---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, June 28, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 126



                            Headlines

ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Second Circuit Appeal on "Wyche" Suit Pending
AGILE THERAPEUTICS: Defending Against 2 Securities Suit
ANSELMO LINDBERG: "Wolter" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ANZ SECURITIES: Supreme Court Set to Rule on Statutes of Repose
AUSTRALIA: Settlement Likely in Manus Island Class Action

AUSTRALIA: Settlement Also Expected in Another Manus Island Case
BANK OF NEW YORK: Suit over Depositary Receipt Still Pending
BAYER CONSUMER: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Kommer" Suit
BUSINESS TEXTER: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Bot Texts
CALIFORNIA CINEMA: "Kieslich" Sues Over Denied Rest, Meal Periods

CAN-FITE BIOPHARMA: Suit over Piclidenoson Drug Reports Underway
CAYMAN ISLANDS: Lawsuit Mulled Over Permanent Residence Issues
CHICO'S FAS: Class Action Regarding Customers' Receipts Ongoing
CHICO'S FAS: Deal in "Ackerman" Labor-Related Suit Has Final OK
CHICO'S FAS: July 25 Final Approval Hearing on Gift Cards Deal

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California
CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Florida Circuit Court Okays Settlement
CITIZENS COMMUNITY: "Parshall" Lawsuit Remains Pending
COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Class Certification Motion Pending
COINBASE INC: Class Action Over Collapse Moves Ahead

CSRA INC: "Strauch" Fair Labor Standards Act Class Action Ongoing
D & A SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Wrubel Claims
DELTA NATURAL GAS: Files Supplemental Disclosure on Merger Pact
DOLLAR TREE: Still Faces Distribution Center Employee Litigation
DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends PAGA Claims in Calif. Class Action

DOLLAR TREE: Putative Class Action on Background Checks Underway
DOLLAR TREE: Finalizing Settlement of Female Store Managers Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Unit Still Faces PAGA Claims in Bag Check Action
DOLLAR TREE: Consumer Fraud Class Suit v. Family Dollar Underway
DS HEALTHCARE: September 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

ECOPETROL S.A.: Oil Spill Class Action Still in Probatory Stage
ECOPETROL S.A.: BT Energy Challenger Vessel Suit Still Ongoing
ENDOLOGIX INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Solicitation Calls
FBR & CO: Appeal in Waterford Township Suit Underway

FBR & CO: Briefing on Motion to Dismiss "Gaynor" Suit Ongoing
FBR & CO: Defending Suit over B. Riley Acquisition
FCA US LLC: Refuses to Cover Repairs in Jeeps, Mooradians Say
FIELDTURF USA: LakeView Parties Agree to Extend Time to Respond
FLOOR & DECOR: Unit Still Faces Chinese Laminate Flooring Claims

FOX NEWS: Says Workplace Racial Discrimination Claims Meritless
GREEN TREE: 6 Subclasses Certified in "Geary" Lawsuit
GUAM INDUSTRIAL: Must Face Axed Employees' WARN Act Class Action
HEALTH SYSTEMS: Sent Illegal SMS Ads, "Verbiscar-Brown" Suit Says
HORIZON PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss "Schaffer" Suit Pending

HORIZON PHARMA: Confidential Deal Reached in "Lavrenov" Suit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: "Glenn" Suit Seeks to Certify 17 Classes
IMPERVA INC: Class Certification Motion Still Pending
INFILAW CORP: "Barchiesi" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
J. CREW: Reed Smith Comments on Dismissal of Amended Complaint

JSCM CORP: Faces "Dolores" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA, NYLL
KLEENMARK SERVICES: Sued by Marroquin Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Class Action Appeal Pending in 11th Cir.
LIONS GATE: Consolidated Starz Merger Class Action Suit Ongoing
LIONS GATE: Gross v. Malone, et al. Class Lawsuit Still Stayed

LIONS GATE: Awaits Court Approval of N.Y. Class Suit Settlement
LOS ANGELES: Amended Class Certification Bid Denied in "Garcia"
LOUISIANA, USA: Violates Civil Rights, "Little" Suit Alleges
LUMOS NETWORKS: Defending Against Two Merger Class Suits
MAKE-UP ART: "Young" Suit Accuses Violation of Disabilities Act

MASTIC HOME: Ply Gem Still Defends Pagliaroni et al. Suit
MAX BRENNER: Sued by Young Over Disabilities Act Violations
MAZOR ROBOTICS: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action
MDL 2555: Class Certification Sought in Coca-Cola Sales Action
MDL 2748: Certification of Direct Purchaser Class Sought

MEDICREDIT INC: Judge Allows FDCPA Class Action to Proceed
MICHAEL MARGIOTTA: Faces "Balaji" Suit in New York Civil Court
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Airbag Case v. Atmel Unit Dismissed in May
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Guerrini Case vs. Atmel Dismissed in May
MICROSOFT CORP: Ruling Keeps Playing Field Level for Employers

MICROSOFT CORP: Averts Xbox 360 Defect Class Action
MISSOURI: DSS Sued Over Foster Care Psychotropic Drug Use
MIDLAND FUNDING: "Wiitanen" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
MONAKER GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "McLeod" Lawsuit Pending
MOTORS LIQUIDATION: 100 Class Suits v. New GM Pending at Apr. 17

NANTKWEST INC: 3rd Amended Suit Due July 10 in "Sudunagunta"
NEW YORK: Judge Okays $75MM Summonses Class Action Settlement
NISSAN NORTH: Faces "Anglin" Suit in Illinois District Court
NORTHERN OIL: "Fries" Class Suit Still Pending in S.D.N.Y.
OMEGA FLEX: Class Action Removed to W.D. Missouri Court

OMONIA CAFE: Sued by Andreou On Behalf of Servers and Baristas
PETALUMA POULTRY: Plant Workers File Wage Class Action
PLY GEM: Class Certification Motion Pending in Securities Case
PLY GEM: Awaits Ruling on Carrillo-Hueso et al. Case Settlement
PLY GEM: $900,000 Settlement in "Morgan" Case Pending

PUBLICATION DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Overtime, Hernandez Alleges
QUALITY MANPOWER: "Martinez" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Pay Stubs
RCI HOSPITALITY: Lopez Seeks Payment of Minimum & Overtime Wages
REALPAGE INC: "Stokes" Class Action Remains Pending
REALPAGE INC: "Jenkins" Class Action Remains Pending

SANDERSON FARMS: Class Suits by Broiler Chicken Buyers Ongoing
SANDERSON FARMS: Putative Securities Class Action Suit Continues
SANDERSON FARMS: Putative Class Lawsuits on Farmers Pay Ongoing
SCYNEXIS INC: "Gibson" Class Suit Underway in New Jersey
SECOND ROUND SUBS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Moore Says

SERVICE FINANCE: "Sparks" Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to D.N.J.
SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: "Patton" Class Action Pending
SIMONTON BUILDING: District Court Dismissed "Kiefer" Case
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces "Luong" Suit Over Defect in Windshields
SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Gorss Motels Suit Seeks Certification of Class

SUNRISE DAIRY: Denied "Mojica" Rest Periods, Wage Statements
TD AMERITRADE: "Klein" Class Action Lawsuit Underway
TELEBRANDS CORP: Faces "Jackson" Class Suit in C.D. California
TEMPUR SEALY: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Georgia
TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss IGNITE2 Suit Pending

THERAPEUTICSMD INC: "Turner" Sues Over Share Price Drop
TILLY'S INC: Still Faces "Minniti" Class Suit in S.D. Florida
TILLY'S INC: Appeal on Dismissed Skylar Ward Suit Still Ongoing
TILLY'S INC: Whitten Class Action Concluded in May
UNITED VAN LINES: Accused by "Dennis" Suit of Violating FLSA

UNIVERSITY OF TULSA: Faces Concussion Class Action
VECTREN CORP: Accord in Suit by Former SIGECO Employees Pending
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Settles "Call-in" Shift Policy Class Action
WARNER MUSIC: Suit over Digital Music Download Prices Ongoing
WELLS FINANCIAL: Still Defends Putative Stockholder Class Suit

WEST VIRGINIA BUSINESS: Attorney Sues Over Accreditation Issues
WEX INC: Mediation Expected in Missouri Class Action
WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Class Action Trial to Begin June 2018
WORLDWIDE LABOR: "Wade" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
XTO ENERGY: "Marburger" Suit Seeks Certification of Class

* Attorneys Discuss Waivers in Class Action Settlements
* H.R. 985 Bill to Have Radical Effects on Investor Rights
* Impact of Justice Gorsuch on Securities Laws Still Uncertain
* SCOTUS Has Yet to Address Viability of Class Arbitration




                            *********



ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Second Circuit Appeal on "Wyche" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal to a court order dismissing a putative class action
against Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. remains pending in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.

On July 29, 2015, a putative stockholder class action, Christopher
Wyche, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-
05955-KPF), was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "District Court"), naming the
Company, along with Joseph A. Chlapaty, the Company's Chief
Executive Officer, and Mark B. Sturgeon, the Company's former
Chief Financial Officer, as defendants and alleging violations of
the federal securities laws.

An amended complaint was filed on April 28, 2016.  The amended
complaint alleges that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from July 25, 2014 through March 29,
2016, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On March 10, 2017, the District Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims
against all defendants in their entirety and with prejudice.
Plaintiff has appealed the District Court's order to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the appeal is
pending.

Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, designs,
manufactures and markets high performance thermoplastic corrugated
pipe and related water management products, primarily in North and
South America and Europe. The broad product line includes
corrugated high density polyethylene (or "HDPE") pipe,
polypropylene (or "PP") pipe and related water management
products.


AGILE THERAPEUTICS: Defending Against 2 Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Agile Therapeutics, Inc. is defending against two securities class
action lawsuits filed earlier this year, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 8, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

Two complaints have been filed in federal court in the District of
New Jersey on January 6, 2017 and January 20, 2017, titled Peng v.
Agile Therapeutics, Inc., Alfred Altomari, and Elizabeth Garner,
No. 17-cv-119 (D.N.J.), and Lichtenthal v. Agile Therapeutics,
Inc., Alfred Altomari, and Elizabeth Garner, No. 17-cv-405
(D.N.J.), respectively, on behalf of a putative class of investors
who purchased stock from March 9, 2016 through January 3, 2017.

The complaints allege violations of the federal securities laws
based on public statements made regarding the Company's Phase 3
SECURE clinical trial.

"We deny all allegations in the complaints and we plan to
vigorously defend the complaints that have been filed," the
Company said.

Agile Therapeutics, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware on December
22, 1997. Agile is a forward-thinking women's healthcare company
dedicated to fulfilling the unmet health needs of today's women.
The Company's activities since inception have consisted
principally of raising capital and performing research and
development. The Company is headquartered in Princeton, New
Jersey.


ANSELMO LINDBERG: "Wolter" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ELISA WOLTER and the estate of MARIA G. BOK,
by ELISA WOLTER, individually and on behalf of a class, the
Plaintiffs, v. ANSELMO LINDBERG OLIVER LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-04205 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
certify a class of:

   "(a) all persons (b) with respect to whom Defendant sought to
   enforce a reverse mortgage (c) on a one or two family property
   (including condominiums and cooperatives) (e) where a letter
   was sent to the person between April 11, 2015, and May 2, 2016
   that (f) states in substance that "Our client will not seek a
   personal deficiency against any party who has been discharged
   of any personal liability pursuant to the United States
   Bankruptcy Code, against any party whose bankruptcy case is
   still pending and our client has been granted relief from the
   automatic stay, or against any party who is protected by the
   automatic stay provisions of the united States Bankruptcy Code
   at the time any foreclosure sale is confirmed"."

The Plaintiffs further ask that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class.

This action concerns attempts to enforce a reverse mortgage loan
debt allegedly owed Champion Mortgage Company by plaintiff Maria
Bok.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Michelle A. Alyea, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


ANZ SECURITIES: Supreme Court Set to Rule on Statutes of Repose
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alla Zayenchik, Esq. -- alla.zayenchik@blbglaw.com -- of Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote
that the Supreme Court is set to rule on a case that has
significant implications for investors considering pursuing
individual actions under the securities laws.

On April 17, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the
case of California Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ
Securities Inc.  The case relates to whether and how quickly
individual investors must act to preserve individual claims when
their claims are already asserted as part of a pending securities
class action.

In ANZ Securities, the Second Circuit ruled that the filing of a
securities class action lawsuit under the Securities Act of 1933
does not toll or otherwise satisfy the "statute of repose" (a time
limitation) for individual claims asserted separately, after the
filing of the class action.  This means that if an investor who is
an unnamed plaintiff in a Securities Act class action is
considering pursuing its claims separately, the investor must act
to preserve those claims (for instance, by filing a separate
individual suit) even while the class action asserting its claims
in the aggregate is pending.  This holding is notable because,
depending on the particular case, investors may be forced to file
such additional protective lawsuits even before the class action
case reaches any significant milestones.

Other courts disagree with this reading of the Securities Act and
the relevant procedural rules.  The Tenth Circuit, for instance,
holds that the filing of the class action effectively preserves
the individual suits while the class action is pending, so there
is no need for investors to file individual suits so early.  The
Tenth Circuit and other courts take this view based in large part
on the Supreme Court's 1974 American Pipe ruling, which held that
the statute of limitations is tolled for individual plaintiffs
during the pendency of such a class action.  In late May 2017, the
Ninth Circuit also reaffirmed American Pipe tolling, holding that
it tolls the Securities Exchange Act statute of limitations to
permit successive class action filings.

The ANZ Securities case has garnered significant interest in the
legal community.  Assisted by BLB&G, seventy-five prominent
institutional investors with over $4 trillion under management
filed an amicus brief in the matter.  The amicus brief highlights
not only the harmful burdens that the Second Circuit's holding
imposes on investors, but also how it imposes unnecessary
litigation costs on both plaintiffs and defendants.

A separate amicus brief filed by retired federal judges similarly
notes how the Second Circuit's holding results in the filing of
protective lawsuits to preserve investors' rights and fails to
guard against the possibility that class certification will be
unreasonably denied under the Second Circuit's ruling due to
expiration of the statute of repose.  Indeed, protective suits are
on the rise.  In the Petrobras securities litigation, for
instance, nearly 500 individual plaintiffs opted out of the class
case and are scheduled to have their damages claims heard
individually.  Yet another amicus brief in the ANZ Securities case
-- by ten securities law professors at schools including Stanford,
Cornell, Duke, and the University of Virginia -- concludes that
against such costly protective suits, the Second Circuit's ruling
does "not yield any countervailing benefit."

The Supreme Court heard argument on April 17 and a decision is
expected by the end of the term. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Settlement Likely in Manus Island Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that a class action
seeking compensation for 1900 Manus Island detainees may be
settled before Australia's largest trial concerning immigration
detention begins.

The six-month trial was due to begin in the Victorian Supreme
Court on June 14 but there was speculation a settlement may be
reached.

A settlement could potentially lead to the withdrawal of a
separate legal action in Papua New Guinea that lawyers hope could
be worth at least $150 million.

The Australian class action is seeking damages on behalf of 1905
group members who, legal firm Slater and Gordon says, cover the
majority of people detained on Manus Island since 2012.

US study probes Manus refugee deal after Melbourne siege attack
The Washington DC-based Center for Immigration Studies questions
if the refugee deal with Australia has a secret element to it.
The detainees want compensation from the Australian government and
the detention centre managers for alleged physical and
psychological injuries they argue they suffered as a result of the
conditions in which they were held.

Like the separate mass plaintiff claim against the PNG government,
the class action also seeks damages for false imprisonment after
the PNG Supreme Court ruled the detention of asylum seekers on
Manus Island was unconstitutional.

The PNG government and lawyers for Manus Island detainees in the
PNG case, who currently number 731 but could reach 1000 men, have
been in court-ordered negotiations since early May.

Lawyer Greg Toop says the PNG action may be withdrawn if the
Australian class action settles, as the detainees could not
receive double compensation.

"We are looking at the possibility of withdrawing our proceedings
so they can get their compensation through Slater and Gordon's
action," Mr Toop told AAP on June 13.

Mr Toop and PNG lawyer Ben Lomai estimate the men in their case
could each receive more than 400,000 PNG kina ($A150,000-
$A175,000).

Mr Toop said there were similarities in the potential damages
calculations in the Australian and PNG cases, but the detainees
would get a lot less in the PNG context.

"Our claim is massive anyway -- 400 million kina upwards.  So it's
a pretty large claim whoever is going to resolve it, whether it's
resolved in Australia through Slater and Gordon or resolved in PNG
through us," Mr Toop said.

Slater and Gordon would not comment beyond confirming its matter
was before the court on June 14.

The firm has previously said the class action, which was being
live streamed, would shine a light on the conditions experienced
by Manus Island detainees.

Maurice Blackburn social justice lawyer Jennifer Kanis, whose firm
recently reached a settlement with the Australian government over
a child detainee on Christmas Island, said the Commonwealth ran
such cases aggressively.

"Then they settle when there's any chance of scrutiny as to what
actually happened to cause the injuries," she said.

Any settlement in the Manus Island class action would be
confidential and would have to be approved by the court. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Settlement Also Expected in Another Manus Island Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Whyte, Eric Tlozek and Lin Evlin, writing for ABC, report
that almost 2,000 men detained by the Federal Government on Manus
Island may receive compensation for mistreatment, in what legal
experts say would be the largest human rights settlement in
Australian legal history.

The class action against the Immigration Department was scheduled
to commence in the Victorian Supreme Court on June 14 but it was
predicted to settle, rather than proceed to a six-month trial.

The ABC understands the men are likely to receive a sizeable
payout from the Federal Government if settlement is reached.

The class action is being run by law firm Slater and Gordon on
behalf of 1,905 men who were detained on Manus Island between
November 2012 and December 2014.

One of the men, Sudanese refugee Abdul Aziz Muhammad, has lived on
the island for four years and was there during the outbreak of
violence that resulted in the death of fellow detainee Reza
Barati, in February 2014.

"It was a really difficult moment for us there and especially for
whoever knew Reza Barati and whoever went through that tragedy I
think there is nothing on this planet can make you forget what you
saw on that night," he said.

"Living on Manus Island I can say it's just like living in hell,"
he said from Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea where he is
receiving medical treatment.

It is not the first time major cases against the Immigration
Department have settled without making it to court.

Twenty legal service providers contacted by Lateline reported
bringing a combined total of more than 80 compensation cases
against the Immigration Department since January 2015.

The majority of those cases settled before going to court, with
plaintiffs awarded significant payouts. Most carry strict
confidentiality agreements.

Jennifer Kanis, head of social justice at Maurice Blackburn, said
the law firm recently settled a case on behalf of a young girl who
was held on Christmas Island.

"Every time we get close to having a matter go to court and having
those cases ventilated, the Commonwealth settles the claim," she
said.

"I can only assume they don't want the public scrutiny about the
harm that is being caused by detention or the scrutiny about what
needs to be done to redress the harm."

FOI documents reveal $23.4m in compensation

Greg Barns, a Hobart-based lawyer, has been advising another class
action for 731 men on Manus Island.

He is certain the case will also settle and he estimated the men
could receive about $150,000 each.

"The class action in Papua New Guinea involves really a question
of false imprisonment," he said.

"What this means . . . [is] that for every day they have been kept
unlawfully they are entitled to compensation."

Documents obtained under a Freedom of Information request lodged
by the Australian Lawyer's Alliance stated that between 1999 and
2011, the Immigration Department paid $23.4 million in
compensation to people who had been held in Australian-run
immigration detention centres.

"Our suspicion is that that number will be a lot higher now
because there has been quite a lot of litigation in the last five
years," Mr Barns said.

"There's no doubt that there are at any one time around Australia
a large number of claims made against the Immigration Department."

Lateline has contacted the Immigration Department for comment.
[GN]


BANK OF NEW YORK: Suit over Depositary Receipt Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that
consolidated class action lawsuits related to depositary receipt
matters are pending in federal court in the Southern District of
New York.

Between late December 2015 and February 2016, four putative class
action lawsuits were filed against BNY Mellon asserting claims
relating to BNY Mellon's foreign exchange pricing when converting
dividends and other distributions from non-U.S. companies in its
role as depositary bank to Depositary Receipt issuers. The claims
are for breach of contract and violations of ERISA. The lawsuits
have been consolidated into two suits that are pending in federal
court in the Southern District of New York.


BAYER CONSUMER: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Kommer" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James Kommer filed an appeal from the District Court's
order dated May 18, 2017, and judgment dated May 19, 2017, entered
in the lawsuit titled Kommer v. Bayer Consumer Health, Case No.
16-cv-1560, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks redress, under New York General Business Law, for the
Defendants' alleged deceptive marketing practices in connection
with the sale of Dr. Scholl's "Custom Fit Orthotic" inserts.

The Defendants allegedly advertised and deceptively marketed the
Inserts as supposedly customized for the consumer's feet, yet they
are standardized factory-manufactured inserts which cannot and do
not compare to a custom orthotic device, which is tailored to the
specific measurements of each of a patient's feet, individually.

Bayer Consumer provides consumer health care products.  The
Company's products include over-the-counter medications and
nutritional supplements that include analgesics, cough/cold,
dermatologicals, gastrointestinals, and nutritionals.  The Company
was founded in 1994 and is based in Basel, Switzerland.

The appellate case is captioned as Kommer v. Bayer Consumer
Health, Case No. 17-1772, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant James Kommer, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert Jeffrey Berg, Esq.
          MEISELMAN, DENLEA, PACKMAN, CARTON & EBERZ P.C.
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 517-5000
          E-mail: rberg@mdpcelaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Bayer Consumer Health, a division of Bayer
AG, MSD Consumer Care, Inc., Bayer Consumer Care Holdings LLC,
Bayer Healthcare LLC and Bayer Corporation are represented by:

          James Arden, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5889
          Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
          E-mail: jarden@sidley.com

Defendants-Appellees Bayer Consumer Care Holdings LLC, Bayer
Healthcare LLC and Bayer Corporation are represented by:

          Eugene A. Schoon, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
          E-mail: eschoon@sidley.com


BUSINESS TEXTER: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Bot Texts
-------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
when realtor Stephen McWilliams responded with an aloof "Who is
this?" to an unknown texter, the "seemingly personalized message"
that followed appeared to come from a woman in the 305 area code.

"This is Kelly with BizTexter," the answer read.  "I found you on
Zillow & hoped you wouldn't mind me reaching out via text. :) I
can help you generate more leads & sales. Text me!"

The message even came punctuated with a smiling emoji.  But there
was no human being on the other side of this pitch -- the text
came from a "patented artificial intelligence SMS chat bot" that
targeted real estate professionals with unsolicited marketing
messages, according to Mr. McWilliams.

Their interaction is now at the center of a class action lawsuit
filed on June 8 in federal court in Fort Lauderdale, accusing
Business Texter Inc. of violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and invading McWilliams' privacy.  A jury trial is
set for Dec. 11 before Senior Judge James I. Cohn, who referred
the case to mediation before Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer.
The suit claims Business Texter used lead-scraping software to
scour online ads for cellphone numbers of real estate
professionals, and then used a bot to pepper these brokers and
agents with automated messages.

The first of the texts to Mr. McWilliams landed in his inbox Feb.
23, according the lawsuit.  It read, "Hello Stephen :) Are you
still in real estate?"

After a few exchanges, McWilliams sent a text instructing the
sender to stop contacting him.  The reply indicated BizTexter
unsubscribed him from its list, according to the suit.
"These chat bot artificial intelligence 'conversations' are
completely automated and occur without human intervention,"
according to his complaint, filed by attorneys Sean Martin Holas,
Scott David Owens and Patrick Christopher Crotty of the Law Office
of Scott D. Owens in Hollywood, and Seth Michael Lehrman
-- seth@pathtojustice.com -- of Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards
Fistos & Lehrman in Fort Lauderdale.

No attorney has appeared yet for the defense, but BizTexter
founder David Johnston suggested the allegations contradict the
company's operating procedures.

"We take this very seriously," Mr. Johnston wrote in a response to
the Daily Business Review.  "We have very strict anti-spam
policies for our customers, affiliates and staff.  This is the
first we have heard of this complaint.  We are investigating the
matter and have no further comment at this time."

The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  It requests $1,500 per alleged violation to
each proposed class member. [GN]


CALIFORNIA CINEMA: "Kieslich" Sues Over Denied Rest, Meal Periods
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Kieslich, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. California Cinema Investments, LLC,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC664439 (Cal. Super., June 8,
2017), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay
for all hours worked and minimum wage rate, failure to authorize
or permit required meal periods, failure to authorize or permit
required rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide
accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of
continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages
due upon separation of employment, injunctive relief and other
equitable relief, and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to
California Labor Code and costs and interest.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a server catering to their
movie-going clientele throughout the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Edward Quintilone, II, Esq.
      Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
      George A. Aloupas, Esq.
      QUINTILONE AND ASSOCIATES
      22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
      Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
      Tel: (949) 458-9675
      Fax: (949) 458-9679
      Email: req@quintlaw.com
             abl@quintlaw.com
             gaa@quintlaw.com


CAN-FITE BIOPHARMA: Suit over Piclidenoson Drug Reports Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Can-Fite Biopharma Ltd. continues to defend against a class
lawsuit related to its Piclidenoson drug candidate, according to
the Company's Form F-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 30, 2017.

In June 2015, the Company received a lawsuit, filed with the
District Court of Tel-Aviv, requesting recognition of this lawsuit
as a class action.  The lawsuit named the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer and directors as defendants.  The lawsuit
alleges, among other things, that the Company misled the public
with regard to disclosures concerning the efficacy of its drug
candidate, Piclidenoson in relation to the Psoriasis studies.  The
claimant alleges that he suffered personal damages of over
NIS73,000, while also claiming that the Company shareholders
suffered aggregate damages of approximately NIS 125 million.

On March 31, 2016, the Company filed a response to the lawsuit.

On March 1, 2017, a hearing was held in the District Court on
whether to certify the lawsuit as a class action.  A final hearing
on the certification was scheduled for April 26, 2017.  The
hearing scheduled for April 26, 2017 was delayed and rescheduled
for May 17, 2017.  At such hearing, both parties presented oral
closing summations and the judge instructed the parties to try to
reach a settlement.

Currently, the parties have filed written applications to strike
out certain parts of the claims made.  The date of the next
hearing has not yet been set.

Can-Fite BioPharma is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company
that develops orally bioavailable small molecule therapeutic
products for the treatment of autoimmune-inflammatory, oncological
and ophthalmic diseases.


CAYMAN ISLANDS: Lawsuit Mulled Over Permanent Residence Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cayman News Service reports that with no further movement by the
relevant board to begin hearing the backlog of stalled permanent
residency applications, one local law firm representing many of
the people whose applications are waiting to be heard have accused
an "invisible hand" of continuing to stall the process. More than
three months have passed since the regulations were adjusted to
meet legal concerns about the point system, but with the exception
of two cases that already reached the courts, no further PR grants
have been made and the firm is inviting people to join a class
action.

In what has now become a regular newsletter-style update to all of
the applicants being represented by HSM, Nick Joseph --
njoseph@hsmoffice.com -- a partner with the firm, said the
immigration department has said that things were "still
processing", which Mr. Joseph said infers that the department is
still a long way from even listing applications for hearing.

He said that in its latest response, the department said it was
"working closely with the ministry to give effect to the way
forward, and that applications will be dealt with in the order in
which they were received".

Mr. Joseph stated in the round-up email, "There seems to be an
'invisible hand' preventing progress.  If that assumption is
correct, whose it is, and where they sit, is yet to be understood
or determined."

He noted that the only applications being considered are those at
the doorstep of the court-house.  He said the firm was no longer
encouraging restraint on that front and indicated that
preparations were underway for class action for those interested
at cut rates.

"We have repeatedly impressed on the authorities, and for some
time, that for many of you the delays have long crossed the line
as to what we consider to be lawful," he said, raising concerns
that there was no indication this was going to change.

"There is a nervousness expressed by some of you as to the
consequences of taking on the government.  I remain firmly of the
view that in official circles there will be none.  We are a
country of laws that respects the rights of individuals including
without regard to national origin," Mr. Joseph added.

Pointing to the advantages of a class action, he said that there
was "strength and increased anonymity in numbers" as well as
"increased efficiency".  He added that if anyone who has been
waiting for more than twelve months wants to "pursue remedy
through the courts in unison with others, we are prepared to
proceed".

He said that only applicants confident of qualification under the
points system who have been waiting for more than twelve months
should consider court action.  The process, he said, starts with a
"letter before action", which he hoped would be "all that is
necessary to spur consideration".

While the issue has brought a backlash on social media from some
Caymanians, Mr. Joseph pointed out that not dealing with these
cases is detrimental for local workers as well, because "so long
as an applicant for Permanent Residence is awaiting a
determination of their application, no Caymanian has any
opportunity to compete with them for employment.  Expatriates are
far from the only ones being harmed by the status quo."

No cases have been heard by the board since the end of 2013,
leaving some applicants waiting for more than three and a half
years, creating a mounting catalogue of problems for them,
including children reaching important threshold ages and
applicants' careers being on the line.

"Even without such considerations comes nagging uncertainty, and
the seemingly irrational, unreasonable, disproportionate . . .
6-monthly blood checks and police record requirements, with
associated expense and disruption." he noted.

With no evidence that anything is happening and no requests from
the authorities for updated information from any applicants, Mr.
Joseph said that HSM does not know why the delays continue.

He highlighted specific problems some families face and suggested
that processing applications in the order they were made is not be
the best way to tackle the problem, even when the boards begin
hearing applications again.  He warned that this approach risks
making very large numbers of currently up-to-date applications
stale, compounding problems for qualified applicants.

Mr. Joseph said that "years of assurances that the wait would soon
be over have unfortunately not come to fruition", and warned, "We
also regrettably cannot be confident that there will be no attempt
to again amend the regulations and to do so in a manner which
harms existing applicants."

However, he said that changes that would disadvantage pending
applications would be challenged in court.

Setting out the process for the class action, he said he hoped
that letters warning the authorities of the intention to go to
court should be enough "to spur consideration" of an application.
[GN]


CHICO'S FAS: Class Action Regarding Customers' Receipts Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 29,
2017 that it "continues to believe" that the putative class action
filed against it related to the information published on
customers' receipts is "without merit."

In July 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Altman v.
White House Black Market, Inc., a putative class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.  The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of
federal law, published more than the last five digits of a credit
or debit card number or an expiration date on customers' receipts.

The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint.  Its
motion to dismiss was denied on July 13, 2016.

The Company said, "It will continue to vigorously defend the
matter.  At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the
proceeding will be permitted to proceed as a class or the size of
the putative class, and no assurance can be given that the Company
will be successful in its defense on the merits or otherwise.  No
specific dollar amount in damages or other relief is specified in
the Complaint, and the Company is unable to estimate any potential
loss or range of loss.  However, if the case were to proceed as a
class action and the Company were to be unsuccessful in its
defense on the merits, the ultimate resolution of the case could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial condition or results of operations."

Chico's FAS, Inc. operates as an omni-channel specialty retailer
of women's private branded, casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates,
and complementary accessories.  The Company's portfolio of brands
consists of the Chico's, White House Black Market (WHBM), and
Soma.  The Company also sells through its Websites and catalogs.
Chico's FAS, Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Fort
Myers, Florida.


CHICO'S FAS: Deal in "Ackerman" Labor-Related Suit Has Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, finally
approved on May 16, 2017, an agreement that will settle a legal
action filed against Chico's FAS, Inc. on labor-related matters,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 29,
2017.

In June 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Ackerman v.
Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative representative Private Attorney
General action filed in the Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles.  The Complaint alleges numerous violations of
California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, wage
statements and failure to reimburse business expenses, among other
things.  Plaintiff subsequently amended her complaint to make the
same allegations on a class action basis.

In June 2016, the parties submitted a proposed settlement of the
matter to the court.  The court granted preliminary approval on
August 26, 2016, and settlement notices were distributed.

On May 16, 2017, the court finally approved the settlement
substantially on the terms submitted by the parties.  The
settlement will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial condition or results of
operations.

Chico's FAS, Inc. operates as an omni-channel specialty retailer
of women's private branded, casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates,
and complementary accessories.  The Company's portfolio of brands
consists of the Chico's, White House Black Market (WHBM), and
Soma.  The Company also sells through its Websites and catalogs.
Chico's FAS, Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Fort
Myers, Florida.


CHICO'S FAS: July 25 Final Approval Hearing on Gift Cards Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. is awaiting the court's final approval of a
settlement agreement in a putative class action related to gift
cards, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 29,
2017.

The Court will have a hearing to decide whether to finally approve
the Settlement on July 25, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. before the Hon.
Thomas P. Anderle, in Department SB3 of the California Superior
Court for the County of Santa Barbara, California.

In July 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Calleros v.
Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Barbara.  Plaintiff alleges
that the Company failed to comply with California law requiring it
to provide consumers cash for gift cards with a stored value of
less than US$10.00.

Following voluntary mediation of the matter in November of 2016,
the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was
approved preliminarily by the court on March 28, 2017.  If finally
approved, the settlement will not have a material adverse effect
on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of
operations.

The Court has preliminarily approved the settlement terms: Chico's
has agreed to:

     (1) fully comply with Civil Code section 1749.5 in all of its
California locations;

     (2) update its POS software to automatically provide cash
refunds for gifts cards with a balance of $10 or less;

     (3) thoroughly review its policies and practices regarding
redeeming its gift cards and ensure that its employee manuals and
standard operating procedures continue to state: "Provide customer
with cash if balance remaining on the Gift Card is less than $10,"
or similar language, and provide Plaintiff's counsel a declaration
so affirming;

     (4) train existing employees on the new POS software's auto
cash refund functionality and provide Plaintiff's counsel a
declaration so affirming;

     (5) in addition to the employee manual provided to new
employees (those hired after entry of a final approval order),
Chico's will train new employees on the POS software auto cash
refund functionality;

     (6) perform an internal audit of its compliance with POS auto
cash refund functionality;

     (7) participate in a claims process administered by Class
Counsel, whereby any  Settlement Class Member who submits a timely
and valid claim attesting to have possessed a Chico's gift card
which was purchased between July 28, 2012 through March 27, 2017,
which had a balance of less than $10.00, but disposed of it upon
being informed by a Chico's employee in California that it could
not be redeemed for cash, will receive a replacement eGift Card or
Personalized Merchandise Voucher valued at $9.99, which can be
used at any Chico's location in California, without an additional
purchase requirement.

The number of eGift Cards or Personalized Merchandise Vouchers to
be claimed by Class Members shall be limited to the first 420
valid and timely claims. The claims period will begin 10 days
after the Effective Date, and end 120 days after the Effective
Date. Defendant shall have the right to verify the truthfulness of
the representations on any claim and the right to reject any claim
on which a material misrepresentation appears.

Defendant reserves the right to contact claimants to discuss or
verify claims.

Finally, subject to Court approval, the class representative will
receive an incentive award of $1,000.00 and the attorneys for the
Class ("Class Counsel") are entitled to receive up to $57,750.00
total for their attorneys' fees and all costs, including certain
administration costs, as determined by the Court.

Additional information on the case is available at:

                   http://www.cgcsettlement.com/

Chico's FAS, Inc. operates as an omni-channel specialty retailer
of women's private branded, casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates,
and complementary accessories.  The Company's portfolio of brands
consists of the Chico's, White House Black Market (WHBM), and
Soma.  The Company also sells through its Websites and catalogs.
Chico's FAS, Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Fort
Myers, Florida.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Luby, writing for TheDenverChannel.com, reports that records
show Chipotle Mexican Grill has routinely acknowledged the risks
associated with its payment processing systems, most recently in
the weeks before a security breach compromised payment information
belonging to an untold number of its customers.

The company now faces two new class action lawsuits from
customers, one of whom says "the Defendant knew or should have
known about the elementary infirmities associated" with its
security systems.

The cases were filed in U.S. District Court on June 9 -- one in
Colorado, the other in California.  The plaintiff on the Colorado
case is Todd Gordon, an Arizona man who said his newly-issued
American Express card was used by a fraudster in Florida just
weeks after he visited a Phoenix-area Chipotle restaurant.

"As a result of Plaintiff's credit card account exceeding its
limit through no fault of Plaintiff's own, American Express made a
report to the credit bureaus, thereby negatively affecting
Plaintiff's credit score and information," the case states.

According to the civil complaint, which has not yet received class
action certification, Mr. Gordon "had not experienced credit card
fraud or identity theft with respect to his American Express
credit card account" prior to the fraudster using the card.

Mr. Gordon's attorneys have not yet responded to Denver7's request
for comment.

As part of Mr. Gordon's case, his attorneys cite an annual
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing where Chipotle
acknowledged that its payment processing system poses a risk to
the company.  The record was filed in early February -- a little
more than a month before the breach occurred.

"We may be harmed by security risks we face in connection with our
electronic processing and transmission of confidential customer
and employee information," it stated.

"We may in the future become subject to additional claims for
purportedly fraudulent transactions arising out of the actual or
alleged theft of credit or debit card information, and we may also
be subject to lawsuits or other proceedings in the future relating
to these types of incidents," the company further stated in the
filing.  "Any such proceedings could distract our management from
running our business and cause us to incur significant unplanned
losses and expenses. Consumer perception of our brand could also
be negatively affected by these events, which could further
adversely affect our results and prospects."

The SEC filing notes that Chipotle incurred roughly $4.3 million
in losses and expenses related to a security breach in August
2004.

The company noted the 2004 data breach and data security risks in
every annual SEC filing between 2006 and 2016 -- the filings
readily available through the SEC online.

70-percent of the restaurant chain's customer transactions
involved a credit or debit card in 2016, according to the most
recent SEC filing.

One breach, four lawsuits

Altogether, Chipotle faces four lawsuits in U.S. District Court
over the recent data breach.  Aside from the two customers, two
credit unions -- one in Arkansas, another in New Hampshire -- are
suing, too.

The credit unions contend that the breach forced them to spend
time and money on behalf of their customers.

"The Chipotle Data Breach was the inevitable result of Chipotle's
inadequate data security measures and approach to data security,"
the lawsuit, filed in May by Alcoa Community Federal Credit Union,
states.  "Despite the well-publicized and ever-growing threat of
cyber breaches involving payment card networks and systems,
Chipotle systematically failed to ensure that it maintained
adequate data security measures, failed to implement best
practices, failed to upgrade security systems, and failed to
comply with industry standards by allowing its computer and point-
of-sale ("POS") systems to be hacked, causing financial
institutions' payment card and customer information to be stolen."

Company's response questioned

Each of the lawsuits raise issue with how the company's responded
to the breach in the weeks after it made customers aware.

In Mr. Gordon's case, his attorneys question why Chipotle has
still not implemented a chip-based card technology at its
restaurants.  They also question why the company "has not offered
or provided any monitoring service or assistance" to customers.

Chipotle spokesperson, Chris Arnold, said in an email that the
company is not offering credit monitoring because "that is only
designed to let you know when someone is opening a new credit
account using your information.  Credit monitoring does not alert
you when a fraudulent charge is made on a payment card."

He pointed customers to the company's response posted online,
which advises customers to be proactive about protecting their
information on their own.

As for the risks noted in Chipotle's annual SEC filings, Arnold
said identifying risks is routine.

"Like any public company, we are required to disclose potential
risks to our business, no matter how remote," he said in an email
to Denver7 Investigates.

Mr. Arnold said other business risks are routinely identified in
SEC filings, such as marketing and advertising strategies that may
not be successful or how changes in customer tastes and
preferences, spending patterns and demographic trends could cause
sales to decline. [GN]


CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Florida Circuit Court Okays Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach
County, Florida, on May 8, 2017, approved an agreement to settle a
purported class action against Christopher & Banks Corporation,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 31, 2017 with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 29, 2017.

In connection with a preliminary settlement of pre-litigation
employment claims reached in February 2017, the Company
established a loss contingency of US$1.475 million as of January
28, 2017.  In connection therewith, on April 13, 2017, a complaint
was filed in state Circuit Court in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit
in Palm Beach County, Florida (the "Florida Circuit Court") by
three named plaintiffs in a purported class action asserting
claims on behalf of current and former store managers.

The plaintiffs principally alleged that they and other similarly
situated store managers were improperly classified as exempt
employees and thus not compensated for overtime work as required
under applicable federal and state law.

On May 4, 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the named plaintiffs and the proposed class.

On May 8, 2017, the Florida Circuit Court issued an order
approving the class settlement.  As approved by the Florida
Circuit Court, certain current and former store managers will be
eligible to receive payments in connection with time worked in
prior years.  The settlement of the lawsuit is not an admission by
the Company of any wrongdoing.

As part of the settlement, the Company expects to contribute
US$1.475 million into a settlement fund in the second fiscal
quarter of 2017.  Any funds remaining after payment of all
submitted claims and related settlement fund costs and expenses
will revert to the Company.  A final resolution of the matter and
the dissolution of the settlement fund is expected by the end of
this fiscal year.  While the ultimate amount of the claims paid
under the settlement could be less than the Company has recorded,
the difference is not expected to have a material impact on our
consolidated financial position or liquidity.

Christopher & Banks Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
operates as a specialty retailer of private-brand women's apparel
and accessories in the United States.  It was formerly known as
Braun's Fashions Corporation and changed its name to Christopher &
Banks Corporation in July 2000.  The Company was founded in 1956
and is headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.


CITIZENS COMMUNITY: "Parshall" Lawsuit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Defendants
intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in the class
action lawsuit by Paul Parshall.

On March 22, 2017, Paul Parshall, a purported Wells stockholder,
filed a putative stockholder class action and derivative complaint
in the District Court of Faribault County, Minnesota captioned
Paul Parshall v. Wells Financial Corp., et al. The lawsuit names
as defendants Wells, each of the current members of the Wells
board and the Company.

The complaint asserts that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by initiating a process to sell Wells that
undervalues Wells; by agreeing to the Merger Agreement at a price
that does not reflect Wells' true value; and by either failing to
inform themselves of Wells' true value or disregarding such value.
The complaint further asserts that Wells and the Company aided and
abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint
seeks (i) a declaration that the action may be maintained as a
class action; (ii) injunctive relief to prevent the consummation
of the Merger; (iii) in the event the Merger is consummated,
rescission of the transaction or rescissionary damages; (iv) an
order directing the defendants to account to the plaintiff for
damages because of alleged wrongdoing; (v) an award to plaintiff
of costs and disbursements including attorneys' and experts' fees;
and (vi) other relief as may be just and proper.

The defendants believe this lawsuit is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against the allegations.


COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Class Certification Motion Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Cobalt International Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Lead
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the consolidated
securities class action remains pending.

The Company said, "In November 2014, two purported stockholders,
St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund
and Fire and Police Retiree Health Care Fund, San Antonio, filed a
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers
of our securities from February 21, 2012 through November 4, 2014
(the "St. Lucie lawsuit"). The St. Lucie lawsuit, filed against us
and certain officers, former and current members of the Board of
Directors, underwriters, and investment firms and funds, asserted
violations of federal securities laws based on alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public
disclosures, primarily regarding compliance with the U.S. Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") in our Angolan operations and the
performance of certain wells offshore Angola."

"In December 2014, Steven Neuman, a purported stockholder, filed a
substantially similar lawsuit against us and certain of our
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of our
securities from February 21, 2012 through August 4, 2014 (the
"Neuman lawsuit"). Like the St. Lucie lawsuit, the Neuman lawsuit
asserted violations of federal securities laws based on alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public
disclosures regarding our compliance with the FCPA in our Angolan
operations.

"In March 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Neuman lawsuit with the St. Lucie lawsuit (the "Consolidated
Action") and also entered an order in the Consolidated Action
appointing Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed
their consolidated amended complaint in May 2015. Among other
remedies, the Consolidated Action seeks damages in an unspecified
amount, along with an award of attorney fees and other costs and
expenses to the plaintiffs. We filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in June 2015, and the other
defendants also filed motions to dismiss. The Court denied our
motion to dismiss in January 2016, and, in March 2016, the Court
also denied our motion requesting that the Court certify its order
on the motions to dismiss so that we may seek interlocutory
appellate review of the order.

"Lead Plaintiffs also have filed a motion for class certification,
seeking to certify a class of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between March 1,
2011 and November 3, 2014.  The matter remains ongoing."

Cobalt International is an independent exploration and production
company with operations in the deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico and
offshore Angola and Gabon in West Africa.


COINBASE INC: Class Action Over Collapse Moves Ahead
----------------------------------------------------
Stan Higgins, writing for CoinDesk, reports that a growing legal
dispute between the customers of a now-defunct cryptocurrency
exchange and the business itself has ensnared one of the
industry's largest and best-funded startups.

Former customers of the exchange alleged in a complaint filed in
December that Cryptsy and its CEO, Paul Vernon, laundered millions
of dollars-worth of their funds through Coinbase over a several-
year period as part of a bid to abscond with their money.

At the heart of the argument is that Coinbase, as a regulated
money services business in more than 30 states, should have known
that the approximately $8.3m in funds -- which Vernon allegedly
claimed were derived from Cryptsy's profits, as well as his own
activities -- came from a questionable source.

The backstory: The case represents the last twist in the long-
running Cryptsy saga.

Once one of the most voluminous exchanges for alternative digital
currencies, Cryptsy collapsed in late 2015 after months of
escalating service issues.  Trading was ultimately suspended in
early January of 2016, and just days later, the exchange went
offline amid claims of insolvency and concealed theft.

A class action lawsuit, filed in Florida, soon followed, with a
court-appointed receiver taking control of Cryptsy's assets in the
spring of 2016, setting the stage of a settlement agreement
between users and Vernon's ex-spouse, who was also named in the
original suit.

Mr. Vernon, who has not responded in court to the suit, has denied
allegations that he stole millions of dollars worth of funds from
users.

The current saga: It's those funds that are at the center of the
case between the class-action users and Coinbase.

Coinbase, which declined to comment on the lawsuit when reached
for comment, sought to negotiate the dispute through arbitration,
citing user agreements Vernon signed when he and Cryptsy first
began exchanging funds through Coinbase.  Further, the startup
asked the court to stay the case pending that arbitration, as well
as prevent discovery from taking place.

Yet, in a court order from 1st June, Judge Kenneth A Marra shot
down Coinbase's motions to compel arbitration and to stay
discovery, arguing that Cryptsy users weren't bound by the
agreements signed by Mr. Vernon.

Attorney David Silver, one of the lawyers representing the users,
reiterated those arguments in an interview with CoinDesk.

"We believe that Cryptsy users that did not sign the contract with
Coinbase were entitled to their day in court and be judged by a
jury of their peers," he said.  "[W]e're quite happy the court
agreed with us, and this case is going to move forward in the
public light."

He said that Cryptsy's body of users have been waiting years for
some kind of resolution, highlighting how the value of bitcoin has
risen sharply in that time.

"The users we represent from Cryptsy, they've been killed," said
Silver.

What comes next: Judge Marra's decision effectively blocks any
effort to resolve the case out of court, setting the stage for
discovery and for the suit to advance.

A broader class-action suit -- in which Cryptsy users have sought
to reacquire funds lost during the exchange's collapse -- is also
moving ahead.

According to Mr. Silver, the legal team behind the class-action
suit is gearing up for its first distribution of funds, gleaned
from the settlement with Vernon's ex-spouse -- a process he said
should take place over the next several months.  In the meantime,
he said, the case filed against Cryptsy will continue following
Marra's ruling.

"We're gonna hit the ground running," said Mr. Silver. [GN]


CSRA INC: "Strauch" Fair Labor Standards Act Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CSRA Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2017 that Computer Sciences Corporation (now known as DXC
Technology) ("CSC") continues to face the Strauch et al. Fair
Labor Standards Act Class Action.

On November 27, 2015, CSRA Inc. became an independent, publicly
traded company through consummation of a spin-off by CSC of its
North American Public Sector business.

On July 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed Strauch and Colby v. Computer
Sciences Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut, a putative nationwide class action alleging that
CSC violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
with respect to system administrators who worked for CSC at any
time from June 1, 2011 to the present.

Plaintiffs claim that CSC improperly classified its system
administrators as exempt from the FLSA and that CSC, therefore,
owes them overtime wages and associated relief available under the
FLSA and various statutes, including the Connecticut Minimum Wage
Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, California Labor Code,
California Wage Order No. 4-2001, and the California Private
Attorneys General Act.  In September 2015, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, which added claims under Missouri and North
Carolina wage and hour laws.

The relief sought by Plaintiffs includes unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
damages in the amount of twice the unpaid overtime wages due, and
civil penalties.

If a liability is ultimately incurred as a result of these claims,
CSRA would pay a portion to CSC pursuant to an indemnity
obligation.

CSC and CSRA both maintain that system administrators have the job
duties, responsibilities, and salaries of exempt employees and are
properly classified as exempt from overtime compensation
requirements and were paid in accordance with the FSLA and
applicable state laws.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on June 9, 2015
and on June 3, 2016, the Court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class of
system administrators.  The conditionally certified FLSA and
putative classes include approximately 1,285 system
administrators, of whom 407 are employed by CSRA and the remainder
employed by CSC.

The Company expects that, following a period during which
potential class members may opt-in the action and discovery is
completed, the court will determine whether the case will proceed
to trial or whether to decertify the class.  If the action is
decertified, then only individual claims may proceed to trial.

CSC filed its opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on July 15, 2016.  Plaintiffs filed their reply
brief on August 12, 2016 and the matter is currently under
advisement with the Court.

CSRA Inc. delivers a range of information technology solutions and
professional services to its U.S. government customers to
modernize legacy systems, protect networks and assets, and enhance
the mission-critical functions for war fighters and citizens.  The
Company offers digital platforms and services, data and analytics,
intelligent business processes, enterprise business services, and
cyber security services.  The Company was formerly known as
Computer Sciences Government Services Inc. and changed its name to
CSRA Inc. in November 2015.  CSRA Inc. was incorporated in 2015
and is headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia.


D & A SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Wrubel Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Wrubel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. D & A Services, LLC of IL, Case No. 1:17-cv-03363-BMC
(E.D.N.Y., June 5, 2017), alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

D & A Services provides all aspects of customer service and
compliant collection remedies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
          383 Kingston Avenue, #113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651-1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
          E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


DELTA NATURAL GAS: Files Supplemental Disclosure on Merger Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc. has provided certain supplemental
disclosures to its proxy statement in connection with purported
lawsuits which challenge a merger agreement.  A full-text copy of
the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 25, 2017 is available at https://is.gd/B6QgOx

On February 20, 2017, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with PNG Companies, LLC.

As previously disclosed in Delta's definitive proxy statement
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27,
2017 (as amended or supplemented from time to time, the "proxy
statement") and in Delta's Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13
or 15(d) filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on May 5,
2017, purported shareholders of Delta have initiated two separate
lawsuits challenging the merger.

On April 13, 2017, a lawsuit challenging the merger was filed,
Halberstam v. Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc. et al., in state
circuit court in Clark County, Kentucky ("Halberstam Complaint").

On April 28, 2017, another lawsuit challenging the merger was
filed, Parshall v. Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc. et al., in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky ("Parshall
Complaint").

The Halberstam Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Board breached its fiduciary duties in relation to the merger,
including (a) breaching its fiduciary duty of disclosure in the
preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on March 24, 2017
(the "preliminary proxy statement"), (b) breaching its fiduciary
duties by agreeing to merger consideration that does not
adequately reflect the true value of Delta, and (c) breaching its
fiduciary duties by having a flawed sale process.

The Parshall Complaint alleges similar breaches as the Halberstam
Complaint.  Additionally, the Parshall Complaint alleges, among
other things, that the Board violated certain laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with the filing of a preliminary
proxy statement containing materially false and misleading
statements.

A third lawsuit challenging the merger was filed on May 5, 2017,
Cole v. Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc. et al., in state circuit
court in Clark County, Kentucky (the "Cole Complaint"), by
purported shareholders of Delta.

The Cole Complaint also alleges similar breaches as the Halberstam
Complaint, including, among other things, that that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties in relation to the merger, including
breaching its fiduciary duty of disclosure in the proxy statement
filed with the SEC.  The Halberstam Complaint, the Parshall
Complaint and the Cole Complaint are referred to as the "Three
Complaints".

The Three Complaints seek, among other things, (a) to enjoin the
defendants from proceeding with the shareholder vote on the merger
or completing the merger on the agreed upon terms, (b)
certification as a class action on behalf of all Delta
shareholders similarly situated, and (c) an award of plaintiff's
costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and other equitable
relief as the court deems proper.

Additionally, the Parshall Complaint seeks rescission of the
merger or an award of rescissory damages, to the extent the merger
has already been consummated.

According to the Company, "Delta believes that the Three
Complaints are without merit and that no further disclosure is
required to supplement the proxy statement under applicable laws.
However, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties
inherent in such litigation, and without admitting any liability
or wrongdoing, Delta has determined to make certain supplemental
disclosures to the proxy statement as set forth below.  Plaintiffs
in all Three Complaints have agreed to dismiss their claims and /
or agreed not to file motions seeking expedited discovery and a
preliminary injunction in connection with the filing of these
supplemental disclosures.  Nothing in these supplemental
disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or
materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set
forth herein.  Delta and the other named defendants have
vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, that they have
committed any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful
acts that were alleged in the Three Complaints."

Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc. distributes or transports natural
gas in central and southeastern Kentucky.  It operates in two
segments, Regulated and Non-Regulated.  It was founded in 1949 and
is headquartered in Winchester, Kentucky.


DOLLAR TREE: Still Faces Distribution Center Employee Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit filed by a
distribution center employee originally in California state court,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 29, 2017.

Dollar Tree said, "The Company removed this lawsuit to federal
court.  The court is now considering the employee's motion to
certify the case as a state-wide class action."

In April 2015, a distribution center employee filed a class action
in California state court with allegations concerning wages, meal
and rest breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely
termination pay.  The employee filed an amended complaint in which
he abandoned his attempt to certify a nation-wide class of non-
exempt distribution center employees for alleged improper
calculation of overtime compensation.

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates variety retail stores in the United
States and Canada.  It operates in two segments, Dollar Tree and
Family Dollar.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is based in
Chesapeake, Virginia.



DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends PAGA Claims in Calif. Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. continues to defend itself in a class action
alleging Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claims in
California state court, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 29, 2017.

In April 2015, a former store manager filed a class action along
with Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claims in California
state court alleging store managers were improperly classified as
exempt employees and, among other things on behalf of all
California store employees, did not receive overtime compensation
and meal and rest periods.  The former employee also brought class
action claims asserting the Company failed to make wage statements
readily available to employees who did not receive paper checks.

The Company removed the case to federal court where the Court
denied certification of the classification issue and related
claims but has not ruled on the PAGA claims.  The Court did
certify a wage statement class.

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates variety retail stores in the United
States and Canada.  It operates in two segments, Dollar Tree and
Family Dollar.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is based in
Chesapeake, Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Putative Class Action on Background Checks Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. is facing putative class action filed by a
former store employee regarding its background check procedures,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 29, 2017.

In April 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action
in Florida state court brought by a former store employee
asserting the Company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act in
the way it handled background checks.  Specifically, the former
employee alleged the Company used disclosure forms that did not
meet the statute's requirements and failed to provide notices
accompanied by background reports prior to taking adverse actions
against prospective and existing employees based on information in
the background reports.  The plaintiff is seeking statutory
damages of US$100 to US$1,000 per violation.

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates variety retail stores in the United
States and Canada.  It operates in two segments, Dollar Tree and
Family Dollar.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is based in
Chesapeake, Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Finalizing Settlement of Female Store Managers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 29, 2017 that an agreement is still being finalized to
settle a class action against the Company segment Family Dollar
regarding its female store managers' pay.

In 2008, a complaint was filed alleging discriminatory practices
with respect to the pay of Family Dollar's female store managers.
Among other things, the plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay,
monetary and punitive remedies, interest, attorneys' fees, and
equitable relief.  In June 2016, the United States District Court
in North Carolina ordered that the case be continued for merits
discovery.  The court also certified the case as a class action of
approximately 30,000 current and former female store managers
employed as far back as July 2002.  A preliminary settlement has
been reached in this case and has been properly recorded by the
Company.  Other aspects of the settlement agreement are still
being finalized.

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates variety retail stores in the United
States and Canada.  It operates in two segments, Dollar Tree and
Family Dollar.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is based in
Chesapeake, Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Unit Still Faces PAGA Claims in Bag Check Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc.'s segment, Family Dollar, continues to face
Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claims in a putative class
action filed by a former employee regarding the Company's policy
on employee bag checks, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 29, 2017.

The Company said, "In 2014, a putative class action was filed in a
California Federal Court by a former employee alleging that the
Company had a policy of requiring employee bag checks while the
employees were not clocked in for work.  As a result of those
actions, the employee alleges the Company violated California law
by failing to provide meal periods and rest breaks, failing to pay
regular and overtime wages for work performed off the clock,
failing to provide accurate wage statements, failing to timely pay
all final wages and by engaging in unfair competition.  He has
also alleged PAGA claims.  The former employee dismissed his
individual claims after the court ruled that the claims were
subject to arbitration.  The court ruled that the PAGA claims may
proceed."

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates variety retail stores in the United
States and Canada.  It operates in two segments, Dollar Tree and
Family Dollar.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is based in
Chesapeake, Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Consumer Fraud Class Suit v. Family Dollar Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc.'s Family Dollar segment is facing a class action
suit in Illinois related to alleged consumer fraud, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 29, 2017.

The Company said, "In January 2017, a customer filed a class
action in federal court in Illinois alleging the Company violated
various state consumer fraud laws as well as express and implied
warranties by selling a product that purported to contain aloe
when it did not.  The requested class is limited to the state of
Illinois.  The Company believes that it is fully indemnified by
the entities that supplied it with the product."

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates variety retail stores in the United
States and Canada.  It operates in two segments, Dollar Tree and
Family Dollar.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is based in
Chesapeake, Virginia.


DS HEALTHCARE: September 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., on June 12 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of securities of DS
Healthcare Group, Inc. (OTCMKTS:DSKX):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:  ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SECURITIES OF
DS Healthcare Group, Inc. ON NASDAQ FROM May 15, 2014 through
April 3, 2016, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, that a
hearing will be held on September 28, 2017, at 1:15 p.m. before
the Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas, United States District
Judge of the Southern District of Florida, 299 East Broward
Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, Courtroom # 205b, for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the
claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including
the sum of $2,100,000 should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to
allocate the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (3) whether the application of Class Counsel for an
award of attorneys' fees of up to one third of the Settlement
Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $25,000, and an
incentive payment of no more than $10,000 in aggregate to Class
Representatives, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action
should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation
of Settlement dated May 26, 2017 (the "Settlement Stipulation").

If you purchased the securities of DS Healthcare Group Inc. ("DS
Healthcare") on the NASDAQ during the period from May 15, 2014
through April 3, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement
Class"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including
the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating
to your ownership interest in DS Healthcare securities.  If you
have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing to or
calling the Claims Administrator: In re DS Healthcare Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N.
Jackson St., Ste. 3, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866)
274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net, or going
to the website, www.strategicclaims.net.  If you are a member of
the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the
Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release
Form postmarked no later than August 15, 2017 to the Claims
Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound
by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a
claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no later
than August 15, 2017, in the manner and form explained in the
detailed Notice to the Claims Administrator.  All members of the
Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the
Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the
Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Class
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and award to Class Representatives must
be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and
received no later than September 14, 2017, to the following:

Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY  10016

Class Counsel

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to the Claims Administrator or Class Counsel at the
addresses provided above.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: June 1, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
[GN]


ECOPETROL S.A.: Oil Spill Class Action Still in Probatory Stage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F filed on May 30, 2017
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016 that a class action lawsuit related
to the Cano Limon - Covenas Crude Oil Pipeline Spill is in the
probatory stage.

On December 11, 2011, the Cano Limon-Covenas oil pipeline ruptured
and caused the spill of approximately 3,267 barrels of crude oil
into the Iscala creek, which connects with the Pamplonita River
that provides water to the city of Cucuta.  The incident did not
cause any fatalities or injuries.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecopetrol S.A.  and
against employees of the company, and the First Administrative
Court of Cucuta has jurisdiction to conduct the case, which is in
the probatory stage.

The Regional Environmental authority of Norte de Santander, or
Coporacion Autonoma Regional de la Frontera Nororiental (CORPONOR)
has filed a lawsuit against Ecopetrol at the First Administrative
Court of Cucuta claiming for (i) the environmental loss caused by
the incident and (ii) for compensation costs relating to the
environment damage for approximately COP33 billion.  Ecopetrol's
legal counsel filed to dismiss the lawsuit on June 2, 2014, based
on three grounds: (i) there is no proof of environmental loss,
(ii) CORPONOR does not have the authority to file this lawsuit and
(iii) CORPONOR's petition for direct compensation is not the
proper legal action according to the applicable procedural rules.
Currently this lawsuit is in probatory stage.

Ecopetrol and national and local authorities are developing a
project for the development of an alternative to the water supply
in the intake of the aqueduct in Cucuta, which was approved by the
Company's Board of Directors in December 2011 as part of the
strengthening of its contingency plans and its relationship with
its stakeholders.  Currently local authorities are attempting to
acquire the necessary economic resources for the project and
Ecopetrol has finalized the basic and detailed engineering.

Ecopetrol S.A. operates as an integrated oil company.  It operates
through three segments: Exploration and Production; Transport and
Logistics; and Refining, Petrochemical and Biofuels.  The Company
was formerly known as Empresa Colombiana de Petroleos and changed
its name to Ecopetrol S.A. in June 2003.  Ecopetrol S.A. was
founded in 1948 and is based in Bogota, Colombia.


ECOPETROL S.A.: BT Energy Challenger Vessel Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. continues to face lawsuit, originally filed as
class action, related to the BT Energy Challenger vessel,
according to the Company's Form 20-F filed on May 30, 2017 with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On October 22, 2014, the Company was served with a class action
suit seeking monetary damages of approximately COP7.4 trillion
related to an incident that occurred on August 21, 2014, during
the loading operations of the BT Energy Challenger vessel.  The
claimants alleged possible damage to the port area of Ecopetrol's
terminal in Covenas, as well as of marine and submarine areas and
beaches that form the geographical area of the Morrosquillo Gulf.
This allegation is currently under investigation by the Harbor
Master of Covenas.

Ecopetrol filed a motion requesting the judge to require the
claimants to amend their claim to more precisely set forth the
facts and evidence it believes establishes Ecopetrol's liability.

On March 3, 2015, Ecopetrol filed its statement of defense arguing
the exclusive fault of a third party.  On October 20, 2015, the
Court denied a class action of more than 100 informal traders in
the region because there is no common identity with the initial
class (hotel employees).  However, during 2016 the Sucre
Administrative Tribunal accepted another 1208 informal traders and
fishermen as claimants.

On March 10, 2017, a mandatory conciliatory hearing was held in
order to seek an agreement but it was declared unsuccessful.

Ecopetrol S.A. operates as an integrated oil company.  It operates
through three segments: Exploration and Production; Transport and
Logistics; and Refining, Petrochemical and Biofuels.  The Company
was formerly known as Empresa Colombiana de Petroleos and changed
its name to Ecopetrol S.A. in June 2003.  Ecopetrol S.A. was
founded in 1948 and is based in Bogota, Colombia.


ENDOLOGIX INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on June 12 disclosed
that a class action complaint was filed against Endologix, Inc.
(NASD: ELGX) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.  The complaint is brought on behalf of all
purchasers of Endologix securities between May 5, 2016 and
May 18, 2017.

Endologix, Inc. Accused of Lying to Investors About the Safety of
its Leading Product

According to the complaint, Endologix -- a manufacturer of medical
devices for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the
U.S. and internationally -- grossly misled shareholders concerning
the safety of Nellix, the company's primary selling point and
proposed solution to abdominal aortic aneurysms.  While assuring
investors that the device had positive clinical data and was on
track to be approved by the Federal Drug Administration ("FDA"),
Endologix officers concealed a "serious and unsolvable problem
with the Nellix device" in which it drifts from its initial
placement in the patient posing significant dangers to the
subject.  Endologix's officers received weekly, and sometimes
daily, briefings regarding the increasing number of complaints
from doctors who utilized the device in Europe and additionally
oversaw a "task force" to manage the dilemma.  Multiple Endologix
employees left the company "shocked and disgusted" when officers
praised Nellix on an investor call and failed to mention anything
about the migration issue.  On May 17, 2017, Endologix revealed it
would not be seeking FDA approval of the first generation Nellix
device, but would seek approval of a second generation Nellix
device, which will require a completely separate clinical trial
and will push the timeline for approval of Nellix to 2020. On this
news, Endologix stock fell nearly 40%, or $6.77 per share, to
close at $4.44 share on May 19, 2017.

Endologix Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law.  The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. [GN]


ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Solicitation Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a Tarzana man alleges his privacy was invaded by several
companies attempting to sell warranties for vehicles.

Vitaliy Sasin filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on May 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Enterprise Financial Group Inc.,
EFG Cos., Inc., Royal Administration Services Inc., Barantas Inc.,
et al. citing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that beginning
in April, the defendants contacted him in an attempt to solicit
their services for after-market automobile warranty policies.  The
plaintiff alleges his number was added to the National Do-Not-Call
Registry in June 2016.

The plaintiff holds Enterprise Financial Group Inc., EFG Cos.,
Inc., Royal Administration Services Inc., Barantas Inc., et al.
responsible because the defendants allegedly called the plaintiff
without having established a business relationship and without his
consent.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory
damages, $1,500 in treble damages, all legal fees and any other
relief as the court deems just.  He is represented by Niv V.
Davidovich -- ndavidovich@ohshlaw.com -- of Davidovich Kaufman
Legal Group APA in North Hollywood.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:17-cv-04022-CBM-RAO [GN]


FBR & CO: Appeal in Waterford Township Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
FBR & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that briefing is ongoing in the appeal in
the case, Waterford Township Police & Fire, Retirement System, vs.
Regional Management Corp. et al.

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

On March 1, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal; briefing is
ongoing and expected to be completed by the end of the third
quarter of 2017.

Regional Management continues to indemnify all of the
underwriters, including FBRCM, pursuant to the operative
underwriting agreement.


FBR & CO: Briefing on Motion to Dismiss "Gaynor" Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
FBR & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that briefing on the defendants' motions to
dismiss the case, Gaynor v. Miller et al., is ongoing.

On January 5, 2017, the complaints filed in November 2015 and May
2016 naming MLV as a defendant in putative class action lawsuits
alleging claims under the Securities Act in connection with the
offerings of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller") have been
consolidated.

The Master Consolidated Complaint, styled Gaynor v. Miller et al.,
is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, and, like its predecessor complaints,
continues to allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and
prospectuses issued in connection with six offerings (February 13,
2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26, 2013; October 17,
2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged
aggregate offering price of approximately $151 million.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement of certain costs and expenses. Although MLV is
contractually entitled to be indemnified by Miller in connection
with this lawsuit, Miller filed for bankruptcy in October 2015 and
this likely will decrease or eliminate the value of the indemnity
that MLV receives from Miller.

Briefing on the defendants' motions to dismiss is ongoing and
expected to be completed by the second quarter of 2017.


FBR & CO: Defending Suit over B. Riley Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------
FBR & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that the Company is defending against
litigation arising from the proposed acquisition of the Company by
B. Riley Financial, Inc.

The Company said, "We entered into an amended and restated plan of
merger, dated as of March 15, 2017, and effective as of February
17, 2017, with B. Riley Financial, Inc. and BRC Merger Sub, LLC
("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which we will merge with and into
Merger Sub (the "Merger"), with Merger Sub surviving the Merger.
Following the announcement of the Merger, two actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia."

"On April 4, 2017, a purported shareholder of our Company filed a
putative class action against the Company and the members of our
board of directors that challenges the disclosures made in
connection with the Merger, styled Michael Rubin v. FBR & Co., et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00410-LMB-MSN.  The Rubin complaint alleges
that the registration statement filed in connection with the
Merger fails to disclose certain allegedly material information in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder.  The alleged omissions generally relate to (i) certain
financial projections; (ii) alleged conflicts of interest faced by
our executive officers and our financial advisor, (iii) the
process prior to the Merger; and (iv) certain valuation analyses
performed by our financial advisor.

"Based on these allegations, the plaintiff in the Rubin action
seeks to enjoin the forth coming shareholder vote on the Merger
and the consummation of the Merger or, in the alternative, for
rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages.  The plaintiff in
the Rubin action also seeks certain costs and fees, including
attorneys' and experts' fees.

"On April 12, 2017, another purported shareholder of the Company
filed a second putative class action against the same defendants
that also challenges the disclosures made in connection with the
Merger, styled Woo J. Kim v. FBR & Co., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-
004440LMB-IDD.  The Kim complaint asserts substantially the same
claims as the Rubin complaint, and those claims are based on
substantially the same categories of alleged omissions.  The
plaintiff in the Kim action seeks to enjoin the consummation of
the Merger or, in the alternative, for rescission of the merger or
rescissory damages.  The plaintiff in the Kim action also seeks
damages and certain costs and fees, including attorneys' and
experts' fees.

"Although we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these actions,
we believe that the allegations asserted are without merit."


FCA US LLC: Refuses to Cover Repairs in Jeeps, Mooradians Say
-------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA MOORADIAN and WILLIAM MOORADIAN, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01132-JG (N.D. Ohio), concerns Chrysler's alleged refusal to honor
its warranty and cover the cost of repairing a manufacturing
defect in the engines of Chrysler's Jeep Wrangler model years
2012-2017.

During the engine-production process, Chrysler does not
sufficiently purge the casting sand from the engine (the
"Manufacturing Defect"), the Mooradians allege.  As a result of
excess sand in the engine, the Jeeps' radiators and oil coolers
fill with a sludge-like residue that damages and ultimately
destroys these and other components (collectively, "Affected
Components") of the class vehicles, they contend.  The Plaintiffs
bring claims under breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranties, breach of the Magnusson Moss Warranty Act, and breach
of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.

FCA US LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
headquarters in Auburn Hills, Metro Detroit.  The Company is an
automotive manufacturer.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          Drew Legando, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
          E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
                  drew@lgmlegal.com

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          John Hunter Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
                  hunter@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com


FIELDTURF USA: LakeView Parties Agree to Extend Time to Respond
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit captioned LAKEVIEW DAY CAMP, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated v. FIELDTURF USA,
Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-3301-MAS-TJB (D.N.J.), stipulated and
agreed that the Defendant will move, answer, or otherwise respond
to the complaint on or before a date to be set by the Court, or,
in the event that the Court does not set a schedule for a
response, 45 days from June 16, 2017.

The LakeView Action is part of the multidistrict litigation
entitled IN RE FIELDTURF ARTIFICIAL TURF MARKETING AND SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:17-md-02779-MAS-TJB (D.N.J.).

The Parties also stipulated and agreed that they reserve the right
to seek further extensions of the deadlines.[BN]

Plaintiff LakeView Day Camp is represented by:

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

Defendant FieldTurf USA, Inc., is represented by:

          Gavin J. Rooney, Esq.
          Joseph Aldo Fischetti, Esq.
          LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
          65 Livingston Ave.
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 597-2500
          Facsimile: (973) 597-2400
          E-mail: grooney@lowenstein.com
                  jfischetti@lowenstein.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Atkins, Esq.
          Jonathan H. Hurwitz, Esq.
          Kaveri Vaid, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 757-3990
          E-mail: ratkins@paulweiss.com
                  jhurwitz@paulweiss.com
                  kvaid@paulweiss.com


FLOOR & DECOR: Unit Still Faces Chinese Laminate Flooring Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. is still defending
itself in a lawsuit related to certain Chinese-manufactured
laminate flooring products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2017.  The Company has previously
entered into a classwide settlement, which has been finally
approved by the court in January 2017.  The pending claims
included those filed by the members excluded from the settlement
class or any personal injury claims.

On December 11, 2015, six plaintiffs filed a putative nationwide
class action against the Company's subsidiary, "F&D" in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
alleging that certain Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring
products sold by F&D were falsely labeled as compliant with
formaldehyde emissions standards established by California Air
Resources Board ("CARB").

In June 2016, management believed a settlement of the case was
both probable and estimable and accrued US$14 million with respect
to such case in the second quarter of fiscal 2016.

During the third quarter of fiscal 2016, F&D reached an agreement
with one of the manufacturers whose products were involved in the
case to cover US$3.5 million of the Company's losses related to
this lawsuit.  The Company recorded the US$3.5 million receivable
as an offset to litigation settlement expenses.

In September 2016, F&D entered into a classwide settlement to
resolve the lawsuit.  The settlement class was defined as all end
users of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by F&D
nationwide between January 1, 2012 and August 1, 2015.  As part of
the settlement, all settlement class members who did not exclude
themselves from the settlement granted F&D a release of all claims
arising out of or relating to their purchase of Chinese-
manufactured laminate flooring from F&D, with the exception of
personal injury claims.  Seven members of the settlement class
excluded themselves from the settlement.

The settlement was granted final approval by the court on January
10, 2017 and did not involve an admission of liability by F&D.

The Company said, "As of March 30, 2017, the Company does not
believe that claims by the members excluded from the settlement
class or any personal injury claims are reasonably possible to
result in a material loss to the Company in excess of the amounts
already accrued."

Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. operates as a multi-channel specialty
retailer of hard surface flooring and related accessories.  The
company's stores offer tile, wood, laminate, and natural stone
flooring products, as well as decorative and installation
accessories.  It serves professional installers, commercial
businesses, and do it yourself customers.  It operates 72
warehouse-format stores across 17 states. The Company also sells
products through its Website, FloorandDecor.com.  The Company was
formerly known as FDO Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Floor
& Decor Holdings, Inc. in April 2017.  Floor & Decor Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 2000 and is based in Smyrna, Georgia.


FOX NEWS: Says Workplace Racial Discrimination Claims Meritless
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Snider, writing for USA TODAY, reports that a former Fox News
accountant says a legal action, which claims she racially
discriminated against more than a dozen Fox News minority
employees, is a "reprehensible money grab," in a court filing.

In an initial suit, filed March 29 in the Bronx Supreme Court in
New York, two black women alleged they suffered a "years-long
racial animus" in the workplace from Judith Slater, a former
senior vice president and company controller.  Fox fired
Ms. Slater on Feb. 28.

Since then, their attorneys have sought to expand the suit to
class action status, enlarging it to 13 former and current Fox
employees including former Fox and Friends co-host Kelly Wright.
That suit also lists 21st Century Fox, Fox News and Fox general
counsel Dianne Brandi as defendants.

But in a motion filed on June 9, Ms. Slater argues the case should
not be expanded and the claims are "baseless."  Under Slater's
supervision, Fox News' accounting group became "one of Fox News'
most diverse departments" and she promoted the plaintiffs,
according to the motion, filed by attorney Catherine Foti of New
York law firm Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC.

"Although the employees would at times discuss issues of race and
ethnicity, these discussions were never hostile," the filing says.

Tichaona Brown, one of the two original plaintiffs, and
Monica Douglas, a third accounting department employee added to
the case April 4, "regularly introduced racial and ethnic topics
in conversations with (Slater) and the rest of the Accounting
Group, joked about themselves and their cultural heritage," Ms.
Slater says in the filing.

Ms. Slater notes that Ms. Brown would joke that she was teaching
Ms. Slater "Urban" language usage and "she believed Ms. Slater was
'ready for phase II of urban linguistics!!'," the filing says.

And Ms. Slater says her and Ms. Douglas had a friendship "widely
recognized at Fox News, where the two would often visit each
other's offices and share intimate details of their lives over
coffee," the filing says.

With their lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek "to revise this history
and disassociate conversations from all context until they bear no
resemblance to the truth," the filing says.  The legal action
amounts to "nothing more than a meritless and reprehensible money
grab," reads the filing.

The inclusion of Wright among the plaintiffs should result in the
denial of class action status, the filing says, because Wright did
not work with or for Slater and "does not assert that he
personally interacted with Ms. Slater in any capacity, or that he
was ever aware of Ms. Slater's allegedly discriminatory conduct."

Additional reasons for dismissal, according to the filing: Wright
is required to arbitrate any claims under his employment
agreement, and another plaintiff, Musfiq Rahman, released any
claims he could have against Slater by signing a severance
agreement in March 2015.

One of the plaintiffs' attorneys, Douglas Wigdor, said that Fox
News justified its firing of Slater because her behavior as
"abhorrent," he said. "Any attempt to walk back that
characterization and suggest that our clients were willing
participants in this racist behavior is a classic and transparent
attempt to somehow blame the victim," he said in a statement. [GN]


GREEN TREE: 6 Subclasses Certified in "Geary" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled BRIAN & CONNIE GEARY, on behalf of
Themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00522 (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order grating Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class, with the following modifications:

   1. the Court grants certification of six subclasses, rather
      than one class, based on the class members to whom
      Defendant sent each letter Plaintiffs allege to violate the
      FDCPA by omitting the Validation Notice; and

   2. the Court grants certification for the purposes of
      liability and statutory damages (as opposed to actual
      damages and emotional distress) only.

Accordingly, the six subclasses are certified, for the purposes of
liability and statutory damages only, as follows:

   "all persons who were sent by Defendant Green Tree Servicing,
   LLC, from June 3, 2014 to present, the letter in the form of
   the exemplar";

   "all persons who were sent by Defendant Green Tree Servicing,
   LLC, from June 3, 2014 to present, the letter in the form of
   the exemplar";

   "all persons who were sent by Defendant Green Tree Servicing,
   LLC, from June 3, 2014 to present, the letter in the form of
   the exemplar";

   "all persons who were sent by Defendant Green Tree Servicing,
   LLC, from June 3, 2014 to present, the letter in the form of
   the exemplar";

   "all persons who were sent by Defendant Green Tree Servicing,
   LLC, from June 3, 2014 to present, the letter in the form of
   the exemplar"; and

   "all persons who were sent by Defendant Green Tree Servicing,
   LLC, from June 3, 2014 to present, the letter in the form of
   the exemplar";

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=co4Swa9p


GUAM INDUSTRIAL: Must Face Axed Employees' WARN Act Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louella Losinio, writing for The Guam Daily Post, reports that
attorneys in the class action lawsuit against Guam Industrial
Services Inc., which does business as Guam Shipyard, are compiling
the names of employees who were terminated in October 2013
following the loss of a $77.9 million contract to Cabras Marine
Corp. for ship repair by the U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command
(MSC).

Guam Shipyard dismissed more than 150 employees, four days after
MSC awarded the contract to Cabras.  The employees, identified on
a "Terminated Employees List," constitute the proposed class
members of the suit.

The class action lawsuit against Guam Shipyard moved forward
following a recent decision from Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-
Gatewood of the District Court of Guam granting class
certification, which meant the terminated workers met the
requirements to pursue the suit against their former employer.

In the decision, members of the class constitutes all persons who
were employed by Guam Shipyard who were considered "affected
employees" as defined under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification (WARN) Act.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the WARN Act "offers
protection to workers, their families and communities by requiring
employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of covered plant
closings and covered mass layoffs.  This notice must be provided
to either affected workers or their representatives (e.g., a labor
union); to the State dislocated worker unit; and to the
appropriate unit of local government."

In a legal notice released on June 12, the attorneys encouraged
the former employees to contact the attorneys representing the
class, adding that the "court wants to make sure everyone who is a
part of the class understands their rights under the lawsuit."

'Terminated effective immediately'

According to court documents, the plaintiffs and other employees
"received written notices notifying them that they were terminated
effective immediately."  The reason for termination, according to
the Personnel Action Form, was MSC's decision not to award the
ship repair services contract to Guam Shipyard.

"While terminating local labor, Guam Shipyard retained its H-2
labor force all to the detriment of the local labor force and
Guam's economy," the plaintiffs said.

Prior to the mass layoff, Guam Shipyard employed a total of 233
U.S. workers and 70 H-2 workers.  The fired workers were U.S.
citizens and permanent residents. [GN]


HEALTH SYSTEMS: Sent Illegal SMS Ads, "Verbiscar-Brown" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Verbiscar-Brown, an individual, Julia Hanagan, an
individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Health Systems Direct, Inc., a Florida Profit
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-61150 (N.D. Cal., June 8,
2017), seeks damages, injunctive relief and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, resulting from willfully contacting
Plaintiffs through SMS or their wireless telephones without prior
consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Health Systems Direct, Inc. is a business that advertises and
provides various sales presentations to potential customers
offering trips to destinations if the patrons are willing to
attend various sales presentations, usually on various bridal
expos. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas A. Kearney, Esq.
      Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq.
      KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD LLP
      3436 N. Verdugo Rd., Ste. 230
      Glendale, CA 91208
      Telephone (213) 473-1900
      Facsimile (213) 473-1919
      Email: tak@kearneylittlefield.com
             pwl@kearneylittlefield.com

             - and -

      Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
      Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
      STONEBARGER LAW, APC
      75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
      Folsom, CA 95630
      Telephone: (916) 235-7140
      Facsimile: (916) 235-7141
      Email: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
             rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com


HORIZON PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss "Schaffer" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Pharma Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated case captioned as, Schaffer v.
Horizon Pharma plc, et al., remains pending.

Beginning on March 8, 2016, two federal securities class action
lawsuits (captioned Schaffer v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al., Case
No. 16-cv-01763-JMF and Banie v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al., Case
No. 16-cv-01789-JMF) were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former officers (the
"Officer Defendants"). On March 24, 2016, the court consolidated
the two actions under Schaffer v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al.

On June 3, 2016, the court appointed Locals 302 and 612 of the
International Union of Operating Engineers-Employers Construction
Industry Retirement Trust and the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund
for Northern California as lead plaintiffs and Labaton Sucharow
LLP as lead counsel. On July 25, 2016, lead plaintiffs and
additional named plaintiff Automotive Industries Pension Trust
Fund filed their consolidated complaint, which they subsequently
amended on October 7, 2016, including additional current and
former officers, the Company's Board of Directors (the "Director
Defendants"), and underwriters involved with the Company's April
2015 public offering (the "Underwriter Defendants") as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company and the Officer
Defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making false and/or
misleading statements about, among other things: (a) the Company's
financial performance, (b) the Company's business prospects and
drug-pricing practices, (c) the Company's sales and promotional
practices, and (d) the Company's design, implementation,
performance, and risks associated with the Company's
Prescriptions-Made-Easy program. The plaintiffs allege that
certain of the Company, the Director Defendants and the
Underwriter Defendants violated sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities Act") in
connection with the Company's April 2015 public offering. The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of damages allegedly
sustained by plaintiffs and the putative class, including a
reasonable allowance for costs and attorneys' fees.

On November 14, 2016, all defendants moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaint. Plaintiffs' filed their opposition
to the motion to dismiss on December 21, 2016. Briefing on the
motion to dismiss was completed on January 27, 2017 and the
parties await the court's ruling.

Horizon Pharma is a biopharmaceutical company.


HORIZON PHARMA: Confidential Deal Reached in "Lavrenov" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Pharma Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
and the Plaintiffs have entered into a confidential settlement
agreement resolving all potential claims for attorney fees in the
case, Lavrenov v. Raptor Pharmaceutical Corp., et al.

Between October 5 and October 7, 2016, two complaints (captioned
Lavrenov v. Raptor Pharmaceutical Corp., et al., Case No. 16-cv-
00901, and Jordan v. Raptor Pharmaceutical Corp., et al., Case No.
16-cv-00913) were filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware. Both actions were filed against Raptor
and each member of Raptor's board of directors. The Company and
Misneach Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company,
were named as defendants in the Lavrenov action, but not the
Jordan action.

The actions were brought by purported stockholders of Raptor, on
their own behalf and as a putative class of Raptor stockholders,
and assert causes of action under Sections 14 and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Lavrenov action
also asserts breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting
claims under Delaware law. The complaints allege, among other
things, that the process leading up to the Raptor acquisition was
inadequate and that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Raptor with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") omits certain
material information, which allegedly renders the information
disclosed materially misleading. The complaints seek, among other
things, to enjoin the Raptor acquisition, or in the event the
Raptor acquisition is consummated, to recover money damages.

On October 17, 2016, Raptor filed an amended Schedule 14D-9 with
the SEC. Plaintiffs did not file a motion to preliminarily enjoin
the Raptor acquisition, which was completed on October 25, 2016.

On December 2, 2016, named plaintiffs dismissed both suits with
prejudice as to named plaintiffs, and without prejudice to any
other potential party. The court retained jurisdiction solely for
the purpose of ruling upon plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees,
in the event such a motion is filed. The Company and the
Plaintiffs have subsequently entered into a confidential
settlement agreement resolving all potential claims for attorney
fees.

Horizon Pharma is a biopharmaceutical company.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: "Glenn" Suit Seeks to Certify 17 Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BILLY GLENN, KATHY WARBURTON, KIM FAMA,
CORINNE KANE, ROXANA FITZMAURICE, and JAHAN MULLA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA and HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 8:15-cv-02052-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Roxana
Fitzmaurice, Billy Glenn, Kim Fama, Jahan Mulla, Kathy Warburton,
and Corinne Kane will move the Court on October 30, 2017, before
the Hon. Judge David O. Carter, District Judge of the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, for
entry of an order certifying classes; appointing Plaintiffs'
attorneys, Gibbs Law Group LLP and Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC, to
serve as class counsel; and directing notice to class members.

Roxana Fitzmaurice seeks to certify and represent the following
California statewide classes for her claims for (i) breach of
express warranty (in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act;
(ii) violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code; (iii) unjust enrichment; (iv) breach of implied
warranty (in violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act,
Cal. Civ. Code.); and (v) violation of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA):

California Express Warranty Class:

   "all persons and entities who purchased or leased a Class
   Vehicle in California and who paid to repair a shattered
   panoramic sunroof within the applicable warranty period.

California UCL, Unjust Enrichment, & Song-Beverly Class:

   "all persons and entities who bought or leased a new Class
   Vehicle in California"; and

California CLRA Class:

   "all persons and entities who bought or leased a Class Vehicle
   in California".

Plaintiff Billy Glenn seeks to certify and represent the following
Alabama statewide classes for his claims for (i) breach of express
warranty (in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act); (ii)
violation of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA); and
(iii) unjust enrichment:

Alabama Express Warranty Class:

   "all persons and entities who purchased or leased a Class
   Vehicle in Alabama and who paid to repair a shattered
   panoramic sunroof within the applicable warranty period";

Alabama Unjust Enrichment Class:

   "all persons and entities who bought or leased a new Class
   Vehicle in Alabama"; and

Alabama DTPA Class:

   "all persons and entities who bought or leased a Class Vehicle
   in Alabama".

Kim Fama seeks to certify and represent the following New
Hampshire statewide classes for her claims for (i) breach of
express warranty (in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act);
(ii) violation of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act (CPA);
and (iii) unjust enrichment:

New Hampshire Express Warranty Class:

   "all persons and entities who purchased or leased a Class
   Vehicle in New Hampshire and who paid to repair a shattered
   panoramic sunroof within the applicable warranty period".

New Hampshire Unjust Enrichment Class:

   "all persons and entities who bought or leased a new Class
   Vehicle in New Hampshire".

New Hampshire CPA Class:

   "all persons and entities who bought or leased a Class Vehicle
   in New Hampshire".

Plaintiff Jahan Mulla seeks to certify and represent the following
New Jersey statewide classes for her claims for (i) breach of
express warranty (in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act;
and (ii) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA):

New Jersey Express Warranty Class:

   "all persons and entities who purchased or leased a Class
   Vehicle in New Jersey and who paid to repair a shattered
   panoramic sunroof within the applicable warranty period"; and

New Hampshire CFA Class:

   all persons and entities who bought or leased a new Class
   Vehicle in New Jersey.

Kathy Warburton seeks to certify and represent the following Texas
statewide classes for her claims for (i) breach of express
warranty (in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act); (ii)
violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer
Protection Act (DTP-CPA); and (iii) unjust enrichment:

Texas Express Warranty Class:

   "all persons and entities who purchased or leased a Class
   Vehicle in Texas and who paid to repair a shattered panoramic
   sunroof within the applicable warranty period";

Texas Unjust Enrichment Class:

   "all persons and entities who bought or leased a new Class
   Vehicle in Texas".

Texas DTP-CPA Class:

   "all persons and entities who bought or leased a Class Vehicle
   in Texas".

Corinne Kane seeks to certify and represent the following
Washington statewide classes for her claims for (i) breach of
express warranty (in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act);
(ii) violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA);
and (iii) unjust enrichment:

Washington Express Warranty Class:

   "all persons and entities who purchased or leased a Class
   Vehicle in Washington and who paid to repair a shattered
   panoramic sunroof within the applicable warranty period".

Washington Unjust Enrichment Class:

   "all persons and entities who bought or leased a new Class
   Vehicle in Washington"; and

Washington CPA Class:

   "all persons and entities who bought or leased a Class Vehicle
   in Washington".

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fFBA8pKd

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
           David Stein, Esq.
           GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
           505 14th Street, Suite 1110
           Oakland, CA 94612
           Telephone: (510) 350 9700
           Facsimile: (510) 350 9701
           E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                    ds@classlawgroup.com

                - and -

           Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
           Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
           TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
           1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200
           Seattle, Washington 98101
           Telephone: (206) 682 5600
           Facsimile: (206) 682 2992
           E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
                   jdennett@tousley.com


IMPERVA INC: Class Certification Motion Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Imperva, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the motion for class
certification of a shareholder lawsuit remains pending.

On April 11, 2014, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers.

On August 7, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing lead
plaintiff and counsel for the purported class. The lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2014. The lawsuit named
the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
purported to bring suit on behalf of those investors who purchased
the Company's publicly traded securities between May 2, 2013 and
April 9, 2014. The plaintiff alleged that defendants made false
and misleading statements about the Company's operations and
business and financial results and purported to assert claims for
violations of the federal securities laws. The amended complaint
sought unspecified compensatory damages, interest thereon, costs
incurred in the action and equitable/injunctive or other relief.

On January 6, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On September 17, 2015, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 13, 2016,
again naming the same current and former officers, alleging false
and misleading statements about the Company's operations and
business and financial results, and seeking the same relief.

On February 10, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On May 16, 2016, the Court granted the motion
in part and denied the motion in part.  On September 7, 2016,
defendants filed their operative answer to the amended complaint.

On October 19, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On April 3, 2017, defendants filed an opposition to
the motion for class certification.

Imperva, Inc. was incorporated in April 2002 in Delaware. The
Company is headquartered in Redwood Shores, California and has
subsidiaries located throughout the world including Israel, Asia
and Europe. The Company is engaged in the development, marketing,
sales, service and support of cyber-security solutions that
protect business-critical data and applications whether in the
cloud or on premises.


INFILAW CORP: "Barchiesi" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ROBERT C. BARCHIESI and LEJLA HADZIC,
Individually and in a representative capacity on behalf of a class
of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC and INFILAW CORPORATION, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00861-GCM (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to certify 2 classes:

Fall 2016 Semester Class:

   "any student who paid or caused to be paid tuition and/or fees
   to Defendants to attend Charlotte School of Law for the Fall
   2016 semester, beginning on or about August 8, 2016, and
   ending on or about December 13, 2016, whether through loans,
   gifts, personal funds or otherwise"; and

Summer 2016 Semester Class:

   "any student who paid or caused to be paid tuition and/or fees
   to Defendants to attend Charlotte School of Law for the Summer
   2016 semester, beginning on or about May 16, 2016, and ending
   on or about July 29, 2016, whether through loans, gifts,
   personal funds or otherwise".

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court for an order appointing
Plaintiffs as Class Representative and appointing Plaintiffs'
counsel from Martin & Jones, PLLC and Shipman & Wright, LLP, as
Interim Class Counsel and Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=by8OHCYy

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          H. Forest Horne, Esq.
          John Alan Jones, Esq.
          Karl J. Amelechenko, Esq.
          Steven D. Corrive
          MARTIN & JONES, PLLC
          410 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 200
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 821 0005
          E-mail: jaj@m-j.com
                  hfh@m-j.com
                  kja@m-j.com

               - and -

          Gary K.Shipman, Esq.
          Kyle J. Nutt, Esq.
          Angelique Adams, Esq.
          SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP
          575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106
          Wilmington, NC 28405
          Telephone: (910) 762 1990
          E-mail: gshipman@shipmanlaw.com
                  knutt@shipmanlaw.com
                  aadams@shipmanlaw.com


J. CREW: Reed Smith Comments on Dismissal of Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Willett, Esq. -- bwillett@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith, in
an article for Mondaq, wrote that as courts continue to grapple
with close calls on standing following the U.S. Supreme Court's
seminal decision in Spokeo v. Robins, another court has given
defendants a win for intangible injuries and risk of future harm.
On June 6, the District of New Jersey dismissed -- for the second
time -- a putative class action lodged against J. Crew for a
technical violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act ("FACTA") because the alleged damages were too speculative to
establish Article III standing.

In Kamal v. J. Crew, et al., 2017 WL 2443062 (D.N.J. June 6,
2017), U.S. District Judge William Martini granted J. Crew's
motion to dismiss plaintiff Ahmed Kamal's Second Amended Complaint
alleging the retailer printed too many credit card digits on
receipts because -- pursuant to Spokeo and a 2017 Third Circuit
decision applying Spokeo -- plaintiff failed to allege a
sufficiently concrete injury.

Plaintiff alleged that J. Crew willfully violated FACTA by
printing the first six and last four digits of plaintiff's credit
card number on receipts, as FACTA directs that businesses shall
not "print more than the last 5 digits of the card number." As
described by Judge Martini, the Complaint's allegations boiled
down to two distinct injuries: (1) disclosure of information
considered "intrinsically private" by law; and (2) increased risk
of future credit card fraud or identity theft.  Ultimately,
though, neither injury was a "concrete" harm, and thus plaintiff
failed to establish constitutional standing, leading to the
dismissal.

Injury to Privacy Rights

Analyzing plaintiff's first theory, the court noted that "[t]here
is no meaningful relationship between J. Crew's conduct and any
privacy interest historically recognized at common law."  Contrary
to the situation leading to the In re Horizon Healthcare Servs.
Data Breach Litig. ruling from the Third Circuit earlier this
year, where information was disclosed to third parties or used to
perpetuate credit-card or tax fraud, J. Crew did not disclose
plaintiff's personal information.  Further, where no unauthorized
access to personal information was alleged, the digit printing
"does not implicate the historic 'right to be let alone,'
particularly when the first six digits do not pertain to the
customer's individual bank account," the court noted.

Turning to the "judgment of Congress" factor identified in Spokeo,
Judge Martini observed that while Congress "undoubtedly hoped that
FACTA would reduce identity theft," that didn't mean it
contemplated "private actions by individuals who have not
sustained any actual harm."  Rather, the legislative history
indicated that the filing and appealing of such cases was a
"significant burden" on the companies sued.  Thus, this factor
indicated the injury was not sufficient to establish standing.

Material Risk of Future Harm

Next, the court concluded that the degree of potential risk for
future identity theft was too low to constitute a concrete harm.
Because the first six digits of a credit card number refer to the
card issuer and the last 10 refer to the specific account, J.
Crew's printing of the first six and last four digits didn't
provide any more information to potential identity thieves than
permitted by statute; in fact, the practice arguably provided less
information than FACTA's last-five-digits limit.

While the Complaint noted risks from both "dumpster divers" and
more sophisticated thieves, the court found the threat from the
former to be based on an overly speculative chain of events
because of the requirement that the third party would need to
obtain the remaining digits as well as the expiration date,
security code, and/or zip code to actually make purchases.
Accordingly, that risk was insufficient to confer standing. The
court found plaintiff's allegations as to sophisticated thieves to
be vague and unsupported, with plaintiff's only exhibits allegedly
supporting the theory concerning conditions in which the entire
credit card number was already obtained.

Thus, based on Spokeo and Horizon, the intangible harms pleaded by
plaintiff could not be elevated to the standard of concrete
injuries, and the court dismissed the complaint for lack of
standing.

Conclusion

As this latest example of post-Spokeo defense victories indicates,
defendants overlooking potential standing arguments do so at their
peril.  Where a Complaint alleges intangible injuries and bare
statutory violations paired with potential risks of future harm, a
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be
viable.  As shown in Judge Martini's analysis, defendants should
look to Congressional intent, historical common-law, and practical
wisdom in crafting dismissal arguments. [GN]


JSCM CORP: Faces "Dolores" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELEAZAR DOLORES and MOISES DOLORES, individually, and on behalf of
similarly-situated employees v. JSCM CORP., d/b/a TAL BAGELS,
INC., HAE JOO MINN, and SUNG KEY MINN, Case No. 1:17-cv-04152-GHW
(S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2017), seeks monetary, declaratory and
injunctive relief to redress alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

JSCM Corp., doing business as Tal Bagels, Inc., is a restaurant
located in New York City.  The Individual Defendants are owners,
operators, and/or managers of a restaurant operated under the name
Tal Bagels.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hope Pordy, Esq.
          SPIVAK LIPTON LLP
          1700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 765-2100
          Facsimile: (212) 541-5429
          E-mail: hpordy@spivaklipton.com


KLEENMARK SERVICES: Sued by Marroquin Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
HELEN MARROQUIN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. KLEENMARK SERVICES CORP., 1210 Ann Street, Madison, WI
53713, Case No. 3:17-cv-00426-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), alleges that the
Defendant deprived the Plaintiff and the putative class members of
overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Wisconsin Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Ms. Marroquin brings the action on behalf of herself and on behalf
of all other similarly-situated employees:

   (1) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  The Collective
       Class of similarly-situated employees is defined as:

       All persons who have been or are currently employed by
       KleenMark Services Corp. as cleaners who have not been
       compensated at a rate of one-and-one-half times their
       regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek
       at any time from three years prior to the commencement of
       this lawsuit to the present and ongoing;

   (2) pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
       Procedure.  The Wisconsin Overtime Class is defined as:

       All persons who have been or are currently employed by
       KleenMark Services Corp. as cleaners who have not been
       compensated at a rate of one-and-one-half times their
       regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek
       at any time from two years prior to the commencement of
       this lawsuit to the present and ongoing; and

   (3) pursuant to Rule 23.  The Wisconsin Travel Time Class is
       defined as:

       All persons who have been or are currently employed by
       KleenMark Services Corp. as cleaners who have not been
       compensated for all hours worked at any time from two
       years prior to the commencement of this lawsuit to the
       present and ongoing.

KleenMark Services Corp., is a domestic business with its
principal office in Madison, Wisconsin.  KleenMark employed the
Plaintiff and the putative class members, during the three years
preceding the lawsuit, as cleaners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Zoeller, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Madden, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          409 E. Main St.
          P.O. Box 2155
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 257-0040
          Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
          E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com
                  cmadden@hq-law.com


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Class Action Appeal Pending in 11th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Plaintiffs' appeal
in a class action lawsuit remains pending in the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals.

Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville from December 29, 1988 until its closure in 2009. The
property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located
was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East in 2010.

In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed by
residential real property owners located in a neighborhood west of
and immediately adjacent to the former utility pole treatment
plant in Gainesville. The complaint named Koppers Holdings Inc.,
Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other parties as defendants.
In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that chemicals
and contaminants from the Gainesville plant have contaminated real
properties, have caused property damage (diminution in value) and
have placed residents and owners of the putative class properties
at an elevated risk of exposure to and injury from the chemicals
at issue. The plaintiffs presently seek a class comprised of all
current property owners of single family residential properties
with a polygon-shaped area extending approximately two miles from
the former plant area (which area encompasses approximately 7,000
owners).

The case is being heard in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Florida. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification in September 2015 and the response of Koppers
Inc. was filed in October 2015.

A hearing on plaintiffs' motions for class certification and the
parties' motions relating to experts was held in January 2016.

On March 20, 2017, the district court denied the motion for class
certification and also granted the motion to strike several of the
plaintiffs' expert witnesses. Plaintiffs filed a petition seeking
to appeal the order with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on
April 3, 2017.

The Company has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at
this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a
loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated. The timing of resolution of this case cannot be
reasonably determined. Although the Company is vigorously
defending this case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.


LIONS GATE: Consolidated Starz Merger Class Action Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class lawsuit captioned In re Starz Stockholder
Litigation is still ongoing, according to Lions Gate Entertainment
Corp.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.

On June 30, 2016, the Company entered into the Merger Agreement
with Starz and Orion Arm Acquisition Inc. a Delaware corporation
and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub"),
pursuant to which Merger Sub merged with and into Starz, with
Starz continuing as the surviving corporation and becoming an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.

Between July 19, 2016 and August 30, 2016, seven putative class
action complaints were filed by purported Starz stockholders in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  These actions
have been consolidated into In re Starz Stockholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 12584-VCG, and the plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed a verified consolidated class action
complaint on August 16, 2016.

The complaint names as defendants the members of the board of
directors of Starz; Dr. Malone and Leslie Malone; Mr. Bennett and
Deborah J. Bennett; The Tracey L. Neal Trust A; The Evan D. Malone
Trust A; Hilltop Investments, LLC ("Hilltop"); Dr. Rachesky; Lions
Gate; and Merger Sub.

It alleges, among other things, that the members of the Starz
board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and the
holders of Starz Series A common stock in connection with the
merger and related transactions; that Dr. Malone is a controlling
stockholder of Starz who breached fiduciary duties owed to other
Starz stockholders in connection with the merger and related
transactions; and that the other defendants aided and abetted such
breaches of fiduciary duty.

On August 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
proceedings.  On September 22, 2016, the court denied the motion.

On January 17, 2017, the court granted a stipulation dismissing
without prejudice the claims against former Starz directors Irving
Azoff, Susan Lyne, Robert Wiesenthal, Andrew Heller, and Jeffrey
Sagansky, as well as Mr. Bennett, Deborah Bennett, Leslie Malone,
Hilltop, The Tracey L. Neal Trust A, and The Evan D. Malone Trust
A.

On January 26, 2017, the court granted a stipulation dismissing
without prejudice the claims against Dr. Rachesky.

The remaining defendants filed answers to the verified
consolidated class action complaint on January 24, 2017.
Defendants intend to defend the action vigorously.

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. engages in motion picture
production and distribution, television programming and
syndication, home entertainment, interactive ventures and games,
and location-based entertainment in Canada, the United States, and
internationally.  The Company operates through three segments:
Motion Pictures, Television Production, and Media Networks.  The
Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Santa Monica,
California.


LIONS GATE: Gross v. Malone, et al. Class Lawsuit Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action in Colorado styled Gross v. John C.
Malone, et al., 2016-CV-32873 remains stayed pending the final
resolution of a class action in Delaware, according to Lions Gate
Entertainment Corp.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.

On June 30, 2016, the Company entered into the Merger Agreement
with Starz and Orion Arm Acquisition Inc. a Delaware corporation
and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub"),
pursuant to which Merger Sub merged with and into Starz, with
Starz continuing as the surviving corporation and becoming an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.

On August 9, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed by
a purported Starz stockholder in the District Court for the City
and County of Denver, Colorado: Gross v. John C. Malone, et al.,
2016-CV-32873.

The complaint names as defendants the members of the board of
directors of Starz, Dr. Malone and Mr. Bennett, as well as Lions
Gate and Merger Sub.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of the
Starz board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz
and the holders of Starz Series A common stock in connection with
the merger and the transactions contemplated by the merger
agreement, and that Dr. Malone, Mr. Bennett, Lions Gate, and
Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty.

On December 10, 2016, the court granted the defendants' unopposed
motion to stay the action pending final resolution of the
consolidated Delaware action.

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. engages in motion picture
production and distribution, television programming and
syndication, home entertainment, interactive ventures and games,
and location-based entertainment in Canada, the United States, and
internationally.  The Company operates through three segments:
Motion Pictures, Television Production, and Media Networks.  The
Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Santa Monica,
California.


LIONS GATE: Awaits Court Approval of N.Y. Class Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is awaiting court approval of a
stipulation to resolve a putative class action complaint 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 March
31, 2017.

On October 7, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed by
a purported Lions Gate stockholder in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York for the County of Nassau: Levy v. Malone, et
al., Index No. 607759/2016.  The complaint names as defendants
Lions Gate and the members of its board of directors.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of the
Lions Gate board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to
Lions Gate stockholders and/or aided and abetted breaches of
fiduciary duties by others in connection with the proposed merger,
and that Lions Gate and the members of its board of directors
failed to disclose material information in the amended joint proxy
statement/ prospectus on Form S-4/A filed on September 7, 2016 in
connection with the proposed merger.

On November 8, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to preliminarily
enjoin the proposed merger and for expedited discovery.

On November 23, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement resolving the action, and on November 25, 2016, filed a
stipulation withdrawing plaintiff's motion.

The settlement remains subject to approval by the court.

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. engages in motion picture
production and distribution, television programming and
syndication, home entertainment, interactive ventures and games,
and location-based entertainment in Canada, the United States, and
internationally.  The Company operates through three segments:
Motion Pictures, Television Production, and Media Networks.  The
Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Santa Monica,
California.


LOS ANGELES: Amended Class Certification Bid Denied in "Garcia"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Edgar Garcia, the Plaintiff, v. County of
Los Angeles, et al., the Defendants, Case No. CV 15-3549 FMO
(VBKx) (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order denying without
prejudice Plaintiff's Second Amended Motion for class
certification and preliminary approval of settlement.

No later than July 17, 2017, the plaintiff shall file either a
motion for class certification or a renewed motion for preliminary
approval of class action.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TGydbXD0

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Solomon E. Gresen, Esq.
           LAW OFFICES OF RHEUBAN & GRESEN
           15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1610
           Encino, CA 91436

The Defendants are represented by:

           Marlene M. Nicolas, Esq.
           Karina A. Layugan, Esq.
           SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
           Los Angeles, CA
           Telephone: (213) 617 4191
           Facsimile: (213) 443 2795


LOUISIANA, USA: Violates Civil Rights, "Little" Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Little, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Thomas Frederick, Kristian Earles and Mark Garber,
Case No. 6:17-cv-00724-RGJ-PJH (W.D. La., June 5, 2017), is
brought over alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act.

Thomas Frederick is the Commissioner of the 15th Judicial District
Court, in Lafayette, Louisiana.  Kristian Earles is a judge at the
15th Judicial District Court.  Mark Garber is the Sheriff of
Lafayette Parish.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann, Esq.
          Eric A. Foley, Esq.
          RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          4400 S Carrollton Ave.
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 620-2259
          Facsimile: (504) 208-3133
          E-mail: katie.schwartzmann@macarthurjustice.org
                  eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org

               - and -

          Charles L. Gerstein, Esq.
          Premal T. Dharia, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORP
          910 17th St. NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 670-4809
          E-mail: charlie@civilrightscorps.org
                  premal@civilrightscorps.org


LUMOS NETWORKS: Defending Against Two Merger Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Lumos Networks Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that on April 4, 2017 and
April 11, 2017, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
against our directors, EQT Partners Inc., Parent and Merger Sub.
The plaintiffs in the actions allege that the Company's
disclosures in its preliminary proxy statement filed by the
Company with the SEC on March 31, 2017 contained false and
misleading statements and omitted material information and further
that the individual defendants are liable for those alleged
misstatements and omissions. The actions seek, among other things,
to enjoin the Merger or, if the Merger has been consummated, to
rescind the Merger or an award of damages, and an award of
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

"Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation
matters with certainty, we believe that the claims raised in the
actions are without merit and intend to defend against them
vigorously."

Lumos Networks Corp. is a fiber-based bandwidth infrastructure and
service provider in the Mid-Atlantic region.


MAKE-UP ART: "Young" Suit Accuses Violation of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Lorenzo Young, on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated v. Make-up Art Cosmetics Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-04114-KBF
(S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2017), is brought over alleged violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Make-up Art Cosmetics, Inc. offers beauty care products.  The
Company provides products for lips, eyes, face, skincare, and
nails, as well as offers bags/cases, brushes, tools, fragrances,
and multi-purpose goods.  The Company was founded in 1985 and is
based in New York City.  Make-up Art operates as a subsidiary of
The Estee Lauder Companies Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          BRONSON LIPSKY LLP
          630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
          E-mail: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com


MASTIC HOME: Ply Gem Still Defends Pagliaroni et al. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the case, Anthony
Pagliaroni et al. v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and Deceuninck
North America, LLC, remains pending.

In Anthony Pagliaroni et al. v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and
Deceuninck North America, LLC, a purported class action filed in
January 2012 in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of the
defective design and manufacture of Oasis composite deck and
railing, which was manufactured by Deceuninck North America, LLC
("Deceuninck") and sold by Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. ("MHE").

The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic
and compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive
damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The
damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. The
hearing regarding plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
held on March 10, 2015, and the District Court denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification on September 22, 2015.

On October, 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a petition for interlocutory
appeal of the denial of class certification to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, and on April 12, 2016, the Court of
Appeals denied this petition for appeal.

Deceuninck, as the manufacturer of Oasis deck and railing, has
agreed to indemnify MHE for certain liabilities related to this
claim pursuant to the sales and distribution agreement, as
amended, between Deceuninck and MHE.

MHE's ability to seek indemnification from Deceuninck is, however,
limited by the terms and limits of the indemnity as well as the
strength of Deceuninck's financial condition, which could change
in the future.

Ply Gem is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North
America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing
and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors.  These two segments produce
a comprehensive product line of vinyl siding, designer accents,
cellular PVC trim, vinyl fencing, vinyl railing, stone veneer,
roofing, and vinyl windows and doors.


MAX BRENNER: Sued by Young Over Disabilities Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Young, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Max Brenner International Inc., Jointly and
Severally, and Max Brenner Web LLC, Jointly and Severally, Case
No. 1:17-cv-04207-PGG (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2017), is brought over
alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Max Brenner International Inc. operates as a restaurant that
focuses on chocolate products.  The Company's menu includes
chocolate waffles and crepes, fondues, sweets, desserts, ice
creams, hot chocolate drinks, choctails, cocktails, smoothies,
coffee and tea, appetizers, entree salads, sandwiches, breakfast,
brunch cocktails, chocolate martinis, and wine.  The Company also
offers chocolate products for kids.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          BRONSON LIPSKY LLP
          630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
          E-mail: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com


MAZOR ROBOTICS: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, on June 12 announced the
filing of a class action lawsuit against Mazor Robotics Ltd.
("Mazor" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: MZOR) for possible violations
of federal securities laws between November 8, 2016 and June 8,
2017 inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact
the firm prior to the August 8, 2017 lead plaintiff motion
deadline.

You can also call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-
713-1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the above action yet.  Until a
class is certified, you are not considered represented by an
attorney.  You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent
class member.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Mazor
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
that the Company was engaged in conduct that subjected it to
Israeli Securities Authority ("ISA") investigation; that Mazor was
exposed to potential liability; and that as a result of the above,
the Company's statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.  On June 8, 2017, Mazor disclosed that in
May 2017, the ISA searched its offices and questioned certain
officers in connection with an investigation.  When this
information was released, the Company's stock price decreased
materially, which harmed investors according to the Complaint.

Lundin Law PC -- http://lundinlawpc.com/-- was founded by Brian
Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to
upholding shareholders' rights. [GN]


MDL 2555: Class Certification Sought in Coca-Cola Sales Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit RE COCA-COLA PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION, Case No. 4:14-md-02555-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
will move the Court on August 18, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., for an order:

   a. certifying a class within each of the States of California,
      Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Florida:

      "all persons who purchased Coca-Cola's Coke product that:
      (1) lists phosphoric acid on the ingredients list but does
      not state that the product contains artificial flavoring
      and/or chemical preservatives; (2) includes the label
      statement "no artificial flavors. no preservatives added.
      since 1886."; and/or (3) includes the label statement
      "original formula".

      The following persons are expressly excluded from the
      classes:

      1. Defendants and its subsidiaries and affiliates;

      2. all persons who make a timely election to be excluded
         from the proposed Class;

      3. governmental entities, and

      4. the Court to which the cases is assigned and its staff.

   b. appointing Plaintiffs George Engurasoff, Joshua Ogden, Paul
      Merritt, Thomas Woods, Michelle Marino, Ronald Sowizrol,
      Yocheved Lazaroff, and Rachel Dube as class
      representatives;

   c. appointing the firms of Barrett Law Group, P.A. and
      Fleischman Law Firm, PLLC and as class counsel for all MDL
      purposes; and Pratt and Associates as local class counsel
      for all MDL purposes; and

   d. directing parties to meet and confer and present to this
      Court, within 30 days of an order granting certification,
      proposed notice to the certified class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=h1xoo6as

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Keith M. Fleischman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Glatter, Esq.
          June Park, Esq.
          FLEISCHMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          565 Fifth Avenue, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 880 9571
          Facsimile: (917) 591 5245
          E-mail: keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com
                  jglatter@fleischmanlawfirm.com
                  jpark@Ffleischmalawfirm.com

               - and -

          John W. ("Don") Barrett, Esq.
          Richard Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834 2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834 2628
          E-mail: Dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                  rrb@rrblawfirm.net


MDL 2748: Certification of Direct Purchaser Class Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No.
3:14-cv-03264-JD, MDL No. 2748 (N.D. Cal.), plaintiffs Chip-Tech,
Ltd., Dependable Component Supply Corp., eIQ Energy, and Walker
Component Group, Inc. will move the Court, on September 7, 2017,
before the Hon. Judge James Donato, for an order certifying a
class defined as:

   "all persons that purchased capacitors directly from any of
   the Defendants Entities from January, 1, 2002 to December 31,
   2013, where such persons are: a. inside the United States and
   were billed or invoiced for capacitors by one or more
   Defendant Entities during the Class Period (i.e., where
   capacitors were "billed to" persons within the United States);
   or b. outside the United States and were billed or invoiced
   for capacitors by one or more Defendant Entities during the
   Class Period, where such capacitors were imported into the
   United States by one or more Defendant Entities (i.e., where
   the capacitors were "billed to" persons outside the United
   States but "shipped to" persons within the United States)."

The Plaintiffs will also move the Court to appoint them as Class
representatives and finalize the Court's interim appointment of
the Joseph Saveri Law Firm as Lead Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4kSMagNG

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
          Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
          James G. Dallal, Esq.
          Nicomedes S. Herrera, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500 6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395 9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  jdavis@saverilawfirm.com
                  apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
                  jdallal@saverilawfirm.com
                  nherrera@saverilawfirm.com


MEDICREDIT INC: Judge Allows FDCPA Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Berta Alicia Bustamante, writing for insideARM, reports that in
Flecha v. Medicredit (Flecha v. MEDICREDIT, INC., Dist. Court, WD
Texas 2017), Texas District Court Judge Lee Yeakel has denied a
request by Medicredit to dismiss the case on grounds that there is
no basis for the Plaintiff's complaint.  The case is allowed to
continue.  Nina Flecha has alleged, in a class action case, that
Medicredit threatened her with litigation to scare her into paying
her medical bill, without any real intent to sue, which, if true,
would constitute a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA).

Background

In June 2016, Nina Flecha ("Flecha") filed a class action suit
under the FDCPA alleging that Medicredit had sent her a letter
containing a false threat to sue.  Ms. Flecha argued that since
Seton Medical Center Hays ("Seton" is Medicredit's client and the
original creditor on an unpaid $5,166.71 medical bill) does not
sue consumers for medical debts, the collection letter caused an
FDCPA violation.  Medicredit filed an instant Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings in the fall of 2016, citing Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(c), alleging that Ms. Flecha did not have a valid
claim for relief under the FDCPA because the collection letter did
not contain an explicit threat of litigation.

The court denied Medicredit's motion, finding that a dismissal
would only be appropriate  when/if it is apparent that not even a
"significant fraction of the population would be misled" by the
contents of a collection letter.  A review of the purpose of the
FDCPA is offered, reminding us:

15 U.S.C Sec. 1692(e). Section 1692e generally prohibits "false,
deceptive, or misleading representation[s] or means in connection
with the collection of any debt." 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692e.  The
section provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of such
conduct, including "[t]he threat to take any action that cannot
legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken," and "[t]he
use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or
attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a
consumer." 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692e(5) and (10).  Congress "clearly
intended the FDCPA to have a broad remedial scope" and "[t]he
FDCPA should therefore be construed liberally in favor of the
consumer." Daugherty v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., 836 F.3d
507, 511 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Serna v. Law Office of Joseph
Onwuteaka, P.C., 732 F.3d 440, 445 n. 11(5th Cir. 2013)).

Importantly, Seton does not deny Ms. Flecha's claim that it does
not sue patients to collect outstanding medical bills. There is
also no dispute about the contents of the collection letter in
question, which states, in part:

     ". . . a determination must be made with our client as to the
disposition of your account . . . voluntary resolution is
doubtful . . . DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE." (emphasis in original)

Medicredit argued (relying on Jenkins v. Union Corp., 999 F. Supp.
1120, 1136 (N.D. Ill. 1998) that Flecha has no claim under Sec.
1692e(5) because the letter in question does not outright mention
litigation, or imply the pursuit of litigation.  However, many
courts have established that explicit threat is not required in
order to establish a violation of Sec. 1692e(5), and Judge Yeakel
noted that the Texas court is not bound by the Jenkins ruling,
adding that the "the standard articulated by Jenkins is far from
the controlling rule regarding what is necessary to state a Sec.
1692e(5) claim."

Instead, the court decided that "a plaintiff is permitted to offer
evidence at a summary judgment or trial stage to show that indeed
the language confuses the unsophisticated consumer."  In the eyes
of the judge, at this stage of the case, Ms. Flecha has brought a
plausible claim that Medicredit violated 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692e(5)
by threatening legal action it had no intention of pursuing. The
case will proceed to its next stage.

insideARM Perspective

This case is still in the pleading stage, and we'll continue to
watch it unfold.  However, Flecha v. Medicredit already holds a
gift for the healthcare provider community.

This is an auspicious moment in the history of the modern
healthcare business: With the rise of high deductible health
plans, an unprecedented influx of insured healthcare consumers are
bound to enter third-party collections too hard and too soon
thanks to overdue, unmanageable and surprise self-pay medical
bills.  Although better patient financial service options are
proliferating, and both billing and collection agencies are seeing
excellent results from a softer and more flexible revenue cycle
approach, traditional collection methods like Medicredit's are
still most common. We expect to see many more cases of the same
ilk in the near future as a result.

How can the provider community shunt the infection?

I wrote a series not long ago for insideARM about how providers
can take steps to audit their collection agencies to ensure the
presence of a solid compliance protocol.  Many collection agencies
have call monitoring programs in place (many using voice analytics
software to flag potential call center compliance issues), and
some even have dedicated audit teams that review flagged calls and
address breaches by agents.  A smaller number put their written
communications under the looking glass, especially routinely, as
would be prudent, since case law on these issues does evolve.

It's worth considering the guidance of the judge in Ms. Flecha,
who re-capped a slew of written collection letter statements that
have been sufficient to create a fact question on whether or not
collection letters contained threatening language:

   * "[i]tem has been referred for Collection Action" and "[w]e
will at any time after 48 hours take action as necessary and
appropriate to secure payment in full;" Pipiles, 886 F.2d at 25-
26.

   * referenced settling matters "out of court" and "unless we
receive your check or money order, we will proceed with collection
procedures;" Baker, 677 F.2d at 778-79.

   * "[f]ailure to pay this debt immediately can result in
involuntary resolution;" Samuel v. Approved Credit Solutions, 2015
WL 4548745, at *3 (S.D. Ind. July 28, 2015).

   * directing consumer to pay debt "so that further action by our
office can be avoided;" Canlas v. Eskanos & Adler, P.C., 2005 WL
1630014 at * 2 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2005)

   * if debtor did not "work with" creditor, "further steps would
be taken."  Perretta v. Cap. Acquisitions & Mgmt. Co., 2003 WL
21383757 at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2003).

What's the key takeaway so far in Flecha v. Medicredit? Whether
you engage third party collections or not, make sure there are
established procedures and controls in place to ensure (both
internal and vendor) compliance with the FDCPA. Written
communications sent on your organization's behalf at any point in
the patient lifecycle are a reflection of your brand and part of
the customer experience.  They're also fodder for litigation under
the FDCPA. It's never a bad idea to ask to see which letters your
billing and collections vendors are using to communicate with
patients. Make a good faith effort to review them in light of
FDCPA examination criteria.  Document your review. Repeat it
routinely and involve other senior leaders in your organization in
the effort. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


MICHAEL MARGIOTTA: Faces "Balaji" Suit in New York Civil Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled MALUR R BALAJI INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A MEMBER
OF AACMV, LLC ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER MEMBERS ON AACMV
LLC SIMILARLY SITUATED AND IN THE RIGHT OF AACMV LLC v. MICHAEL J
MARGIOTTA, CONCETTA MARGIOTTA AS TRUSTEE OF MICHAEL J MARGIOTTA
IRREVOCABLE TRUST AACMV LLC, Case No. 3000903/2017, was brought
against the Defendants on June 2, 2017, in the New York Civil
Supreme Court, Monroe County.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Matthew A. Rosenbaum.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          BARCLAY DAMON LLP
          100 Chestnut St.
          Rochester, NY 14604
          Telephone: 295-4426

The Defendants are represented by:

          WOODS OVIATT GILMAN STURMAN
          Crossroad Bldg.
          2 State Street 700
          Rochester, NY 14614
          Telephone: (585) 987-2800


MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Airbag Case v. Atmel Unit Dismissed in May
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microchip Technology Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017 filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 30, 2017 that the
consolidated class action against its Atmel subsidiary has been
dismissed in May 23, 2017.

On May 11, 2016, an Amended and Consolidated Class Action
Complaint ("Complaint") was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami Division)
against Atmel, Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., Honda Motor
Co., Ltd. and an affiliate, and Daimler AG and an affiliate. The
case was captioned In re: Continental Airbag Products Liability
Litigation.

The Complaint which includes claims arising under federal law and
Florida, California, New Jersey, Michigan and Louisiana state law-
alleges that class members unknowingly purchased or leased
vehicles containing defective airbag control units (incorporating
allegedly defective application specific integrated circuits
manufactured by Atmel between 2006 and 2010), and thereby suffered
financial harm, including a loss in the value of their purchased
or leased vehicles.

The plaintiffs are seeking, individually and on behalf of a
putative case, unspecified compensatory and exemplary damages,
statutory penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys'
fees, and injunctive and other relief.

Atmel contested plaintiffs' claims vigorously, and on May 23, 2017
the case was ordered to be dismissed.

Microchip Technology Incorporated develops and manufactures
semiconductor products for various embedded control applications
worldwide.  It was incorporated in 1989 and is based in Chandler,
Ariz.


MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Guerrini Case vs. Atmel Dismissed in May
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microchip Technology Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017 filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 30, 2017 that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed an order
dismissing the Southern District of New York Action by LFoundry
Rousset ("LFR") and LFR Employees against the Company's Atmel
subsidiary, among other defendants.

On March 4, 2014, LFR and Jean-Yves Guerrini, individually and on
behalf of a putative class of LFR employees, filed an action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "District Court") against Atmel, the Company's French
subsidiary, Atmel Rousset S.A.S. ("Atmel Rousset"), and LFoundry
GmbH ("LF"), LFR's German parent.

The case purports to relate to Atmel Rousset's June 2010 sale of
its wafer manufacturing facility in Rousset, France to LF, and
LFR's subsequent insolvency, and later liquidation, more than
three years later.  The District Court dismissed the case on
August 21, 2015, and the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal on June 27, 2016.

On July 25, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
District Court's June 27, 2016 denial of their motion for relief
from the dismissal judgment.

On May 19, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the June 27, 2016 order dismissing the case.

Microchip Technology Incorporated develops and manufactures
semiconductor products for various embedded control applications
worldwide.  It was incorporated in 1989 and is based in Chandler,
Ariz.


MICROSOFT CORP: Ruling Keeps Playing Field Level for Employers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Michael, Esq. -- cmichael@fisherphillips.com -- and
Alexander Wheatley, Esq. -- awheatley@fisherphillips.com -- of
Fisher Phillips, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the
Supreme Court unanimously held on June 12 that plaintiffs cannot
immediately appeal a federal court's denial of class certification
when the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims
following the denial of class certification, handing a victory to
employers and others who face costly class action litigation.
This decision maintains the status quo, and continues to deny the
plaintiffs' bar the ability to do an end-run around the general
prohibition barring provisional "interlocutory" appeals brought
while the underlying litigation is still being maintained.  While
not an employment law decision, this ruling is welcome news for
those employers facing class action lawsuits (Microsoft Corp. v.
Baker).

Plaintiffs Take Shortcut To Appeals Court Over Company's
Objections

The plaintiffs were a group of Xbox 360 owners who filed a
nationwide class action lawsuit against Microsoft claiming that
defective videogame consoles scratched game discs.  Microsoft
argued that only 0.4% of Xbox owners reported discs being
scratched by their consoles, and that the scratches to game discs
were caused by improper use rather than any manufacturing defect.
The company moved to have the class allegations stricken, or, in
the alternative, to have class certification denied.

A federal court in Washington granted Microsoft's motion and
struck the class allegations, relying on an earlier decision which
held that class certification was not proper in product defect
cases if the defect did not manifest in a large percentage of
products sold.  The plaintiffs petitioned for leave to file an
"interlocutory" appeal, which would allow them to get a ruling on
the class action question from an appeals before the individual
litigation brought by the named plaintiff was resolved by the
lower court.  That petition was denied.  The plaintiffs agreed to
dismiss their underlying litigation with prejudice in order to
bring the matter to a head and advance the issue to the appeals
court.

On appeal, Microsoft argued that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
should dismiss the case because a plaintiff's voluntary dismissal
with prejudice should not create proper appellate jurisdiction.
But the 9th Circuit rejected Microsoft's argument and accepted the
case.  It then reversed the lower court's ruling and permitted the
plaintiffs to proceed with their product defect class action.

Potential Impact Of The 9th Circuit's Decision

Substantively, the appeals court determination -- that class
certification was not precluded just because the alleged Xbox
defect scratched discs in only a small percentage of cases -- was
unsurprising and not likely to have a meaningful impact on the
field of class action litigation.  Certainly, most employment
counsel will not lose sleep over the issue of whether consumers
can maintain class claims on product defect claims.

The more serious potential impact of the decision was the
principle that plaintiffs could now obtain immediate review of an
order denying class certification, removing the finality often
associated with a voluntary dismissal with prejudice.  The 9th
Circuit's decision made it easier for plaintiffs to obtain review
of class certification denials, which, in turn, made class action
litigation more efficient for plaintiffs, only serving to
encourage more class action lawsuits.

Because the process of certification makes or breaks a class
action, the ability to obtain a final decision on certification
without first having to litigate a single plaintiff case to a
decision would have drastically changed the economic analysis that
goes into whether a plaintiffs' attorney would file a class action
lawsuit.  Moreover, the 9th Circuit's decision tipped the class
action playing field towards plaintiffs, because defendants would
continue to have to wait for a final decision before appealing
issues related to the grant of class certification, whereas
plaintiffs could immediately run across the street to an appeals
court to get an immediate ruling on the same issue.

SCOTUS: Shortcuts Not Permissible

The Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit and ruled in favor of
Microsoft, holding that federal courts of appeals lack
jurisdiction under Sec. 1291 to review an order denying class
certification (or, as here, an order striking class allegations)
after the named plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims
with prejudice.

The SCOTUS echoed earlier decisions which had examined a similar
tactics, and explained that "if respondents' voluntary-dismissal
tactic could yield an appeal of right, Rule 23(f)'s careful
calibration -- as well as Congress' designation of rulemaking as
the preferred means for determining whether and when prejudgment
orders should be immediately appealable -- would be severely
undermined.'"

What Does This Mean For Employers?

This decision provides some reassurance to those employers that
may face class action lawsuits.  The Court's decision keeps the
playing field level for class action defendants when it comes to
obtaining review of decisions related to class certification.  By
reversing the 9th Circuit, the Court removed a procedural scheme
that would have required employers to second guess whether they
should ever stipulate to voluntary dismissals with prejudice. More
importantly, the SCOTUS blocked putative class action plaintiffs
from taking a faster, "one-sided" view -- and looser -- path to
appeal, refusing to make class actions more appealing to
plaintiffs and their attorneys.

Employers still need to take every precaution to avoid class
action lawsuits, most common in the wage and hour area of
employment law.  This decision does nothing to change employees'
substantive rights.  Classes of employees will still be able to
recover large amounts from employers through wage and hour class
actions, so long as they can show that class treatment is
appropriate.  What this decision does, however, is preclude
plaintiffs from getting an additional bite at the apple, without
first obtaining a final decision from the district court.


MICROSOFT CORP: Averts Xbox 360 Defect Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Emily Field, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on June 12 pulled the plug on a proposed class action
alleging defects in Microsoft Xbox 360 game consoles, ruling that
the Ninth Circuit does not have jurisdiction to review an order
denying class certification after the consumers in the suit
voluntarily dropped their claims.

Plaintiff Seth Baker and others filed suit in 2011 claiming that
Microsoft's Xbox 360 units scratch game discs.  After a lower
court denied class certification in 2012, Baker voluntarily
dismissed his individual claims.  The Ninth Circuit revived his
suit in 2015, but the high court on June 12 sided with Microsoft's
argument that Mr. Baker shouldn't have been able to voluntarily
dismiss his individual claims in order to appeal the dismissal of
the class claims.

"Respondents' voluntary-dismissal tactic, even more than the
death-knell theory, invites protracted litigation and piecemeal
appeals," the high court said.  "Under the death-knell doctrine, a
court of appeals could decline to hear an appeal if it determined
that the plaintiff ha[d] 'adequate incentive to continue" despite
the denial of class certification.

Mr. Baker had argued that the voluntary dismissal of his claims
with prejudice amounted to a final decision that could be
appealed.  He had contended that it didn't make any difference why
a judgment was entered to dismiss claims with prejudice.

Under Mr. Baker's theory, the Supreme Court said only a plaintiff
would be able to decide whether to seek an appeal of a ruling on
class certification and a plaintiff could simply dismiss claims
with prejudice in order to appeal an adverse class certification
ruling.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the opinion that Mr. Baker's
voluntary dismissal tactic would allow only plaintiffs, and never
defendants, to force an immediate appeal of an adverse class
certification ruling.

"Yet the 'class issue' may be just as important to defendants, for
class certification may force a defendant to settle rather than
run the risk of ruinous liability," Justice Ginsburg wrote in the
opinion, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia
Sotomayor, Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer.

Justice Robert Thomas wrote a concurring opinion; Justice Neil
Gorsuch didn't take part in the opinion.

Mr. Baker and other named plaintiffs first filed suit against
Microsoft in 2011 over claims that its Xbox 360 units contain
defects that cause the disc to spin out of control and get gouged
while it is being played, according to court documents.  Microsoft
had argued that disc scratches are caused by customer misuse
rather than any defect in the device.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez struck the proposed class
claims in 2012, citing a 2009 decision denying class certification
to Xbox gamers with the exact same damaged disc complaints because
individual issues overshadowed the group's claims.

The Ninth Circuit revived the suit in March 2015, finding Judge
Martinez had not properly applied the court's 2010 ruling in Wolin
v. Jaguar Land Rover in the Xbox case.  In Wolin, which involved
premature tire wear, the appellate panel had found that although
"individual factors may affect premature tire wear, they do not
affect whether vehicles were sold with an alignment defect."

The federal appellate court subsequently turned down Microsoft's
request for review en banc.

In a petition for writ filed with the Supreme Court in October,
Microsoft argued the Ninth Circuit was wrong to give its blessing
to the tactic of voluntarily dropping a suit to generate an
appeal, saying the strategy will give plaintiffs an unfair
advantage and lead to multiple appeals in every complex case.

Instead of having to persuade both the district court and the
appellate court that a ruling in the midst of a case deserves
review, the practice allows plaintiffs to sidestep the
interlocutory appeals process, Microsoft claimed.  The company
argued the Ninth Circuit contradicted the Supreme Court's 1978
ruling in Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay that opposed mandatory
interlocutory appeal for denials of class certification.

Microsoft argued there is a split between courts on the issue with
the Second and Ninth Circuits on one side and five other federal
appellate courts on the other.

Darren T. Kaplan -- kaplan@stuevesiegel.com -- of Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP, Robert L. Esensten of Esensten Law --
resensten@esenstenlaw.com -- Jeffrey M. Ostrow --
ostrow@kolawyers.com -- and Jonathan M. Streisfeld --
streisfeld@kolawyers.com -- of Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson
Weiselberg Gilbert PA, Mark A. Griffin --
mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com -- Amy Williams-Derry and Benjamin
Gould -- bgould@kellerrohrback.com -- of Keller Rohrback LLP, and
Paul L. Stritmatter -- pauls@stritmatter.com -- and Bradley J.
Moore -- brad@stritmatter.com -- of Stritmatter Kessler Whelan.

Microsoft is represented in house by Bradford L. Smith, David M.
Howard and Timothy G. Fielden, as well as by Stephen M. Rummage
-- steverummage@dwt.com -- and Fred B. Burnside --
fredburnside@dwt.com -- of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Charles B.
Casper -- ccasper@mmwr.com -- of Montgomery McCracken Walker &
Rhoads LLP and Jeffrey L. Fisher and Peter Stris --
peter.stris@strismaher.com -- of Stris & Maher.

The case is Microsoft Corp. v. Seth Baker et al., case number 15-
457, in the U.S. Supreme Court.


MISSOURI: DSS Sued Over Foster Care Psychotropic Drug Use
---------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Fenske, writing for Riverfront Times, reports that Missouri
kids in foster care are far too likely to be doped up with too
many prescription drugs, at too young an age and with too little
information given to foster parents.

Those are the explosive allegations in a lengthy new, first of its
kind class-action lawsuit filed in federal court on June 12 by the
Saint Louis University Legal Clinic, Children's Rights Inc. and
the National Center for Youth Law.  The law groups filed the suit
on behalf of children who are in or will be placed in the foster
care system in Missouri.  Their targets: The Missouri Department
of Social Services and, in particular, its Children's Division.

The suit outlines the problem starkly.  Thirty percent of Missouri
youth in foster care or group homes are on some form of
psychotropic drug -- that's twice the national rate of eighteen
percent for such a population.  And even though a 2011 federal law
requires states to adopt protocols to monitor and carefully
regulate such medications, the suit says, the Children's Division
of the Missouri Department of Social Services has done more or
less nothing to ensure compliance.

Missouri officials have known for more than a decade that they
need to grapple with this problem, says Sara Bartosz, deputy
director of litigation strategy for the national nonprofit
Children's Rights Inc.  She describes the state as "deliberately
indifferent" to the dangers in its system, saying that owing to "a
lack of will, a lack of urgency . . . . children are being placed
in harm's way every single day."

Notes Bill Grimm, a senior attorney at the National Center for
Youth Law, "It's not like this [lawsuit] is a surprise to them.
It's not like they didn't know they had to put in safeguards. But
even though they've had the knowledge, they have't acted upon that
knowledge for a decade or more."

Mr. Grimm notes that other states have put best practices in place
to help prevent overprescription within the foster care system of
these powerful medications -- which include anti-psychotic drugs,
anti-depressants and stimulants.  Some states require that, when
psychotropic drugs are prescribed, the court supervising a child's
placement in foster care must be notified.  Other states have
contracted with medical schools to make sure that any use of high-
risk drugs get a second opinion before they're prescribed to
foster kids. Not so Missouri.

As a result, many of the 13,000 kids within the state's system are
prescribed medication they don't need, at higher doses than they
should get. (The lawyers note that much of the use for children is
"off-label," meaning it hasn't been approved by the FDA.)

And the foster parents who are trying to help them are flying
blind.  Not only does Missouri fail to provide them with
comprehensive medical records, but the lawsuit details at least
one instance where a foster child arrived at a new placement
clutching medication wrapped in tissue paper -- no records to
explain the dosage, what the drugs were, or why they were needed.

In a system that by definition works with broken families and
suffers from poor communication, Ms. Bartosz notes, a centralized
record system is a necessary "proxy" for birth parents. Yet
they're not being kept.

Melissa Shelton, a Missouri foster mom for six years, as well as a
school counselor, decried the lack of information provided to
foster parents.  "I have rarely -- and I feel like it may be never
-- been presented with medical information form the case workers
upon their arrival at my home with the children.  More often, I
receive a child, and that's it."

And that just continues the cycle of overreliance on powerful
drugs -- drugs that can affect children's central nervous systems
for the rest of their lives. Some of the children whose cases are
detailed within the lawsuit have ended up on powerful doses of as
many as six or seven medications at a time -- to the point that
the foster parent of one described seeing him "twitch" and
"tweak." "I feel like I have knives in my eyes," he told her,
according to the suit.

Notes Ms. Bartosz, "Close to 4,000 children at any given point in
time are on these medications without informed consent.  This is
tragic and unacceptable.  And this is something that must be fixed
-- and fixed right away." [GN]


MIDLAND FUNDING: "Wiitanen" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KAREN WIITANEN, individually and on behalf
of other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. MIDLAND
FUNDING LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.; ENCORE CAPITAL
GROUP, INC.; and WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., L.P.A., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00534-GJQ-PJG (W.D. Mich.), Ms.
Karen Wiitanen asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "all persons in the United States -- except residents of
   Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina,
   Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, and Wisconsin -- who were
   sued between June 13, 2016, and June 13, 2017, on a debt
   originating with CIT Bank for the purchase of goods from Dell
   Inc., where the lawsuit was filed over four years after
   default;

and the subclass of:

   "all persons in Michigan who were sued between June 13, 2011,
   and June 13, 2017, on a debt originating with CIT Bank for the
   purchase of goods from Dell Inc., where the lawsuit was filed
   over four years after default".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HqR22rae

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

              - and -

          B. Thomas Golden, Esq.
          GOLDEN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          2186 West Main Street, P.O. Box 9
          Lowell, MI 4933
          Telephone: (616) 897 2900
          E-mail: btg@bthomasgolden.com


MONAKER GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "McLeod" Lawsuit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Monaker Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the fiscal
year ended February 28, 2017, that the motion to dismiss the case,
McLeod v. Monaker Group, Inc. et al, Case No.: 0:16-cv-62902-WJZ,
remains pending.

The Company said, "A class action lawsuit has been filed against
us, William Kerby, our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman,
Donald Monaco, our director, and D'Arelli Pruzansky, P.A., our
former auditor, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of persons who purchased our common
stock and exercised options between April 6, 2012 and June 23,
2016 (the "Class Period"). The case, McLeod v. Monaker Group, Inc.
et al, was filed on December 9, 2016. The lawsuit focuses on
whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities
laws and whether the Company's former auditor was negligent and
makes allegations regarding the activities of certain Company
executives. The lawsuit alleges and estimates total shareholders
losses totaling approximately $20,000,000. The lawsuit stems from
the Company's announcement in June 2016 that it would have to
restate its financial statements due to issues related to the
Company's investment in RealBiz. The lawsuit asks the court to
confirm the action is a proper class action."

"We believe the claims asserted in the lawsuit are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the claims made
in the lawsuit The Company has no basis for determining whether
there is any likelihood of material loss associated with the
claims and/or the potential and/or the outcome of the litigation.

"On February 16, 2017, we filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit
and on March 3, 2017, the Court entered an order staying discovery
and all other proceedings pending resolution of the Motion to
Dismiss."

Monaker Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries operate online
marketplaces for the alternative lodging rental industry and
facilitate access to alternative lodging rentals to other
distributors.


MOTORS LIQUIDATION: 100 Class Suits v. New GM Pending at Apr. 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were 100 putative class actions pending as of April 17, 2017
against "New General Motors" in various federal and state trial
courts in the United States seeking compensatory and other damages
and other relief for economic losses allegedly resulting from one
or more of the recalls announced in 2014 and/or the underlying
condition of vehicles covered by those recalls.  This number was
disclosed in the Form 10-K filed by Motors Liquidation Company GUC
Trust on May 25, 2017, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.

GUC Trust said, "Certain of these 100 cases, or the Ignition
Switch Economic Loss Actions, concern the Ignition Switch Recall,
certain other cases, or the Other Economic Loss Actions, concern
recalls other than the Ignition Switch Recall, and yet others
concern both the Ignition Switch Recall and one or more other
recalls (such actions are described herein interchangeably as
Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions or Other Economic Loss
Actions)."

The GUC Trust is a successor to Motors Liquidation Company
(formerly known as General Motors Corp.) for the purposes of
Section 1145 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.  The GUC Trust
holds and directs the distribution of, and pending such
distribution administers, certain assets pursuant to the terms and
conditions of the Second Amended and Restated Motors Liquidation
Company GUC Trust Agreement, dated as of July 30, 2015 and as
amended from time to time, and pursuant to the Second Amended
Joint Chapter 11 Plan, dated March 18, 2011, of MLC and its debtor
affiliates, for the benefit of holders of allowed general
unsecured claims against the Debtors.



NANTKWEST INC: 3rd Amended Suit Due July 10 in "Sudunagunta"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Sunil Sudunagunta v. Nantkwest, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:16-cv-01947 (C.D. Cal., March 22, 2016), the Hon. Michael W
Fitzgerald granted a Stipulation regarding the briefing schedule
for the Motion to Dismiss.

The Order provides that:

     (1) On or before June 26, 2017, NantKwest may provide Lead
Plaintiffs with additional information concerning certain of the
allegations of the Consolidated Second Amended Complaint;

     (2) On or before July 10, 2017, Lead Plaintiffs will file a
Consolidated Third Amended Complaint or confirm that they stand
upon the Consolidated Second Amended Complaint;

     (3) On or before July 31, 2017, Defendants shall move to
dismiss or otherwise respond to the Consolidated Second Amended
Complaint or a Consolidated Third Amended Complaint;

     (4) Lead Plaintiffs oppositions to the motions to dismiss
shall be due on or before Aug. 14, 2017;

     (5) Defendants' replies in support of the motions to dismiss
shall be filed on or before Aug. 28, 2017;

     (6) The hearing on the Motions will be held on Sept. 11,
2017, at 10:00 a.m.

The Stipulation regarding the Briefing Schedule for Motion to
Dismiss was filed by defendants Michael D. Blaszyk, Richard
Gomberg, Steve Gorlin, Ji Henry, Richard Kusserow, Nantkwest,
Inc., John T. Potts, Jr., Robert Rosen, Barry J. Simon, Patrick
Soon-Shiong, John C. Thomas Jr.

NantKwest, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a putative securities
class action complaint captioned Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc.,
et al., No. 16-cv-01947 was filed in March 2016 in federal
district court for the Central District of California related to
the Company's restatement of certain interim financial statements
for the periods ended June 30, 2015 and September 30, 2015 and
asserting claims for violation of federal securities laws.

Other putative class action complaints containing similar
allegations were filed in federal court and in California Superior
Court.  The state court actions were removed to federal court and
all of the actions have been consolidated.

The consolidated complaint names as defendants the Company,
certain of its current and former officers and directors, and
various investment banks which served as underwriters for the
Company's initial public offering (IPO).  The consolidated
complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaints seek unspecified damages, costs and
attorneys' fees, and equitable/injunctive or other relief on
behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or acquired
the Company's securities in the IPO and from July 28, 2015 through
March 11, 2016.

Defendants have moved for dismissal of the consolidated complaint;
the court has not yet issued a ruling. Management intends to
vigorously defend these proceedings. At this time, the Company
cannot predict how the Court will rule on the merits of the claims
and/or the scope of the potential loss in the event of an adverse
outcome. Therefore, based on the information available at present,
the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this
action.  Should the Company ultimately be found liable, the
liability could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
results of operations for the period or periods in which it is
incurred.

NantKwest is a pioneering clinical-stage immunotherapy company
focused on harnessing the power of the innate immune system by
using the natural killer cell to treat cancer, infectious diseases
and inflammatory diseases.


NEW YORK: Judge Okays $75MM Summonses Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Baker, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Southern District Judge Robert Sweet has approved a $75 million
class-action settlement that accused New York City police officers
of writing at least 900,000 summonses that were later dismissed as
insufficient.

"This civil rights class action is the paradigm of change and
progress achievable in a society undergirded by the rule of law,"
Judge Sweet said on June 12 in Stinson v. City of New York, 10
Civ. 4228.  The settlement, reached on Jan. 23, is the largest
false-arrest class-action lawsuit in city history, according to
lawyers for the plaintiffs.  Under the settlement, the city must
create a class fund of $56.5 million for claimants within 75 days.
A separate and additional $18.5 million is to be paid to class
counsel by New York City for attorneys fees and expenses.

"This is just a historic achievement," said plaintiffs attorney
Gerald Cohen of Cohen & Fitch.  "I think it's a great success for
the city of New York and its citizens."

Judge Sweet noted that the requested fee of 24.6 percent of the
total settlement "falls at the higher end of fees historically
approved in civil rights class actions in this district but
nevertheless lands comfortably within permissible bounds."

Class counsel and their staff reported spending 27,754 hours on
the case, with an aggregated lodestar of more than $16.6 million.
Administrative costs were estimated at $1.35 to $1.5 million.

Joshua Fitch, also of Cohen & Fitch, said direct mailings to
potential claimants have been mailed and reached about 70 percent
of addresses. He said the attorneys will try to find other
potential claimants through social media, online advertising and
inserts in New York City newspapers.

"This has been a long, hard fought battle for seven years,"
Mr. Fitch said.

Other attorneys for the class were Jon Norinberg of the Law
Offices of Jon L. Norinberg and -- adding some Big Law firepower
to the case -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which got
involved in 2013 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit denied the city's request for a writ.

Partners Elinor Sutton and Stephen Newirth led a team that
included numerous associates to help the small firms fight the
city.

"Quinn Emanuel stepped in at a time when it was vital that
plaintiffs class had the counsel and recourses available to
aggressively pursue discovery and motion practice and set the case
on a course for a trial," Ms. Sutton said.

The lawsuit was filed in 2010 by seven men and two women who said
they were wrongly issued summonses.  Sharif Stinson, the lead
plaintiff, said he was stopped twice outside his aunt's Bronx
building in 2010 when he was 19 and given disorderly conduct
summonses by officers who said he used obscene language. But the
officers didn't specify what the language or behavior was, and the
tickets were dismissed.

The summonses were for offenses such as trespassing, disorderly
conduct and urinating in public from 2007 through at least 2015.
The number tossed for legal insufficiency were about 25 percent of
all the summonses filed during that period, according to the suit.

The lawsuit argued that police routinely were ordered to issue
summonses "regardless of whether any crime or violation" took
place in order to meet quotas, citing information by two
department whistleblowers.  Those allegations were explicitly
denied in the settlement agreement. [GN]


NISSAN NORTH: Faces "Anglin" Suit in Illinois District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
John Anglin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nissan North America, Inc., a California corporation,
Case No. 1:17-cv-04240 (N.D. Ill., June 5, 2017), is brought over
fraud-related issues.

Nissan North America, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets Nissan and Infiniti vehicles in the United States, Canada,
and Mexico.  The Company offers various cars, such as sedans,
electric cars, sports cars, crossovers and SUVs, minivans and
vans, trucks and commercial vehicles, and various accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Sawin, Esq.
          SAWIN LAW FIRM, LTD.
          55 W Wacker Dr., 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601-1794
          Telephone: (312) 853-2490
          E-mail: jsawin@sawinlawyers.com

               - and -

          David Louis Gerbie, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: dgerbie@mcgpc.com


NORTHERN OIL: "Fries" Class Suit Still Pending in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Northern Oil And Gas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against the class action lawsuit by Jeffrey Fries.

The Company said, "On August 18, 2016, plaintiff Jeffrey Fries,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against our company, Michael
Reger (our former chief executive officer), and Thomas Stoelk (our
chief financial officer and interim chief executive officer) as
defendants.  The complaint purports to bring a federal securities
class action on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the
company's securities between March 1, 2013 and August 15, 2016,
and seeks to recover damages caused by defendants' alleged
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder."

Northern Oil and Gas, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, is an
independent energy company engaged in the acquisition,
exploration, exploitation, development and production of crude oil
and natural gas properties.  The Company's common stock trades on
the NYSE MKT market under the symbol "NOG".


OMEGA FLEX: Class Action Removed to W.D. Missouri Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Omega Flex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a putative class
action case had been filed against the Company and other parties
in U.S. District Court in the Western District of Missouri, titled
George v. Powercet Corporation, et. al.; however, that case was
dismissed by the court without prejudice in December 2016.
Plaintiffs have recently filed a similar complaint in Missouri
state court, which was removed to U.S. District Court in the
Western District of Missouri.

The Company is a manufacturer of flexible metal hose, and is
currently engaged in a number of different markets, including
construction, manufacturing, petrochemical transfer,
pharmaceutical and other industries.


OMONIA CAFE: Sued by Andreou On Behalf of Servers and Baristas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Andreou, Yenifer Barrera, Pedro Garcia, Christina Ntema,
and Eleonora Papaioannou, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Omonia Cafe, Inc. (d/b/a Omonia Cafe),
Ioannis ("John") Arvanitis, and Martha Gitoneas-Arvanitis, Case
No. 1:17-cv-03328-KAM-VMS (E.D.N.Y., June 2, 2017), is brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs bring the collective action on behalf of all non-
exempt persons employed by the Defendants as servers and baristas.

Omonia Cafe, Inc., is a New York corporation that operates Omonia
Cafe, located in Astoria, New York.  Ioannis ("John") Arvanitis is
the owner, majority shareholder and operator of Omonia Cafe.
Martha Gitoneas-Arvanitis is John's spouse and a co-owner,
shareholder and operator of Omonia Cafe.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael P. Pappas, Esq.
          MICHAEL P. PAPPAS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3 Columbus Circle, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 770-7890
          Facsimile: (646) 417-6688
          E-mail: michael@pappaslawfirm.com


PETALUMA POULTRY: Plant Workers File Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Meat+Poultry reports that the labor-based argument over the
compensability meat and poultry plant workers required to put on
and take off protective gear continues to be a point of
contingency in court rooms.  Most recently, a lawsuit seeking
class-action status has been filed with the Superior Court of
California in Sonoma County alleges Petaluma Poultry did not pay
current and former workers over the past four years for time spent
donning and doffing protective gear before and after their shifts
in addition to failing to pay them overtime as well as not
granting them meal breaks as required by law.

The suit, filed June 9, 2017, by David Yeremian & Associates Inc.
on behalf of his client, Angelica Gutierrez, also named Salisbury,
Maryland-based Perdue Foods LLC and Coleman Natural Foods LLC as
defendants in the case, which seeks unpaid compensation,
penalties, damages and attorneys' fees.

"Under California law, time spent by employees putting on and
taking off protective gear and other clothing required for their
jobs on work premises must be compensated by their employers,"
said David Yeremian, whose firm specialize in employment law.

According to court papers, the plaintiff (or plaintiffs) is
demanding a jury trial and the attorney has requested class-action
status.

Court records state the plaintiff seeks to represent "individuals
employed by defendants as non-exempt employees within the State of
California at any time within four (4) years of the filing of this
lawsuit to the present.  The suit could include dozens of Petaluma
Poultry workers if a class action is approved by the court." [GN]


PLY GEM: Class Certification Motion Pending in Securities Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that Plaintiff's motion for
class certification is pending in the case, In re Ply Gem
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation.

In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation is a purported
federal securities class action filed on May 19, 2014 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., several of its directors and
officers, and the underwriters associated with the Company's
initial public offering ("IPO"). It is filed on behalf of all
persons or entities, other than the defendants, who purchased the
common shares of the Company pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's IPO and seeks remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the Company's Form S-1
registration statement was negligently prepared and materially
inaccurate, containing untrue statements of material fact and
omitting material information which was required to be disclosed.
The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) damages
together with interest thereon and (ii) attorneys' fees and costs
of litigation.

On October 14, 2014, Strathclyde Pension Fund was certified as
lead plaintiff, and class counsel was appointed. On February 13,
2015, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint.

On September 29, 2015, the District Court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss, but ruled that plaintiff could file an amended
complaint.

On November 6, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and on
January 13, 2016, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
this amended complaint.

On September 23, 2016, the District Court granted in part and
denied in part this motion to dismiss. On February 15, 2017,
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and on April 17,
2017, the defendants filed their opposition to this motion. The
motion is pending.

The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified.
Pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, dated May 22, 2013,
entered into in connection with the IPO, the Company has agreed to
reimburse the underwriters for the legal fees and other expenses
reasonably incurred by the underwriters' law firm in its
representation of the underwriters in connection with this matter.

Pursuant to Indemnification Agreements, dated as of May 22, 2013,
between the Company and each of the directors and officers named
in this action, the Company has agreed to assume the defense of
such directors and officers.

"We believe the purported federal securities class action is
without merit and will vigorously defend the lawsuit," the Company
said.

Ply Gem is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North
America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing
and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors.  These two segments produce
a comprehensive product line of vinyl siding, designer accents,
cellular PVC trim, vinyl fencing, vinyl railing, stone veneer,
roofing, and vinyl windows and doors.


PLY GEM: Awaits Ruling on Carrillo-Hueso et al. Case Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the parties' settlement
of the case, Raul Carrillo-Hueso and Chec Xiong v. Ply Gem
Industries, Inc., remains pending.

In Raul Carrillo-Hueso and Chec Xiong v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc.
and Ply Gem Pacific Windows Corporation, a purported class action
filed on November 25, 2015 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of,
among other things, the defendants' failure to provide (i)
statutorily required meal breaks at the Sacramento, California
facility, (ii) accurate wage statements to employees in
California, and (iii) all wages due on termination in California.
The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic
and compensatory damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) penalties,
(iv) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (v) attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation.

On January 7, 2017, the parties agreed to settle this matter for
approximately $1.0 million, subject to certain conditions
including approval by the Court.

The Company has accrued for this amount in accrued expenses as of
April 1, 2017 and December 31, 2016 in the Company's consolidated
balance sheets.

Ply Gem is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North
America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing
and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors.  These two segments produce
a comprehensive product line of vinyl siding, designer accents,
cellular PVC trim, vinyl fencing, vinyl railing, stone veneer,
roofing, and vinyl windows and doors.


PLY GEM: $900,000 Settlement in "Morgan" Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the parties' settlement
of the case, Tina Morgan v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. and Simonton
Industries, Inc., remains pending.

In Tina Morgan v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. and Simonton
Industries, Inc., a purported class action filed on December 11,
2015 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Solano, plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, alleges damages as a result of, among other things, the
defendants' failure at the Vacaville, California facility to (i)
pay overtime wages, (ii) provide statutorily required meal breaks,
(iii) provide accurate wage statements, and (iv) pay all wages
owed upon termination. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief,
including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) statutory
damages, (iii) penalties, (iv) pre- and post-judgment interest,
and (v) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

On December 9, 2016, the parties agreed to settle this matter for
approximately $0.9 million, subject to certain conditions
including approval by the Court.

The Company has accrued for this amount in accrued expenses as of
April 1, 2017 and December 31, 2016 in the Company's consolidated
balance sheets.

Ply Gem is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North
America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing
and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors.  These two segments produce
a comprehensive product line of vinyl siding, designer accents,
cellular PVC trim, vinyl fencing, vinyl railing, stone veneer,
roofing, and vinyl windows and doors.


PUBLICATION DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Overtime, Hernandez Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROSA HERNANDEZ, also known as ROSA MORALES, an individual, on her
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
PUBLICATION DELIVERY SERVICE, INC., a California corporation; LOS
ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; MEDIANEWS GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, doing
business as DIGITAL FIRST MEDIA; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. BC663782 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
June 2, 2017), alleges that the Plaintiff did not receive overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per work day, 40
hours per work week and all hours worked on the seventh day of the
work week as required by the Labor Code.

PDSI is a California corporation conducting business in Los
Angeles County.  The Times is a limited liability company
conducting business in Los Angeles County.  Medianews Group, doing
business as Digital First Media, owns and operates Pasadena Star
News, Inc.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are currently unknown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq.
          Thomas H. Schelly, Esq.
          LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC
          880 Apollo Street, Suite 336
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 322-2211
          Facsimile: (310) 322-2252
          E-mail: kevin@kallaw.com
                  thomas@kallaw.com


QUALITY MANPOWER: "Martinez" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Pay Stubs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Martinez and Javier Manriquez, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Quality Manpower, Inc.,
Cherokee Freight Lines Stockton, LLC, Sugar Transport of the
Northwest, Inc. and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC864438 (Cal. Super., June 8, 2016), seeks unpaid wages and
interest thereon for failure to pay for all hours worked and
minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal
periods, failure to authorize or permit required rest periods,
statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment, injunctive relief and other equitable
relief, reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to California Labor
Code and costs and interest.

Quality Manpower, Inc. provides staffing services to Cherokee
Freight Lines and Sugar Transport of the Northwest where
Plaintiffs worked as truck drivers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
      LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
      8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 432-0000
      Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
      Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
             vgranberry@lelawfirm.com


RCI HOSPITALITY: Lopez Seeks Payment of Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MELANIE LOPEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC., 48 WEST 33RD CORP. d/b/a HOOPS
CABARET AND SPORTS BAR, RCI 33RD VENTURES, INC. d/b/a HOOPS
CABARET AND SPORTS BAR,, ERIC LANGAN, and KES SENEVI, and/or any
other entities affiliated with or controlled by RCI HOSPITALITY
HOLDINGS, INC. 48 WEST 33RD CORP. d/b/a HOOPS CABARET AND SPORTS
BAR, and RCI 33RD VENTURES, INC. d/b/a HOOPS CABARET AND SPORTS
BAR, Case No. 1:17-cv-04154-PGG (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2017), seeks
minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., is a foreign business corporation
with its headquarters in Houston, Texas.  RCI is the parent
company of Defendants 48 West 33rd Corp. and RCI 33rd Ventures,
Inc.  Eric Langan is the President and CEO of RCI Hospitality.
Mr. Langan and Kes Senevi are owners, corporate officers or agents
of 48 West and RCI 33rd.

The Defendants operate an adult entertainment and sports bar
establishment under the name "Hoops Cabaret and Sports Bar,"
located at 48 W. 33rd Street, in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert F. Milman, Esq.
          Matthew A. Brown, Esq.
          MILMAN LABUDA LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3W8
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Telephone: (516) 328-8899
          E-mail: rob@mmmlaborlaw.com
                  matt@mmmlaborlaw.com


REALPAGE INC: "Stokes" Class Action Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------
RealPage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against the case, Stokes v. RealPage, Inc.

The Company said, "In March 2015, we were named in a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, styled Stokes v. RealPage, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01520. The claims in this purported class action
relate to alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") in connection with background screens of prospective
tenants of our clients."

"On January 25, 2016, the court entered an order placing the case
on hold until the United States Supreme Court issued its decision
in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which case addressed issues related to
standing to bring claims related to the FCRA. On May 16, 2016, the
U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Spokeo litigation,
vacating the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, and remanding the case for further
consideration by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Following the Supreme
Court's decision in Spokeo, the judge in the Stokes case lifted
the stay.

"On June 24, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss certain claims
made in the case based upon the Spokeo decision. On October 19,
2016, the U.S. District Court denied the motion to dismiss. We
intend to defend this case vigorously."

RealPage is a technology leader to the real estate industry,
helping owners, managers, and investors optimize both operational
yields and investment returns.


REALPAGE INC: "Jenkins" Class Action Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------
RealPage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against the case, Jenkins v. RealPage, Inc.

The Company said, "In November 2014, we were named in a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, styled Jenkins v. RealPage, Inc.,
Case No. 3:14cv758. The claims in this purported class action
relate to alleged violations of the FCRA in connection with
background screens of prospective tenants of our clients. This
case has since been transferred to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania."

"On January 25, 2016, the court entered an order placing the case
on hold until the United States Supreme Court issued its decision
in the Spokeo case. Following the Supreme Court's decision in
Spokeo, the judge in the Jenkins case lifted the stay. On June 24,
2016, we filed a motion to dismiss certain claims made in the case
based upon the Spokeo decision. On October 19, 2016, the U.S.
District Court denied the motion to dismiss. We intend to defend
this case vigorously."

RealPage is a technology leader to the real estate industry,
helping owners, managers, and investors optimize both operational
yields and investment returns.


SANDERSON FARMS: Class Suits by Broiler Chicken Buyers Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. continues to face multiple putative class
action lawsuits filed by purchasers of broiler chickens, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2017.

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms,
Inc. and its subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with 13
other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies,
in multiple putative class action lawsuits filed by direct and
indirect purchasers of broiler chickens in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully
fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of broiler chickens,
thereby violating federal and certain states' antitrust laws, and
also allege certain related state-law claims.  The complaints also
allege that the defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged
anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy.  The
complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the
antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

The court has consolidated all of the direct purchaser complaints
into one case, and the indirect purchaser complaints into two
cases, one on behalf of commercial and institutional indirect
purchaser plaintiffs and one on behalf of end-user consumer
plaintiffs.

On October 28, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated, amended complaints, and on November 23, 2016,
the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed second amended
complaints.

On December 16, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs separated
into two cases.  On that date, the commercial and institutional
indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and
the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On January 27, 2017 the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaints in all of the cases.  These motions are now
fully briefed and awaiting decision.

The Company said, "The lawsuits are in the earliest stages and we
intend to defend them vigorously; however, the Company cannot
predict the outcome of these actions.  If the plaintiffs were to
prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have
a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results
of operations."

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States.  The Company sells
ice pack, chill pack, bulk pack, and frozen chicken in whole, cut-
up, and boneless form primarily under the Sanderson Farms brand
name to retailers, distributors, and casual dining operators in
the southeastern, southwestern, northeastern, and western United
States, as well as to customers who resell frozen chicken in the
export markets.  Its prepared chicken product line includes
institutional and consumer packaged partially cooked or marinated
chicken items for distributors and food service establishments.
Sanderson Farms, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in
Laurel, Mississippi.


SANDERSON FARMS: Putative Securities Class Action Suit Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. continues to face putative class action
lawsuit over alleged SEC breaches, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2017.

Sanderson Farms, Inc.; Joe F. Sanderson, Jr., the Chairman of the
Registrant's Board of Directors and its Chief Executive Officer;
and D. Michael Cockrell, director and Chief Financial Officer,
were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed
on October 28, 2016, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  On March 30, 2017, the lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Lampkin Butts,
director, Chief Operating Officer, and President, as a defendant.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made statements in the
Company's SEC filings and press releases, and other public
statements, that were materially false and misleading in light of
the Company's alleged, undisclosed violation of the federal
antitrust laws.  The complaint also alleges that the material
misstatements were made in order to, among other things,
"artificially inflate and maintain the market price of Sanderson
Farms securities." The complaint alleges the defendants thereby
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
including Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages, interest, costs and
attorneys' fees.

The Company said, "The lawsuit is in an early stage and the
defendants intend to defend it vigorously; however, the Company
cannot predict the outcome of these actions.  If the plaintiffs
were to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which
could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position
and results of operations."

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States.  The Company sells
ice pack, chill pack, bulk pack, and frozen chicken in whole, cut-
up, and boneless form primarily under the Sanderson Farms brand
name to retailers, distributors, and casual dining operators in
the southeastern, southwestern, northeastern, and western United
States, as well as to customers who resell frozen chicken in the
export markets.  Its prepared chicken product line includes
institutional and consumer packaged partially cooked or marinated
chicken items for distributors and food service establishments.
Sanderson Farms, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in
Laurel, Mississippi.


SANDERSON FARMS: Putative Class Lawsuits on Farmers Pay Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc., among other poultry producers, faces
putative class action lawsuits regarding broiler farmers pay,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2017.

On January 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries
were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers
and certain of their affiliated companies, in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On March 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries were
named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and
certain of their affiliated companies, in a second putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma.

The complaints allege that the defendants unlawfully conspired by
sharing data on compensation paid to broiler farmers, with the
purpose and effect of suppressing the farmers' compensation below
competitive levels.  The complaints also allege that the
defendants unlawfully conspired to not solicit or hire the broiler
farmers who were providing services to other defendants.  The
complaints seek treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

On April 25, 2017, the Court issued a Joint Order in both cases,
in which it stated that it was inclined, pending a hearing, to
consolidate the two cases and to order the filing of a
consolidated complaint.  That hearing was scheduled for June 9,
2017.

The Company said, "The lawsuits are in their early stages, and we
intend to defend them vigorously.  If the plaintiffs were to
prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have
a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results
of operations."

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States.  The Company sells
ice pack, chill pack, bulk pack, and frozen chicken in whole, cut-
up, and boneless form primarily under the Sanderson Farms brand
name to retailers, distributors, and casual dining operators in
the southeastern, southwestern, northeastern, and western United
States, as well as to customers who resell frozen chicken in the
export markets.  Its prepared chicken product line includes
institutional and consumer packaged partially cooked or marinated
chicken items for distributors and food service establishments.
Sanderson Farms, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in
Laurel, Mississippi.


SCYNEXIS INC: "Gibson" Class Suit Underway in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
SCYNEXIS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against the "Gibson" class action lawsuit.

On March 8, 2017, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers, captioned Gibson v. Scynexis, Inc., et al.  The action
was filed on behalf of a putative class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities (1)
pursuant or traceable to the Company's IPO, or (2) on the open
market between May 2, 2014, and March 2, 2017.  It asserts claims
for violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative
class.  The Company believes that the claims lack merit and
intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

SCYNEXIS, Inc. is a biotechnology company, headquartered in Jersey
City, New Jersey, committed to positively impacting the lives of
patients suffering from difficult-to-treat and often life-
threatening infections by delivering innovative anti-infective
therapies. The Company is developing its lead product candidate,
SCY-078, as the first representative of a novel intravenous and
oral triterpenoid antifungal family for the treatment of several
fungal infections, including serious and life-threatening invasive
fungal infections.


SECOND ROUND SUBS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Moore Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HYOJA AKIKO MOORE, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SECOND ROUND SUBS, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Case No. 2:17-cv-03889-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., June 1, 2017), alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com
                  yzelman@marcuszelman.com


SERVICE FINANCE: "Sparks" Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to D.N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled SPARKS v. SERVICE
FINANCE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. MID-L-41-00017, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on June 1, 2017.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-03899-JLL-JAD
to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as "Contract: Other."[BN]

Plaintiff KANDACE SPARKS, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Matthew Scott Oorbeek, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          E-mail: moorbeek@wolflawfirm.net

Defendant SERVICE FINANCE COMPANY, LLC, is represented by:

          Wade Donald Koenecke, Esq.
          Bradley L. Mitchell, Esq.
          STEVENS & LEE PC
          100 Lenox Drive, Suite 200
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (609) 243-6428
          Facsimile: (609) 243-9333
          E-mail: wdk@stevenslee.com
                  blm@stevenslee.com


SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: "Patton" Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
ServiceSource International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
continues to defend against the case, Sarah Patton, et al v.
ServiceSource Delaware, Inc.

On August 23, 2016, the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee granted conditional class
certification in a lawsuit originally filed on September 21, 2015
by three former senior sales representatives.

The lawsuit, Sarah Patton, et al v.  ServiceSource Delaware, Inc.,
asserts a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act alleging that
certain sales account representatives and senior sales
representatives in our Nashville location were not paid for all
hours worked and were not properly paid for overtime hours worked.
The complaint also asserts claims under Tennessee state law for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment; however, the plaintiffs
have not yet filed a motion to certify the state law breach of
contract and unjust enrichment claims as a class action.

The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself against
these claims.

ServiceSource International, Inc. is a global leader in
outsourced, performance-based customer success and revenue growth
solutions.


SIMONTON BUILDING: District Court Dismissed "Kiefer" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the District Court has
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, Kiefer et
al. v. Simonton Building Products, LLC et al.

In Kiefer et al. v. Simonton Building Products, LLC et al., a
purported class action filed on October 17, 2016 in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota, plaintiffs,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege
damages as a result of, among other things, the defective design
and manufacture of certain Simonton windows containing two-pane
insulating glass units. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief,
including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) punitive or
other exemplary damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest,
and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

On April 17, 2017, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint. The damages sought in this action
have not yet been quantified.

Ply Gem is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North
America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing
and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors.  These two segments produce
a comprehensive product line of vinyl siding, designer accents,
cellular PVC trim, vinyl fencing, vinyl railing, stone veneer,
roofing, and vinyl windows and doors.


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces "Luong" Suit Over Defect in Windshields
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUCIA LUONG, Individually and On Behalf of a Class of Similarly
Situated Individuals v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-
03160-YGR (N.D. Cal., June 1, 2017), alleges violations of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Ms. Luong brings the action individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, who purchased or leased 2015 through
2016 Subaru Outback or Legacy vehicles in the United States
("Class Vehicles") that were designed, manufactured, distributed,
marketed, sold and leased by Defendant Subaru of America, Inc.
She alleges that the beginning in 2014, if not before, the
Defendant knew that the Class Vehicles contain one or more design
and manufacturing defects that can cause the windshield to crack,
chip and fracture ("Windshield Defect").

The Windshield Defect poses an extreme safety hazard to drivers,
passengers and pedestrians, Ms. Luong contends.  A spontaneously
shattering or cracking windshield can impair the driver's view and
cause driver distraction, and it may also result in dislodged
glass that can cause cuts, eye damage and other injuries, she
explains, among other things.

Subaru of America, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation with its
principal place of business located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
The Defendant is responsible for the design, manufacture,
distribution, marketing, sale and lease of the Class Vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mgreenstone@glancylaw.com


SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Gorss Motels Suit Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. SUNBEAM PRODUCTS,
INC., a Delaware corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00969-VLB (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff moves the
Court for an order:

   a. taking this motion under submission and deferring further
      activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to be
      set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23 scheduling order, or
      alternatively; and

   b. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nEvra5BG

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


SUNRISE DAIRY: Denied "Mojica" Rest Periods, Wage Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Mojica and Jonathan Aguilar, individually, and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sunrise Dairy Inc.
(d/b/a Sunrise Distribution) and Does l-20, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. BC664342 (Cal. Super., June 8, 2017), seeks unpaid wages
and interest thereon for failure to pay for all hours worked and
minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal
periods, failure to authorize or permit required rest periods,
statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment, injunctive relief and other equitable
relief, and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to California
Labor Code and costs and interest.

Plaintiffs -- hourly employees of Defendants' milk distribution
business -- accuses Defendants of failing to provide meal and rest
breaks, failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, failing to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to reimburse
for business expenditures and losses and failing to pay waiting
time penalties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:


     Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
     Caspar Jiyaiagian, Esq.
     KJT LAW GROUP LLP
     230 N. Maryland Ave. Suite 306
     Glendale, CA 91206
     Telephone: (818) 507-8525
     Email: caspar@kjtlawgroup.com

            - and -

     Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
     ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
     4740 Calle Carga
     Camarillo, CA 93012
     Telephone: (818) 425-1437
     Email: ca@AdamsEmploymentCounsel.com


TD AMERITRADE: "Klein" Class Action Lawsuit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
continues to defend against the "Klein" class action lawsuit.

Five putative class action complaints were filed between August
and October 2014 regarding TD Ameritrade's routing of client
orders. The cases were filed in, or transferred to, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska: Jay Zola et al. v. TD
Ameritrade, Inc., et al.; Tyler Verdieck v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.;
Bruce Lerner v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.; Michael Sarbacker v. TD
Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.; Gerald Klein v. TD
Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.

The complaints in Zola, Klein and Sarbacker allege that the
defendants failed to provide clients with "best execution" and
routed orders to the market venue that paid the most for its order
flow. The complaints in Verdieck and Lerner allege that the
defendant routed its clients' non-marketable limit orders to the
venue paying the highest rates of maker rebates, and that clients
did not receive best execution on these kinds of orders. The
complaints variously include claims of breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of best execution, fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, violations of Section 10(b) and 20 of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, violation of Nebraska's
Consumer Protection Act, violation of Nebraska's Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment and
declaratory judgment. The complaints seek various kinds of relief
including damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief,
equitable relief and other relief.

The Company moved to dismiss each of the five putative class
action complaints. The Magistrate Judge subsequently entered
Findings and Recommendations with respect to each of the five
actions, recommending that the District Judge dismiss each of the
five lawsuits.

On March 23, 2016, the District Judge entered an order dismissing
all of the state law claims in the five actions, denying the
motion to dismiss the federal securities claims in the Klein case,
and permitting the plaintiffs in the other four actions to amend
their complaints to assert a federal securities claim. None of the
plaintiffs in the other four actions filed an amended complaint.
The plaintiffs in the Zola, Sarbacker and Verdieck cases filed
notices of appeal. The plaintiff in the Lerner case did not file a
notice of appeal and that case is considered closed. The Klein
case is proceeding in the District Court.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits
and is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the ultimate
resolution of these lawsuits, or the potential losses, if any,
that may result.


TELEBRANDS CORP: Faces "Jackson" Class Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit titled Cheryl Jackson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Telebrands Corp. and Moulton Logistics Management, Case No. 2:17-
cv-04107-PSG-KS (C.D. Cal., June 1, 2017), is brought over alleged
breach of contract.

The case is assigned to Judge Philip S. Gutierrez.

TeleBrands Corp. operates as a direct response television
marketing company.  The Company specializes in the design,
manufacture, marketing, and distribution of consumer products and
markets its products through television, Internet, print
advertising and retail chains.  TeleBrands was founded in 1983 and
is based in Fairfield, New Jersey.

Moulton Logistics Management, Inc., an integrated logistics
company, provides fulfillment, retail distribution, promotional
distribution, and mailing services.  Moulton offers project
management, logistics management, tradeshows, inventory
management, kitting and assembly, returns processing, customer
service center, and EDI services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Wright, Esq.
          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          3281 East Guasti Road Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: dcw@mccunewright.com
                  rdm@mccunewright.com


TEMPUR SEALY: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
Shayna Posses, writing for Law360, reports that Tempur Sealy
International Inc. and its former website host were slapped with a
proposed class action in Georgia federal court on June 12 alleging
that their lacking security practices opened the door to a 2016
data breach, which the company failed to inform customers about in
a timely fashion.

Michelle Provost's complaint accuses Tempur Sealy and Aptos Inc. -
- which hosted the mattress retailer's website until late last
year -- of failing to appropriately safeguard customers' personal
information, leading to a February 2016 breach that compromised
sensitive data like customers' names, phone numbers, payment card
account numbers and card expiration dates.

"Defendants allowed widespread and systematic theft of their
customers' personal information," the suit says. "Defendants'
actions did not come close to meeting the standards of
commercially reasonable steps that should be taken to protect
customers' personal information.

Until October, Atlanta-based Aptos hosted and maintained Tempur
Sealy's website and online payment system, according to the
complaint.  However, in early 2016, intruders took advantage of
security failures that allowed them to access and instruct malware
to capture payment card information provided to Aptos for 40
online retailers, including Tempur Sealy, the suit alleges.

Aptos discovered the security breach in November, and -- after
being told by law enforcement to hold off on notifications --
informed the mattress retailer and other clients about the
incident in February.  The website host took no steps to tell
consumers about the breach, instead leaving notification up to the
affected businesses, the suit says.

Tempur Sealy didn't tell customers about the breach until almost
two months later, finally informing shoppers in April that
personal information provided for online purchases prior to
October may have been compromised, according to the complaint. The
companies still haven't disclosed the extent of the breach,
including how many consumers were affected, the suit says.

The breach was made possible by the companies' knowing failure to
comply with best practices and industry standards for protecting
personal information -- even though Tempur Sealy says in its
privacy policy that the retailer uses reasonable safeguards to
help protect customer data from unauthorized access, the complaint
says.

A portion of what customers paid for Tempur Sealy's products
should have gone to ensuring compliance with data protection
measures, meaning consumers incurred actual monetary damages
because they overpaid for privacy protections they didn't receive,
according to the suit.

Customers also suffered a number of other injuries, including
unauthorized bank account withdrawals and related fees, which is
precisely what happened to Provost, she says.  After learning in
April that her debit card information was compromised in the
breach, the New York resident reviewed her bank statement and
found at least one fraudulent charge that she never received
reimbursement for, Provost alleges.

In addition to these charges, Provost and other consumers had the
value of their personal information take a hit and are at
increased risk of future fraud, identity theft and misuse, the
complaint says.

Provost brings claims for violations of a slew of states' consumer
protection laws and data breach notification statutes on behalf of
separate statewide classes, as well as allegations of negligence,
breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment on behalf of a
nationwide class.

Alternatively to the nationwide class, Provost seeks to assert
those claims on behalf of separate statewide classes.

She seeks monetary and equitable relief, pre- and post-judgment
interest, class notification expenses, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

Representatives for the parties didn't immediately return requests
for comment on June 12.

Ms. Provost is represented by David J. Worley, James M.
Evangelista -- jme@ewlawllc.com -- and Kristi Stahnke McGregor of
Evangelista Worley LLC, William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood
and Gary S. Graifman and Jay I. Brody of Kantrowitz Goldhamer &
Graifman PC.

Counsel information for the defendants wasn't immediately
available on June 12.

The suit is Provost v. Aptos Inc. et al., suit number 1:17-cv-
02120, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia. [GN]


TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss IGNITE2 Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company's
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in a consolidated
securities class action remains pending.

The Company said, "In January 2016 and March 2016, two securities
class action lawsuits were filed against us, our chief executive
officer, our former chief operating officer and our former chief
financial officer, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. In May 2016, the court consolidated the
two lawsuits and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

"The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in
July 2016 and filed a second consolidated amended complaint in
August 2016. The second amended complaint is brought on behalf of
an alleged class of those who purchased our common stock between
March 5, 2015 and September 8, 2015, and alleges claims arising
under Sections 10 and 20 of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning IGNITE2. The complaint
seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs.

"In October 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint in its entirety, which plaintiffs have opposed.  In May
2017, oral arguments were heard on that motion and we await a
decision from the court.

"We believe we have valid defenses against these claims, and will
engage in a vigorous defense of such litigation."

Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company using its proprietary chemistry
technology to create novel antibiotics for serious and life-
threatening multidrug-resistant infections.


THERAPEUTICSMD INC: "Turner" Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------
Terry Turner, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Therapeuticsmd, Inc., Robert G. Finizio
and Brian Bernick, Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-80720, (S.D. Fla.,
June 8, 2017), seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs
and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

TherapeuticsMD is a women's health care company focused on
creating and commercializing products targeted exclusively for
women, focusing on pursuing regulatory approvals and pre-
commercialization activities necessary for the commercialization
of its advanced hormone therapy pharmaceutical products. Its
leading product is TX-004HR, a treatment of moderate-to-severe
vaginal pain during sexual intercourse and vulvar and vaginal
atrophy due to menopause.

Defendants failed to disclose that TX-004HR was not supported by a
complete clinical program. On this news, TherapeuticsMD's price
share fell $1.50, or 19.48%, to close at $6.20 on April 10, 2017
thus damaging investors such as the Plaintiff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH LLP
      1625 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
      Tel: (954) 515-0123
      Fax: (866) 300-7367
      Email: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com

             - and -

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

              - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


TILLY'S INC: Still Faces "Minniti" Class Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. continues to defend itself in a putative class
action suit over alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 29, 2017.  The suit is captioned
Lauren Minniti, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Tilly's, Inc., United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, Case No. 0:17-cv-60237-FAM.

On January 30, 2017, the plaintiff filed the putative class action
lawsuit against the Company, alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA").  Specifically, the
complaint asserts a violation of the TCPA for allegedly sending
unsolicited automated messages to the cellular telephones of the
plaintiff and others.  The complaint seeks class certification and
damages of US$500 per violation plus treble damages under the
TCPA.  The Company filed its initial response to this matter with
the court on March 15, 2017.

The Company said, "At this time, we are unable to determine a
reasonable range of potential loss for this matter, which could be
material."

Tilly's, Inc. is an American retail clothing company that sells
action sports-branded clothing, accessories, shoes, and equipment.
The Company is headquartered and operated from Irvine, California.


TILLY'S INC: Appeal on Dismissed Skylar Ward Suit Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the order dismissing a putative class action
lawsuit against Tilly's, Inc. is still pending in the California
Court of Appeal, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 29, 2017.  The class suit is styled Skylar
Ward, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v.
Tilly's, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, Case No. BC595405.

In September 2015, the plaintiff filed the putative class action
lawsuit against the Company, alleging violations of California's
wage and hour rules and regulations and unfair competition law.
Specifically, the complaint asserted a violation of the applicable
California Wage Order for alleged failure to pay reporting time
pay, as well as several derivative claims.  The complaint sought
certification of a class, unspecified damages, unpaid wages,
penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees.

In June 2016, the court granted the Company's demurrer to the
plaintiff's complaint, on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to
state a cause of action against Tilly's.  Specifically, the court
agreed with the Company that the plaintiff's cause of action for
reporting-time pay fails as a matter of law as the plaintiff and
other putative class members did not "report for work" with
respect to certain shifts on which the plaintiff's claims are
based.  At the hearing on the plaintiff's demurrer, the court
granted the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in July 2016, which
brought the same claims as her original complaint but added
various factual allegations.

In August 2016, the Company filed a demurrer as to the plaintiff's
amended complaint, on the grounds that the plaintiff's amended
complaint still failed to state a cause of action against Tilly's,
for the same reasons that the court granted the Company's demurrer
as to the plaintiff's original complaint.

In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining the
Company's demurrer, and dismissing all of plaintiff's causes of
action with prejudice.

On January 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to the
California Court of Appeal, and Plaintiff's opening brief is due
to be filed on May 30, 2017.

"We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do
so," the Company said.

Tilly's, Inc. is an American retail clothing company that sells
action sports-branded clothing, accessories, shoes, and equipment.
The Company is headquartered and operated from Irvine, California.


TILLY'S INC: Whitten Class Action Concluded in May
--------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on May 31, 2017
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 29, 2017, that the case captioned "Karina
Whitten, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. Tilly's Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, Case No. BC 548252" has been concluded with the payment
of a final settlement on April 20, 2017.

In June 2014, the plaintiff filed a putative class action and
representative Private Attorney General Act of 2004 lawsuit
against the Company alleging violations of California's wage and
hour, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, and unfair
competition law, among other things.  The complaint sought class
certification, penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint in December 2014.

The Company answered the complaint in January 2015, denying all
allegations.  It engaged in mediation in May 2016, and the parties
reached a resolution that was presented to the court for
preliminary approval in September 2016.  The court preliminarily
approved the settlement in October 2016, and notice of the
settlement was issued to class members.  Upon completion of the
claims process, the court approved the final settlement in
February 2017.

The Company concluded this matter with the payment of the final
settlement in April 20, 2017.  The final settlement amount was not
materially different from the amount previously accrued when a
loss provision was established.

Tilly's, Inc. is an American retail clothing company that sells
action sports-branded clothing, accessories, shoes, and equipment.
The Company is headquartered and operated from Irvine, California.


UNITED VAN LINES: Accused by "Dennis" Suit of Violating FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Sammy Dennis v. United Van Lines, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-01614
(E.D. Mo., June 2, 2017), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all other persons similarly situated for damages and relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and as representative action
for violations of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.

United Van Lines, LLC, is one of the largest moving companies in
the United States and operates throughout the continental United
States.  United specializes in moving household and commercial
goods.  United operates nationally through a network of regional
agents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John F. Edgar, Esq.
          Matthew T. Swift, Esq.
          EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
          1032 Pennsylvania Ave.
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 531-0033
          Facsimile: (816) 531-3322
          E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
                  mts@edgarlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
                  gl@haffnerlawyers.com


UNIVERSITY OF TULSA: Faces Concussion Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
John Suayan, writing for SE Texas Record, reports that the
University of Tulsa, Conference USA, and the National Collegiate
Athletic Association are implicated in a federal class action
lawsuit alleging failure to ensure the health and safety of
student-athletes.

Texas resident Donald Gobert brought the suit on June 8.  Recent
court documents show that Gobert was a member of the Tulsa Golden
Hurricane football team from 2006 to 2009.

He suffered "a number of concussive and sub-concussive hits"
during his collegiate career, including but not limited to a hit
in 2008 which made him unconscious, the suit says.

Mr. Gobert was reportedly instructed to quit the game.

According to the lead plaintiff, the defendants "kept players and
the public in the dark" about head injuries, which the complaint
labels "an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes."

"During the course of a college football season, athletes absorb
more than 1,000 impacts greater than 10g's (gravitational force)
and, worse yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head
exceed 20g's, with some approaching 100g's," the original petition
says.  "To put this in perspective, if you drove your car into a
wall at twenty-five miles per hour and you weren't wearing a
seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would be around
100g's.  That means each season these 18, 19, and 20 year old
student-athletes are being subjected to the equivalent of several
hundred car accidents."

Mr. Gobert asserts he and many others "now suffer from
neurological and cognitive damage, including symptoms of traumatic
encephalopathy" as a result of the respondents' failure to
implement protective procedures against traumatic brain injuries.

A jury trial is requested.

Attorney Jeff Lewis Raizner of the law firm Raizner Slania LLP in
Houston is serves as the lead counsel for Gobert and the class
plaintiffs.

Lufkin Division of the Eastern District of Texas Case No. 9:17-CV-
0106
[GN]


VECTREN CORP: Accord in Suit by Former SIGECO Employees Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vectren Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the settlement in the
lawsuit by the former SIGECO employees remains pending.

During the third quarter of 2014, the Company was notified of
claims by a group of current and former SIGECO employees
("claimants") who participated in the Pension Plan for Salaried
Employees of SIGECO ("SIGECO Salaried Plan").  That plan was
merged into the Vectren Corporation Combined Non-Bargaining
Retirement Plan ("Vectren Combined Plan") effective July 1, 2000.
The claims related to the claimants' election for benefits to be
calculated under the Vectren Combined Plan's cash-balance formula
rather than the SIGECO Salaried Plan formula.

On March 12, 2015, certain claimants filed a Class Action
Complaint against the Vectren Combined Plan (Plan) and the
Company. The Company denied the allegations set forth in the
Complaint and moved to dismiss the case. In April 2016, the court
dismissed part of the complaint but allowed the remaining claims
to proceed.

On February 6, 2017, the parties reached a settlement in principle
to resolve the matter. The terms of the settlement in principle
are not expected to have a material impact on the Plan or the
Company.

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

Vectren Corporation (the Company or Vectren), an Indiana
corporation, is an energy holding company headquartered in
Evansville, Indiana. The Company's wholly owned subsidiary,
Vectren Utility Holdings, Inc. (Utility Holdings or VUHI), serves
as the intermediate holding company for three public utilities:
Indiana Gas Company, Inc. (Indiana Gas or Vectren Energy Delivery
of Indiana - North), Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company
(SIGECO or Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana - South), and
Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc. (VEDO). Utility Holdings
also has other assets that provide information technology and
other services to the three utilities.


VICTORIA'S SECRET: Settles "Call-in" Shift Policy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Fashion Law report that Victoria's Secret has settled a multi-
million dollar class-action suit in federal court in California,
agreeing to pay $12 million to avoid trial. The suit, which was
filed in a California court in August 2014 by Mayra Casas and
Julio Fernandez on behalf of themselves and a class of current and
former Victoria's Secret employees, alleged that the Ohio-based
lingerie giant failed to adequately pay store clerks as a result
of its policy of "call-in" shifts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs claimed that Victoria's
Secret observed two differing types of shifts: Traditionally
scheduled shifts and mandatory on-call shifts.  In accordance with
Victoria's Secret policy, for the on-call shifts employees were
required to call their manager roughly two hours before the start
of their shift to confirm if they would be needed that day.  If an
employee called in and was not need that day, he/she was not owned
"reporting time pay."

As noted by Law360, "The plaintiffs contended that under a
California labor law -- known as Wage Order 7-2001, which entitles
employees to pay when they report to work but are furnished less
than half of their scheduled shift -- employees who were required
to call their store two hours before a scheduled shift to find out
whether they would be working that shift qualify as having
'reported' to work."

In July 2015, less than a year after the lawsuit was filed,
Victoria's Secret ended its use of call-in shifts entirely, and
now, the retailer has agreed to furnish a $12 million settlement,
of which the thousands of sales clerks who were part of the class
action (the original complaint estimated that as many as 28,000
individuals may have been affected by the call-in shift practice)
will receive a portion, as will the plaintiffs' counsel.

Columbus-based L Brands, which owns Victoria's Secret, was not
immediately available for comment. [GN]


WARNER MUSIC: Suit over Digital Music Download Prices Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against class action lawsuit related to pricing of
digital music downloads.

On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of
the State of New York served the Company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to the pricing of digital music downloads. On February 28, 2006,
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served us
with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking information
relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music. Both
investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the
announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative
class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital
music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern
District of New York.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007,
alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release of
their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing of
CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble damages.

The Company said, "On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued
an order dismissing the case as to all defendants, including us.
However, on January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the
judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for further
proceedings and on January 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied
the defendants' petition for Certiorari."

Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring
certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments
made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed
by the District Court.

On July 18, 2011, the District Court granted defendants' motion in
part, and denied it in part. Notably, all claims on behalf of the
CD-purchaser class were dismissed with prejudice. However, a wide
variety of state and federal claims remain for the class of
Internet download purchasers.

On March 19, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which has now been fully briefed. Plaintiffs filed
an operative consolidated amended complaint on September 25, 2015.
The Company filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on
October 9, 2015, and filed an amended answer on November 3, 2015.
A mediation took place on February 22, 2016, but the parties were
unable to reach a resolution.

The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously,
but is unable to predict the outcome of these suits. Regardless of
the merits of the claims, this and any related litigation could
continue to be costly, and divert the time and resources of
management. The potential outcomes of these claims that are
reasonably possible cannot be determined at this time and an
estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot
presently be made.

Warner Music Group Corp. was formed on November 21, 2003. The
Company is the direct parent of WMG Holdings Corp., which is the
direct parent of WMG Acquisition Corp.  Acquisition Corp. is one
of the world's major music-based content companies.


WELLS FINANCIAL: Still Defends Putative Stockholder Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Financial Corp. continues to face putative stockholder class
action and derivative complaint in Minnesota, according to a
Second Amended and Restated Loan Agreement with First Tennessee,
National Association dated May 30, 2017, which was one of the
attachments of Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc.'s Form 8-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 30, 2017.

On March 22, 2017, Paul Parshall, a purported Wells Financial
Corp. stockholder, filed a putative stockholder class action and
derivative complaint in the District Court of Faribault County,
Minnesota captioned Paul Parshall v. Wells Financial Corp., et al.
The lawsuit names as defendants Wells, each of the current members
of the Wells board and Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc.

The complaint asserts that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by initiating a process to sell Wells that
undervalues Wells; by agreeing to the merger agreement at a price
that does not reflect Wells' true value; and by either failing to
inform themselves of Wells' true value or disregarding such value.
The complaint further asserts that Wells and Citizens Community
Bancorp, Inc. aided and abetted the purported breaches of
fiduciary duty.

The complaint seeks (i) a declaration that the action may be
maintained as a class action; (ii) injunctive relief to prevent
the consummation of the merger; (iii) in the event the merger is
consummated, rescission of the transaction or rescissionary
damages; (iv) an order directing the defendants to account to the
plaintiff for damages because of alleged wrongdoing; (v) an award
to plaintiff of costs and disbursements including attorneys' and
experts' fees; and (vi) other relief as may be just and proper.

Wells Financial Corp. operates as a bank holding company for Wells
Federal Bank that offers various banking products and services.
It was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Wells, Minnesota.


WEST VIRGINIA BUSINESS: Attorney Sues Over Accreditation Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetroNews Staff reports that issues of accreditation at West
Virginia Business College are going to court.  On June 12,
Charleston Attorney Rusty Webb announced he was filing a class
action lawsuit in Harrison County against the soon-to-be
unaccredited school.

"I am tired of bad people doing bad things to good people,"
Mr. Webb said on "580-LIVE with Charleston Mayor Danny Jones"
heard on 580-WCHS, a MetroNews affiliate.

"These non-traditional students spent tens of thousands of dollars
on what is a worthless diploma."

Mr. Webb was referring to the 30 students who recently graduated
from WVBC with various degrees in Wheeling.

The Community and Technical College System of West Virginia,
responsible for authorizing certain academic institutions in the
state, voted earlier this year to remove WVBC's permit on June
30th after the school failed to gain accreditation due to problems
with staff credentials.

This leaves the 135th and last graduating class of the business
college with degrees from an institution that will no longer be
recognized effective on June 30.

"It probably was, at one time, a very good community-style
college, but when greed gets in the way you just lower standards
and hire whoever; you don't really educate, you just take student
loans and go," Mr. Webb said.

There are about 100 affected students involved in the case now,
according to Mr. Webb.

"That includes the ones who just graduated with worthless degrees,
and those who are in the system somewhere in the two-year
program."

WVBC had operated sites in both Nutter Fort and Wheeling.
[GN]


WEX INC: Mediation Expected in Missouri Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
WEX, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that a mediation is expected to occur in the
case in the class action lawsuit in Missouri.

On August 11, 2016, the Company was sued in the Circuit Court of
St. Charles County, Missouri, in a putative class action alleging
the Company improperly sent unauthorized facsimile advertisements
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 227 (the "TCPA"). The named plaintiff seeks to represent a
nationwide class of recipients of unauthorized facsimile
advertisements from the Company (collectively, the "Plaintiffs")
and requests statutory damages for each facsimile advertisement.
The Plaintiffs further allege that the opt-out notice of the faxes
did not meet the criteria set forth in the TCPA or its underlying
regulations.

The Company removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri on September 15, 2016. On
October 14, 2016, the Company filed an answer denying liability
and stating the facsimile advertisement at issue was sent by
FleetOne, LLC, Company's wholly-owned subsidiary.

A mediation related to this dispute is also expected to occur. The
Company is currently conducting an internal review of the matter
and intends to vigorously defend itself.

WEX Inc. is a provider of corporate payment solutions.


WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Class Action Trial to Begin June 2018
----------------------------------------------------------
Windstream Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that trial in a shareholder
class action lawsuit is scheduled to begin on June 20, 2018.

On February 9, 2015, a putative stockholder filed a Shareholder
Class Action Complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the
"Court"), captioned Doppelt v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 10629-VCN, against the Company and its Board of
Directors.  This complaint was accompanied by a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the spin-off. The Court,
ruling from the bench on February 19, 2015 - the day before a
special meeting of stockholders was scheduled to vote on a reverse
stock split and amended governing documents (the "Proposals") -
denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, reasoning
that much of the information sought by plaintiff had been
disclosed in public filings available on the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission's website, the Windstream
Holdings' Board of Directors was in no way conflicted, and while
approval of the Proposals would facilitate the spin-off, approval
was not necessary to effect the spin-off.

On March 16, 2015, plaintiff, joined by a second putative
Windstream stockholder, filed an Amended Shareholder Class Action
Complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company and
its Board concerning Windstream's disclosures and seeking to
rescind the spin-off and unspecified monetary damages.

On February 5, 2016, the Court dismissed Windstream as a named
party and also dismissed the plaintiffs' demand to rescind the
spin-off, but otherwise denied Windstream's motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims.

On or about January 27, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking class certification which the Court granted on April 17,
2017. A trial is scheduled to begin on June 20, 2018.

Windstream is a provider of advanced network communications and
technology solutions for consumers, businesses, enterprise
organizations and wholesale customers across the United States.


WORLDWIDE LABOR: "Wade" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES WADE, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
WORLDWIDE LABOR SUPPORT OF ILLINOIS, INC., and WAYNE A. COOK, JR.,
Individually, Case No. 2:17-cv-05529-MLCF-DEK (E.D. La., June 7,
2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Wade's proposed class members are properly defined as:

     All individuals employed within the last three (3) years by
     the Defendants, who were paid a regular hourly rate and per
     diem without receiving overtime compensation at
     one-and-a-half times their regular rate, including per
     diems, for hours worked in excess of forty (40) during a
     single workweek, including but not limited to, structural
     welders, pipe welders, pipefitters, shipfitters,
     electricians, outside machinists, etc.

Worldwide Labor is a business incorporated under the laws of
Illinois, licensed to do and doing business in the State of
Louisiana, with offices in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Pascagoula,
Mississippi and Chicago, Illinois.  According to filings with the
Secretary of State, Wayne A. Cook, Jr., is President, Director and
Secretary of Worldwide Labor.  Worldwide Labor is a privately held
corporation, which supplies a variety of skilled craftsmen to
support ongoing projects in Mississippi and Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Virginia L. Lococo, Esq.
          Joseph A. Lococo, Esq.,
          LOCOCO AND LOCOCO, PLLC
          10243 Central Avenue
          Post Office Box 6014
          D'Iberville, MS 39540
          Telephone: (228) 392-3799
          Facsimile: (228) 392-3890
          E-mail: Virginia.Lococo@lococolaw.com
                  Joseph.Lococo@lococolaw.com


XTO ENERGY: "Marburger" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled RICHARD P. MARBURGER, Trustee of the Olive
M. Marburger Living Trust and THIELE FAMILY, LP, the Plaintiffs,
v. XTO ENERGY INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-00910-DSC-CRE
(W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of:

   "all persons who have an interest in any oil and gas lease
   with Phillips Production Company, Phillips Exploration, Inc.,
   PC Exploration, Inc., Phillips Resources or any entity
   affiliated with them or any of them (collectively, "Phillips")
   covering oil and gas interests (i) which lease states that the
   royalty for gas shall be "equal to one-eighth (1/8) of the
   proceeds received from time to time by lessee for all gas
   produced, metered and sold, less lessor's pro rata share of
   any severance or excise tax imposed by any governmental body"
   (the "Phillips Standard Leases") and (ii) which lease has been
   assigned to or is or was under the direct or indirect control
   of XTO Energy Inc. ("XTO")".

   Provided, however, that the following are excluded from the
   Class:

   a. any oil and gas lease that determines the royalty based on
      "value";

   b. any lease that contains a Market Enhancement Clause,
      stating the following; "Notwithstanding anything to the
      contrary contained herein, it is agreed between the Lessor
      and Lessee that all oil and gas royalties accruing to the
      Lessor under this lease shall be the net of Lessor's
      proportionate share of the cost of gathering, storing,
      separating, treating, dehydrating, compressing, processing,
      transporting, and marketing the oil, gas or other products
      produced hereunder to transform the product into marketable
      form";

   c. any lease that expressly mentions and permits the deduction
      of any post-production expenses; and

   d. any person who is an officer, director, employee or agent
      of Phillips or XTO Energy Inc. and the United States of
      America.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rDmOuwj2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Borkovic, Esq.
          JONES, GREGG, CREEHAN & GERACE, LLP
          411 Seventh Ave, Suite 1200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 261 6400


* Attorneys Discuss Waivers in Class Action Settlements
-------------------------------------------------------
Tony Tootell, Esq. -- ttootell@foley.com -- and Kathryn A.
Shoemaker, Esq. -- kshoemaker@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner LLP,
in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that a
significant concern for any lawyer negotiating the settlement of a
class action in California state court is crafting a settlement
agreement that the court will ultimately approve.  Under
California law, a judge must approve of any proposed settlement
agreement disposing of a class action.  A judge will only approve
a class action settlement that he/she determines is fair,
adequate, and reasonable.  Courts have broad discretion in
evaluating the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of class
settlement agreements.

In deciding whether to approve a proposed class action settlement,
judges pay close attention to the extent to which the settlement
agreement requires class members to waive other claims they may
have against the defendant.  Of growing concern to judges is
whether the settlement includes a California Civil Code section
1542 waiver.

What Is a California Civil Code Section 1542 Waiver?

California Civil Code section 1542 is a statutory protection for
parties who sign a settlement agreement containing a general
release of claims.  It provides that a general release of claims
does not extend to claims that the releasing party does not "know
or suspect to exist" at the time of executing the release, and
which if known "must have materially affected" the settlement.
Thus, a California settlement agreement containing a general
release of claims does not prevent a plaintiff from bringing a
subsequent action against a settling defendant arising out of
claims he/she did not know of, or suspect, at the time of the
settlement.

To ensure that settling plaintiffs release all known and unknown
claims against defendants and other releasees at the time of
settlement, defense counsel routinely include section 1542 waivers
in their settlement agreements.  However, some judges evaluating
class action settlements are skeptical of this practice given the
wide scope of a section 1542 waiver and the potential for class
members to be surprised when their later claims are barred. See
Salehi v. Surfside III Condo. Owners' Assn., 200 Cal. App. 4th
1146, 1160 (2011) (barring subsequent claim of condo owner because
it was covered by a prior release that included a section 1542
waiver); Israel-Curley v. California Fair Plan, 126 Cal. App. 4th
123, 129 (2005) (barring subsequent claim of insured because it
was covered by a general release insured signed in a prior class
action settlement).

Section 1542 Waivers in Class Action Settlements in Los Angeles
County Superior Court

In the Los Angeles County Superior Court, all class actions are
handled by the Complex Litigation Program. (Note: In Los Angeles,
San Bernardino, Riverside, and Fresno counties, class actions are
automatically assigned to the complex litigation departments.  In
San Francisco, Orange, San Diego, and Alameda counties, class
actions may be assigned to the complex department, but the
assignment is not automatic.)  The Los Angeles Superior Court
provides checklists for attorneys to consult to ensure they have
properly considered the various factors affecting the fairness,
adequacy, and reasonableness of their proposed class settlement
agreements.[iv] The checklist specifically lists "[t]he necessity
of including a Sec. 1542 release as to the putative class members"
as a topic for judges to order further briefing on after reviewing
a party's motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement. Id.

In practice, judges in the Los Angeles County Superior Court's
Complex Litigation Program will evaluate whether a section 1542
waiver is necessary under the circumstances of the particular
class action settlement, and they will expect the parties to have
briefed the issue. In one action, a judge approved a section 1542
waiver in a 243 class member employee wage violation settlement of
$650,000.  However, two different judges found section 1542
waivers inappropriate in wage violation class action settlements
of $3.5 million dollars each, with class sizes of 7,600 and 26,000
employees.  A section 1542 waiver was also rejected by a judge in
a $3.2 million class settlement of consumer wiretapping claims by
a 15,000 consumer class.  Even if the judge ultimately determines
that inclusion of a section 1542 waiver is inappropriate, he/she
may still be willing to approve a settlement containing a general
release of both known and unknown claims, if tailored to address
the judge's concerns.

What Does This Mean for Me?

When negotiating settlement agreements in California class
actions, carefully consider whether a judge may view a section
1542 waiver as unfair or unreasonable to the class members. If a
section 1542 waiver is included, fully and persuasively brief the
issue in your motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement.  Last, be prepared to revise the settlement
agreement's release of claims to be as broad as possible without
explicitly waiving section 1542 if the judge expresses concerns.


* H.R. 985 Bill to Have Radical Effects on Investor Rights
----------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Jensen, Esq. -- jesse.jensen@blbglaw.com -- of Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote
that as one of its first acts this year, the House passed a bill
that deliberately attempts to curtail class action litigation
through the imposition of significant new restrictions.

As recognized by the Supreme Court, class action lawsuits play an
invaluable role in protecting investors, consumers, and employees
by "overcom[ing] the problem that small recoveries do not provide
the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action
prosecuting his or her rights." Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans &
Tr. Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184, 1202 (2013). Yet even after the waves
of populist outcry that dominated the 2016 election, the newly-
elected majority in the US House of Representatives passed as one
of its first acts this year a bill striking at the heart of
people's rights to class action litigation.  The bill -- the
so-called "Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017" (H.R.
985) -- seeks to frustrate class actions brought by consumers,
employees, and investors while tipping the scales in favor of
corporate defendants.

A remarkable coalition of consumer rights groups, civil rights
advocates, and members of the legal community have united in
opposition to H.R. 985.  Nonetheless, the House majority passed
H.R. 985 without permitting even a single hearing on its merits,
and this dangerous and much-criticized legislation now resides
with the Senate.

H.R. 985's radical effects on investor rights

Close examination of H.R. 985 reveals that, far from promoting
"fairness," the bill relies on creative methods to delay, and
ultimately dismantle, class action lawsuits.  For example, courts
currently permit lawsuits to proceed as class actions only if
(among other requirements) the proposed class representative shows
that its claims, including its injury, are "typical" of the
class's claims.  H.R. 985, however, would prohibit class actions
unless the plaintiff demonstrates that each proposed class member
suffered "the same type and scope of injury."  In many types of
class actions, this provision could radically pare down what a
"class" could be, because the same wrongdoing may injure large
groups of consumers or workers to different degrees.  For
instance, the same dangerous prescription medication may manifest
side effects that differ in scope.  While one patient may suffer a
lethal heart attack, another may suffer a debilitating stroke.
This provision of H.R. 985, however, could be interpreted to rob
from the victims of that defect their ability to band together
against the pharmaceutical company, even though all suffered from
the same faulty medication.

Moreover, H.R. 985 does not explain how precisely a class
representative could demonstrate that all of the class members
suffered "the same type and scope of injury."  Ultimately, courts
could spend years of litigation attempting to settle on an
accepted meaning of this restrictive requirement -- preventing
adjudication of the merits, and any relief to pending classes, in
the meantime.

Other provisions of the bill also transparently seek to
manufacture delay.  For instance, while appellate courts currently
have discretion as to when they will hear appeals of class
certification decisions, H.R. 985 would require appellate courts
to hear all appeals of class certification decisions, no matter
how frivolous.  This element of H.R. 985 caught experienced legal
scholars and practitioners by surprise, as little-to-no commentary
had suggested that appellate courts have failed to oversee
appropriately district court rulings on class certification.  By
unnecessarily burdening appellate courts, this provision of H.R.
985 would add further time and expense to the class certification
process.

Despite near-universal criticism, the bill advances to the Senate

Other than the US Chamber of Commerce -- the highest-spending
lobbying group in the United States -- H.R. 985 has received no
notable endorsement.  Instead, the bill has faced widespread
denunciation, including by dozens of consumer, labor,
environmental, disability, investor and civil rights advocacy
groups, all of whom expressed concern with how the bill would
stymie the enforcement of individual legal rights.  This disparate
alliance includes such prominent organizations as the AFL-CIO,
National Disability Rights Network, and Southern Poverty Law
Center.

Even beyond this pervasive concern over the bill's impact, several
legal commentators have criticized the bill for fundamentally
disregarding Congress's own acknowledgment that federal courts
themselves are best positioned to make rules governing their
procedures.  For example, on March 8, 2017, the American Bar
Association -- a prominent nonpartisan professional association of
legal professionals -- noted in a public letter to members of the
House that H.R. 985 would interfere with the efforts to improve
class action procedures already in progress by the policy-making
body for the federal courts, the Judicial Conference of the United
States, all while wasting judicial resources and unnecessarily
delaying and denying claims.

Fortunately for institutional investors, public outcry forced the
elimination of one of the bill's most onerous (and arguably
unconstitutional) provisions.  The bill's sponsor, House Judiciary
Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), voluntarily removed from
the legislation a provision that would have forbidden any class
representative from being represented by any counsel who had
previously served as counsel for the class representative in a
different class action.

Nonetheless, even this pared-back version of the bill could not
garner a single Democratic vote in the House, and even failed to
capture over a dozen Republican votes.  Ultimately, however, the
substantial GOP House majority advanced the bill to the Senate in
March 2017, where it has since been referred to the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary.

Since that time, the Senate has apparently shown no urgency with
respect to the legislation, leaving unclear H.R. 985's fate.  Last
year, the Senate Judiciary Committee refrained from acting on
similar anti-class action legislation, also introduced by
Rep. Goodlatte. Many commentators believe that, even if H.R. 985
moves forward to the Senate floor, it will face greater scrutiny -
- and likely revision -- than it did in the House. Ultimately,
perhaps the biggest wildcard facing H.R. 985 is whether the new
President will attempt to play any role in its future, and what
that role would be.

Conclusion

H.R. 985 threatens to erect unnecessary, costly, and time-
consuming barriers to class actions nationwide, and the House of
Representatives disappointed the country in making its passage one
of its first priorities this year.  With the bill now in the
Senate's control, legal experts, advocacy groups, institutional
investors, and others should remain vigilant regarding this anti-
investor and anti-consumer legislation.

Other than the US Chamber of Commerce -- the highest-spending
lobbying group in the United States -- H.R. 985 has received no
notable endorsement.  Instead, the bill has faced widespread
denunciation, including by dozens of consumer, labor,
environmental, disability, investor and civil rights advocacy
groups
Quotable

H.R. 985 is a "thinly veiled attempt to skew the current standards
decisively in favor of corporate defendants."

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) asserting that the Fairness in Class
Action Litigation Act of 2017 is the wrong way to improve the
justice process.


* Impact of Justice Gorsuch on Securities Laws Still Uncertain
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alla Zayenchik, Esq. -- alla.zayenchik@blbglaw.com -- of Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote
that while the dispute concerning who would occupy the vacant seat
has come to a close, many questions remain concerning the impact
of Justice Gorsuch's confirmation on the nation's securities laws.

After a hotly contested, year-long battle for Justice Scalia's
seat, Neil Gorsuch has been sworn in as the 113th Supreme Court
Justice over Democrats' filibuster.  While the dispute concerning
who would occupy the vacant seat has come to a close, many
questions remain concerning the impact of Judge Gorsuch's
confirmation on the nation's securities laws.

Early in his career, Judge Gorsuch was critical of securities
enforcement actions.  Advocating for more limited damages in
securities fraud class actions, Judge Gorsuch authored an amicus
brief on behalf of the United States Chamber of Commerce in the
2005 Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo case.  Also in 2005, he co-
wrote a decidedly anti-enforcement article in his personal
capacity for The Legal Times, stating: "The problem is that
securities fraud litigation imposes an enormous toll on the
economy, affecting virtually every public corporation in America
at one time or another and costing businesses billions of dollars
in settlements every year."  As a judge on the Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals starting in 2006, Judge Gorsuch rarely had the
opportunity to rule on class action securities cases.  One of his
notable securities laws decisions was MHC Mutual Conversion v.
Sandler O'Neill & Partners, in which Judge Gorsuch, writing for
the court, addressed Section 11 liability for issuers making false
or misleading statements.

In that case, the court declined to impose Section 11 liability
against officers of Bancorp predicated on their 2009 statements
concerning mortgage-backed securities in the bank's portfolio in
connection with a secondary stock offering to raise $90 million.
Bancorp announced that it expected the market for its securities
to rebound soon.  However, fifteen months after the offering, the
company had to recognize $69 million in losses. In rejecting
plaintiffs' claims, Judge Gorsuch largely focused on a limited
view of liability that would make damages available only "when the
speaker doesn't sincerely hold the opinion he expresses at the
time he expresses it."  He explained that "[i]n 2008, no doubt
there were those who genuinely thought the market for mortgage-
backed securities would soon rebound.  Events have disproved . . .
these opinions, but that hardly means the opinions were anything
other than honestly offered-true opinions at the time made."

However, Judge Gorsuch's ruling was not so constrained as to limit
liability to opinions that are not sincerely held.  Judge Gorsuch
wrote that liability may lie for opinions that are given without a
reasonable basis -- i.e., not just opinions that the speaker does
not believe -- but that the plaintiffs in the MHC Mutual
Conversion case had not alleged enough to win under that theory
either.  Judge Gorsuch also supported investors' rights by adding
that securities issuers cannot insulate themselves from liability
by adding "we believe" or "it is our opinion" before statements of
fact, as "issuers cannot avoid liability by liberally sprinkling
prefatory labels throughout a prospectus or simply tacking them
onto everything they say." One year later, in the 2015 Omnicare
decision, the Supreme Court endorsed the broader scope of
liability and agreed that not all statements preceded by prefatory
labels like "we believe" are "opinions."

While Justice Gorsuch has expressed skepticism about private
enforcement of the securities laws in the past, it is not entirely
clear how he will approach securities matters on the high court.
During his Senate confirmation hearings, he vowed that personal
views and policy preferences would not impact his decisions, as
his primary goal would be to remain faithful to the text of the
law.  As he told Congress, a judge "who likes every outcome he
reaches is very likely a bad judge."

An early test for Justice Gorsuch will be the ANZ Securities case
discussed in this issue of The Advocate, which involves the
textual interpretation of the Securities Act's statute of repose.
The Supreme Court heard argument in ANZ Securities on April 17,
Justice Gorsuch's first day on the Court's bench.  Justice Gorsuch
appeared inclined to side with the defendants' position in the
case and to hold that even when the claims of an aggrieved
investor are already being prosecuted by a class representative in
a pending class action, investors must take action to preserve
their individual claims if they might want to pursue them outside
of the class action context.  Echoing the judicial reasoning of
the late Justice Scalia, Justice Gorsuch noted that he does not
"like the policy consequences" of such a holding, but that it
might be required under the relevant statute's "plain language."

An early test for Justice Gorsuch will be the ANZ Securities case
discussed in this issue of The Advocate.


* SCOTUS Has Yet to Address Viability of Class Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Samberg, Esq. -- GASamberg@mintz.com -- of Mintz Levin
Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC, in an article for Law360,
reports that thus far the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed a few
issues concerning "class arbitration," including (1) the
fundamental significance of the arbitration agreement; (2) the
enforceability of a purported contractual waiver of class
arbitration; and (3) the extent of and criteria for judicial
review of an arbitrator's award concerning the permissibility of
class arbitration.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court has not yet focused on the
ultimate viability and enforceability, or the res judicata
effects, of a class arbitration award (a) vis-a-vis a
noncontracting, nonparticipating "class" member, or (b) vis-a-vis
a party to an arbitration agreement who made no bilateral
agreement with such a class member to arbitrate.  Thus, the
ultimate viability of class arbitration has not been addressed
squarely by the Supreme Court.

1. FAA Neither Authorizes Nor Prohibits Class Arbitration

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. Secs. 1, et seq., says
nothing about class arbitration.  It does not permit or prohibit
such a procedure, nor does any other statute expressly prohibit or
create a right to employ such a procedure.

2. The Arbitration Agreement is King

Contracting parties are "generally free to structure their
arbitration agreements as they see fit," and to "specify with whom
they choose to arbitrate their disputes." Stolt- Nielsen S. v.
AnimalFeeds International Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 130 S. Ct. 1758,
1774 (2010).  Therefore, "a party may not be compelled under the
FAA to submit to a class arbitration unless there is a contractual
basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so." Id. at 1775.
Generally, class arbitration is effectively prohibited unless (a)
it is clearly and unmistakably permitted by an arbitration
agreement, or (b) some governing rule of law or decision under
which the parties are arbitrating creates a default rule
permitting it. Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064,
2066 (2013).

Regarding the first basis, the parties' incorporation by reference
in an arbitration agreement of rules that permit class arbitration
could suffice.  In that regard, there has been significant
litigation concerning the incorporation by reference of the
American Arbitration Association's Supplementary Rules for Class
Arbitration (eff. Oct. 8, 2003) (SRCA).  Those rules provide
procedures for determining (a) who will decide whether class
arbitration is permitted (the arbitrator); and (b) whether the
arbitration agreement permits class arbitration (incorporation of
the SRCA is not to be a factor in that regard, however, see SRCA
3).

Incorporation of the SRCA "by reference" does not require much,
nor is it determinative.  The AAA's announced policy is that it
will administer a class arbitration if the arbitration agreement
(a) is silent concerning "class claims," consolidation or joinder
of claims; (b) adopts any arbitration rules of the AAA; and (c)
does not (expressly or implicitly) exclude the SRCA. Thus, parties
who expressly agree to any of the sets of arbitration rules of the
AAA, including its Commercial Arbitration Rules, and are otherwise
silent regarding class arbitration, are deemed to have consented
to the AAA's SRCA. See, e.g., Reed v. Florida Metropolitan
University, 681 F.3d 630, 635 (5th Circuit 2012), citing 1 Oehmke,
Commercial Arbitration Sec. 16:16 (April 2012). However, that
consent and incorporation does not constitute an agreement to
class arbitration, which is a matter to be adjudicated by the
arbitrator. See SRCA Sec. 3.

As to the second basis (a governing rule of law), the Supreme
Court has rejected the argument that "federal law secures a non-
waivable opportunity to vindicate federal policies" by class
arbitration using the procedures in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 or "some other informal class mechanism in
arbitration." American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant.,
133 S.Ct. 2304, 2310 (2013), citing AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion,
563 U.S. 333, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011).  Thus, the fact that the
parties would be able to litigate via class action in the absence
of an arbitration agreement is not a basis to conclude that they
agreed to class arbitration when they entered into an arbitration
agreement. See, e.g., Reed v. Florida Metropolitan Uniersity., 681
F.3d 630, 641-43 (5th Cir. 2012).  Moreover, "class arbitration,
to the extent it is manufactured by [state law] rather than
consensual, is inconsistent with the FAA." Concepcion, 131 S.Ct.
at 1751-52.

Nevertheless, as a possible example of that second basis (a
governing rule of law), the Fair Labor Standards Act provides that
an action to recover unpaid minimum wages or overtime may be
maintained against an employer by any one or more employees "for
and on behalf of himself or themselves and other employees
similarly situated." 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216 (2012).  Many employee-
claimants arbitrating FLSA disputes have contended on this basis
that they have a right to conduct a class arbitration, whether the
arbitration clause in question is silent concerning class
arbitration or even if it prohibits or purports to waive it.  The
federal circuit courts are split on this issue, but U.S. Supreme
Court appears set to address it during its current term, when it
takes up three consolidated cases concerning this matter.

3. Courts Must Enforce Arbitration Agreements According to Their
Terms

The FAA requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements in
accordance with their terms. See, e.g., 9 U.S.C. Sec. 4.  The
interpretation of such clauses is typically a matter of state
contract law. See Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U.S. at 681 ("interpretation
of an arbitration agreement is generally a matter of state law");
Greentree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 529 U.S. 444 (2003) (where
class arbitration is not clearly prohibited in an arbitration
clause, whether it is permissible in a particular arbitral
proceeding is a matter of contract interpretation applying state
law); 2 Domke on Commercial Arbitration Sec. 32:32 (June 2016);
see also, FAA Sec. 2.

That is, however, subject to the condition that state law must
treat an arbitration agreement no differently than any other
agreement. See, e.g., Kindred Nursing Centers LP v. Clark, 2017
U.S. LEXIS 2948 (May 15, 2017).

4. Silence is Not a Basis For Finding Agreement to Class
Arbitration

One takeaway from Stolt-Nielsen has been that under the FAA, a
party may not be compelled to submit to class arbitration unless
"there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed
to do so . . ." 559 U.S. at 648-85, and the parties' mere
agreement to arbitrate is not a basis upon which to infer that
they authorized class arbitration, id. Therefore, silence in an
arbitration clause about class arbitration cannot be construed to
indicate an agreement to it.

The U.S. Supreme Court . . . held that the differences between
bilateral and class-action arbitration are too great for
arbitrators to presume that the parties' mere silence on the issue
of class-action arbitration constitutes a consent to class-action
arbitration . . .

1 Oehmke, Commercial Arbitration Sec. 16:1; see also, 2 Domke,
Commercial Arbitration Sec. 32:32. Put another way, it is not
enough under Stolt-Nielsen that the terms of an arbitration
agreement could support a finding that the parties did not
preclude class arbitration. E.g., Reed v. Florida Metropolitan
University, 681 F.3d 630, 644 (5th Cir. 2012).

5. Parties Can Agree to Class Arbitration

A few years after Stolt-Nielsen, the Supreme Court reviewed a
similar but crucially distinguishable situation in Oxford Health
Plans v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064 (2013).  As in Stolt-Nielsen, the
parties in Oxford Health had agreed to have an arbitrator decide
whether their arbitration agreement permitted class arbitration
notwithstanding that it was silent in that regard. Id. at 2067.
In Oxford Health, however, the arbitrator indicated that he was
interpreting the arbitration clause in deciding that class
arbitration was indeed permitted.  The Supreme Court refrained
from second guessing the arbitrator, in accordance with
established jurisprudence concerning such judicial review, and
thus affirmed the confirmation of the award, which determined that
the parties' agreement authorized class arbitration. See, id. at
2071. (Both the Oxford Health and Stolt-Nielsen decisions could
also be said to support the proposition that class arbitration is
permitted if an arbitrator interprets the governing arbitration
agreement as allowing it.)

Thus, as evidenced by the Stolt-Nielsen and Oxford Health
opinions, the Supreme Court has focused more on maintaining the
integrity of the analytical framework for judicial review of
arbitral awards (in the context of a petition to vacate or confirm
an award) than on addressing the question of the fundamental legal
viability of a class arbitration award.

6. Class Arbitration Waiver

A class arbitration waiver in an arbitration agreement is
generally enforceable under the FAA. American Express Co. v.
Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct. 2304, 2312 (2013).

7. Who Decides if Class Arbitration is Permitted? It Depends.

The basic rules are as follows.  Questions of arbitral procedure
are presumptively for an arbitrator, not for the court to decide.
Howsom v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84, 123 S. Ct.
588 (2002). On the other hand, "arbitrability" questions --
including "certain gateway matters, such as whether parties have a
valid arbitration agreement . . . or whether a concededly binding
arbitration clause applies to a certain type of controversy -- are
presumptively for the courts" to decide. Oxford Health, 133 S. Ct.
at 2068 n. 2.

However, even gateway questions of arbitrability are for the
arbitrator, rather than for the court, where the parties "clearly
and unmistakably [so] provide" in their arbitration agreement.
AT&T Technologies Inc. v. Comm'ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643,
649, 106 S. Ct. 1415 (1986).  "The agreement to arbitrate a
gateway issue is simply an additional, antecedent agreement the
party seeking arbitration asks the federal court to enforce, and
the FAA operates on this additional arbitration agreement just as
it does on any other." Rent-A-Center, West Inc. v. Jackson, 561
U.S. 63, 130 S. Ct. 2772, 2778 (2010). Thus, the parties could
agree that the class arbitration issue should be decided by an
arbitrator, see Oxford Health, 133 S. Ct. at 2070-71, and that
would be binding.

Such a "clear and unmistakable" agreement might include, for
example, the effective adoption of the AAA's Supplementary Rules
for Class Arbitration, as previously described.

Furthermore, in at least the Eleventh Circuit, the parties are
deemed to have clearly and unmistakably agreed that an arbitrator
should determine whether class arbitration is permitted based
merely on the parties' adoption of the Commercial Arbitration
Rules (CAR) of the AAA without more.  The reasoning is that CAR
8(a) is a sufficient basis for that. Rule 8(a) provides that:
The arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own
jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the
existence, scope or validity of arbitration agreement.
See Terminix International Co. v. Palmer Ranch Ltd. Partnership,
432 F.3d 1327, 1332 (11th Cir. 2005); CFL Pizza LLC v. Hammack,
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14081 at *8 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2017).

The question of whether class arbitration is permitted in effect
determines the parties to an arbitration proceeding -- a gateway
issue.  It is therefore arguable that, in the absence of an
agreement otherwise, the court, rather than an arbitrator, should
decide that question of party arbitrability in the first instance.
Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 83 (2002); First
Options of Chicago Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943-46 (1995).

That would, however, be contrary to the 2003 plurality decision in
Greentree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 529 U.S. 444 (2003), that the
permissibility of class arbitration is a procedural (nongateway)
issue for the arbitrator. Bazzle, 539 U.S. at 454 (Breyer, J. for
a plurality of four justices).  Thus in Bazzle, the Supreme Court
vacated the arbitral award in question and sent the matter back to
the arbitrator to decide whether a "class arbitration" had been
permitted by the pertinent arbitration agreement.  The dissent in
Bazzle (Chief Justice William Rehnquist, joined by Justices
Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor), on the other hand,
considered that threshold question to be for the court, rather
than for an arbitrator. Id. at 455. (Furthermore, they opined that
the arbitration clause language was clear enough so that a court
could determine that class arbitration was not permitted, id. at
458-59.)

Subsequently, the court in Stolt-Nielsen confirmed that Bazzle
"did not yield a majority decision" on this issue. Stolt-Nielsen,
130 S.Ct. at 1772.  Thus, it arguably remained open at the Supreme
Court level, Reed v. Florida Metropolitan University, 681 F.3d
630, 634 (5th Cir. 2012), whether, in the absence of agreement by
the parties regarding who should decide, the relevant issue is a
gateway matter for courts to decide or a procedural matter for the
arbitrator to decide. See Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U.S. at 679; Oxford,
133 S. Ct. at 2068 n. 2; In re A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation, No.
12-CV-2656 (AJN), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74062 (S.D.N.Y. May 29,
2014)(analyzing precedent).

After Stolt-Nielsen, lower federal courts split on this issue and
then seemed to gravitate toward a recognition that the
determination is one of party arbitrability -- i.e., whether a
person (for example, a nonsignatory "class" member) is bound by an
arbitration agreement -- which is for the court in the first
instance. See, e.g., DiMartino v. Dooley, No. 08 CIV 4606, 2009,
at *4, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2009); see also, Sarhank Group v.
Oracle Corp., 404 F3d 657, 661 (2d Cir. 2005) ("arbitrability is
not arbitrable in the absence of the parties' agreement").  This
is consistent with the requirement of Section 4 of the FAA (9
U.S.C. Sec. 4) -- that is, "[t]he question [of] whether a person
is a party to [an] arbitration agreement . . . is included within
the statutory issue of the making of the arbitration agreement."
McAllister Bros. Inc. v. A&S Transportation Co., 621 F2d 519, 524
(2d Cir. 1980) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

8. Persons Who May Be Compelled to Arbitrate

A court is not authorized by the FAA to compel arbitration by
parties who are not bound by an arbitration agreement. EEOC v.
Waffle House Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 289 (2002); see 9 U.S.C. Sec. 4.
If parties have not agreed to arbitrate, the courts have no
authority to mandate that they do so. Cf., United Steel Workers of
America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582
(1960).

Conversely, a person who may have a claim against "X," but who is
not party to a relevant arbitration agreement with "X," generally
may not arbitrate that claim, notwithstanding that another person
with a similar claim and an arbitration agreement with "X" may do
so. See, Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction
Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1983).

Persons who are bound by an arbitration agreement are (1) the
party-signatories to the agreement and (2) those deemed bound by
it in accordance with contract and/or agency law principles. Among
the legal bases for compelling (or enabling) a nonsignatory of an
arbitration agreement to arbitrate against a signatory are veil
piercing, estoppel, incorporation of an arbitration agreement by
reference, assumption, agency, etc. E.g., Thomson-CSF SA v.
American Arbitration Association, 64 F.3d 773, 776-778 (2d Cir.
1995).

9. Parties Bound By a Class Arbitration Award

The Supreme Court indicated in Concepcion that noncontracting,
nonparticipating class members are not bound by a purported class
arbitration award unless they had had notice, an opportunity to
opt out, and adequate representation. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at
1751.  The Supreme Court subsequently indicated that class members
who have not opted into a class arbitration proceeding are not
bound by a purported class arbitration award. See, Oxford Health
Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064, 2072 (2013).

However, the Supreme Court does not appear to have identified
precisely when a noncontracting, nonparticipating class member is
bound by a class arbitration award.  Nor has the Supreme Court
indicated when a party to an arbitration agreement is bound by an
award in favor of (or against) a noncontracting, nonparticipating
class member.  Currently, therefore, we cannot infer that a class
arbitration award adjudicates not just the rights of parties to a
bilateral arbitration agreement, "but . . . the rights of the
absent parties as well." Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds
International Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 686 (2010).

10. Vacatur of Award If Arbitrator's Powers Exceeded

The FAA provides that a court must confirm an arbitral award
"unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed
in Sections 10 and 11 [of the FAA]." See FAA Sec. 9 (9 U.S.C. Sec.
9).  One of the specified grounds for vacatur of an award is
"where the arbitrators exceeded their powers." FAA
Sec. 10(a)(4).

Arbitration is a creature of contract, and the scope of an
arbitrator's powers are generally set by the terms of the
arbitration agreement, on which his jurisdiction is founded.  The
parties' bilateral agreement effectively identifies the parties,
the dispute(s) and the procedures in the arbitration.

Logically, if an arbitrator goes beyond the authority given him by
the arbitration agreement, he has exceeded his powers.  And an
arbitration award that reflects that overstepping may in principle
be vacated under FAA Sec. 10(a)(4).

Arguably, an arbitrator exceeds his powers if his award purports
to bind -- i.e., to burden or benefit, and to have a preclusive
effect on -- (a) any person who has not agreed to arbitrate or (b)
a contracting party relative to a person with whom that party is
not bound by agreement to arbitrate.

One might expect, therefore, that "[a]n arbitrator may exceed his
powers by ordering class arbitration without authorization."
Sutter v. Oxford Health Plans, 675 F.3d 2125, 220 (3d Cir. 2012),
affirmed on other grounds, Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter, 133 S.
Ct. 2064 (2013); see, Reed v. Florida Metropolitan University 681
F.3rd 630 (5th Cir. 2012) (Clause Construction Award under SCRA).
But, as noted earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet made an
analysis in such terms.  Rather, it has focused on the limits of
judicial review of an arbitrator's award.  For example, Stolt-
Nielsen concerned vacatur of an award where the arbitrators had
ordered class arbitration notwithstanding that there was no
evidence that parties had agreed to it. Stolt-Nielsen, 130 S. Ct.
at 1770.

However, the Stolt-Nielsen court did not address the implications
of an arbitrator's potential auto-expansion of his jurisdiction by
issuing an award that binds noncontracting persons, but rather
focused on the mode of analysis by the arbitrator.  So did the
court in Oxford Health.  There, the Supreme Court determined that
the arbitrator's decision that the arbitration agreement permitted
class arbitration survived the limited judicial review permitted
under FAA Sec. 10(a)(4) because the question for a judge on review
is not whether the arbitrator construed the parties' contract
correctly, but whether he construed it at all. In Oxford Health,
the court determined that the arbitrator's method of analysis met
that test, and therefore affirmed the Third Circuit's affirmance
of the district court's refusal to vacate an arbitration award
that authorized class arbitration.




                         *********


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  * * *