2013).

On March 3, 2015, the Company notified the court that the lead
plaintiff and the NQ Defendants had reached an agreement in
principle to settle the claims against the NQ Defendants for
US$5.1 million, subject to court approval.

On November 17, 2015, the court preliminarily approved the
proposed settlement.

On March 11, 2016, after holding a settlement fairness hearing,
the court approved the proposed settlement and issued a final
order and judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the
case with prejudice.

The Company said, "This settlement will not have a material impact
on our financial statements as the settlement amount, except for
applicable deductibles, is covered by insurance."

NQ Mobile Inc. provides mobile Internet services in the People's
Republic of China and internationally.  The Company provides
products and services in the areas of mobile security, privacy,
optimization, personalized cloud, and family protection.  It
operates through two segments, Consumer and Enterprise.  The
Company was formerly known as NetQin Mobile Inc. and changed its
name to NQ Mobile Inc. in April 2012.  NQ Mobile Inc. was founded
in 2005 and is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of
China.


PANERA BREAD: Unit Settles 4 Class Action Suits in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 28, 2017 that parties of four pending purported class
action lawsuits in California have entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle the cases.

On July 2, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against one of the Company's subsidiaries by Jason Lofstedt, a
former employee of one of the Company's subsidiaries.  The lawsuit
was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Riverside.
The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, and violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective and class
certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the
Court might find just and proper.

In addition, several other purported class action lawsuits based
on similar claims and seeking similar relief were filed against
the subsidiary:

  * on October 30, 2015 in the California Superior Court, County
of San Bernardino by Jazmin Dabney, a former subsidiary employee;

  * on November 3, 2015 in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of California by Clara Manchester, a former
subsidiary employee; and

  * on November 30, 2015 in the California Superior Court, County
of Yolo by Tanner Maginnis, a current subsidiary assistant
manager.

On May 6, 2016, the parties of all four pending cases reached a
Memorandum of Understanding for Three Settlement Classes regarding
the class action lawsuits.  Under the terms of the agreement, the
Company agreed to pay an immaterial amount to purported class
members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, Private Attorney General Act
payments, and costs of administering the settlement.

The Memorandum of Understanding contains no admission of
wrongdoing.  The terms and conditions of the parties' settlement
agreement have received preliminary approval from California
Superior Courts.

The Company maintained an appropriate accrual in accrued expenses
for this settlement in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets
as of March 28, 2017.

Panera Bread Company, together with its subsidiaries, owns,
operates, and franchises retail bakery-cafes.  The Company
operates through three segments: Company Bakery-Cafe Operations,
Franchise Operations, and Fresh Dough and Other Product
Operations.  The Company was formerly known as Au Bon Pain Co.,
Inc. and changed its name to Panera Bread Company in August 1998.
Panera Bread Company was founded in 1981 and is based in St.
Louis, Missouri.


PANERA BREAD: Still Faces Friscia's Purported Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company continues to face a purported class action
lawsuit filed by Jacqueline Friscia, an employee of one of the
Company's subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2017.

On June 26, 2016, the purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law on behalf of the plaintiff and all
similarly situated non-exempt assistant managers.  The complaint
seeks, among other relief, collective and class certification of
the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find
just and proper.

Panera Bread said, "The Company has retained counsel to represent
it in this matter and believes that it has meritorious defenses to
the allegations asserted in the case."

Panera Bread Company, together with its subsidiaries, owns,
operates, and franchises retail bakery-cafes.  The Company
operates through three segments: Company Bakery-Cafe Operations,
Franchise Operations, and Fresh Dough and Other Product
Operations.  The Company was formerly known as Au Bon Pain Co.,
Inc. and changed its name to Panera Bread Company in August 1998.
Panera Bread Company was founded in 1981 and is based in St.
Louis, Missouri.


PEL-STATE: "Harris" Files Suit Over Refusal to Pay All OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY HARRIS, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated vs. PEL-STATE BULK PLANT, LLC, d/b/a PEL-STATE SERVICES
and WILLIAM H. BROYLES, II, Case No. 7:17-cv-00096 (W.D. Tex., May
15, 2017), alleges that Defendants paid Plaintiff and other Fuel
Frack Drivers overtime compensation for some hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, but refused to pay Plaintiff and
other Fuel Frack Drivers for all hours, even though Defendants
were aware of those additional hours worked.

Allegedly, Defendants knew, or showed reckless disregard for
whether, the way they paid Plaintiff and their other Frack Fuel
Drivers violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

PEL-STATE BULK PLANT, LLC provides fueling solutions.  Plaintiff
was employed by Defendants as a Frack Fuel Driver.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AK 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787-2040
     E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Two Classes Certified in AA Suncoast Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Richard A. Lazzara granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled
AA SUNCOAST CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, P.A., PALM HARBOR-WEST CHASE
MEDICAL GROUP, P.A., d/b/a Tampa Bay Spine Specialists, and SPINAL
CORRECTION CENTERS, INC., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE PROGRESSIVE
CORPORATION, Case No. 8:15-cv-02543-RAL-MAP (M.D. Fla.).

"Having painstakingly examined why the Class is certifiable based
on the absence of the need to make individualized assessments, the
Court refrains from certifying the subclass seeking damages which
to some degree would require such management," according to the
order.

These Classes are certified:

   A. All Qualified Providers who: (i) received an assignment
      of benefits from a Claimant under a Progressive PIP policy,
      (ii) provided initial or follow up medical services to a
      Claimant after January 1, 2013, and (iii) were given notice
      by Progressive that available PIP benefits were reduced to
      $2,500 because of a Negative EMC Determination that
      Progressive obtained from a Non-treating Provider; and

   B. All Claimants who were notified that Progressive reduced
      available PIP benefits to $2,500 because of a Negative EMC
      Determination Progressive obtained from a Non-treating
      Provider.

      The term "Qualified Provider" is a provider described by
      section 627.736(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes.
      "Progressive" means Progressive Select Insurance Company
      and Progressive American Insurance Company. "Claimant" is
      an injured person who received medical services for
      injuries sustained in an accident within 14 days from a
      Qualified Provider. "Non-treating Provider" means a person
      or entity that did not provide initial or follow-up
      treatment as defined by section 627.736(1)(a)1. or 2. to a
      Claimant.  "Negative EMC Determination" is a determination
      that a Claimant did not have an Emergency Medical
      Condition.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5Nt5Hbd2


PROGRESSIVE WASTE: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EULEXIS HERNANDEZ, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. PROGRESSIVE WASTE SOLUTIONS OF FL, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-21791-FAM (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2017), alleges that
while employed by PROGRESSIVE WASTE, Plaintiff routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours per week without always being compensated at a
rate of not less than one and one half times the regular rate at
which he was employed in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

PROGRESSIVE WASTE SOLUTIONS OF FL, INC. is a waste collection
company.  Plaintiff was employed as a welder.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 503.5131
     Fax: (888) 270.5549
     Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


QUALCOMM INC: 3226701 Canada Securities Class Action Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated remains a defendant in a securities class
action case filed in November 2015 in California, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 26, 2017.

The case, 3226701 Canada, Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated et al, was
filed on November 30, 2015 against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California.

On April 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On
January 27, 2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint in its
entirety, granting leave to amend.

On March 17, 2017, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
alleging that the Company and certain of its current and former
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business outlook and product
development between November 19, 2014 and July 22, 2015.

The Company intends to move to dismiss that complaint.  The second
amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and other costs.

QUALCOMM said, "The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are
without merit."

QUALCOMM Incorporated develops, designs, manufactures, and markets
digital communications products and services in China, South
Korea, Taiwan, the United States, and internationally.  The
Company operates through three segments: Qualcomm CDMA
Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology Licensing (QTL); and
Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI).  QUALCOMM Incorporated was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


QUALCOMM INC: Securities Class Lawsuits Filed in 2017 Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated is facing securities class action lawsuits
filed earlier this year in California for alleged violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 26, 2017.

On January 23 and 26, 2017, respectively, two securities class
action complaints were filed by purported stockholders of the
Company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and
omissions of material fact in connection with certain allegations
that the Company is or was engaged in anticompetitive conduct and
in connection with the Company's internal control over financial
reporting.  The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs.

On March 24, 2017, four sets of plaintiffs filed motions to
consolidate the actions and to be appointed lead plaintiff.

QUALCOMM said, "The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are
without merit."

QUALCOMM Incorporated develops, designs, manufactures, and markets
digital communications products and services in China, South
Korea, Taiwan, the United States, and internationally.  The
Company operates through three segments: Qualcomm CDMA
Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology Licensing (QTL); and
Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI).  QUALCOMM Incorporated was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


QUALCOMM INC: N.D. Calif. to Hear Consumer Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated continues to defend itself in consumer class
action lawsuits in California, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 26, 2017.

Since January 18, 2017, more than 30 consumer class action
complaints have been filed against the Company in the United
States District Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of
California, each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
cellular phones and other cellular devices.

Although the complaints contain certain differences, in general
they all allege that the Company violated various federal and
state antitrust and consumer protection laws by, among other
things, refusing to license standard-essential patents to its
competitors, conditioning the supply of certain of its baseband
chipsets on the purchaser first agreeing to license the Company's
entire patent portfolio, entering into exclusive deals with
companies including Apple Inc., and charging unreasonably high
royalties that do not comply with the Company's commitments to
standard setting organizations.

The complaints further allege that the Company was unjustly
enriched by the foregoing alleged conduct.  The complaints seek
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs, as
well as an order that the Company be enjoined from further
unlawful conduct.

On April 5, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(the Judicial Panel) issued a transfer order transferring two of
these cases from the Southern District of California to the
Northern District of California.

On April 7, 2017, the Judicial Panel issued a conditional transfer
order that is expected to result in the transfer of the rest of
these cases in the Southern District of California to the Northern
District of California.

QUALCOMM said, "The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are
without merit."

QUALCOMM Incorporated develops, designs, manufactures, and markets
digital communications products and services in China, South
Korea, Taiwan, the United States, and internationally.  The
Company operates through three segments: Qualcomm CDMA
Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology Licensing (QTL); and
Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI).  QUALCOMM Incorporated was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


ROOT9B HOLDINGS: Tenth Circuit Appeal Underway
----------------------------------------------
root9b Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 17, 2017 that the
parties in a class action proceeding against the Company have
requested oral argument but no date has been scheduled in an
appeal in a class action lawsuit.

The Company and two of its senior executives are named as
defendants in a class action proceeding filed on June 23, 2015, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
On September 24, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted a motion to transfer the lawsuit to
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

On October 14, 2015, the Court appointed David Hampton as Lead
Plaintiff and approved Hampton's selection of the law firm Levi &
Korsinsky LLP as Lead Counsel.  Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint on January 4, 2016.  The Amended Complaint alleges
violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between
October 17, 2014 and June 15, 2015.  In general, the Amended
Complaint alleges that false or misleading statements were made or
that there was a failure to make appropriate disclosures
concerning the Company's cybersecurity business and products.

On February 18, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.  Plaintiff filed an opposition to
the motion to dismiss and the Company replied on May 4, 2016.

On August 3, 2016, the U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a
recommendation that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion to strike
certain exhibits from Defendants' motion to dismiss, and on August
4, 2016, the U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that
the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint.

On September 21, 2016, the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado dismissed, with prejudice, the class action
suit.  On October 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to
the decision.

On March 8, 2017, the parties completed their briefing on
Plaintiff's appeal to the Tenth Circuit.  The parties have
requested oral argument but no date has been scheduled.

The Company said, "We cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit;
however, we believe that the claims lack merit and we intend to
defend against the lawsuit vigorously.  No liability, if any that
may result from this matter, has been recorded in the Consolidated
Financial Statements."

root9B Holdings, Inc. provides cyber security, regulatory risk
mitigation, and energy and controls solutions in the United States
and internationally.  It operates through three segments: Cyber
Solutions, IPSA/Business Advisory Solutions, and Energy and
Controls Solutions.  The Company serves Fortune 500 companies,
medium-sized businesses, and governmental entities.  The Company
was formerly known as root9B Technologies, Inc. and changed its
name to root9B Holdings, Inc. in December 2016.  root9B Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Colorado Springs,
Colorado.


SAULSBURY INDUSTRIES: "Kilmon" Suit Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kilmon, individually and for others similarly situated, v.
Saulsbury Industries, Inc., Case No. 7:17-cv-00099 (W.D. Tex., May
18, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest on all
amounts awarded and all such other and further relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Saulsbury is an engineering, construction and fabrication company
to heavy industrial clients across the United States where Kilmon
worked as an hourly employee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
     Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 352-1100
     Fax: (713) 352-3300
     Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
            adunlap@mybackwages.com
            litkin@mybackwages.com
            jbresler@mybackwages.com

            - and -

     Richard J. Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


SEAWORLD PARKS: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Herman" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Jason Herman, et al. v.
SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-03028-MSS-
JSS, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 26,
2017, a federal judge has ruled in favor of a Pinellas County man,
who sued SeaWorld Entertainment over automatic renewal of passes
purchased through its monthly EZPay program.

Jason Herman sued SeaWorld in 2014 over the automatic renewal,
claiming a breach of contract.  The contract does not remind
visitors of the automatic renewal toward the end of their first
annual passes.

The appellate case is captioned as Jason Herman, et al. v.
SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 17-12223, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before
June 14, 2017, as to Appellee Jason Herman.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JASON HERMAN, an individual and on behalf of
those similarly situated, JOEY KRATT, an individual and on behalf
of those similarly situated, and CHRISTINA LANCASTER, an
individual and on behalf of those similarly situated, are
represented by:

          James E. Felman, Esq.
          Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq.
          KYNES MARKMAN & FELMAN, PA
          PO Box 3396
          Tampa, FL 33601
          Telephone: (813) 229-1118
          Facsimile: (813) 221-6750
          E-mail: JFelman@kmf-law.com
                  KYanes@kmf-law.com

               - and -

          Paul R. Fowkes, Esq.
          Ryan Christopher Hasanbasic, Esq.
          DISPARTI LAW GROUP
          2154 Duck Slough Blvd., Suite 101
          Trinity, FL 34655-5073
          Telephone: (813) 251-3444
          Facsimile: (813) 228-7077
          E-mail: paul@dispartilaw.com
                  ryan@dispartilaw.com

Defendant-Appellant SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC., is
represented by:

          Thomas William Carroll, Esq.
          Colin C. Deihl, Esq.
          Ann Elizabeth Prouty
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          3200 Wells Fargo Center
          1700 Lincoln St.
          Denver, CO 80203-4532
          Telephone: (303) 607-3500
          Facsimile: (303) 607-3600
          E-mail: thomas.carroll@FaegreBD.com
                  colin.deihl@FaegreBD.com
                  ann.prouty@faegrebd.com

               - and -

          Christopher T. Hill, Esq.
          HILL RUGH KELLER & MAIN, PL
          390 N Orange Avenue, Suite 1610
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 926-7460
          E-mail: Chill@hrkmlaw.com


SEI INVESTMENTS: "Lillie" Class Action Litigation Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company and its wholly-owned limited purpose
federal thrift subsidiary, SEI Private Trust Company (SPTC),
continue to defend themselves in the "Lillie" class action suit.
According to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

SEI has been named in seven lawsuits filed in Louisiana courts;
four of the cases also name SPTC as a defendant.

The procedural status of the seven cases varies.  The Lillie case,
filed originally in the 19th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge, was brought as a class action and is
procedurally the most advanced of the cases.

The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the purported
role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust
Company.  The complaints allege that SEI and SPTC participated in
some manner in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by
Stanford International Bank so as to be a "seller" of the
certificates of deposit for purposes of primary liability under
the Louisiana Securities Law or so as to be secondarily liable
under that statute for sales of certificates of deposit made by
Stanford Trust Company.  Two of the actions also include claims
for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly
conspiracy, and a third also asserts claims of negligence, breach
of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform
fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental
reliance, violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act, and
conspiracy.

SEI and SPTC filed exceptions in the Lillie case, which the Court
granted in part, dismissing claims under the Louisiana Unfair
Trade Practices Act and permitting the claims under the Louisiana
Securities Law to go forward.

On March 11, 2013, newly-added insurance carrier defendants
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana.  On August 7, 2013, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the matter to the
Northern District of Texas where MDL 2099, In re: Stanford
Entities Securities Litigation ("the Stanford MDL"), is pending.

On September 22, 2015, the District Court on the motion of SEI and
SPTC dismissed plaintiffs' claims for primary liability under
Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability under Section
714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law based on the allegations
pled by plaintiffs.

On November 4, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 712(D) of the
Louisiana Securities Law.  Consequently, the only claims of
plaintiffs still pending before the District Court in Lillie are
plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability against SEI and SPTC
under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law.

On May 2, 2016, the District Court certified the class as being
"all persons for whom Stanford Trust Company purchased or renewed
Stanford Investment Bank Limited certificates of deposit in
Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009".

Notice of the pendency of the class action was mailed to potential
class members on October 4, 2016.

SEI Investments Company is a publicly owned asset management
holding company.  Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides
wealth management, retirement and investment solutions, asset
management, asset administration, investment processing
outsourcing solutions, financial services, and investment advisory
services to its clients.  SEI Investments Company was founded in
1968 and is based in Oaks, Pennsylvania.


SITO MOBILE: Read Oak Funds Named as Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------
SITO Mobile, Ltd. is facing a purported class action in New Jersey
for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.
Discovery has not commenced, and no trial date has been set.

In an Order dated May 5 and entered on the docket May 8, Judge
Esther Salas granted the Motion to Appoint Read Oak Funds as Lead
Plaintiff and approved its selection of counsel.

A purported securities class action lawsuit was filed on February
17, 2017 in the United States District Court of New Jersey against
the Company, Jerry Hug, the Company's former Chief Executive
Officer and Director, and Kurt Streams, the Company's former Chief
Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer.  The complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.  This action was brought on behalf of a putative class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired SITO common stock
between February 9, 2016 and January 2, 2017 and seeks unspecified
money damages.  The allegations in this complaint center on
allegedly materially false and/or misleading statements,
misrepresenting SITO's media placement revenues.  Motions for lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were due April 18, 2017.

Defendant Jerry Hug is represented by Jae Yoon John Kim --
jkim@pashmanstein.com -- at Pashman Stein PC

Defendant Sito Mobile Ltd. is represented by Gidon Menahem Caine,
Esq., and Craig Carpenito, Esq. -- gidon.caine@alston.com and
craig.carpenito@alston.com -- at Alston & Bird LLP.

SITO Mobile, Ltd. operates a mobile location-based advertising
platform in the United States and Canada.  Its mobile location-
based advertising platform allows to transform digital marketing
by delivering targeted mobile advertising campaigns based on geo-
location, in-store traffic, and customer response for brands,
agencies, and retailers.  The Company was formerly known as Single
Touch Systems, Inc. and changed its name to SITO Mobile, Ltd. in
September 2014.  SITO Mobile, Ltd. was incorporated in 2000 and is
based in Jersey City, New Jersey.


SIX FLAGS: Class Action Suit on Biometric Information Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation is facing a potential class
action lawsuit regarding alleged violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On January 7, 2016, a potential class action complaint was filed
against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation in the Circuit Court
of Lake County, Illinois.  On April 22, 2016, Great America, LLC
was added as a defendant.

The complaint asserts that the Company violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act in connection with the admission
of season pass holders and members through the finger scan program
at Six Flags Great America in Gurnee, Illinois, and seeks
statutory damages, attorneys' fees and an injunction.

The program commenced at the park in the 2014 operating season.
The complaint does not allege that any information was misused or
disseminated.

On June 17, 2016, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
and allowed the case to proceed.  On January 6, 2017, the court
denied the Company's motion to certify questions for interlocutory
appeal, but on April 7, 2017, the court granted the Company's
motion for reconsideration of the motion for interlocutory appeal.
Accordingly, two questions regarding the interpretation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act have been certified for
consideration by the Appellate Court of the Second District to
determine whether to accept the appeal at this time.

The Company said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend
ourselves against this litigation.  Since this litigation is still
in an early stage, the outcome is currently not determinable and a
reasonable estimate of loss or range of loss in excess of the
immaterial amount that we have recorded for this litigation cannot
be made."

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation owns and operates regional
theme and water parks under the Six Flags brand name.  The
Company's parks offer various thrill rides, water attractions,
themed areas, concerts and shows, restaurants, game venues, and
retail outlets, as well as family-oriented entertainment.  It owns
and operates 18 parks, including 16 parks in the United States; 1
park in Mexico City, Mexico; and 1 park in Montreal, Canada.  The
Company was formerly known as Six Flags, Inc. and changed its name
to Six Flags Entertainment Corporation in April 2010.  Six Flags
Entertainment Corporation was founded in 1971 and is based in
Grand Prairie, Texas.


SOUTH MILLWORK: "Forte" Suit Seeks Full Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
VLADIMIR MEDEROS FORTE and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. SOUTH MILLWORK, CORP., ALBERTO DE
LEON, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21845-FAM (S.D. Fla., May 17,
2017), alleges that Defendants employed several other similarly
situated employees like Plaintiff who have not been paid overtime
and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours
weekly in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SOUTH MILLWORK, CORP. is in the business of wholesale millwork.
Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a carpenter.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Tel: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


STEAK 'N SHAKE: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Ruling in "Mielo" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Steak 'N Shake Operations Inc. filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit styled Christopher Mielo, et al. v.
Steak 'N Shake Operations Inc., Case No. 2-15-cv-00180, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 10,
2017, the U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell granted Lead
Plaintiffs Christopher Mielo and Sarah Heinzl's motion for class
approval.  The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act by not having adequate accessibility for
handicapped patrons.

The appellate case is captioned as Christopher Mielo, et al. v.
Steak 'N Shake Operations Inc., Case No. 17-8016, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents CHRISTOPHER MIELO and SARAH HEINZL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Stephanie K. Goldin, Esq.
          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com
                  ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
                  bsweet@carlsonlynch.com

Defendant-Petitioner STEAK 'N SHAKE OPERATIONS INC. is represented
by:

          Maria G. Danaher, Esq.
          Patrick J. Fazzini, Esq.
          David H. Raizman, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          One PPG Place, Suite 1900
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 394-3390
          Facsimile: (412) 232-1799
          E-mail: maria.danaher@ogletree.com
                  patrick.fazzini@ogletreedeakins.com
                  david.raizman@ogletreedeakins.com


SUNRUN INC: "Sanogo" Sues Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------
Fabala Sanogo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sunrun Inc, Lynn Michelle Jurich and
Robert Patrick Komin Jr., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02865 (N.D.
Cal., May 18, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, including
interest thereon, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this
action, including counsel fees and expert fees, extraordinary
equitable and/or injunctive relief and such other and further
relief under the Securities and Exchange Act.

Defendants are being questioned concerning the adequacy of their
disclosures on account cancellations by customers who signed up
for the home solar energy system. On May 3, 2017, after the truth
was revealed to investors, the Company's stock price declined by
$0.46 from a closing price $5.21 per share on May 2, 2017, to
close at $4.75 per share on May 3, 2017, a drop of approximately
8.83%.

Sunrun engages in the design, development, installation sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. Lynn Jurich and Robert Komin are members of its
Board of Directors.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam C. McCall, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Tel: (213) 985-7290
     Email: amccall@zlk.com

            - and -

     Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
     Adam M. Apton, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Tel: (202) 524-4290
     Fax: (202) 333-2121


TANGOE INC: "McArthur" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal with Marlin
--------------------------------------------------------------
Caleb McArthur, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tangoe, Inc., James D. Foy, Gerald D.
Kokos, David Coit, Gary Golding, Ronald Kaiser, Jackie R. Kimzey,
Richard Pontin and Noah Walley, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00832
(D. Conn., May 18, 2017), seeks to (i) enjoin, preliminarily and
permanently, the sale of Tangoe to Marlin Equity Partners, (ii)
rescinding or awarding Plaintiff rescissory damages in the event
that the transaction is consummated, (iii) all damages in breach
of their fiduciary duties, (iv) costs of this action, including a
reasonable allowance for the fees and expenses of Plaintiff's
attorneys and experts, and (v) such further relief for violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, Defendants solicit the tendering of
stockholder shares in connection with the sale of the company to
Marlin Equity Partners through a recommendation statement that
fails to disclose the timing and nature of all communications
regarding future employment of Tangoe's management as a potential
conflict of interest and that it had to restate its financial
statements for the years 2013 and 2014 and the first three
quarters of 2015 due to errors in recognizing revenue, primarily
relating to non-recurring revenue.

Tangoe is a global telecom expense management solutions company
that enable companies to reduce telecommunications expenses by
managing their mobile and wireline communications lifecycles. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CN 06901
      Tel: (203) 992-4523
      Fax: (212) 363-7171
      Email: shopkins@zlk.com


TEJAS COURIER: "Armstrong" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY ARMSTRONG, CHELI ARMSTRONG, CORDELL COLEMAN and EDWIN SIMON,
Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
vs. TEJAS COURIER, LLC, and MARK VARGAS DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:17-
cv-01521 (S.D. Tex., May 17, 2017), alleges that Defendants
generally did not pay any couriers any overtime premium for hours
that they worked over forty hours per week in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Further, the case alleges that after deducting for expenses
related to the operation of Plaintiffs' vehicles in the course of
performing job duties for Defendants, Plaintiffs' pay regularly
fell below the minimum wages required by the FLSA.

Defendant's primary business purpose is to provide
courier/delivery services, and Tejas employs couriers/delivery
drivers to accomplish this goal.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787-2040
     E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


TEXAS, USA: McGuire Appeals Decision to Second Court of Appeals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James A. McGuire filed an appeal from a court ruling
styled James A. McGuire, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated in the State of Texas v. Greg Abbott, in his
official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas and official
capacity as CEO of the State of Texas, Case No. 017-290364-17, in
the 17th District Court, Tarrant.

The appellate case is captioned as James A. McGuire, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated in the State of Texas v.
Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of
Texas and official capacity as CEO of the State of Texas, Case No.
02-17-00159-CV, in the Texas Court of Appeals, Second Court of
Appeals.[BN]


TOTAL CARD: Faces "Ackerman" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Ackerman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Total Card, Inc., a South Dakota
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01624-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind.,
May 17, 2017), alleges that Defendant's debt collection letter
attempting to collect a delinquent consumer debt violates the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant operates a nationwide debt collection business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David J. Philipps, Esq.
     Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
     Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
     PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
     9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
     Palos Hills, IL 60465
     Phone: (708) 974-2900
     Fax: (708) 974-2907
     E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
             mephilipps@aol.com
             angiekrobertson@aol.com

        - and -

     John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
     5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
     Indianapolis, IN 46227
     Phone: (317) 780-8300
     Fax: (317) 217-1320
     E-mail: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


TRANSUNION: Defends 8 Suits on Enhanced Public Record Standards
---------------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion remains a defendant in eight lawsuits related to the
implementation of enhanced standards in public records, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.
Each lawsuit asserts a class claim.

In connection with the settlements agreed to by the industry with
the various state attorneys general in 2014, 2015 and 2016,
TransUnion and the other nationwide consumer reporting agencies
agreed to implement enhanced public record collection, matching
and reporting standards that are to be phased in over a 3-year
period.  The industry reminded all users of consumer reports in
2017 that, as a result of these enhanced standards, a significant
number of civil judgments and tax liens would be expunged from
files and fewer civil judgments and tax liens would be reported in
the future until federal, state or county offices created
compliant programs.

As a result of the voluntary actions being taken by the industry,
plaintiff lawyers are now seeking to advance claims that are
solely focused on public record collection.  In particular, these
claims allege two common legal theories in common and allege some
form of class action status.

The theories are: (1) the nationwide consumer reporting agency
failed to disclose to consumers the sources of public record
information contained in their consumer reports by failing to
identify as a source the vendor(s) engaged by that consumer
reporting agency to collect public record information from
government entities; and (2) the nationwide consumer reporting
agency failed to timely update civil judgment and tax lien records
based on its obligation to have reasonable procedures to assure
maximum file accuracy.

Cases currently pending that name TransUnion, allege a legal
violation of this nature and assert a class claim are:

  * Florence Morris v. Trans Union, LLC (No.3:17-cv-00511-BEN-AGS,
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, filed 2017);

  * Herbert Lustig v. Trans Union, LLC (No.2:17-cv-01175-GAM,
Untied States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, filed 2017);

  * Jeffrey Andree v. Trans Union, LLC (No.1:16-cv-01404-JTN-ESC,
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan,
filed 2016);

  * Candace Anderson et al v. Trans Union, LLC (No.2:16-cv-12873-
DML-APP, United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, filed 2016);

  * Olga Anderson, Kim Breeden and Brenda Walker v. Trans Union,
LLC (No.3:16-cv-558-MHL, United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, filed 2016);

  * Carolyn Clark v. Trans Union, LLC (No. 3:15-cv-00391-MHL,
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
filed 2015);

  * Deidre Dennis v. Trans Union, LLC (No. 2:14-cv-02865-MSG,
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, filed 2014); and

  * David Matthews and Brenda Matthews v. Trans Union, LLC (No.
2:17-cv-01825-JS, United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, filed 2017).

The Company said, "TransUnion believes it has valid defenses to
each of these actions and intends to vigorously defend against the
claims."

TransUnion provides risk and information solutions.  The Company
operates in three segments: U.S. Information Services (USIS),
International, and Consumer Interactive.  The Company serves
businesses and consumers in the United States, South Africa,
Brazil, Canada, Hong Kong, and India, as well as other countries
in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.  It was formerly known as
TransUnion Holding Company, Inc. and changed its name to
TransUnion in March 2015.  TransUnion was founded in 1968 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Still Faces 3 Class Suits on ET Plus System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017 that it is aware of three class action
lawsuits involving claims pertaining to its ET-Plus(R) System, a
highway guardrail end-terminal system (ET Plus).

The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 26, 2014,
titled Hamilton County, Illinois and Macon County, Illinois,
Individually and on behalf of all Other Counties in the State of
Illinois vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway
Products, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-1320 (Southern District of
Illinois).  This complaint was later amended to substitute St.
Clair County, Illinois for Hamilton County as a lead plaintiff and
to expand the proposed class.  The case is being brought by
plaintiffs for and on behalf of themselves and the other 101
counties of the State of Illinois and on behalf of cities,
villages, incorporated towns, and township governments of the
State of Illinois.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company and
Trinity Highway Products made a series of un-tested modifications
to the ET Plus and falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was
acceptable for use on the nation's highways based on federal
testing standards and approval for federal-aid reimbursement.  The
plaintiffs also allege breach of implied warranties, violation of
the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust
enrichment, for which plaintiffs seek actual damages related to
purchases of the ET Plus, compensatory damages for establishing a
common fund for class members, punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, and injunctive relief.

The Company has also been served in a lawsuit filed February 11,
2015, titled The Corporation of the City of Stratford and Trinity
Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity
Industries Canada, Inc., Case No. 15-2622 CP, pending in Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.  The alleged class in this matter has
been identified as persons in Canada who purchased and/or used an
ET Plus guardrail end terminal.  The plaintiff alleges that
Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and
Trinity Industries Canada, Inc., failed to warn of dangers
associated with undisclosed modifications to the ET Plus guardrail
end terminals, breached an implied warranty, breached a duty of
care, and were negligent.  The plaintiff is seeking US$400 million
in compensatory damages and US$100.0 million in punitive damages.
Alternatively, the plaintiff claims the right to an accounting or
other restitution remedy for disgorgement of the revenues
generated by the sale of the modified ET Plus in Canada.

The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 5, 2015,
titled Jackson County, Missouri, individually and on behalf of a
class of others similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc.
and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 1516-CV23684 (Circuit
Court of Jackson County, Missouri).  The case is being brought by
plaintiff for and on behalf of itself and all Missouri counties
with a population of 10,000 or more persons, including the City of
St. Louis, and the State of Missouri's transportation authority.
The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity Highway
Products did not disclose design changes to the ET Plus and these
allegedly undisclosed design changes made the ET Plus allegedly
defective, unsafe, and unreasonably dangerous.  The plaintiff
alleges product liability negligence, product liability strict
liability, and negligently supplying dangerous instrumentality for
supplier's business purposes.  The plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and in the
alternative plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the ET
Plus is defective, the Company's conduct was unlawful, and class-
wide costs and expenses associated with removing and replacing the
ET Plus throughout Missouri.

Trinity Industries stated, "The Company believes each of these
county and municipal class action lawsuits is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend all allegations.  While the financial
impacts of these three county and municipal class action lawsuits
are currently unknown, they could be material."

Trinity Industries, Inc. provides various products and services to
the energy, chemical, agriculture, transportation, and
construction sectors in the United States and internationally.  It
was founded in 1933 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Consolidated Shareholder Class Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017 that the consolidated shareholder
class action against the Company, among other defendants, has been
stayed and remains administratively closed pending the conclusion
of the Company's Fifth Circuit appeal from the Joshua Harman FCA
judgment.

On January 11, 2016, the shareholder class action cases styled
Thomas Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and
James E. Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) ("Nemky") and Richard J.
Isolde, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated
v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E.
Perry, Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) ("Isolde"), were consolidated in
the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, with all
future filings to be filed in the Isolde case.

On March 9, 2016, the Court appointed the Department of the
Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment
and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and United
Association Local Union Officers & Employees' Pension Fund as co-
lead plaintiffs ("Lead Plaintiffs).

On May 11, 2016, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated
Complaint alleging defendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R.
Wallace, James E. Perry, and Gregory B. Mitchell violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and defendants Mr. Wallace and Mr. Perry
violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making materially false and misleading statements and/or by
failing to disclose material facts about Trinity's ET Plus and the
FCA case styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of
America, Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D.  Tex.).

On August 18, 2016, Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr.
Mitchell filed motions to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs Consolidated
Complaint, which remain pending.

On March 13, 2017, the Court granted defendant's motion to stay
and administratively close proceedings pending Fifth Circuit
appeal.  The Isolde matter is stayed and remains administratively
closed pending the conclusion of the Company's Fifth Circuit
appeal of the Joshua Harman FCA judgment.

The Company said, "Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr.
Mitchell deny and intend to vigorously defend against the
allegations in the Isolde case.  Based on the information
available to the Company, we currently do not believe that a loss
is probable with respect to this shareholder class action;
therefore no accrual has been included in the accompanying
consolidated financial statements.  Because of the complexity of
these actions as well as the current status of certain of these
actions, we are not able to estimate a range of possible losses
with respect to these matters."

Trinity Industries, Inc. provides various products and services to
the energy, chemical, agriculture, transportation, and
construction sectors in the United States and internationally.  It
was founded in 1933 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


UNITED AIRLINES: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Martin" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Francine Martin and Jeffrey A. Martin filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Martin, et al. v.
United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 5:16-CV-01042-F, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma - Oklahoma
City.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed in the Oklahoma County District Court (Case No. CJ-2016-
4125), but was later removed to the District Court.

United Airlines Inc. is a major American airline headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.

The appellate case is captioned as Martin, et al. v. United
Airlines, Inc., Case No. 17-6112, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants FRANCINE MARTIN, and all other similarly
situated, and JEFFREY A. MARTIN, and all other similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Jeffrey Allen Martin, Esq.
          JEFF MARTIN & ASSOCIATES
          1611 S Utica Ave., Suite 173
          Tulsa, OK 74104
          Telephone: (918) 583-4166

Defendant-Appellee UNITED AIRLINES, INC., is represented by:

          Sondra Hemeryck, Esq.
          Jacob L. Kahn, Esq.
          RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
          Third First National Plaza
          70 West Madison, Suite 2900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 471-8724
          Facsimile: (312) 471-8701
          E-mail: shemeryck@rshc-law.com
                  jkahn@rshc-law.com

               - and -

          Mark Robertson McPhail, Esq.
          SPRADLING KENNEDY & MCPHAIL LLP
          1601 NW Expressway, Suite 1750
          Oklahoma City, OK 73118
          Telephone: (405) 418-2700
          Facsimile: (405) 418-2705
          E-mail: mrmcphail@spradlinglaw.com


VANTIV INC: Has Deal to Resolve Class Action vs. Mercury
--------------------------------------------------------
Vantiv, Inc. has entered into a preliminary agreement to settle a
class action lawsuit captioned Champs Sports Bar & Grill Co. et
al. v. Mercury Payment Systems, LLC et al., filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
regarding certain legacy business practices of the defendants,
Mercury Payment Systems, LLC and Global Payments Direct, Inc.,
dating back to 2009.  The Company acquired Mercury on June 13,
2014.

The Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017 that it has agreed to settle the lawsuit after
engaging in a successful mediation session occurring on February
16, 2017, at which the parties first identified the potential for
resolution, and subsequent negotiations between the parties.  The
parties agreed to such mediation session after a previous
mediation session held in December 2016 ended without a potential
path toward resolution.

Under the terms of the Agreement, in exchange for a release from
all claims relating to such legacy business practices from the
beginning of the applicable settlement class period through the
date of preliminary approval of the settlement, the Company
anticipates paying US$38 million based on the estimated number of
participants who opt-in to the settlement.

Vantiv said, "While the Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims, it agreed to the structure of the
settlement, in order to save costs and avoid the risks of on-going
litigation.

"In connection with the settlement, the Company recorded a charge
of US$38 million in the first quarter of 2017.  The Company will
pay the settlement amount from available resources.

"The proposed settlement is subject to court approval.  The
Agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing."

Vantiv, Inc., through its subsidiary, Vantiv Holding, LLC,
provides electronic payment processing services to merchants and
financial institutions in the United States.  It operates in two
segments, Merchant Services and Financial Institution Services.
The Company markets its services through various distribution
channels, including national, regional, and mid-market sales
teams, as well as through third-party reseller clients and
telesales operation. Vantiv, Inc. was incorporated in 2009 and is
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.


VIZIO INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Larsen" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Larsen filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled Roger Larsen v. VIZIO, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-01865-CJC-
JCG, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Santa Ana.

The appellate case is captioned as Roger Larsen v. VIZIO, Inc.,
Case No. 17-80082, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant has systematically misrepresented the
refresh rate of certain of its LCD televisions, specifically by
overstating, falsifying and obfuscating their actual refresh rates
to improve sales.

Refresh rate refers to the number of times per second a unique
image is displayed on a television screen.  The advertised refresh
rates of modern televisions are an important differentiator among
competing televisions and are, likewise, a key component of
pricing, just like resolution and screen size.

Vizio Inc. is a sales and marketing company whose goal is to sell
as many Vizio-branded products.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner ROGER LARSEN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          John Gomez, Esq.
          Deborah Dixon, Esq.
          GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 237-3490
          Facsimile: (619) 237-3496
          E-mail: john@gomeztrialattorneys.com
                  ddixon@gomeztrialattorneys.com

               - and -

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          361 W. Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: awf@chimicles.com

Defendant-Respondent VIZIO, INC., is represented by:

          Nicholas Gregory, Esq.
          Reginald D. Steer, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          580 California Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1036
          Telephone: (415) 765-9500
          E-mail: ngregory@akingump.com
                  rsteer@akingump.com

               - and -

          Hyongsoon Kim, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6022
          Telephone: (310) 229-1000
          E-mail: kimh@akingump.com


WINDOWS USA: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hudson" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Angela Hudson and Archie Hudson filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit titled Archie Hudson, et al. v.
Windows USA, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 3:16-CV-596, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Archie Hudson, et al. v.
Windows USA, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 17-60378, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ARCHIE HUDSON, on behalf of themselves and
all of those similarly situated, and ANGELA HUDSON, on behalf of
themselves and all of those similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Macy Derald Hanson, Esq.
          DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL, P.A.
          4400 Old Canton Road
          Jackson, MS 39211
          Telephone: (601) 914-5260

Defendants-Appellees WINDOWS USA, L.L.C., doing business as
Windows USA, doing business as Alaskan Window Systems, and BIG
FOUR COMPANIES, INCORPORATED, are represented by:

          Bradley Clayton Moody, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
          100 Vision Drive
          1 Eastover Center
          Jackson, MS 39211
          Telephone: (601) 351-2400
          E-mail: bmoody@bakerdonelson.com

Defendant-Appellee WELLS FARGO, N.A., is represented by:

          Adam Stone, Esq.
          JONES WALKER, L.L.P.
          190 E. Capitol Street
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 709-3344
          Facsimile: (601) 949-4804
          E-mail: astone@joneswalker.com


                         *********


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  * * *