---

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


          Thursday, October 26, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 212



                            Headlines

ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Says Physicians Healthsource Claim Pending
AMEREN CORPORATION: 2018 Trial Set in Municipal Tax Class Suit
AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Nov. 2 Fairness Hearing Set
ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL: DeRon Moves to Certify Jewish Inmates Class
ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Securities Litigation Underway in S.D.N.Y.

ARIZONA: Voters Show Broad, Bipartisan Support for Consumer Rule
ARKEMA INC: Houston Residents File Class Action Complaint
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Insurance Company Had No Duty to Defend
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Suit Underway
BELLUM ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Irmas Says

BLUE APRON: Scott+Scott Reminds Investors of Plaintiff Deadline
BURGER KING: Settles Federal Class Action Lawsuit
CANADA: Settlement for Indigenous Won't Be Enough
CAREFUSION SOLUTIONS: Ward Seeks Reimbursement of Business Costs
CASTLE PARKING: "Bankhead" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia

CHRISTIAN ALCOHOLICS: Chicken Workers Files Class Action
CIGNA HEALTH: Texas Resident Files Federal Lawsuit
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Appeal in "Amey" Class Suit Still Ongoing
COLUMBUS, OH: Judge OKs Domestic Violence Victims' Class Deal
CONAGRA FOODS: Lyons Appeals E.D. Ark. Ruling to 8th Circuit

CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: North Carolina Action Dismissed
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiff Counsel's Claim Resolved
CRAZY BUFFET: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Lin" Action Claims
CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Court Tossed Unitholder's Appeal
CVS HEALTH: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Corcoran" Class Suit

DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Patients Sue Over Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants
DEVON ENERGY: Class of Consultants Certified in "Martinez" Suit
DOLLAR GENERAL: Given Millions to Create Jobs in Georgia
DON HUMMER: Ratliff Seeks to Certify Class of Job Applicants
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Motion to Dismiss Securities Case Underway

EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Appeals Decision in "Reyes" Suit to 9th Cir.
EHEALTH INC: Entered Into Binding Settlement Term Sheet
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Firefighters Retirement Plan Suit Underway
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Wayne, Oakland Counties Sue Drugmakers
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Sauk County May Join Opioid Class Action

ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Says "McGee" Suit in Early Stages
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss "Chawdry" Suit Pending
EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Leads to Class Suit in Texarkana Court
EXCLUSIVE LANDSCAPE: Nelson Seeks Recovery Under FLSA & Wage Law
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Springer" Suit Moved to E.D. Pa.

FLORIDA: Tries to Scuttle Matching-Gift Case
GILEAD SCIENCES: Nguyen Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
GOLDMAN SACHS: Currencies-Related Litigation Remains Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Suits over Delayed or Cancelled Orders Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Reinstate Currencies-Related Suit Underway

GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Adeptus Health Class Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss TerraForm & SunEdison Suits Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Certification Bid in Valeant Case Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Class Action over Snap IPO
GOLDMAN SACHS: Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation Underway

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Commodities-Related Suit Ongoing
GOLDMAN SACHS: U.S. Treasury Securities Litigation Underway
GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends Suit over Gender Pay Inequality
GOPRO INC: Final Judgment Entered for GoPro Defendants
GOPRO INC: Still Defends Shareholder Suit in Calif. State Court

GOPRO INC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss N.D. Calif. Suit
HERTZ TRANSPORTING: Dawson Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
HESKA CORP: Still Faces Suit over Unauthorized Faxes
HMS HOLDINGS: "Danahar" Lawsuit Terminated
HOLTZMAN VOGEL: Voting Defamation Suit Accuses Attys of Conspiracy

HRG GROUP: Plaintiff's Time to Seek Discretionary Review Expired
HYDRO ONE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action Lawsuit
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Parties in Delaware Action Drop Case
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Still Defends Texas Securities Class Suit
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Sued over HomeAdvisor-Angie's List Deal

ILG INC: Motion to Dismiss Mass Action Still Pending
INSULET CORPORATION: Arkansas Teacher's Suit Remains Pending
J.JILL INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit
J.JILL INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
J.JILL INC: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

J.JILL INC: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Action
JEFFREY G. LERMAN: Raytman Sues over Debt Collections Practices
JOHN C. HEATH: Faces "Wieseler-Myers" Suit in Colorado Fed. Ct.
KATHERINE, NT: Residents Want to Sue Over Water Contamination
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Class Action Settled for $61-Mil.

LAS VEGAS SANDS: Appeal in "Fosbre" Suit Pending
LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS: "Villanueva" Class Settlement Has Final OK
LIFE STORAGE: Awaits Court Decision on Settlement
LOS ANGELES, CA: Zimmerman Reed Announces Class Action Settlement
MAGICJACK: Levi & Korsinsky Proposes Class Action Settlement

MANITOBA: Lake-front Property Owners Fighting to Launch Suit
MDL 2445: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Suboxone Antitrust Suit
MDL 2672: DOJ Can't Share Discovery Material to German Law Firm
MDL 2792: "Allen" Class Suit Moved to W. Dist. Okla.
MDL 2792: "Madrid" Class Suit Moved to W. Dist. Okla.

MDL 2792: "Moore" Class Suit Moved to W. Dist. Okla.
MDL 2792: "Troyan" Class Suit Moved to W. Dist. Okla.
MDL 2795: "Garten" Suit Moved to Minnesota Federal Court
MDL 2795: "McLeod" Suit Moved Minnesota Federal Court
MDL 2795: "Lawhead" Class Suit Moved to Minnesota Fed. Ct.

MENTOR PROTECTION: Faces "Tabb" Suit in Western Dist. of Oklahoma
METLIFE INC: Unclaimed Property Litigation Remains Pending
METLIFE INC: Total Control Accounts Litigation Still Pending
METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Cases Pending against Sun Life
METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Suit Remains Pending

METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Martin" Class Suit Pending
METLIFE INC: Still Defends "Lau" Class Suit
METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Newman" Class Action Suit Underway
METLIFE INC: Still Defends Against "Miller" Action
MGM: Several Hundred Million Dollars Could Be at Stake in Suits

MGM: Third Lawsuit Filed by Mass Shooting Victim
MIAMI, FL: Residents File Class Suit on Toxic Plume Contamination
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Hernandez Says
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Amend Complaint Pending
MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Securities Action Voluntarily Dismissed

MONSANTO COMPANY: Sued Over Illegal Sale of Roundup(R) Herbicide
MOTHERISK: Lawyers Spar Over Whether CA Scandal Should Go Ahead
NANTKWEST INC: Scheduling Conference Set for Dec. 11
NCI INC: Defending Against Merger Class Suit
NETGEAR INC: "Williams" Class Suit Dismissed

NEUSTAR INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action
NFL: Aaron Hernandez Dropped Federal Lawsuit
OMEGA FLEX: Class Action Pending in Missouri
ONEBEACON INSURANCE: "Bushansky" Suit Dismissed
OUTCOME HEALTH: Harwood Feffer Probes on Class Action Claims

PLY GEM: Still Defends "Pagliaroni" Action in Massachusetts
PLY GEM: Class Certification Motion in Securities Case Pending
PLY GEM: Settlement of Raul Carrillo-Hueso Case Approved
PLY GEM: Settlement of "Morgan" Suit Approved
POLYONE CORPORATION: Faces "Matheney" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Boulder" Settlement Has Preliminary OK
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Certification Motion in PICA Pending
RAYONIER ADVANCED: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
REALPAGE INC: Final Approval Hearing Set for Feb. 2018
REVLON INC: Motion to Dismiss Merger Suit Underway

RJ REYNOLDS: Fla. App. Affirms $2MM Compensatory Award to Evers
SAGINAW, MI: Court Dismisses Resident's Parking Ticket Suit
SAIC INC: High Court Decision Expected by June 2018, Leidos Says
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Appeals Decision in "Velasquez-Reyes" Suit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Wagner" Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma

SEMPRA ENERGY: Still Defends Lawsuits over Gas Leak
SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: "Patton" Case in Delaware Pending
SIMONTON BUILDING: Appeal in "Kiefer" Suit Ongoing
SONUS NETWORKS: Says Ming Huang Class Action Ended
SUBARU: Lawsuit Claims Defect in WRX Models

SUNWEST BANK: Defeats Class Action After Five Years of Litigation
TENET HEALTHCARE: Denial of Bid to Vacate Judgment Affirmed
TESLA INC: Hearing on Appeal in November 2017
TESLA INC: Motion to Dismiss Calif. Suit Taken under Submission
TESLA INC: Delaware Case over SolarCity Acquisition Underway

TYSON FOODS: Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation Underway
TYSON FOODS: Says 3 Class Actions Resolved for $12.6 Million
TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Maplevale Farms Suit Underway
TYSON FOODS: Court Approves Bid to Dismiss "Huster" Suit
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Appeals Court Affirms Claims Dismissal

UNITED PARCEL: Seeks 6th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Solo" Suit
UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in AMB's Suit vs. HUD
UNITED STATES: Turping Appeals Fed. Claims Ct. Ruling
UNIVEST CORP: Defending Class Suit in Texas
VALLE FOAM: Canadians May Be Eligible for $20 Cheque After CA Deal

VECTREN CORP: Class Certification Bid & Settlement Pending
VEIN CENTERS: Court Allows St. Louis Coverage Suit to Proceed
VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: Golan Appeals Orders to Eighth Circuit
VERMEX PRODUCE: Produce Pay Sues over Unpaid Trust Beneficiaries
WCI COMMUNITIES: Putative Class Action Dismissed

WELLS FARGO: More Small Businesses Join Federal Class Action Suit
WELLS FARGO: HOLA Preempted Claims, 9th Cir. Rules
WEST VIRGINIA: Claims Filing Begins in Water Crisis Settlement
WESTPAC BANKING: $100MM Class Action Filed for Overcharging
WILLIS TOWERS: Settlement of Troice and Janvey Actions Pending

XEROX CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
XPO LOGISTICS: "Cortez" Suit in Initial Pleading Stage
XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Pending
XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile TCPA Claims Remain Pending
XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement of Meal Break Case Has No Opposition

YUSEN LOGISTICS: Atty's Contingency Fee Agreement Claims Upheld

* Arbitration Rules Should Stay Unchanged
* Slovenia Adopts Class Action Law







                            *********


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Says Physicians Healthsource Claim Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that Physicians
Healthsource, Inc.'s individual TCPA claim remains pending.

According to the Company, "On May 1, 2012, Physicians
Healthsource, Inc. filed a class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us.
The complaint alleges that, on multiple occasions between July
2008 and December 2011, we or our agent sent advertisements by fax
to the plaintiff and a class of similarly situated persons,
without first receiving the recipients' express permission or
invitation in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (the "TCPA"). The plaintiff seeks $500 for each
alleged violation of the TCPA, treble damages if the Court finds
the violations to be willful, knowing or intentional; and
injunctive and other relief. Allscripts answered the complaint
denying all material allegations and asserting a number of
affirmative defenses, as well as counterclaims for breach of a
license agreement."

"After plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration of the
counterclaims was granted, Allscripts made a demand in arbitration
where the counterclaims remain pending.  Discovery in the proposed
class action has now concluded.

"On March 31, 2016, plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification.  On May 31, 2016, we filed our opposition to
plaintiff's motion for class certification, and simultaneously
moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims.

"On June 2, 2017, the court denied Allscripts' motion for summary
judgment, and also denied Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  Plaintiff did not seek appellate review of the
Court's denial of class certification, so the only claim remaining
in the case is Plaintiff's individual TCPA claim."

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions delivers information technology
("IT") solutions and services to help healthcare organizations
achieve optimal clinical, financial and operational results.


AMEREN CORPORATION: 2018 Trial Set in Municipal Tax Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that a 2018 trial has been set in a class action
lawsuit against Ameren Missouri over municipal taxes.

The cities of Creve Coeur and Winchester, Missouri, on behalf of
themselves and other municipalities in Ameren Missouri's service
area, filed a class action lawsuit in 2011 against Ameren Missouri
in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. The lawsuit
alleges that Ameren Missouri failed to pay gross receipts taxes or
license fees on certain revenues, including revenues from
wholesale power and interchange sales. Ameren and Ameren Missouri
recorded immaterial liabilities on their respective balance sheets
as of June 30, 2017, and December 31, 2016, representing their
estimate of the probable loss due as a result of this lawsuit.

Ameren and Ameren Missouri believe there is a remote possibility
that a liability relating to this lawsuit could be material to
Ameren's and Ameren Missouri's results of operations, financial
position, and liquidity. Ameren Missouri believes its defenses are
meritorious and is defending itself vigorously. However, there can
be no assurances that Ameren Missouri will be successful in its
efforts. A 2018 trial has been set, and an order is expected later
that year.

Ameren, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is a public utility
holding company under PUHCA 2005.


AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Nov. 2 Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing to determine whether the settlement of a class
action lawsuit against Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. will be approved
is scheduled for November 2, 2017, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

Since October 1, 2015, three purported securities class action
lawsuits have been commenced in the United States District Court
for New Jersey, naming as defendants the Company, its Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, and in one of the actions, its Chief
Medical Officer. The lawsuits allege violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the Company related to the
regulatory approval path for migalastat.  The plaintiffs seek,
among other things, damages for purchasers of the Company's Common
Stock during different periods, all of which fall between March
19, 2015 and October 1, 2015.

It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations
received from stockholders, with respect to similar matters and
also naming the Company and/or its officers and directors as
defendants.

On May 26, 2016, the Court consolidated these lawsuits into a
single action and appointed a lead plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff
filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on July 11,
2016.

On August 25, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss in
response to the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.  This
motion to dismiss was fully briefed on October 28, 2016, but has
not been decided.

Lead plaintiff and defendants have reached an agreement in
principal to fully and finally settle all claims asserted in the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.   On June 29, 2017,
the Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement. In
connection with the Court's preliminary approval, the settlement
amount was paid into the plaintiff's fund. The settlement is
immaterial to the Company's consolidated financial statements and
is subject to final court approval. A fairness hearing to
determine whether the settlement will be approved is scheduled for
November 2, 2017. The settlement amount was covered under
insurance.

Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. is a global patient-focused
biotechnology company engaged in the discovery, development and
commercialization of a diverse set of novel treatments for
patients living with devastating rare and orphan diseases. The
Company's lead product, migalastat HCl, is a small molecule that
can be used as a monotherapy and in combination with enzyme
replacement therapy for Fabry disease.


ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL: DeRon Moves to Certify Jewish Inmates Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled DeRon McCoy, Jr., et al. v.
Aramark Correctional Services, Case No. 5:16-cv-03027-CM-KGG (D.
Kan.), ask the Court to:

   -- consider together the lawsuit with Case No. 17-3061-SAG-DJW;

   -- certify a class; and

   -- appoint counsel for the class.

The lawsuit is brought over the alleged failure of Aramark and
other Defendants to serve kosher meals that meet all Jewish
dietary laws for source, storage, preparation and service.  The
Plaintiffs are Jewish inmates at the Kansas Department of
Corrections.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4mMwgDs2


ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Securities Litigation Underway in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend a
securities class action.

In February 2017, two purported class action lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company and two of its current officers.
Those cases have been consolidated into one purported class action
lawsuit under the caption, In re Aratana Therapeutics, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00880. The consolidated
lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-
disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class
period of March 16, 2015 to February 3, 2017.

In a June 2017 ruling, District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer (1)
consolidated these two actions, (2) appointed as lead plaintiffs
the Investor Group comprised of Joseph Bessent, John Corbitt, and
Eric Pearson, and (3) appointed as lead counsel the Investor
Group's counsel, Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

The Company intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted.
Given the early stage of the litigation, at this time a loss is
not probable or reasonably estimable.

Aratana is a pet therapeutics company focused on licensing,
developing and commercializing innovative therapeutics for dogs
and cats.


ARIZONA: Voters Show Broad, Bipartisan Support for Consumer Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------
AZ Business Magazine reports that a new Public Policy Polling
survey finds broad and overwhelming support in Arizona for the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) recent rule limiting
banks and large corporations like Equifax from using forced
arbitration to deny consumers the right to their day in court.

81 percent of Arizona voters support the "forced arbitration" rule
to end the use of fine-print "ripoff clauses." The rule empowers
consumers to join together in class action lawsuits taken before a
judge or jury rather than being forced into an individual,
secretive arbitration process where disputes are decided by an
arbitrator approved by the bank or large corporation.

"The Senate, armed with lessons learned from the Equifax and Wells
Fargo scandals, must put the interests of active-duty
servicemembers, veterans, and American consumers ahead of Wall
Street lobbyists and reject efforts to take away our day in
court," said Colonel Lee Lange, USMC retired, president of the
Arizona Chapter of the Military Officers Association of America.

As Senators McCain and Flake consider whether to roll back the
forced arbitration rule, more than three in five Arizonans (61
percent) oppose that action, which is wide-ranging across the
political spectrum, including majorities of Democrats (63
percent), independents (72 percent), and Republicans (54 percent).
In July, the House voted to strike down the rule and its fate lies
with the Senate.

Earlier this month, a group of 423 leading law school, university,
and college professors in all 50 states, including 12 from
Arizona, urged the Senate to uphold the Constitution and preserve
Americans' rights to their day in court in a letter opposing
efforts to block the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's new
arbitration rule.

"Companies bury forced arbitration clauses in the fine print of
their contracts because they know that Americans would be outraged
if they knew that 'I agree' means they are giving up their
constitutional right of access to the courts," said Michael J.
Saks, Regents Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and
Department of Psychology at Arizona State University.

The Public Policy Polling results are consistent with national
polling conducted by the conservative political action committee,
American Future Fund (AFF). Initially, 67 percent of respondents
indicated support for the rule, but when told Equifax had used
forced arbitration clauses to limit consumer access to the legal
system, the share of those supporting the rule rose to 75 percent.

An overwhelming majority of Arizonans are joined by leading
bipartisan voices in support of the CFPB arbitration rule,
including the American Legion, The Military Coalition, Dean
Clancy, the former vice president for public policy at
FreedomWorks, and Tea Party Nation founder Judd Phillips. [GN]


ARKEMA INC: Houston Residents File Class Action Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that plaintiffs in Houston have
filed a class action lawsuit against Arkema Inc., saying a release
of toxic chemicals from the defendant's plant in the wake of
Hurricane Harvey has left local residents at an increased risk of
bodily injury.

The plaintiffs assert in the class action lawsuit filed Oct. 3 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas that
the series of events led nearby residents to be exposed to PAHs,
SVOCs, Dioxins/Furans, and heavy metals. [GN]


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Insurance Company Had No Duty to Defend
---------------------------------------------------------
The Indiana Lawyer reported that a Mississippi-based bank that was
sued for charging excessive overdraft fees was not entitled to
coverage under its insurance policy because the policy
specifically excluded claims arising from fees or charges, the 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

In BancorpSouth, Incorporated v. Federal Insurance Company, 17-
1425, Federal Insurance Co.  sold BancorpSouth Inc., a
Mississippi-based financial institution, a bankers' professional
liability insurance policy that provided that Federal would pay
for loss on account of any claim made against Bancorp for a
"wrongful act." However, the policy also included an exclusion
providing that Federal "shall not be liable for Loss on account of
any Claim . . . based upon, arising from, or in consequence of any
fees or charges."

Less than a year after Bancorp purchased the policy, Shane Swift
filed a class action against the financial institution in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida, alleging
Bancorp had "maximized the amount of overdraft fees it could
charge customers" by reordering debits from highest to lowest,
among other tactics. The complaint asserted claims for breach of
contract, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and a
violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practice Act on behalf
of "(a)ll BancorpSouth customers in the United States who incurred
an overdraft fees as a result of BancorpSouth's practice of
resequencing debit card transactions from highest to lowest."

Bancorp and Swift ultimately reached a settlement in which Bancorp
agreed to pay $24 million to the class plaintiffs, $8.4 million of
which was designated for attorney fees, plus $500,000 in class
administrative costs. Bancorp sought coverage from Federal for
defending the lawsuit and indemnifying the settlement, but Federal
denied all coverage.

Bancorp then filed suit against Federal, raising breach of
contract and bad-faith denial of coverage claims. Federal
responded by moving to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
arguing Swift's claims regarding the overdraft fees were excluded
from the policy's coverage. Senior Judge Sarah Evans Barker in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana agreed
and granted the motion to dismiss, prompting the instant appeal.

On appeal, Bancorp argued its general policies and procedures, and
not the overdraft fees, were the primary sources of harm alleged
in the class action, so the exclusion related to "any fees or
charges" would not apply. But in an opinion, the 7th Circuit Court
of Appeals disagreed, with Judge William J. Bauer noting that
under Mississippi law, which governs here, a duty to defend is
determined based on a comparison of language in the policy and
language in the underlying complaint.

Here, although the complaint does address Bancorp's "practices,"
it consistently uses language that ties Bancorp's practices
directly to its maximization of overdraft fees, Bauer wrote. Thus,
the exclusion applied, and Federal did not have a duty to defend
against the claims.

Further, the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify
under Mississippi law, Bauer wrote, so because Federal did not
have a duty to defend, it also did not have duty to indemnify.
Without that duty, Bancorp's third claim alleging bad-faith denial
of coverage also fails. [GN]


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated class
action lawsuit remains pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

In November 2016, a purported antitrust class action complaint
seeking monetary and injunctive relief was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV solutions
to restrict output and affect pricing in connection with a
shortage of such solutions. Similar parallel actions subsequently
were filed.

In January 2017, a single consolidated complaint covering these
matters was filed in the Northern District of Illinois. The
company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in
February 2017.

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


BELLUM ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Irmas Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL IRMAS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BELLUM ENTERTAINMENT, LLC;
MARY CAROLE MCDONNELL; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC679930 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 16, 2017),
seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime under the California
Labor Code.

The case is a class action, pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure, on behalf of Plaintiff and all actors who did not earn
a monthly salary equivalent to at least two times the state
minimum wage for full-time employment, who are currently employed
by or formerly employed by Defendants and any subsidiaries or
affiliated companies within, the State of California.

According to the complaint, Defendants have misclassified these
employees as independent contractors, depriving them of wages and
other benefits owed to them. From at least four years prior to the
filing of this action continuing to the present, Defendants have
had a consistent policy of failing to pay all wages and/or
overtime for all work performed at the proper rate of compensation
to actors not earning a monthly salary of at least two times the
minimum wage.

Bellum Entertainment is an independently owned television
production company, based in Burbank, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
          Ari J. Stiller, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  liane@kingsleykingsley.com
                  ari@kingsleykingsley.com


BLUE APRON: Scott+Scott Reminds Investors of Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP ("Scott+Scott"), a national
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, reminds investors
of upcoming October 16th lead plaintiff deadline in securities
class actions against Blue Apron Holdings Inc. ("Blue Apron" or
the "Company") (NYSE: APRN), related to violations of federal
securities laws in connection with its June 29, 2017 Initial
Public Offering ("IPO"). If you are a Blue Apron shareholder who
bought in the IPO, you are encouraged to contact a Scott+Scott
attorney for additional information.

Blue Apron is a holding company focused on providing recipes and
ingredients for making home cooking accessible. The Company held
its IPO on June 29, 2017, selling its stock for $10 per share.

According to the lawsuits, in connection with its IPO, Blue Apron
emphasized in its Registration Statement filed with the SEC that
the company aimed to invest in marketing to drive customer
acquisition and planned to introduce new products to increase the
company's sales and profits. However, the complaints allege that
the Registration Statement was misleading because it neglected to
disclose that: (1) the Company had already decided to reduce
spending on advertising; (2) the Company's orders were not
arriving on time or with all the ingredients needed; and (3) the
Company had encountered delays with its new factory in Linden, New
Jersey.

Since the IPO, Blue Apron's stock has declined over 49%. As of
market close on October 11, 2017, the price was $5.09.

What You Can Do

If you purchased or acquired Blue Apron shares in or traceable to
the IPO and you wish to discuss the lawsuits, or have questions
about this notice or your legal rights, please contact attorney
Joe Pettigrew, Esq. at (844) 818-6982 or at -- jpettigrew@scott-
scott.com.-- The deadline to move for Lead Plaintiff status is
October 16, 2017.

About Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with
offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.

         Joe Pettigrew, Esq.
         Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
         jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]


BURGER KING: Settles Federal Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
David J. Neal, writing for Miami Herald, reports that Burger King
has settled a federal class action lawsuit that pointed out a
price discrepancy between buying one and buy-one-get-one-free.

The May suit, filed in Maryland by Koleta Anderson, claimed Burger
King charged more for a Croissan'wich if the customer used a Buy
One, Get One Free (BOGO) coupon than it charged a customer just
buying one Croissan'wich by itself. Backed by receipts from Burger
Kings in Florida, Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia,
Anderson accused the fast food chain of deceptive trade practices,
breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.

On May 7, the Miami Herald checked and found a single Sausage
Croissan'wich cost $3.20 with sales tax at the Burger Kings at 701
NW 37th Ave. and 1309 NW 20th St.. Instead of costing the same
thing when a Herald reporter used BOGO coupons at the same
locations minutes later, he paid $3.42 and $3.64. An important
point -- the reporter ordered his Croissan'wiches without cheese.

"BKC's investigation concluded that in certain instances where a
consumer used a BOGO to order two Croissan'wiches without egg,
cheese, and/or a meat (a "modified Croissan'wich"), they may have
been charged the price of a single regularly-priced Croissan'wich,
rather than the lower price that restaurant may have charged for a
single modified Croissan'wich."

Burger King claimed this came into play on less than 10 percent of
all Croissan'wich buys with BOGO coupons that took place between
Oct. 1, 2015 and May 19, 2017.

"The chain promptly sent a software update to its franchisees who
use the particular point-of-sale system at issue, as well as
written instructions to restaurant cashiers, to ensure that the
problem ceased."

As for the customers, anyone with a receipt showing the different
pricing will get $5 from Burger King. Anderson will get $500 as a
"service award."

Burger King will also pay Anderson's attorneys fees, $185,000.
[GN]


CANADA: Settlement for Indigenous Won't Be Enough
-------------------------------------------------
Harron Walker, writing for Splinter, reports that the Canadian
government announced on October 6 that it had reached a proposed
settlement with survivors of the Sixties Scoop, a term that
describes the forced removal of tens of thousands of Indigenous
children from their homes during the latter half of the twentieth
century.

Once removed, usually without the consent of their parents, the
children were placed into the Canadian child welfare system. Many
were adopted into the homes of middle-class white families and,
with their records altered by the state, didn't learn the full
extent of what was done to them until years later. Some still
don't know.

The bulk of that $800 million settlement, reached after an eight-
year legal battle, will go to individual survivors, with a maximum
payout of $50,000 each. $50 million will go towards a foundation
focused on funding reconciliation initiatives. Crown-Indigenous
Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett hopes the proposed settlement
will "begin to right the wrongs" caused by the Sixties Scoop. Not
every survivor is so optimistic.

"I don't know what dollar amount to put on a lifetime of loss, but
$50,000 seems pretty low," Colleen Cardinal tells me. Some of the
plaintiffs in the case against the government, she says, didn't
find out about the settlement until the day it was announced. And
there are logistical questions to be resolved: If more than 20,000
survivors make a claim, that maximum payout will be significantly
reduced. Cardinal has been minimized by the government too often
not to be skeptical of the settlement.

"The state is congratulating itself and patting itself on the
back, when it really hasn't done anything yet," she says. "All
they've done is make an announcement about money. Until I see
action, until they invite us to the table, I can't even speak of
it."

Tired of waiting for a dinner invitation, Cardinal built a table
of her own. She is the co-founder and coordinator of the National
Indigenous Survivors of Child Welfare Network, a group based out
of Ottawa that provides support and advocacy for MÇtis, Inuit, and
First Nations people affected by the Canadian government's
colonial child welfare system, a system that has more Indigenous
children in it today than it did at the height of the Sixties
Scoop. Cardinal says she and the others involved in the network
began doing this work because, as she puts it, "there was nobody
else doing it."

"There was nothing for us," she says. "We're the ones who have to
do the educating in our communities. We're the ones who have to
educate our doctors, our social workers. For instance, if I ever
have to go to the hospital, I always have to tell them why I have
post-traumatic stress disorder or why I have depression. I have to
explain to them what the Sixties Scoop is. It's really hard for
people to grasp the kind of harm that constant educating causes on
top of the harm that's there in the first place."

Splinter spoke with Cardinal, three days after the proposed
settlement was announced, to hear more about how the Network
counteracts that harm and what justice might look like to her.

The interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

How do you go about envisioning what justice might look like?

First and foremost, healing is integral to our work. It's at the
center of what we do. For us to come to justice, we need to be in
a good place.

We started doing this work four years ago because we want wellness
for everybody, when they're ready for it. Part of that means
holding space in an anti-oppressive way, making sure our spaces
are accessible, safe, and inclusive so that we have ceremony for
two-spirit and transgender people who may not otherwise got those
services in their communities. We've had many transgender and two-
spirit people come to our gatherings and say that this is the
first time they really felt like they belonged. Not just, you
know, to a transgender community or a two-spirit community but to
an adoptive community, with their own people.

As for justice, justice to us looks like us leading the work. If
the state wants to craft an apology, they need to consult us on
what they're apologizing for. Survivors need to be at the table.
An apology can't just be an apology. They need to ask us for
forgiveness for what they've done to our families and our
communities.

How would you describe the Canadian government's efforts to
involve Indigenous people, specifically survivors of the child
welfare system, in this process of reconciliation?

Well, so far it's been nothing. [laughs] All they've done is make
an announcement about money. Until I see action, I can't even
speak of it. We weren't even invited to the announcement. We had
to get special security clearance just to be there. The plaintiffs
didn't even find out about the announcement until the day of and
were flown in the next day. They had no idea what was going on.
Their lawyers were the ones who negotiated the settlement. It's
very troubling that the plaintiffs didn't know.

Especially for something that, like you said, is a minefield of
potential triggers for the survivors involved.

When the settlement was made, Chief Martel Brown, the main
plaintiff in the Ontario class action suit, said something about
how you can't make everybody happy. Well, then you shouldn't have
settled. What you've done by settling is trigger thousands of
people who feel like their losses are worth more than $50,000.

That works out to be, what, six or seven dollars a day? That's
nothing. I don't know what dollar amount to put on a lifetime of
loss, but $50,000 is pretty low. And to have our MÇtis and non-
status brothers and sisters excluded is hurtful. These are people
we do ceremony with, people we do healing with, people who are
just as marginalized as we are. This decision has triggered
thousands of people into a state of anger and defeat.

It's also woken up a lot of people. I don't know if the state
intended to pacify people with this settlement, but what they've
done is woken them up to the larger picture of injustice.

Here in the U.S., our education system does a terrible job of
teaching us Indigenous history. How is it in Canada?

[Laughs] It's not very good. There's a deliberate lack of effort
on the part of the Canadian government. As a person who teaches at
universities and colleges, I've met a lot of first-year students
who don't even know the basics of treaties in Canada.

I always start my presentations by asking if anybody can name all
the provinces and territories. They'll all raise their hands and
name them off. Then, I'll put the treaty map up and ask if anybody
knows what treaty they live on. None of them know. As I tell them,
that map right there is the making of Canada. Without those
treaties, Canada would cease to exist. After I say that, you can
hear a pin drop.

They have no idea about how the land was negotiated to share and
the resources were negotiated to share with Indigenous people.
When I teach it that way, they get it. The treaties are binding,
just as binding as any other international treaty. That's why they
refuse to share that knowledge with Canadians. As if it's our
fault that we live the way we do. As if it has nothing to do with
Canada not providing proper resources and funding to our
communities.

There are more Indigenous children in Canada's welfare system
today than there were at the height of the Sixties Scoop. Yet, the
policies aren't exactly the same as they were back then. Would you
like to speak to how those two things can both be true?

It's really just a continuation of the same policies. The only
thing that's changed is on account of the Kimelman report --
basically, they're not shipping children out of provinces or out
of the country anymore. Now, they're warehousing them in foster
homes and group homes. These kid get shuffled back and forth, and
they end up either running away or aging out of the system and
living on the street because there's not another place to them.
Basically, we're looking at generations of children who are the
products of residential schooling and the Sixties Scoop.

My mother is a residential school survivor. Then we were taken
away from her. Then I spent my whole life trying to make sure that
my kids weren't taken away because there's always that fear that
child welfare will come and take our kids away. Then, my sister's
kids ended up going into care.

That's just my family. You're talking about thousands of
Indigenous people who are repeating cycles of trauma and abuse
whose kids are constantly going into care because that trauma is
inherited. It's just cycles of addiction, cycles of trauma that
are continually replicating and continually being used as excuses
to remove these kids, raise them without their culture, raise them
with internalized racism towards their culture, and assimilate
them into mainstream culture.

Definitely not the kind of thing that $50,000 can fix.

Oh, no. Not at all. And that's just off-reserve we're talking
about, in urban centers. We're not even talking about on-reserve,
where child welfare is chronically underfunded by a quarter of
what non-Indigenous folks get. It's kind of a cruel joke. It's
kind of like what's happening with Trump. All of, you know, "He's
a bad man," but nobody does anything. [Laughs] It's the same thing
in Canada. Everybody knows that Indigenous people are almost like
pariahs up here, but nobody wants to address it, especially the
government. We've been putting in our own time to volunteer and
raise funds, but we can only go so far without funding. Without
it, we just can't do the work that needs to be done at the
national level.

Does the Network get any funding from the Canadian government?

We did actually get some funding this past year to have our Bi-
Giwen Indigenous Adoptee Gathering. We brought together 75
survivors for four days of ceremony and workshops. We did sweat
lodges, drum making, rattle making, art therapy workshops, body
care workshops, workshops that deal with faith and loss and
healing, workshops that deal with conflict resolution -- tools
that will help us as we're healing, right? Because a lot of us are
just starting to heal.

We have survivors in their 40s or 50s who are just learning about
the Sixties Scoop or who are just starting to come to ceremony. We
make sure that the survivors who come to us can learn about their
culture in a safe, supportive environment. There are people out
there who use culture to prey on survivors who don't know any
better. We call those people "popcorn elders" or false prophets,
you know? They use our culture against us. They charge money. You
should never have to pay for culture.

Is there anything you'd like to say to a survivor of Canada's
colonial welfare system who might be hesitant or nervous about
going to a future gathering?

It's really hard to tell people to come. They have to want it.
They have to know that we're here for you. We know what you're
going through. Our experiences are the same. And we come away as
family, and we keep in contact and support each other through
Facebook and other social media. We want other survivors who are
out there in the world to know that we're here. You can come home.
We got you. It might seem like you're alone out there, but you're
not. [GN]


CAREFUSION SOLUTIONS: Ward Seeks Reimbursement of Business Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE WARD and FRANCIS TRESSA, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. CAREFUSION
SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 61247709 (Del. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 16, 2017), seeks to recover unreimbursed business expenses,
unpaid overtime, and other monies owed to Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated field service technician affiliates employed by
Defendant under the Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendant requires affiliates to pay
for training and certifications. The Defendant further requires
affiliates to purchase and/or maintain items to perform their
work, including, but not limited to, laptops, wireless hotspots,
and cell phones. Finally, Defendant's misclassification of
affiliates as independent contractors requires affiliates to
purchase their own health insurance and other benefits. The
Plaintiffs incurred approximately $25,000 in annual expenses for
Defendant's benefit. Defendant's other affiliates were required to
incur similar expenses. Affiliates, including Plaintiffs, also do
not receive their required overtime pay for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per workweek and/or eight hours per day.

CareFusion sells, leases, licenses, and services Pyxis MedStation
systems, Pyxis SupplyStation systems, and other healthcare
products including infusion and medication safety technologies,
respiratory equipment, and automated medical supply dispensing
devices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Herr, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL C. HERR LLC
          1225 N. King Street, Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 483 7060
          Facsimile: (302) 483 7065
          E-mail: dherr@dherrlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
          MCINNES LAW LLC
          3500 West 75th Street, Ste 200
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 220 2488
          Facsimile: (913) 273 1671
          E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com


CASTLE PARKING: "Bankhead" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Donald Carl Bankhead and Keith
Thompson, Individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. Castle Parking Solutions, LLC
and Beacon Management Services, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
17EV003899, was removed on Oct. 16. 2017 from the State Court of
Fulton County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:17-cv-04085-WSD to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Judge William S. Duffey, Jr.

Castle Parking Solutions LLC is an automotive repair shop located
in Atlanta.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin Charles Patrick, Esq.
          KEVIN PATRICK LAW, LLC
          2860 Piedmont Road, Suite 195
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 566 8964
          E-mail: kevin@patricktriallaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew Q. Wetherington, Esq.
          Michael L. Werner, Esq.
          Robert Neil Friedman, Esq.
          THE WERNER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          2860 Piedmont Rd, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 564 4329
          E-mail: matt@wernerlaw.com
                  mike@wernerlaw.com
                  Robert@wernerlaw.com

Beacon Management Services, LLC is represented by:

          Trevor Grant Hiestand, Esq.
          WALDON ADELMAN CASTILLA HIESTAND & PROUT
          900 Circle 75 Parkway, N.W., Suite 1040
          Atlanta, GA 30339-3084
          Telephone: (770) 953 1710
          E-mail: thiestand@wachp.com


CHRISTIAN ALCOHOLICS: Chicken Workers Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Amy Julia Harris, writing for Reveal, reports that two men who
were forced to work for free in a court-ordered drug
rehabilitation program have filed a class action lawsuit, alleging
racketeering, human trafficking and labor law violations.

It is the second federal suit filed in a week against Christian
Alcoholics & Addicts in Recovery and the major chicken company
where the men worked, Simmons Foods.

The two lawsuits come on the heels of an investigation released by
Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting, which found
that judges across the country have ordered defendants into drug
rehab programs that double as work camps for for-profit companies.

Reveal's investigation focused on CAAIR, an Oklahoma program that
puts hundreds of men a year to work slaughtering chickens at the
processing plants. The programs spare men charged with crimes from
prison.

They work for free, under constant threat of being sent to prison,
on products for big-name brands, including Popeyes Louisiana
Kitchen, KFC, Walmart, Petsmart and Rachael Ray's Nutrish pet
food. The rehab program keeps their wages.

"We felt like nobody had ever listened to us," said one of the
plaintiffs Lucas Miller-Allen, when reached by phone October 13.
"When all of our drug courts send us there, it's like you don't
exist. It feels like you're forgotten, like you're thrown away.
Like slavery. You're dreading waking up each day, working for
free, for nothing."

The new lawsuit claims violations of state and federal labor laws,
which require employees to be paid at least minimum wage and
overtime. It also claims that CAAIR's founder, Janet Wilkerson,
violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
by "conducting the affairs of CAAIR through a pattern of holding
persons to involuntary servitude." Simmons Foods, a $1.4 billion
company, conspired with Wilkerson, according to the suit.

"Drug and alcohol treatment was never the intended purpose of
CAAIR," the complaint reads. "CAAIR's purpose was and is to
provide income to itself and its founders while providing cheap
labor to third-party agricultural interests affiliated with
CAAIR."

CAAIR "operates a forced labor camp -- enterprises long outlawed
in Oklahoma, in the United States and, indeed, throughout the
civilized world," the complaint said.

Miller-Allen and fellow plaintiff Bodhi Starns are seeking unpaid
minimum wage and overtime pay, along with attorneys fees and other
damages.

Neither CAAIR nor Simmons Foods responded to requests for comment.
Wilkerson has said that the men's wages go to cover the cost of
their room and board and counseling.

The Oakland, California-based law firm Aiman-Smith & Marcy filed
the complaint. It is unclear how the federal court will handle the
two lawsuits. At least 25 men who went through CAAIR have signed
on to the first class-action suit. According to the attorneys, one
possibility is that the two lawsuits could be consolidated in
federal court.

While CAAIR has grabbed the most attention, it isn't alone in
making participants work for free.

Participants in similar rehab programs have worked at a Coca-Cola
bottling plant in Oklahoma, a construction firm in Alabama, and a
nursing home in North Carolina.

Other rehab programs also put defendants to work in chicken
plants. [GN]


CIGNA HEALTH: Texas Resident Files Federal Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Kristen Rasmussen, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that a
Texas resident has filed a federal lawsuit against Bloomfield,
Connecticut-based Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co. and one of
its pharmacy benefit managers, CareCentrix Inc., charging they
conspired to drive up the consumer costs of home patient care and
durable medical equipment.

The suit, filed Oct. 6 by Jeffrey Neufeld in the U.S. District
Court in Connecticut, accuses the companies of artificially
inflating costs through a fraudulent billing scheme that required
pharmacy benefit managers such as CareCentrix of Hartford to
overcharge for co-payments and deductible and coinsurance
payments. It alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations and Employee Retirement Income Security
acts. It does not specify the amount of damages sought, although
Neufeld seeks to certify his case as a class action.

A spokesman for Cigna said in an email that the company does not
comment on pending litigation.

Plaintiffs increasingly have been going after health care
companies and their pharmacy benefit managers in court for their
alleged roles in rising medical costs, particularly prescription
drug prices. Pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs,  are middlemen in
the pharmaceutical industry that process prescriptions for the
insurance companies that pay for the drugs. CareCentrix provides
home patient care and durable medical equipment, including sleep
management systems. After contracting with Cigna, CareCentrix
established a network of more than 9,000 providers to administer
these products and services to patients.

In the suit, Neufeld claims he was charged by J&L Medical
Services, an authorized CareCentrix provider, $25.68 toward his
deductible for a disposable filter for a device to treat sleep
apnea. However, J&L had contracted directly with CareCentrix and
indirectly with Cigna to provide the filter for only $7.50,
according to the complaint. The remaining $18.18, which represents
a nearly 350 percent overcharge for the filter, was collected in
secret and pocketed by Cigna and CareCentrix, the suit claims.

The lawsuit comes nearly a year after a Massachusetts woman sued
Cigna, claiming that it requires the network of pharmacies with
which it contracts to overcharge insured patients "unauthorized
and excessive amounts" for prescription drugs. That class action
is pending in the federal court in New Haven.

In August, CVS Health of Woonsocket, Rhode Island, and Walgreens
Boots Alliance Inc. of Deerfield, Illinois, were sued in separate
class action lawsuits for allegedly colluding with PBMs to sell
certain generic drugs at a higher cost if they are purchased with
insurance.

The plaintiffs in both suits, however, have since voluntarily
dismissed the actions after--at least in the case of the CVS
litigation--the retail pharmacy giant notified the plaintiff of
"false assertions" in her complaint. [GN]


CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Appeal in "Amey" Class Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that the appeal in the "Amey" class action
lawsuit remains pending.

Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669,
In the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division.

The case presents putative class action claims for damages and
attorney's fees arising from employee wage and hour claims under
California law for alleged meal period, rest break, reporting time
pay, unpaid wages, pay upon termination, and wage statements
violations. The claims are also asserted as a representative
action under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

The Company denies the claims, denies that class certification is
appropriate and denies that a PAGA representative action is
appropriate, and is vigorously defending against the claims.

The Company denies any violation of law and plans to vigorously
defend against all claims.

The Court recently determined that class certification is not
appropriate and determined that a PAGA representative action is
not appropriate. The plaintiff has appealed these rulings. The
Company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or the
range of potential loss.

Cinemark's business is in the motion picture exhibition industry,
with theatres in the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia,
Ecuador, Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica,
Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia, Curacao and Paraguay.


COLUMBUS, OH: Judge OKs Domestic Violence Victims' Class Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Chitwood, writing for Ledger-Enquirer, reports that a federal
judge has issued a final ruling in the class-action lawsuit
domestic-violence victims filed against Columbus for being
assessed a fee if they refused to prosecute their abusers.

Columbus Council since has repealed the ordinance that authorized
Recorder's Court judges to fine women who declined to prosecute.
The initial suit was brought by Cleopatra Harrison, whose then-
boyfriend was accused of assaulting her in June 2016, leaving
bruises and scrapes on her neck, face and torso.

During the boyfriend's preliminary hearing, Harrison, then 22,
told Judge Michael Cielinski she agreed with a police officer's
account of the incident, but she did not want to be a prosecution
witness. Cielinski fined her $150, which Harrison said she could
not afford. She was threatened with jail.

Represented by Atlanta's Southern Center for Human Rights and
Columbus attorney Mark Post, Esq., Harrison sued in federal court
both on her own behalf and that of other victims fined for
refusing to prosecute.

On March 1, Columbus Council repealed the ordinance and approved
$75,000 to settle the class-action suit.

"To the city's great credit, it did not defend the ordinance, but
repealed it and agreed to compensate those were forced to pay so-
called victim fees," said Sarah Geraghty, the human rights
center's managing attorney.

The center cited cases in which the victim neither called police
nor otherwise sought to have an abuser prosecuted. A boyfriend in
May 2016 beat a woman so severely with a handgun that she was
incoherent when police found her on the roadside. She was fined
$200 when she refused to pursue the charges in court.

The judges never considered why a woman might refuse to prosecute,
such as the abusive partner's intimidation or retaliation, the
center said.

Council since has sought to correct issues with its Recorder's
Court operation, adding funding for full-time public defenders and
investigators to represent indigent defendants. Cielinski has
retired, and council has appointed Julius Hunter, an attorney and
former city councilor, to replace him.

                         The final Ruling

In his ruling October 11, U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land
wrote that no one has objected to the settlement, which he was
giving final approval.

The class of plaintiffs was defined as those who "at any time from
October 5, 2014, through the date of the settlement agreement,
were assessed or paid a 'victim assessment fee' related to a
proceeding in the Columbus Recorder's Court or any similar fee for
dismissal or non-prosecution of a criminal action . . .."

He ordered the city to send the plaintiffs' attorneys a check for
the funds within 14 days, and for the attorneys to distribute
those funds to their clients within 14 days after that. They then
are to inform the court the funds have been disbursed.

The attorneys will get $15,000, and Harrison is to receive an
"incentive fee payment" of $5,000 "in light of the service
performed . . . . for the settlement class," Land wrote.

Columbus City Attorney Clifton Fay, Esq. said Harrison will get a
total of $18,000, which after attorneys' fees will leave around
$42,000 for other plaintiffs.

The Southern Center for Human Rights said that it identified 101
people who paid the court fees, 34 of whom responded to its notice
of the lawsuit. The exact amount left after Harrison's funds and
attorneys' fees will be $41,844, it said. Each of those who
responded to the lawsuit notice will be repaid their court fines
plus $969 in other compensation, the center said.

Fay said any funds unclaimed after 90 days will go to Hope
Harbour, the Columbus shelter for victims of domestic abuse. [GN]


CONAGRA FOODS: Lyons Appeals E.D. Ark. Ruling to 8th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Craig Lyons, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuit entitled Craig Lyons, et al. v. Conagra
Foods Packaged Foods LLC, doing business as ConAgra Foods, Case
No. 4:12-cv-00245-JM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas - Little Rock.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Craig Lyons, et al. v. Conagra
Foods Packaged Foods LLC, doing business as ConAgra Foods, Case
No. 17-3134, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Craig Lyons, Individually and on Behalf of
Others Similarly Situated, et al., are represented by:

          Lydia Hicks Hamlet, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 39
          Russellville, AR 72811
          Telephone: (479) 880-0088
          E-mail: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Vanessa Kinney, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM
          Suite 411, One Financial Center
          650 S. Shackleford Road
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (479) 880-0088
          E-mail: vanessa@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Cheslee Sizemore Mahan, Esq.
          16092 Malico Mountain Road
          West Fork, AR 72774
          Telephone: (870) 538-8093

Defendant-Appellee Conagra Foods Packaged Foods LLC, doing
business as ConAgra Foods, is represented by:

          Brittany M. Falkowski, Esq.
          Josef S. Glynias, Esq.
          Scott D. Meyers, Esq.
          Andrew J. Weissler, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-3441
          Telephone: (314) 480-1500
          Facsimile: (314) 480-1505
          E-mail: brittany.falkowski@huschblackwell.com
                  joe.glynias@huschblackwell.com
                  scott.meyers@huschblackwell.com
                  aj.weissler@huschblackwell.com

               - and -

          Christi H. Vaglio, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          4801 Main Street, Suite 1000
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 983-8000
          E-mail: christi.vaglio@huschblackwell.com

               - and -

          Carolyn B. Witherspoon, Esq.
          CROSS, GUNTER, WITHERSPOON & GALCHUS, P.C.
          500 President Clinton Avenue
          P.O. Box 3178
          Little Rock, AR 72203-3178
          Telephone: (501) 371-9999
          E-mail: cspoon@cgwg.com


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: North Carolina Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a class action
complaint in North Carolina (Case No. 3:17-cv-51) has been
dismissed.

The Company said, "On February 7, 2017, an alleged class action
complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of FairPoint in the
United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina (Case No. 3:17-cv-51) against us, FairPoint and its
directors.  Among other things, the complaint alleges that the
disclosures in our Form S-4 Registration Statement filed with the
SEC on January 26, 2017, in connection with the Merger Agreement,
are materially incomplete and misleading in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  The plaintiff sought to enjoin us from consummating the
merger with FairPoint on the agreed-upon terms or, alternatively,
to rescind the merger in the event that we consummate the merger,
in addition to damages and attorney fees and costs."

"On March 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to enjoin FairPoint's special meeting of stockholders
to approve the proposed Merger.  On March 17, 2017, the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to his
individual claims and without prejudice as to the claims of the
putative class.  No payment, promise of payment, or other
consideration has been offered or made to the plaintiff or his
attorneys."

Consolidated Communications is an integrated communications
services company that operates as both an Incumbent Local Exchange
Carrier ("ILEC") and a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier ("CLEC")
dependent upon the territory served.


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiff Counsel's Claim Resolved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that following a stockholder
vote and through the closing of a merger deal, the parties in a
class action lawsuit, through their respective counsel, engaged in
arm's-length negotiations to resolve plaintiff's counsel's claim
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses for a payment of
$0.345 million to plaintiff's counsel by the Company, which
payment has not been approved or ruled upon by the Court.

According to the Company, "On March 3, 2017, an alleged class
action complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of the
Company in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware ( the
"Court") captioned Vento v. Currey, et al. (Case No. 2017-0157)
against the members of the Company's board of directors ( the
"Delaware Action").  The lawsuit is related to our Merger
Agreement with FairPoint.  Among other things, the lawsuit alleged
that the members of the Company's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with soliciting approval of
the Company's stockholders of the issuance of the Company's common
stock to stockholders of FairPoint in the merger (the "Merger")
contemplated by the Merger Agreement (the "Stockholder Vote")
because Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-4
filed by the Company on February 24, 2017 failed to disclose
allegedly material information relating to the retention,
compensation and financial incentives of a financial advisor to
the Company in connection with the proposed Merger.  The plaintiff
sought, among other relief, to enjoin the Stockholder Vote."

"On March 14, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to enjoin the Stockholder Vote until such time as
certain information concerning the financial interests of the
Company's financial advisor in the proposed Merger were fully
disclosed.  On March 22, 2017, the Court issued a letter decision
stating that it would preliminarily enjoin the Stockholder Vote
(the "Injunction") until five days after such time as the Company
had supplemented its disclosures to include a clear and direct
explanation of the amount of financing-related fees that the
Company's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, or any of
its affiliates stands to receive in connection with the Merger if
the Merger is consummated.

"In response to the Injunction, in order to provide a clear and
direct explanation of the amount of financing-related fees that
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC or any of its affiliates stands to
receive in connection with the Merger, and to provide additional
information to its stockholders, the Company supplemented the
Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus filed in connection with the
Merger Agreement as described in the Company's Current Report on
Form 8-K filed on March 22, 2017 at a time and in a manner that
would not cause any delay of the special meeting of the Company's
stockholders, which was scheduled to be held on March 28, 2017, or
the Merger.

Subsequently on March 22, 2017, the Court entered an order that,
among other things, vacated the Injunction, dismissed the Delaware
Action as moot, and allowed the special meeting of the Company's
stockholders, which was held on March 28, 2017, to proceed as
scheduled.  The Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose
of determining the plaintiff's counsel's application for an award
of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

At a special meeting of the Company's stockholders, the issuance
of the Company's common stock to stockholders of FairPoint in the
Merger received the affirmative vote of approximately 98% of the
shares voted.  The Merger closed on July 3, 2017.

Following the Stockholder Vote and through the closing of the
Merger, the parties, through their respective counsel, engaged in
arm's length negotiations to resolve plaintiff's counsel's claim
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses for a payment of
$0.345 million to plaintiff's counsel by the Company, which
payment has not been approved or ruled upon by the Court.

Consolidated Communications is an integrated communications
services company that operates as both an Incumbent Local Exchange
Carrier ("ILEC") and a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier ("CLEC")
dependent upon the territory served.


CRAZY BUFFET: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Lin" Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hui Wen Lin, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Crazy Buffet & Grill Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a
Crazy Buffet & Grill, Sheng Wen Dong, Liang Dong, and Sheng Wu
Dong, Case No. 2:17-cv-00536-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va., October 11, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay employees for
all hours worked, minimum wage, and overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in located at 1745
Parkview Drive, Chesapeake, VA 23320. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shaoming Cheng, Esq.
      CHENG YUN LAW PLLC
      6088 Franconia Road Suite C
      Alexandria, VA 22310
      Telephone: (703) 887-6786
      Facsimile: (888) 510-6158
      E-mail: chengyunlaw@gmail.com


CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Court Tossed Unitholder's Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
Crestwood Equity Partners LP and Crestwood Midstream Partners LP
said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017,
that a court has denied a unitholder's appeal of a class action
settlement.

On May 20, 2015, Lawrence G. Farber, a purported unitholder of
Crestwood Midstream, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, as a putative class action on behalf of Crestwood
Midstream's unitholders, entitled Lawrence G. Farber, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Crestwood
Midstream Partners LP, Crestwood Midstream GP LLC, Robert G.
Phillips, Alvin Bledsoe, Michael G. France, Philip D. Gettig,
Warren H. Gfellar, David Lumpkins, John J. Sherman, David Wood,
Crestwood Equity Partners LP, Crestwood Equity GP LLC, CEQP ST Sub
LLC, MGP GP, LLC, Crestwood Midstream Holdings LP, and Crestwood
Gas Services GP LLC. This complaint alleges, among other things,
that Crestwood Midstream's general partner breached its fiduciary
duties, certain individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties of loyalty and due care, and that other defendants aided
and abetted such breaches.

On July 21, 2015, Isaac Aron, another purported unitholder of
Crestwood Midstream, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, as a putative class action on behalf of Crestwood
Midstream's unitholders, entitled Isaac Aron, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Robert G. Phillps,
Alvin Bledsoe, Michael G. France, Philip D. Getting, Warren H.
Gfeller, David Lumpkins, John J. Sherman, David Wood, Crestwood
Midstream Partners, LP Crestwood Midstream Holdings LP, Crestwood
Midstream GP LLC, Crestwood Gas Services GP, LLC, Crestwood Equity
Partners LP, Crestwood Equity GP LLC, CEQP ST Sub LLC and MGP GP,
LLC. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Crestwood
Midstream's general partner and certain individual defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 by filing an alleged incomplete and
misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the SEC.

On August 12, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to consolidate
the Farber and Aron cases, which the court granted on September 4,
2015. Farber subsequently dismissed his claims against all the
defendants on September 16, 2015. Aron filed a motion for
temporary restraining order and requested an expedited preliminary
injunction hearing, which had been scheduled for September 23,
2015.

On September 22, 2015, however, the parties entered into a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with respect to a proposed
settlement of the Aron lawsuit. The settlement contemplated by the
MOU is subject to a number of conditions, including notice to the
class, limited confirmatory discovery and final court approval of
the settlement. In October 2016, the court approved the
settlement.

On November 7, 2016, a unitholder filed an appeal of the
settlement and a hearing was held on June 5, 2017, at which the
court denied the appeal and finalized the settlement.

"The settlement did not have a material impact to our consolidated
financial statements," the Company said.

Crestwood Equity is a publicly-traded (NYSE: CEQP) Delaware
limited partnership that develops, acquires, owns or controls, and
operates primarily fee-based assets and operations within the
energy midstream sector.


CVS HEALTH: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Corcoran" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Zulema Avis, Debbie Barrett, Gilbert Brown, Carolyn
Caine, Tyler Clark, Christopher Corcoran, Robert Garber, Vincent
Gargiulo, Amanda Gilbert, Zachary Hagert, Robert Jenks, Toni
Odorisio, Onnolee Samuelson, Carl Washington and Walter Wulff
filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled
Christopher Corcoran, et al. v. CVS Health Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-03504-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 28,
2017, the District Court granted in part motions to certify
classes in California, Florida, Illinois and Massachusetts and
denied without prejudice to motions to certify classes in New York
and Arizona.

The Plaintiffs have accused the Defendants of overcharging
millions of insured patients for prescription drugs.

The appellate case is captioned as Christopher Corcoran, et al. v.
CVS Health Corporation, et al., Case No. 17-16996, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 2, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on December 4, 2017;

   -- Appellants Zulema Avis, Debbie Barrett, Gilbert Brown,
      Carolyn Caine, Tyler Clark, Christopher Corcoran, Robert
      Garber, Vincent Gargiulo, Amanda Gilbert, Zachary Hagert,
      Robert Jenks, Toni Odorisio, Onnolee Samuelson, Carl
      Washington and Walter Wulff's opening brief is due on
      January 11, 2018;

   -- Appellees CVS Health Corporation and CVS Pharmacy, Inc.'s
      answering brief is due on February 12, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, ZULEMA AVIS, DEBBIE
BARRETT, GILBERT BROWN, CAROLYN CAINE, TYLER CLARK, ROBERT GARBER,
VINCENT GARGIULO, AMANDA GILBERT, ZACHARY HAGERT, ROBERT JENKS,
TONI ODORISIO, ONNOLEE SAMUELSON, CARL WASHINGTON and WALTER
WULFF, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Sathya Gosselin, Esq.
          Richard S. Lewis, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: sgosselin@hausfeld.com
                  rlewis@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: bsweeney@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
          Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
          PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
          180 Grand Avenue
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 692-0772
          Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
          E-mail: jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
                  ecp@pritzkerlevine.com

Defendants-Appellees CVS HEALTH CORPORATION and CVS PHARMACY,
INC., are represented by:

          August Gugelmann, Esq.
          Edward W. Swanson, Esq.
          SWANSON & McNAMARA, LLP
          300 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 477-3800
          E-mail: august@smllp.law
                  ed@smllp.law


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Patients Sue Over Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Bodkin, writing for The Telegraph, reports that hundreds of
patients claiming compensation for "failed" metal-on-metal hip
implants will take a manufacturer to court tomorrow in one of the
largest class actions of its kind.

DePuy faces claims from more than 300 individuals who claim to
have been injured as a result of the early failure and consequent
revision surgery of their prosthetic hips.

Hundreds more metal-on-metal claims against a number of other
manufacturers are said to be on hold pending the outcome of the
trial, which is expected to last until the end of January.

The start of the group action, which centres on Pinnacle Ultamet
implants, will be heard in London on October 16 by Mrs Justice
Andrews.

Lawyers representing patients say it is believed to be one of the
largest "product liability group actions" in the UK.

DePuy is contesting the claims.

Lawyers will claim that their clients were affected by the release
of metal particles from the implants, which can lead to severe
soft tissue reactions and muscle necrosis.

It will be alleged that symptoms included pain, difficulty
walking, swelling and numbness or loss of sensation in the leg.

Bozena Michalowska-Howells, Esq. -- bmichalowska@leighday.co.uk --
from the consumer law and product safety team at law firm Leigh
Day, the lead solicitor for the Pinnacle metal-on-metal group
litigation, said: "After five years working on these cases, I look
forward to our clients finally having their day in court.

"They believe that the Pinnacle device has failed to deliver on
the level of safety they were entitled to expect.

"As a result of this failure, they have suffered pain and early
revision surgery which we believe would have been avoided had they
been implanted with a conventional hip product."

Leigh Day said DePuy discontinued sales of the Pinnacle Ultamet
device in August 2013.

Earlier this year the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory
Agency said every patient fitted with a metal-on-metal prosthetic
hip should undergo x-rays and blood tests, though to apply to
50,000.

The watchdog had previously recommended that only patients with
particular types of implant, or troublesome symptoms, to undergo
tests. [GN]


DEVON ENERGY: Class of Consultants Certified in "Martinez" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lee R. West grants the amended joint motion for
conditional certification filed by the parties of the lawsuit
styled LUIS MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION CO. L.P., Case No.
5:17-cv-00300-W (W.D. Okla.).

By agreement of the Parties, the Court conditionally certifies
this class pursuant to Title 29, section 216(b) of the United
States Code:

     Current and former safety consultants employed by, or
     working on behalf of, Devon Energy Production Co., L.P.,
     during the three years prior to the date of certification
     who were classified as independent contractors and paid a
     day-rate.

The Court further approves the Parties' proposed notice to
putative class members and the proposed consent to join wage claim
lawsuit form.  The Court likewise approves the contents of the
Parties' proposed e-mail to putative class members and proposed
telephone scripts for undeliverable mail (live calls and messages
(voicemail or other)).

Accordingly, the Court orders the Plaintiff, through counsel, to
disseminate, by first class U.S. mail and by e-mail, the notice to
putative class members and the consent to join wage claim lawsuit
form, as submitted with the Motion.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ChKiS05y


DOLLAR GENERAL: Given Millions to Create Jobs in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
Andy Pierrotti, writing for 11Alive, reports that the Atlanta-
metro area continues to top the list of potential cities for
Amazon's second headquarters. Georgia and city officials are
compiling an incentive deal to compel the online giant to move
here, which could bring thousands of jobs.

An 11Alive Investigation, though, uncovered Georgia lawmakers have
a history of giving millions to companies with a history of bad
behavior.

Amy Roberts and Vanessia Starks were assistant managers at the
Dollar General store in Oxford, Georgia. Both are part of a class
action lawsuit against their former employer, which claims they
were forced to work off the clock for years.

"There were times when I clocked out and I had to go to the bank
to make bank deposits," said Starks.

Dollar General is no stranger to claims of mistreating employees.
Court records show employees have filed at least 3,600 wage theft
lawsuits nation-wide since 2010.  The federal government has also
filed numerous race and disability discrimination lawsuits against
the retailer too. "I wouldn't recommend a dog that was thirsty to
work at Dollar General," said Roberts.

Despite its history, Dollar General is expanding in Georgia and
the 11Alive Investigators uncovered its getting taxpayer money to
do it. The retailer is nearly done building a massive distribution
center in Butts County.

In 2016, Butts County Commissioners approved giving the retailer a
$1.2 million grant to create 500 new jobs. It will also forgo
paying property taxes for years.

The director of the county's economic development authority, Laura
Hale, is responsible for bringing the retailer to the county. Over
the phone, she said residents were lucky to have Dollar General
move to the county. She admits the county was not aware of the
company's history of wage theft and discrimination claims when the
incentive deal was negotiated. Hale said unemployment dropped when
Dollar General moved to the county, but did not provide figures
when requested.

Robert Henderson, Butts County Commission Chair, voted for the
incentive deal. He also declined to talk about the county's
vetting process when awarding subsidies to private companies.

Dollar General declined interview requests. It provided a
statement, which reads in part, "we are committed to complying
with applicable employment laws including wage and hour laws and
laws prohibiting discrimination."

The discount retailer isn't the only company accused of
mistreating employees and taxpayers while receiving a handout. The
11Alive Investigators uncovered numerous other companies with
histories of safety hazards, tax fraud, and environment crimes--
all receiving millions of Georgia tax dollars to create jobs.

List of companies which have received Georgia taxpayers to create
jobs:

   Home Depot: received $500,000 state grant in 2013 to create 700
jobs in Cobb County

   Ernst & Young: received $1 million state grant in 2014 to
create 400 jobs in Fulton County

   Wal-Mart: received $500,000 state grant in 2016 to create 450
jobs in Fulton County

The Georgia Budget & Policy Institute believes Georgia lawmakers
can do better. The bi-partisan research group thinks Georgia needs
to thoroughly review tax subsidies packages before awarding money
to private companies.

"It's the more information and the more transparency and
accountability the better . . . . that is the only way that
lawmakers can make the best decisions possible about how to use
taxpayer dollars," said Wesley Tharp, a research analyst at the
institute.

The Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA) approves the
grants awarded to counties to use for incentives. The agency also
did not respond to questions about the state's vetting process.

In addition to dolling out free money to companies with a history
of bad behavior, DCA does not require companies to disclose how
much money jobs pay, even though taxpayers helped fund those
positions. "It's something we can consider. We're always looking
to improve ourselves,' said Rusty Haywood, DCA's Deputy Director,
earlier this year. [GN]


DON HUMMER: Ratliff Seeks to Certify Class of Job Applicants
------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Ratliff, Jr., moves the Court for an order certifying the
case entitled JEROME RATLIFF JR., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DON HUMMER TRUCKING CORP., an
Iowa corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-07173 (N.D. Ill.), as a class
action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

The proposed class is defined as:

     All individuals in the United States who, from the date five
     years prior to the date of the filing of this action to the
     present, submitted an online job application to Defendant
     and were denied employment based in whole or in part on
     information contained in a consumer report without being
     provided within three business days of such adverse action
     an oral, written or electronic notification: (i) that
     adverse action has been taken based in whole or in part on a
     consumer report received from a consumer reporting agency;
     (ii) of the name, address and telephone number of the
     consumer reporting agency that furnished the consumer
     report; (iii) that the consumer reporting agency did not
     make the decision to take the adverse action and is unable
     to provide to them the specific reasons why the adverse
     action was taken; and (iv) that they may, upon providing
     proper identification, request a free copy of a report and
     may dispute with the consumer reporting agency the accuracy
     or completeness of any information in a report.

Mr. Ratliff also asks the Court to appoint him as Class
Representative and to appoint Michael Aschenbrener, Esq., and Adam
York, Esq., of KamberLaw LLC as Class Counsel.  In the
alternative, he asks the Court to:

   a. enter and continue the Motion for Class Certification;

   b. set a schedule for discovery; and

   c. grant the Plaintiff leave to file an amended or renewed
      Motion for Class Certification upon the conclusion of
      discovery;

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=g0MDZcdH

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
          Adam C. York, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW LLC
          220 N Green St.
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (212) 920-3072
          Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
          E-mail: masch@kamberlaw.com
                  ayork@kamberlaw.com


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Motion to Dismiss Securities Case Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted a Stipulation Modifying
Motion to Dismiss Briefing Schedule in the case, In re Dynavax
Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:16-cv-06690 (N.D. Cal.).

The Stipulation with proposed order Modifying Motion to Dismiss
Briefing Schedule was filed by Dynavax, Eddie Gray, Robert
Janssen, Michael S. Ostrach, Kwok Pang on Oct. 10.  The approval
order was entered the same day.

Dynavax said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017,
that on November 18, 2016, two substantially similar securities
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company and two of
its executive officers, in Soontjens v. Dynavax Technologies
Corporation et. al., ("Soontjens") and Shumake v. Dynavax
Technologies Corporation et al., ("Shumake"). The Soontjens
complaint alleges that between March 10, 2014 and November 11,
2016, the Company and certain of its executive officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, in connection with statements related to
HEPLISAV-B. The Shumake complaint alleges violations of the same
statutes related to the same subject, but between January 7, 2016
and November 11, 2016. The plaintiffs in both actions are seeking
an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 17, 2017, these two actions and all related actions
that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred to, the District
Court were consolidated into a single case entitled In re Dynavax
Technologies Securities Litigation. On January 31, 2017, the court
appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on March 17, 2017.

Defendants' filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on May 1, 2017. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was
set for September 5, 2017.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to defend these lawsuits vigorously.

"However, the lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, the
actual costs may be significant, and we may not prevail. We
believe we are entitled to coverage under our relevant insurance
policies with respect to these lawsuits, but coverage could be
denied or prove to be insufficient," the Company said.

Dynavax Technologies Corporation is a clinical-stage immunotherapy
company focused on leveraging the power of the body's innate and
adaptive immune response through toll-like receptor stimulation.


EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Appeals Decision in "Reyes" Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Educational Credit Management Corporation filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled A. Reyes v.
Educational Credit Mgmt. Corp., Case No. 3:15-cv-00628-BAS-AGS, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 6,
2017, Judge Cynthia Bashant granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification.  Mr. Reyes brings the putative class action
against the Defendant alleging violations of California's Invasion
of Privacy Act.  He sought certification of a class described as
all individuals who, between Aug. 2, 2014, to March 31, 2015,
inclusive, participated in an inbound telephone conversation with
a live representative of ECMC that was: (i) placed to an ECMC
phone line with a 0 in the Info field for the audio file that
contained the verbiage this call is being recorded; (ii) made from
a telephone number that includes a California area code; and (iii)
transmitted via cellular telephone.

The appellate case is captioned as A. Reyes v. Educational Credit
Mgmt. Corp., Case No. 17-80199, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent A. J. REYES, on behalf of himself, and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com

Defendant-Petitioner EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION is
represented by:

          David J. Kaminski, Esq.
          Charles Messer, Esq.
          CARLSON & MESSER LLP
          5959 West Century Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 242-2204
          Facsimile: (310) 242-2222
          E-mail: kaminskd@cmtlaw.com
                  messerc@cmtlaw.com


EHEALTH INC: Entered Into Binding Settlement Term Sheet
-------------------------------------------------------
eHealth, Inc. has entered into a binding settlement term sheet
with plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company said, "On January 26, 2017, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara.  The complaint alleges that we
negligently failed to take necessary precautions required to
protect from unauthorized disclosure personally identifiable
information contained on 2016 Form W-2s for current and former
employees.  The complaint purports to allege causes of action
against us for negligence, violation of Section 17200 et seq. of
the California Business & Professions Code, declaratory relief and
breach of implied contract.  The complaint seeks actual damages,
punitive damages, statutory damages, costs, including experts'
fees and attorneys' fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
as prescribed by law and equitable, injunctive and declaratory
relief as appropriate."

"In April 2017, an additional purported class action lawsuit was
filed against us in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, relating to the same circumstances.  The
second complaint purports to allege causes of action against us
for negligence, violation of California Customer Records Act
(California Civil Code Section 1798.80 et seq.), violation of the
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (California
Civil Code Section 56 et seq.), invasion of privacy by public
disclosure of private facts, breach of confidentiality and
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.).  The second
complaint seeks actual damages, statutory damages, restitution,
disgorgement, equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief, costs,
including experts' fees and attorneys' fees and costs of
prosecuting the action, and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest as prescribed by law.

"In July 2017, we entered into a binding settlement term sheet
(the "Agreement") where we and the plaintiffs in each of the
above-described cases agreed to enter into a settlement pursuant
to which we would receive a release of all claims that were or
could have been alleged related to the unauthorized disclosure at
issue in each of the cases.  In exchange for the release, we
agreed to (i) pay subject to an aggregate cap of $250,000 up to
$2,500 to each impacted individual for reasonable, documented out-
of-pocket losses or expenses related to the data security
incident; (ii) offer to individuals who signed up for identity
theft protection that we offered at the time of the incident a
one-year extension of the identity theft protection; (iii) offer
to individuals who did not sign up for identity theft protection
that we offered at the time of the incident three-years of
identity theft protection; and (iv) not to oppose a request by
class counsel for attorneys' fees, costs and class representative
enhancements of up to $245,000 in the aggregate.

"The Agreement obligates us to enter into a joint stipulation for
settlement of class action to be agreed to by the parties
reflecting the terms above.  The terms of the settlement are
subject to a hearing and court approval.  As of June 30, 2017, we
recorded an accrual for estimated potential damages in our
consolidated financial statements."

eHealth is a private health insurance exchange for individuals,
families and small businesses. Through its website addresses
(www.eHealth.com,  www.eHealthInsurance.com,
www.eHealthMedicare.com, www.Medicare.com and
www.PlanPrescriber.com), consumers can get quotes from leading
health insurance carriers, compare plans side-by-side, and apply
for and purchase Medicare-related, individual and family, small
business and ancillary health insurance plans.


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Firefighters Retirement Plan Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emergent Biosolutions Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against
the class action lawsuit, City of Cape Coral Municipal
Firefighters' Retirement Plan v Emergent Biosolutions, Inc., HQ et
al., Case No. 8:16-cv-02625 (D. Md.).

On October 3, 2017, Judge Roger Titus entered a Stipulation and
Protective Order.

The Company said, "On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff William Sponn, or
Sponn, filed a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, or the Court,
on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between January 11,
2016 and June 21, 2016, inclusive, or the Class Period, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
us and certain of our senior officers and directors, collectively,
the Defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we
made materially false and misleading statements about the
government's demand for BioThrax and expectations that our five-
year exclusive procurement contract with the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, or HHS, would be renewed and omitted
certain material facts. Sponn is seeking unspecified damages,
including legal costs."

"On October 25, 2016 the Court added City of Cape Coral Municipal
Firefighters' Retirement Plan and City of Sunrise Police Officers'
Retirement Plan as plaintiffs and appointed them Lead Plaintiffs
and Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel. On December
27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that cites the
same class period, names the same defendants and makes similar
allegations to the original complaint.

"We filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 27, 2017. The Plaintiffs
filed an opposition brief on April 28, 2017. Our Motion to Dismiss
was heard and denied on July 6, 2017. The Company filed its answer
on July 28, 2017. The Defendants believe that the allegations in
the complaint are without merit and intend to defend themselves
vigorously against those claims."

Emergent Biosolutions is a global life sciences company seeking to
protect and enhance life by focusing on providing specialty
products for civilian and military populations that address
accidental, intentional and naturally emerging public health
threats.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Wayne, Oakland Counties Sue Drugmakers
----------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Nagl, writing for Crain's, reports that Wayne and Oakland
counties on October 12 filed a lawsuit against a dozen drug
manufacturers and distributors, alleging deceptive marketing and
sale of opioids.

The joint lawsuit is the first of its kind in Michigan, Wayne
County Executive Warren Evans and Oakland County Executive L.
Brooks Patterson said at a news conference at the Guardian
Building in Detroit.

"This is a full-blown health crisis from which the drug companies
made billions," Evans said in a statement. "People are dying and
lives are being ruined by addiction as this horrible tragedy
unfolds."

Opioids are a highly addictive and sometimes lethal class of
painkillers, including OxyContin and Fentanyl.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, cites 12 pharmaceutical companies as
defendants for complaints of violating the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act, public nuisance, negligence, unjust enrichment and
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization
Act. It alleges that one of the main drivers of the epidemic is
drug manufacturers' deceptive marketing and sale of opioids to
treat chronic pain, including a strategy to shift the way in which
doctors and patients think about pain and encourage the widespread
prescribing and use of opioids.

The lawsuit alleges that the companies, including several among
the top 15 in the Fortune 500, have profited greatly from
deceptive practices.

Opioid drug abuse has reached epidemic proportions around the
country. In August, Gov. Rick Snyder established the Council on
Opioid and Prescription Drug Enforcement after signing an
executive directive aimed at combating the opioid crisis in
Michigan.

Rochester-based Miller Law Firm and San Francisco-based Robbins,
Geller, Rudman & Dowd are representing the counties in the
lawsuit.

Asked how the counties decided to team up on the effort, Evans
said: "It just so happened that Oakland County and Wayne County
went to the same law firm. I think we're very, very comfortable
that this firm is the firm that will do what we need to do."

Lead Counsel E. Powell Miller said at the news conference that
there are more than 100 similar lawsuits across the country right
now, but this one is among the first targeting the manufacturers
and the distributors. Lawsuits filed by the city of Chicago and
the states of Ohio and Mississippi are among several similar to
the one filed by Oakland and Wayne counties.

"There was a concerted and tragically successful effort to get
more doctors to prescribe these drugs while distorting the
conversation about addiction," Miller said.

Evans and Patterson said the number of opioid-related deaths and
incidents have skyrocketed in each county.

More than 183,000 people died in the United States between 1999
and 2015 from overdoses directly related to prescription opioids,
according to a news release from the counties. In 2016, opioid-
related deaths in Wayne County totaled 817, up from 506 in 2015 --
a 61 percent increase, it said. Opioid-related deaths in Oakland
County increased 267 percent from nine deaths in 2009 to 33 deaths
in 2015.

The counties also say they have suffered significant financial
consequences, including increased costs for law enforcement,
courts, jails, emergency and medical care services, public works
and substance abuse treatment plans.

"We want to do to the opioid manufacturers and distributors the
same thing we did 30-40 years ago to the tobacco industry,"
Patterson said. "We see that they really have taken a page out of
the tobacco era -- false advertising, false claims, people
becoming dependent on these drugs without the fair notice of what
could happen to their lives." [GN]


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Sauk County May Join Opioid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Damos, writing for News Republic, reports that Sauk County
Board is slated to receive a report on the county's proposed 2018
budget and hear recommendations regarding the board's future size,
structure and pay.

The budget report is the last item on what is a jam-packed agenda
for October 10 night's monthly board meeting.

After a presentation by Finance Committee members and county
staff, the board is expected to certify the proposed 2018 spending
plan for publication and set a date for a public hearing. The
budget will then be considered for final approval during the
board's November meeting.

                    Committee Report

Near the beginning of October 10 night's meeting, members of a
special committee that studied board size, structure and pay will
give a presentation regarding their recommendations.

The 31-member board is not scheduled to take any action on the
recommendations October 10, but could accept or reject them at a
future meeting.

                             New Positions

Among the numerous resolutions that will go before the board are
ten from the board's Finance and Personnel committees dealing with
the creation of new positions next year.

Notable among those are the addition of a nursing position to
expand a Sauk County Public Health Department program that
provides assistance to first-time mothers living in poverty.

Several County Board members resisted the department's request for
tax levy dollars to expand the program -- which is primarily grant
funded -- saying there was insufficient evidence of its success.

Health officials said the Nurse-Family Partnership is an evidence-
based program that is used internationally and has been in
existence for 40 years.

Although the program is still in its infancy in Sauk County,
health officials said a formula shows a need for an additional
nurse to expand coverage from 70 to 90 families. Grant funding to
do that is not currently available.

Another new position would work to enact the recommendations of a
consultant's plan to draw people to live, work and play in Sauk
County.

Aside from managing the county's "placemaking" efforts, the new
position would be responsible for boosting the county's social
media presence.

                         Opioid Lawsuit

Also October 10, the board may consider a resolution authorizing
the county to join a class-action lawsuit that would seek to hold
large pharmaceutical industries responsible for the nation's
opioid epidemic.

The five-member Executive and Legislative Committee is scheduled
to meet one hour before the full board meeting to consider the
matter. If the committee approves, the resolution would be forward
to the board for consideration later in the evening.

Staff would be responsible for assisting the law firms handling
the case by gathering information about county expenses related to
opioid addiction and abuse. The county could receive a payout if
the lawsuit is successful.

The resolution included in the board's agenda packet says that
joining the lawsuit would have no fiscal impact on the county.
[GN]


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Says "McGee" Suit in Early Stages
----------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the case, William McGee
v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, remains in its early stages.

On February 9, 2016, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Constant Contact.

On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee
v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant
Contact and two of its former officers. An amended complaint,
which named an additional former officer as a defendant, was filed
December 19, 2016. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and is premised on allegedly false
and/or misleading statements, and non-disclosure of material
facts, regarding Constant Contact's business, operations,
prospects and performance during the proposed class period of
October 23, 2014 to July 23, 2015.  This litigation remains in its
early stages.

The Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously
defend all claims asserted. The Company cannot, however, make any
assurances as to the outcome of this proceeding.

The case is before Judge Mark L. Wolf.

Endurance is a provider of cloud-based platform solutions designed
to help small- and medium-sized businesses, or SMBs, succeed
online.


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss "Chawdry" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the motion to dismiss
the case, Irfan Chawdry, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al., remains pending.

On December 11, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to
the Constant Contact acquisition, captioned Irfan Chawdry,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11797, and on December 21, 2015, a
putative class action lawsuit relating to the acquisition
captioned David V. Myers, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11828
(together, the "Complaints") were filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, naming Constant Contact, each of
Constant Contact's directors, Endurance and Paintbrush Acquisition
Corporation as defendants. The Complaints generally alleged, among
other things, that in connection with the acquisition the
directors of Constant Contact breached their fiduciary duties owed
to the stockholders of Constant Contact by agreeing to sell
Constant Contact for purportedly inadequate consideration,
engaging in a flawed sales process, omitting material information
necessary for stockholders to make an informed vote, and agreeing
to a number of purportedly preclusive deal protection devices. The
Complaints sought, among other things, to rescind the acquisition,
as well as an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs in
the action. The Complaints were consolidated on January 12, 2016.

On December 5, 2016, plaintiff Myers filed a consolidated amended
complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), naming as defendants the
former Constant Contact directors and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
("Morgan Stanley"), Constant Contact's financial advisor for the
acquisition. The Amended Complaint generally alleges breach of
fiduciary duty by the former directors, and aiding and abetting
the alleged breach by Morgan Stanley.

The Constant Contact defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint on December 15, 2016 and an opening brief in
support of the motion to dismiss on March 17, 2017. Plaintiff
Myers filed an opposition brief to the motion to dismiss on May
17, 2017, and the Constant Contact defendants' reply brief was
filed on June 19, 2017.  Oral argument has not yet been scheduled.

The defendants believe the claims asserted in the Amended
Complaint are without merit and intend to defend against them
vigorously.

Endurance is a provider of cloud-based platform solutions designed
to help small- and medium-sized businesses, or SMBs, succeed
online.


EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Leads to Class Suit in Texarkana Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn LaRowe, writing for Texarkana Gazette, reports that a massive
data breach by the credit reporting firm Equifax affecting more
than 140 million Americans has led to the filing of class action
lawsuits across the country and in a Texarkana federal court.

The suit was filed on October 13 in the Texarkana Division of the
Western District of Arkansas and seeks to represent anyone whose
personal identifying information in Equifax's possession was
hacked from May to July. The complaint, filed by the Little Rock
firm Steel, Wright, Gray & Hutchinson and the Nashville, Tenn.-
based Sanford Heisler Sharp firm, identifies both a national class
of potential plaintiffs and an Arkansas class of potential
plaintiffs and names Prescott, Ark., resident Roshunda Gulley as
the class representative.

Equifax discovered that a flaw in its U.S. website allowed hackers
to access extremely sensitive data beginning in May until the
breach was discovered July 29, according to the complaint and
Equifax's website. The company didn't announce the breach publicly
and to potential identity theft and fraud victims until Sept. 7.
According to the complaint and national news reports cited in it,
high-ranking Equifax executives dumped millions of dollars worth
of shares in the company before the September announcement in
anticipation of falling stock prices.

Personal information stolen by hackers includes names, dates of
birth, social security numbers, addresses and in some cases
drivers license numbers and credit card numbers, according to the
complaint.

"Armed with the stolen information, unauthorized third parties now
possess keys that unlock consumers' medical histories, bank
accounts, employee accounts, and more," the complaint states.
"Criminals can take out loans, mortgage property, open financial
accounts and credit cards in a victim's name, obtain government
benefits, file fraudulent tax returns, obtain medical services,
and provide false information to police during an arrest, all
under the victim's name."

Instead of spending their hours working or enjoying time off, data
breach victims must budget time and money to monitor their
accounts, register for credit protection services and if
necessary, file police reports.

"This time has been lost forever and cannot be recaptured," the
complaint states. "In all manner of life in this country, time has
constantly been recognized as compensable, and even if retired
from the work force, consumers should be free from having to deal
with the consequences of a credit reporting agency's wrongful
conduct, as is the case here, Plaintiffs and class members will
likely spend considerable effort and money for the rest of their
lives on monitoring and responding to the repercussions of this
cyber attack."

Equifax should have known it was vulnerable to hacking as smaller
breaches occurred in 2013, 2016 and in January 2017, according to
the complaint. The complaint alleges that a company that markets
itself as an expert in data security should have done more to
protect consumers. The complaint accuses Equifax of violating the
Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, of negligent violations of the
FFCRA, of negligence, of breach of implied contract, of unjust
enrichment, invasion of privacy and more.

The complaint alleges that personal identifying information in
Equifax's possession is presently in even greater danger as cyber
thieves now know the company's databases are an easy target. The
five week delay in notifying the public that the information had
been stolen prevented data breach victims from taking proactive
steps to protect themselves, according to the complaint.

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that Equifax has failed
in its duty to protect the information with which it is entrusted
and that it should be forced through an injunction to undergo
regular third-party auditing to identify security problems. Also
sought are damages for all those affected including the costs of
identity protection and the cost of fighting identity theft and
fraud.

A note on the case docket indicates a copy of the complaint has
been forwarded to the federal panel on multi-district litigation.
The case could be consolidated with a plethora of similar ones and
handled in a single court to insure rulings are consistent and to
promote economical use of the federal judicial system. For now the
case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan Hickey. Equifax has
not filed a response. [GN]


EXCLUSIVE LANDSCAPE: Nelson Seeks Recovery Under FLSA & Wage Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL NELSON v. EXCLUSIVE LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC., and BARY
HOOPENGARDNER, individually, and BARBARA HOOPENGARDNER,
individually, Case No. 3:17-cv-07394 (D.N.J., September 22, 2017),
seeks recovery against the Defendants for their alleged violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and
Hour Law.

Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants as a collective
action on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated.

Exclusive Landscape Services has been serving the Jersey Shore
with lawn and landscape services.  The Individual Defendants are
owners, partners, officers or managers of Exclusive.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Springer" Suit Moved to E.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled BART SPRINGER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
170902358, was removed on Oct. 17, 2017 from Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:17-cv-04623-JD to the proceeding. The case assigned to
the Hon. Jan E. Dubois.

Experian Information, an information services company, provides
information, analytical, and marketing services to organizations
and consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE PC
          1622 Locust St
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 4656
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4674
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rebekah B. Kcehowski, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          500 Grant St., Suite 4500
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2502
          Telephone: (412) 391 3939
          E-mail: rbkcehowski@jonesday.com


FLORIDA: Tries to Scuttle Matching-Gift Case
--------------------------------------------
Lloyd Dunkelberger, writing for Daily Commercial, reports that the
state is asking a Leon County circuit judge to dismiss a case
alleging the state has failed to match $460 million in private
donations to universities and state colleges that were made under
Florida's matching-gift laws.

University of Florida graduates and Florida State University
donors filed separate class-action lawsuits, which were
consolidated, seeking to force the state to come up with $600
million in matching funds for the gifts.

In a motion filed October 11, lawyers for the state said the
matching-gift laws are subject to annual budget decisions by the
Legislature and it would violate the constitutional separation of
powers if the judiciary ordered lawmakers to spend the money.

"As with all other funding programs the Legislature has created,
the statutes create programs but they do not appropriate any state
funds for those programs; the programs are subject to future
appropriations," the motion said.

Noting the "firm separation" of constitutional authority among the
legislative, executive and judicial branches, the motion added:
"Because plaintiffs' requested relief would violate the separation
of powers, it cannot be granted."

The state's motion also attacked an alternate request for relief
that asks the court to issue an order requiring the executive
branch, including the governor, to make a request to the
Legislature for the matching funds.

"But they lack standing to pursue this alternate relief as it
cannot remedy any harm they allegedly have suffered; a budget
request, after all, is only a request," the motion said.

University of Florida alumni Ryan and Alexis Geffin filed a
lawsuit in July, alleging their undergraduate education was harmed
because matching funds weren't provided for construction projects
at the school.

The programs cited by the lawsuit included two construction-
related funds, the Alec P. Courtelis University Facility
Enhancement Challenge Grant Program and the Florida College System
Institution Capital Facilities Matching Program, as well as the
Dr. Philip Benjamin Matching Grant Program and the University
Major Gifts Program.

A second lawsuit was filed by two Florida State University law-
school graduates, Tommy Warren, a former FSU football player, and
his wife, Kathleen Villacorta. The suit cited their $100,000
donation to the FSU law school for a scholarship fund that was
never matched by the state and their $100,000 donation for a
scholarship program for students studying marine conservation that
was also never matched by the state.

Under a 2011 law, the programs cannot be restarted until a backlog
of $200 million in donations for the Courtelis program as well as
the other three matching-grant programs have been matched. [GN]


GILEAD SCIENCES: Nguyen Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
RYAN NGUYEN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case
No. BC679785 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 16, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and penalties under California Business and
Professions Code, the Labor Code, and the Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants as a non-exempt employee, who also earned non-
discretionary bonuses, commission and/or other forms of
compensation not excludable as a matter of law when calculating an
employee's regular rate of pay. Plaintiff was, and is, victim of
Defendants' policies and/or practices, lost money and/or property,
and has been deprived of the rights guaranteed by California Labor
Code.

Gilead Sciences is an American biopharmaceutical company that
discovers, develops and commercializes drugs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher L. Burrows, Esq.
          BURROWS LAW FIRM
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 526 9998
          Facsimile: (424) 644 2446
          E-mail: cburrows@cburrowslaw.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Currencies-Related Litigation Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend a
class action lawsuit by indirect purchasers of foreign exchange
instruments.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the
defendants named in putative class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in
September 2016 on behalf of putative indirect purchasers of
foreign exchange instruments.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on June 30, 2017,
generally alleges a conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency
exchange markets and asserts claims under federal and state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws and seeks
injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Suits over Delayed or Cancelled Orders Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company is defending a class
action lawsuit over delayed or cancelled orders.

On July 12, 2017, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Group Inc.
were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging
that the defendants improperly delayed and cancelled orders placed
on certain electronic currency trading platforms through a
functionality referred to as "last look." The complaint asserts
claims under state common law for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment and seeks injunctive relief, as well as punitive
damages and restitution in unspecified amounts.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Reinstate Currencies-Related Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the defendants' motion for
reconsideration of certain aspects of the court's class
certification order and for a stay of discovery pending resolution
of the Fifth Circuit proceeding remains pending.

Cobalt International Energy, Inc. (Cobalt), certain of its
officers and directors (including employees of affiliates of Group
Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt), affiliates of
shareholders of Cobalt (including Group Inc.) and the underwriters
(including Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.)) for certain offerings
of Cobalt's securities are defendants in a putative securities
class action filed on November 30, 2014 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.

The second consolidated amended complaint, filed on March 15,
2017, relates to a $1.67 billion February 2012 offering of Cobalt
common stock, a $1.38 billion December 2012 offering of Cobalt's
convertible notes, a $1.00 billion January 2013 offering of
Cobalt's common stock, a $1.33 billion May 2013 offering of
Cobalt's common stock, and a $1.30 billion May 2014 offering of
Cobalt's convertible notes.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that, among others,
Group Inc. and GS&Co. are liable as controlling persons with
respect to all five offerings, and that the shareholder affiliates
(including Group Inc.) are liable for the sale of Cobalt common
stock on the basis of inside information. The consolidated amended
complaint also seeks damages from GS&Co. in connection with its
acting as an underwriter of 14,430,000 shares of common stock
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $465
million, $690 million principal amount of convertible notes, and
approximately $508 million principal amount of convertible notes
in the February 2012, December 2012 and May 2014 offerings,
respectively, for an aggregate offering price of approximately
$1.66 billion.

On January 19, 2016, the court granted, with leave to replead, the
underwriter defendants' motions to dismiss as to claims by
plaintiffs who purchased Cobalt securities after April 30, 2013,
but denied the motions to dismiss in all other respects. On June
15, 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and denied certain of the shareholder affiliates'
motions (including Group Inc.) to dismiss the claim alleging sales
based on inside information.

On June 29, 2017, the defendants petitioned the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for leave to appeal the class
certification order. On July 13, 2017, the defendants moved for
reconsideration of certain aspects of the court's class
certification order and for a stay of discovery pending resolution
of the Fifth Circuit proceeding.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Adeptus Health Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company is defending a class
action lawsuit related to Adeptus Health.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named
as defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed
beginning in October 2016 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In addition to the
underwriters, the defendants include Adeptus Health Inc.
(Adeptus), its sponsor, and certain directors and officers of
Adeptus. As to the underwriters, the complaints relate to the $124
million June 2014 initial public offering, the $154 million May
2015 secondary equity offering, the $411 million July 2015
secondary equity offering, and the $175 million June 2016
secondary equity offering. GS&Co. underwrote 1.69 million shares
of common stock in the June 2014 initial public offering
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $37
million, 962,378 shares of common stock in the May 2015 offering
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $61
million, 1.76 million shares of common stock in the July 2015
offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately
$184 million, and all the shares of common stock in the June 2016
offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately
$175 million. On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss TerraForm & SunEdison Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that Defendants' motion to dismiss the
class action complaints related to TerraForm Global and SunEdison
remains pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters,
placement agents and initial purchasers named as defendants in
several putative class actions and individual actions filed
beginning in October 2015 relating to the $675 million July 2015
initial public offering of the common stock of TerraForm Global,
Inc. (TerraForm Global), the August 2015 public offering of $650
million of SunEdison convertible preferred stock, the June 2015
private placement of $335 million of TerraForm Global Class D
units, and the August 2015 Rule 144A offering of $810 million
principal amount of TerraForm Global senior notes. SunEdison is
TerraForm Global's controlling shareholder and sponsor. Beginning
in October 2016, the pending cases were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On January 16, 2017, certain plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint relating to TerraForm Global's initial public
offering, and, on March 17, 2017, certain plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint relating to SunEdison's convertible
preferred stock offering. The defendants also include TerraForm
Global, SunEdison and certain of their directors and officers.
Defendants moved to dismiss the class action complaints on June 9,
2017.

TerraForm Global sold 154,800 Class D units, representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $155 million, to the
individual plaintiffs. GS&Co., as underwriter, sold 138,890 shares
of SunEdison convertible preferred stock in the offering,
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $139
million and sold 2,340,000 shares of TerraForm Global common stock
in the initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $35 million. GS&Co., as initial purchaser,
sold approximately $49 million principal amount of TerraForm
Global senior notes in the Rule 144A offering. On April 21, 2016,
SunEdison filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Certification Bid in Valeant Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the case related to Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International remains pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. (GS
Canada) are among the underwriters and initial purchasers named as
defendants in a putative class action filed on March 2, 2016 in
the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada. In addition to the
underwriters and initial purchasers, the defendants include
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Valeant), certain
directors and officers of Valeant and Valeant's auditor. As to
GS&Co. and GS Canada, the complaint relates to the June 2013
public offering of $2.3 billion of common stock, the June 2013
Rule 144A offering of $3.2 billion principal amount of senior
notes, and the November 2013 Rule 144A offering of $900 million
principal amount of senior notes. The complaint asserts claims
under the Quebec Securities Act and the Civil Code of Quebec. The
plaintiffs have moved for class certification and the parties have
agreed to limit the proposed class by excluding U.S. purchasers in
the offerings.

GS&Co. is among the initial purchasers named as defendants in a
putative class action filed on June 24, 2016 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey. In addition to the initial
purchasers for Valeant's Rule 144A debt offerings, the defendants
include Valeant, certain directors and officers of Valeant,
Valeant's auditor and the underwriters for a common stock offering
in which GS&Co. did not participate. As to GS&Co., the complaint
relates to the June 2013 and November 2013 Rule 144A offerings
described above. On April 28, 2017, the court dismissed all claims
arising from the Rule 144A offerings as to which GS&Co. was an
initial purchaser.

GS&Co. and GS Canada, as sole underwriters, sold 27,058,824 shares
of common stock in the June 2013 offering representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $2.3 billion (of which
5,334,897 shares representing an aggregate offering price of
approximately $453 million were sold to non-U.S. purchasers) and,
as initial purchasers, sold approximately $1.3 billion and $293
million in principal amount of senior notes in the June 2013 and
November 2013 Rule 144A offerings, respectively (with their
proportional share of sales to non-U.S. purchasers being
approximately CAD14.2 million in both offerings).


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Class Action over Snap IPO
---------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company is defending a class
action lawsuit related to Snap Inc.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named
as defendants in putative securities class actions filed in
California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles and the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California beginning in
May 2017, relating to Snap Inc.'s $3.91 billion March 2017 initial
public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants
include Snap Inc. and certain of its officers and directors.
GS&Co. underwrote 57,040,000 shares of common stock representing
an aggregate offering price of approximately $970 million.

No updates provided in the Company's SEC report.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company's motion to dismiss
the Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation remains pending.

Group Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs
International (GSI), GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial
Markets, L.P. (GSFM) are among the defendants named in putative
antitrust class actions relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps, filed beginning in November 2015 and consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The second consolidated amended complaint filed on December 9,
2016 generally alleges a conspiracy among the defendants since at
least January 1, 2007 to preclude exchange trading of interest
rate swaps. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants
moved to dismiss on January 20, 2017.

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

Group Inc., GS&Co., GSI, GS Bank USA and GSFM are among the
defendants named in antitrust actions relating to the trading of
interest rate swaps filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York beginning in April 2016 by two
operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their
affiliates. These actions have been consolidated with the class
action described above for pretrial proceedings. The second
consolidated amended complaint filed on December 9, 2016 generally
asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws and state
common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the
defendants to preclude trading of interest rate swaps on the
plaintiffs' respective swap execution facilities and seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an
unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss on January 20,
2017.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Commodities-Related Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that Defendants' motion to dismiss the
third consolidated amended complaint in the Commodities-Related
Litigation remains pending.

Goldman Sachs International (GSI) is among the defendants named in
putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and
palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently
amended on May 15, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The third consolidated amended
complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated federal
antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with
an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for physical
platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount.
Defendants moved to dismiss the third consolidated amended
complaint on July 21, 2017.


GOLDMAN SACHS: U.S. Treasury Securities Litigation Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the U.S. Treasury Securities
Litigation remains pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the primary dealers
named as defendants in several putative class actions relating to
the market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July
2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaints generally allege that the
defendants violated the federal antitrust laws and the Commodity
Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate the when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury
securities, as well as related futures and options, and seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages in an
unspecified amount and restitution.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends Suit over Gender Pay Inequality
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend a
class action lawsuit related to employment-related matters.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees alleging that Group Inc. and Goldman Sachs
& Co. LLC (GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against
female employees in respect of compensation, promotion,
assignments, mentoring and performance evaluations. The complaint
alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at
specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since
July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City
discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status,
injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive and other damages.

On July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in
part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain of
plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked
standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group
Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations
in their entirety as premature.

On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the
named plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an
arbitration agreement with the firm.

On March 10, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the district judge
assigned the remaining plaintiffs' May 2014 motion for class
certification recommended that the motion be denied in all
respects.

On August 3, 2015, the magistrate judge denied plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration of that recommendation and granted the
plaintiffs' motion to intervene two female individuals, one of
whom was employed by the firm as of September 2010 and the other
of whom ceased to be an employee of the firm subsequent to the
magistrate judge's decision.

On June 6, 2016, the district court affirmed the magistrate
judge's decision on intervention. On April 12, 2017, the district
court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of the
intervenors for lack of standing and mootness, which the court has
certified for an interlocutory appeal, subject to acceptance by
the appellate court.

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


GOPRO INC: Final Judgment Entered for GoPro Defendants
------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that a court has entered final judgment in favor of the
GoPro Defendants in the shareholder class action lawsuits.

Beginning on January 13, 2016, the first of four purported
shareholder class action lawsuits was filed in the U.S District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its officers (the "GoPro Defendants"). Similar
complaints were filed on January 21, 2016, February 4, 2016, and
February 19, 2016.  Each of the complaints purports to bring suit
on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly
traded securities between July 21, 2015 and January 13, 2016 for
the first three complaints and between November 26, 2014 and
January 13, 2016 for the last filed complaint.  Each complaint
purports to allege that defendants made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and each seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, fees and costs.

On April 21, 2016, the court consolidated the complaints and
appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the first three
actions (the "Camia Investments Class Action"); the court allowed
the fourth action to proceed separately as to the period November
26, 2014 through July 20, 2015 (the "Majesty Palms Class Action")
and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel for that action.
The lead plaintiff in the Majesty Palms Class Action did not file
an amended complaint and voluntarily dismissed the Majesty Palms
Class Action on July 28, 2016.

On September 26, 2016, the GoPro Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Camia Investment Class Action.  On May 1, 2017, the
court granted that motion, dismissing the complaint with leave to
amend the complaint. On June 16, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the
Camia Investment Class Action did not file an amended complaint
and stipulated to enter final judgment in favor of the GoPro
Defendants. On June 18, 2017, the court entered final judgment in
favor of the GoPro Defendants.

GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and
accessories. The Company's products are sold globally through
retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's website.
The Company's global corporate headquarters are located in San
Mateo, California.


GOPRO INC: Still Defends Shareholder Suit in Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, INC. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that the Company continues to defend a shareholder class
action lawsuit.

On January 25, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of its current and
former directors and executive officers and underwriters of the
Company's IPO ("Defendants").  The complaint purports to bring
suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's stock
pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's IPO and alleges claims
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The suit seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

A similar complaint was filed on May 13, 2016, and consolidated on
June 7, 2016.  Defendants filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss) to
the consolidated action.  On July 13, 2016, the court sustained
the demurrer dismissing the complaint with leave to amend the
complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 7,
2016.

Defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on October
28, 2016. On December 16, 2016, the court overruled the demurrer
with respect to the Section 11 and 15 claims and sustained the
demurrer in part and overruled the demurrer in part with respect
to the Section 12(a)(2) claim.

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

GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and
accessories. The Company's products are sold globally through
retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's website.
The Company's global corporate headquarters are located in San
Mateo, California.


GOPRO INC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss N.D. Calif. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, INC. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that the court has denied the GoPro Defendants' motion to
dismiss an amended complaint.

On November 16, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and Mr. Nick Woodman, the Company's
Chairman and CEO ("Defendants").  The complaint purports to bring
suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November
4, 2016.  The complaint purports to allege that Defendants made
false and misleading statements about the Company's business,
operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, fees and costs.

On February 6, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. On March 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint against the Company and certain of its officers ("GoPro
Defendants") on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November
8, 2016.  On April 13, 2017, the GoPro Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.  On July 26, 2017, the court
denied that motion.

GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and
accessories. The Company's products are sold globally through
retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's website.
The Company's global corporate headquarters are located in San
Mateo, California.


HERTZ TRANSPORTING: Dawson Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
JANICE DAWSON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v. HERTZ TRANSPORTING, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC679588 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 16, 2017),
seeks to recover wages and all other available relief on behalf of
Plaintiff and other individuals who worked for Defendants in
California as non-exempt, hourly-paid employees pursuant to the
California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Orders.

The Plaintiff alleges that the amount in controversy for named
Plaintiff, including claims for wages, civil and statutory
penalties, injunctive relief, and a pro rata share of attorneys'
fees, is less than $75,000 and that the aggregate amount in
controversy for the proposed class action, including monetary
damages, restitution, penalties, injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees, is less than $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

The Defendants allegedly required Plaintiff and class members to
work over eight hours per day, over 12 hours per day, and/or over
40 hours per week and failed to pay legally required overtime
compensation to Plaintiff and class members. The Defendants failed
to pay at least minimum wages for all hours worked by Plaintiff
and class members.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Class:

          Patricio T.D. Barrera, Esq.
          Ashley A. Davenport, Esq.
          BARRERA & ASSOCIATES
          2298 E. Maple Avenue
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 802 1500
          Facsimile: (310) 802 0500

               - and -

          Vincent Calderone, Esq.
          CALDERONE LAW FIRM
          2321 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 1265
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 348 8290
          E-mail: vcalderone@calemploymentattorney.com


HESKA CORP: Still Faces Suit over Unauthorized Faxes
----------------------------------------------------
Heska Corporation continues to defend a class action lawsuit
related to the transmittal of unauthorized faxes, the Company said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company said, "On March 12, 2015, a complaint was filed
against us by Shaun Fauley in the United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois alleging our transmittal of
unauthorized faxes in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005, as a class action seeking stated damages of the greater
of actual monetary loss or five hundred dollars per violation. The
Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter."

Heska Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries sell advanced
veterinary diagnostic and specialty products.


HMS HOLDINGS: "Danahar" Lawsuit Terminated
------------------------------------------
HMS Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the "Danahar" shareholder proceedings have
been terminated.

On March 3, 2017, a putative securities class action was filed in
the Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey,
entitled Danahar v. HMS Holdings Corp., et al. The complaint names
the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial
Officer as defendants and arises out of the Company's disclosure
on March 2, 2017 that the filing of its 2016 Form 10-K would be
delayed in order to permit the Company to complete the Company's
previously disclosed review of its estimated liability for appeals
and related internal control over financial reporting, and that
the Company's auditor had informed the Company that it had
identified what it believed was a material weakness in the
Company's internal control over financial reporting related to the
CMS reserves. The complaint alleges that the Company's quarterly
reports on Form 10-Q for the period January 1, 2016 to September
30, 2016 were false and misleading for failing to disclose the
matters set forth above.

On May 19, 2017, the New Jersey District Court granted the
defendants' motion to transfer the action to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On July 28,
2017, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal,
Without Prejudice, as to all defendants. The court terminated the
case effective as of July 28, 2017.

HMS is a provider of cost containment solutions in the U.S.
healthcare marketplace.


HOLTZMAN VOGEL: Voting Defamation Suit Accuses Attys of Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Fain, writing for WRAL, reports that the attorneys who
brought a defamation lawsuit over voter protests filed in the wake
of last November's election want to add former Gov. Pat McCrory's
legal defense fund and the attorneys who helped file those
protests to their suit.

They also want to turn the case into a class-action suit on behalf
of more than 100 people who they say were unfairly maligned when
Republicans falsely accused them of casting fraudulent votes.
Attorneys for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice argue
there was a coordinated effort by attorneys from a well-connected
Republican law firm in Virginia to throw the results of North
Carolina's close gubernatorial race into doubt.

Those attorneys, the lawsuit argues, helped North Carolina voters
challenge Democratic votes "to delay certification of the election
and suggest that voter fraud affected the election results."

Attorneys with the firm accused, Holtzman Vogel Josefiak
Torchinsky, did not return messages seeking comment October 13.
Dallas Woodhouse, executive director of the North Carolina
Republican Party, called the lawsuit "a disgusting intimidation
effort" meant to dissuade people from filing reasonable
challenges.

Challenges that individual voters voted twice or otherwise voted
illegally may not always prove correct, Woodhouse said, but people
should be able to file protests and call for investigations
without being certain.

"The system's not perfect, it will never be perfect, but it's got
to have checks," he said. "And this is one."

The lawsuit was first filed in February. The move to expand it
comes after attorneys on the case interviewed a Guilford County
man who filed protests and who had been the lawsuit's only named
defendant. Based on that interview and other evidence, lawyers
with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice say they have
enough to back conspiracy accusations against the wider group.

"Plaintiffs believe that these entities and individuals were
responsible for facilitating a statewide scheme to invalidate the
results of the 2016 gubernatorial election, and maliciously or
recklessly defamed voters across the state to achieve that end,"
the filing states.

A judge will have to sign off on adding the new defendants and
decide whether the lawsuit morphs into a class-action case.

The attorneys named as potential new defendants in a filing
earlier this month are: Steven Roberts, Esq.,  Erin Clark, Esq.,
Gabriella Fallon, Esq. and Steven Saxe, Esq. Each works for
Holtzman Vogel, and each was involved in submitting protests after
last year's elections, the filing states.

Holtzman Vogel is a well-known firm with a focus on election and
campaign law, and it has deep Republican ties. McCrory's legal
defense fund, which plaintiffs also want added to the suit, paid
the firm nearly $87,000 last year in the two months following the
gubernatorial election, campaign finance records show.

The Southern Coalition for Social Justice is a left-leaning group
funded by a number of entities, including the Z. Smith Reynolds
Foundation. It has brought a number of lawsuits against North
Carolina election laws in recent years, including ongoing lawsuits
challenging Republican-drawn election maps. [GN]


HRG GROUP: Plaintiff's Time to Seek Discretionary Review Expired
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff's time to seek discretionary review of a class
action lawsuit has expired, HRG Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri
(the "District Court"), captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated (the "Plaintiff") v.
HRG, FGL Insurance, Raven Re, and Front Street Cayman (together,
the "Defendants"). The complaint alleged violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, requested
injunctive and declaratory relief and sought unspecified
compensatory damages for the putative class in an amount not
presently determinable, treble damages, and other relief, and
claims Plaintiff Ludwick overpaid for her annuity.

On February 12, 2016, the District Court granted the Defendants'
joint motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims. On March 3, 2016,
Plaintiff Ludwick filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the "Court of Appeals").
On April 13, 2017, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's decision to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims. The Plaintiff
has no appeal as of right from the Court of Appeals' decision but
may seek discretionary review by the Court of Appeals en banc or
by the United States Supreme Court. The Plaintiff's time to seek
discretionary review of this matter expired on July 12, 2017. FGL
does not believe that the Plaintiff has sought a discretionary
review of this matter prior to such date. As of the date of this
report, FGL does not have sufficient information to determine
whether it has exposure to any losses that would be either
probable or reasonably estimable beyond an expense contingency
estimate of $1.8 million, which was accrued by FGL during the year
ended September 30, 2016.

HRG Group, Inc. is a holding company that conducts its operations
through its operating subsidiaries. HRG's shares of common stock
trade on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol
"HRG."


HYDRO ONE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington on behalf of current stockholders of Avista Corporation
("Avista" or the "Company") (NYSE: AVA) in connection with the
planned acquisition of the company by Hydro One Limited.

On July 19, 2017, Avista announced it had entered into an
agreement pursuant to which Hydro One Limited, through its
subsidiaries Olympus Holding Corp. and Olympus Corp., would
acquire all outstanding shares of Avista for $53.00 per share. The
lawsuit is captioned Jen v. Avista Corporation, et al. (Case No.
2:17-cv-00333), and alleges that defendants solicit stockholders'
votes in support of the sale of the Company through a proxy
statement that omits material facts necessary to make the
statements therein not false or misleading. Stockholders require
this material information to cast a properly informed vote of
their shares.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 13, 2017. If you wish to discuss this action
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Joseph E. Levi,
Esq. -- jlevi@levikorsinsky.com -- at Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, (212)
363-7500, or via e-mail at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. Any member of
the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

A class has not been certified in the above action. Until a class
is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain
one.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive experience representing investors in securities
litigation, and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for
aggrieved shareholders.

       Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
       Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
       Tel: 212-363-7500
       Toll Free: 877-363-5972
       Fax: 212-363-7171
       E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Parties in Delaware Action Drop Case
---------------------------------------------------------
IAC/InterActiveCorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the parties in the so-called Delaware Law
class action litigation against IAC have agreed to dismiss the
case.

On November 21, 2016, following the Company's announcement in its
Definitive Proxy Statement of a proposal to adjust the Company's
capital structure by adopting an amendment and restatement of the
Company's certificate of incorporation (the "New Certificate") to
establish a new class of non-voting capital stock, which would be
known as Class C common stock, and potentially declaring and
paying a dividend of one share of the Class C common stock for
each outstanding share of IAC common stock and Class B common
stock (the "Dividend" and, together with the adoption of the New
Certificate, the "Class C Issuance"), a putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the
Company and its Board of Directors purportedly on behalf of the
Company's stockholders. See Miller et al. v. IAC/InterActiveCorp
et al., C.A. No. 12929-VCL (Del. Ch. Ct.).  The lawsuit generally
alleged, among other things, that IAC's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed Class C Issuance
inasmuch as it was allegedly designed to unduly benefit the
Company's Chairman and Senior Executive, Barry Diller, in respect
of his alleged voting control of the Company and would harm IAC's
public stockholders.  Among other remedies, the lawsuit sought to
enjoin the filing of the New Certificate with the Delaware
Secretary of State, as well as unspecified money damages.

On November 22, 2016 and December 12, 2016, two additional
putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against the Company and its Board of Directors
purportedly on behalf of the Company's stockholders and asserting
substantially similar allegations, claims and remedies as in the
Miller lawsuit. See Halberstam v. Bronfman et al., C.A. No. 12935-
VCL (Del. Ch. Ct.), and California Public Employees' Retirement
System v. IAC/InterActiveCorp et al., No. 12975-VCL (Del. Ch.
Ct.).  All three lawsuits were consolidated as In re
IAC/InterActiveCorp Class C Reclassification Litigation, No.
12975-VCL, and the Court designated the CalPERS complaint as the
operative complaint in the case and established a case schedule.
On January 23, 2017 and February 3, 2017, the defendants filed
answers denying the material allegations of the complaint.

On June 21, 2017, in light of, among other things, recent
developments making it unlikely that the litigation would be
finally resolved until late 2018 or 2019 and the burden and
distraction that the litigation would likely impose on the Company
and its management, the Company's Board of Directors determined
not to proceed with the Class C Issuance.

On June 26, 2017, the Court, pursuant to the parties' agreed
stipulation, issued an order: (i) dismissing the litigation as
moot in light of the Company's determination not to proceed with
the Class C Issuance and (ii) retaining jurisdiction for purposes
of determining the plaintiffs' contemplated application for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

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

IAC is a media and Internet company comprised of widely known
consumer brands, such as HomeAdvisor, Vimeo, Dotdash (formerly
About.com), Dictionary.com, The Daily Beast, Investopedia, and
Match Group's online dating portfolio, which includes Match,
Tinder, PlentyOfFish and OkCupid.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Still Defends Texas Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
IAC/InterActiveCorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company and Match Group intend to continue
to defend against a securities class action litigation.

On February 26, 2016, a putative nationwide class action was filed
in federal court in Texas against Match Group, five of its
officers and directors, and twelve underwriters of Match Group's
initial public offering in November 2015. See David M. Stein v.
Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-549 (U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Texas).  The complaint alleged that Match
Group's registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with its initial public offering were materially false and
misleading given their failure to state that: (i) Match Group's
Non-dating business would miss its revenue projection for the
quarter ended December 31, 2015, and (ii) ARPPU would decline
substantially in the quarter ended December 31, 2015.  The
complaint asserted that these alleged failures to timely disclose
material information caused Match Group's stock price to drop
after the announcement of its earnings for the quarter ended
December 31, 2015.  The complaint pleaded claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of material fact in,
or omissions of material facts from, the registration statement,
the prospectus, and related communications in violation of
Sections 11 and 12 and, as to the officer/director defendants
only, control-person liability under Section 15 for Match Group's
alleged violations.  The complaint sought among other relief class
certification and damages in an unspecified amount.

On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint was
filed in the same court against the same defendants by a different
named plaintiff. See Stephany Kam-Wan Chan v. Match Group, Inc. et
al., No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Texas).  On April 25, 2016, Judge Boyle in the Chan case issued an
order granting the parties' joint motion to transfer that case to
Judge Lindsay, who is presiding over the earlier-filed Stein case.

On April 27, 2016, various current or former Match Group
shareholders and their respective law firms filed motions seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for
the putative class.  On April 28, 2016, the Court issued orders:
(i) consolidating the Chan case into the Stein case, (ii)
approving the parties' stipulation to extend the defendants' time
to respond to the complaint until after the Court has appointed a
lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the putative class and has set
a schedule for the plaintiff's filing of a consolidated complaint
and the defendants' response to that pleading, and (iii) referring
the various motions for appointment of lead plaintiff(s) and lead
or liaison counsel for the putative class to a United States
Magistrate Judge for determination.

In accordance with this order, the consolidated case is now
captioned Mary McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No.
3:16-CV-549-L.  On June 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an
order appointing two lead plaintiffs, two law firms as co-lead
plaintiffs' counsel, and a third law firm as plaintiffs' liaison
counsel.

On July 27, 2016, the parties submitted to the Court a joint
status report proposing a schedule for the plaintiffs' filing of a
consolidated amended complaint and the parties' briefing of the
defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. On August 17, 2016, the Court issued an order approving
the parties' proposed schedule.  On September 9, 2016, in
accordance with the schedule, the plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint.  The new pleading focuses solely on
allegedly misleading statements or omissions concerning the Match
Group's Non-dating business. The defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on November 8, 2016.
The plaintiffs filed oppositions to the motions on December 23,
2016, and the defendants filed replies to the oppositions on
February 6, 2017.

"We and Match Group believe that the allegations in these
lawsuits, and the material allegations and claims therein, are
without merit and intend to continue to defend against them
vigorously," the Company said.

IAC is a media and Internet company comprised of widely known
consumer brands, such as HomeAdvisor, Vimeo, Dotdash (formerly
About.com), Dictionary.com, The Daily Beast, Investopedia, and
Match Group's online dating portfolio, which includes Match,
Tinder, PlentyOfFish and OkCupid.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Sued over HomeAdvisor-Angie's List Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
IAC/InterActiveCorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company has not yet been served in the
securities class action litigation challenging HomeAdvisor's
combination with Angie's List.

On July 18, 2017, a purported shareholder class action was filed
in federal court in Indianapolis against Angie's List, the members
of its board of directors, the Company, and two related corporate
entities, asserting violations of the federal securities laws
based upon alleged material omissions from the registration
statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
describing the proposed combination of the HomeAdvisor and Angie's
List businesses into a single, publicly traded company.  See
Parshall v. Angie's List, Inc. et al., No. 1:17-cv-2418 (U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Indiana).

On July 20, 2017, a second, substantially similar purported
shareholder class action was filed in the same court.  See Pill v.
Angie's List, Inc. et al., No. 1:17-cv-2461 (U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Indiana).  The gravamen of the complaints in
these lawsuits is that the registration statement is materially
misleading to Angie's List's shareholders because it omitted: (i)
certain financial projections, assumptions and other information
relied upon by Angie's List's financial advisors in rendering
their fairness opinions with respect to the proposed combination,
(ii) certain information about Angie's List's board members'
potential conflicts of interest and (iii) certain information
about the background of the transaction.  The complaints assert
violations of Sections 14-a and 20-a of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and seek to enjoin the transaction, require the
issuance of a revised registration statement and rescind the
transaction and obtain damages should it go forward.  The Company
has not yet been served in either case.

The Company believes that the allegations in these lawsuits are
without merit and will defend vigorously against them.

IAC is a media and Internet company comprised of widely known
consumer brands, such as HomeAdvisor, Vimeo, Dotdash (formerly
About.com), Dictionary.com, The Daily Beast, Investopedia, and
Match Group's online dating portfolio, which includes Match,
Tinder, PlentyOfFish and OkCupid.


ILG INC: Motion to Dismiss Mass Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
ILG, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that the Company's motion to dismiss a mass action remains
pending.

On December 5, 2016, individuals and entities who own or owned 107
fractional interests of a total of 372 interests created in the
Fifth and Fifty-Fifth Residence Club located within The St. Regis,
New York (the "Club") filed suit against ILG, certain of our
subsidiaries, Marriott International Inc. ("Marriott") and certain
of its subsidiaries including Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide
LLC ("Starwood"). The case is filed as a mass action in federal
court in the Southern District of New York, not as a class action.
In response to our request to file a motion to dismiss, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 6, 2017.
Plaintiffs principally challenge the sale of less than all
interests offered in the fractional offering plan, the amendment
of the plan to include additional units, and the rental of unsold
fractional interests by the plan's sponsor, claiming that alleged
acts by us and the other defendants breached the relevant
agreements and harmed the value of plaintiffs' fractional
interests. The relief sought includes, among other things,
compensatory damages, rescission, disgorgement, attorneys' fees,
and pre- and post-judgment interest.

The Company said, "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on April 21, 2017.  The court has not yet rendered any
decision on the motion.  We dispute the material allegations in
the amended complaint and intend to defend against the action
vigorously. Given the early stages of the action and the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, we cannot estimate a range of the
potential liability, if any, at this time."

ILG, Inc. is a provider of professionally delivered vacation
experiences and the exclusive global licensee for the Hyatt(R),
Sheraton(R) and Westin(R) brands in vacation ownership.  ILG
operates in the following two segments: Vacation Ownership (VO)
and Exchange and Rental.


INSULET CORPORATION: Arkansas Teacher's Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al.,
remains pending, Insulet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On October 23, 2017, parties in the case filed a Joint Motion for
Extension of Time for Deadlines in Scheduling Order, to Modify
Deposition Limits and Extend Page Limits for Remaining Class
Certification Briefing by Duane DeSisto, Allison Dorval, Insulet
Corporation, Charles Liamos, Brian Roberts.

Judge Mark L. Wolf also granted a Motion for Protective Order.

Between May 5, 2015 and June 16, 2015, three class action lawsuits
were filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court,
Massachusetts, against the Company and certain individual current
and former executives of the Company. Two suits subsequently were
voluntarily dismissed.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-
12345, which remains outstanding, alleges that the Company (and
certain executives) committed violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making allegedly false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. The lawsuit seeks,
among other things, compensatory damages in connection with the
Company's allegedly inflated stock price between May 7, 2013 and
April 30, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company currently cannot reasonably estimate a possible loss,
or range of loss, in connection with this matter.

Insulet Corporation is primarily engaged in the development,
manufacturing and sale of its proprietary Omnipod Insulin
Management System ("Omnipod System"), an innovative, discreet and
easy-to-use continuous insulin delivery system for people with
insulin-dependent diabetes.


J.JILL INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, and KSF partner, former Attorney General
of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they
have until December 12, 2017 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against J.Jill, Inc.
(NYSE:JILL), if they purchased the Company's shares pursuant to
its March 9, 2017 initial public offering (the "IPO").  This
action is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of J.Jill and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-jill/to learn more. If you wish
to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by December 12, 2017.

                           About the Lawsuit

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

On October 11, 2017, J.Jill disclosed a downgraded guidance for Q3
2017 relating to total company comparable sales and gross margin.
However, in its Registration Statement filed in conjunction with
its March 9, 2017 IPO, the Company touted its unique business
strategy as one that was expected to insulate the Company from
adverse industry trends and allow for continued growth in gross
profits.  On October 12, 2017, following the prior day's
disclosures, the Company's shares closed at $4.86 per share -
more than 62% below its IPO price only seven months prior.

                    About Kahn Swick & Foti

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include the former
Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm
focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions, along
with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation
against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The
firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.

         Lewis Kahn
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


J.JILL INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action has
been commenced on behalf of purchasers of J.Jill, Inc. ("J.Jill")
(NYSE:JILL) common stock in or traceable to the Company's March 9,
2017 initial public offering (the "IPO"). This action was filed in
the District of Massachusetts and is captioned Branen v. J.Jill,
Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-11980.

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

The complaint charges J.Jill, certain of its officers and
directors, certain of the underwriters of the IPO and J.Jill's
controlling shareholder with violations of the Securities Act of
1933. J.Jill is a specialty apparel brand focused on affluent
women in the 40 to 65 age segment.

On or about February 10, 2017, the Company filed with the SEC a
registration statement on Form S-1 for the IPO, which was
subsequently amended and declared effective on March 8, 2017 (the
"Registration Statement"). On March 9, 2017, the Registration
Statement was used to sell approximately 12.5 million shares of
J.Jill common stock to the investing public at $13 per share.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement
communicated that the Company's unique business strategy had
insulated it from adverse industry trends and, as a result, J.Jill
would be able to continue to grow its gross profits. The complaint
asserts that the statements in the Registration Statement were
false and misleading when made because the Company's purportedly
unique and superior sales and marketing approach had not insulated
the Company from adverse trends affecting the overall retail
industry. Moreover, the Company was carrying increasing amounts of
slow moving inventory and would need to significantly markdown
sale items and increase promotional efforts in an attempt to
continue its sales growth, and the Company's brick-and-mortar
stores were experiencing difficulty attracting customers and
maintaining profitability, which would result in the Company
shuttering up to eight stores in fiscal 2017 -- thereby
diminishing the Company's gross margins and impairing its ability
to service its long-term debt. On October 12, 2017, J.Jill common
stock closed at $4.86 per share, or more than 62% below its
offering price only seven months after the IPO.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
J.Jill common stock in or traceable to the Company's March 9, 2017
IPO (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller,
which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class
actions including actions involving financial fraud.

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

         Darren Robbins, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Tel: 800/449-4900
              619/231-1058
         E-mail: djr@rgrdlaw.com
                 darrenr@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


J.JILL INC: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against J. Jill,
Inc. ("J. Jill" or the "Company") (NYSE: JILL) for violations of
the Securities Act of 1933.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to its initial public offering on March 9, 2017 (the
"IPO") are encouraged to contact the firm before December 12,
2017, the lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss in connection with
the IPO, click here to participate.

We also encourage you to contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. or Brian
Schall, Esq. -- brian@goldberglawpc.com -- of Goldberg Law PC,
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
800-977-7401, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.goldberglawpc.com/,or by email at
info@goldberglawpc.com.

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement filed in
connection with the IPO contained false and misleading information
because J. Jill's purportedly unique and superior sales and
marketing approach had not insulated the Company from adverse
trends affecting the overall retail industry, like it claimed. The
Company was carrying increasing amounts of slow moving inventory
and would need to significantly markdown sale items and increase
promotional efforts in an attempt to continue its sales growth.
Also, the Company's brick-and-mortar stores were experiencing
difficulty attracting customers and maintaining profitability,
which would result in the Company closing up to eight stores in
fiscal 2017 -- thereby diminishing the Company's gross margins and
impairing its ability to service its long-term debt. Since the
IPO, J. Jill's stock price has dropped more than 62%, which has
caused investors harm.

Goldberg Law PC represents investors around the world, and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

         Michael Goldberg, Esq.
         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Goldberg Law PC, Los Angeles
         Tel: 800-977-7401
         E-mail: brian@goldberglawpc.com
                 michael@goldberglawpc.com [GN]


J.JILL INC: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP disclosed that a
class action has commenced on behalf of purchasers of J.Jill, Inc.
("J.Jill") (NYSE: Jill) common stock in or traceable to the
Company's March 9, 2017 initial public offering (the "IPO"). This
action was filed in the District of Massachusetts and is captioned
Branen v. J.Jill, Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-11980.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from October 13, 2017. If you wish to discuss
this action, have any questions concerning this notice, or your
rights or interests, please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please
include your phone number. If you are a member of this class, you
can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class
action online at http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. The complaint charges J.Jill,
certain of its officers and directors, certain of the underwriters
of the IPO and J.Jill's controlling shareholder with violations of
the Securities Act of 1933. J.Jill is a specialty apparel brand
focused on affluent women in the 40 to 65 age segment.

On or about February 10, 2017, the Company filed with the SEC a
registration statement on Form S-1 for the IPO, which was
subsequently amended and declared effective on March 8, 2017 (the
"Registration Statement"). On March 9, 2017, the Registration
Statement was used to sell approximately 12.5 million shares of
J.Jill common stock to the investing public at $13 per share.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement
communicated that the Company's unique business strategy had
insulated it from adverse industry trends and, as a result, J.Jill
would be able to continue to grow its gross profits. The complaint
asserts that the statements in the Registration Statement were
false and misleading when made because the Company's purportedly
unique and superior sales and marketing approach had not insulated
the Company from adverse trends affecting the overall retail
industry. Moreover, the Company was carrying increasing amounts of
slow moving inventory and would need to significantly markdown
sale items and increase promotional efforts in an attempt to
continue its sales growth, and the Company's brick-and-mortar
stores were experiencing difficulty attracting customers and
maintaining profitability, which would result in the Company
shuttering up to eight stores in fiscal 2017 -- thereby
diminishing the Company's gross margins and impairing its ability
to service its long-term debt. On October 12, 2017, J.Jill common
stock closed at $4.86 per share, or more than 62% below its
offering price only seven months after the IPO.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
J.Jill common stock in or traceable to the Company's March 9, 2017
IPO (the "Class").

                           About Johnson Fistel

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The
firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For
more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results
do not guarantee future outcomes.

         Jim Baker, Esq.
         Johnson Fistel, LLP
         Tel No: 619-814-4471
         E-mail: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]


JEFFREY G. LERMAN: Raytman Sues over Debt Collections Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
LIUDMILA RAYTMAN, Individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY G. LERMAN
P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 656398/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 16,
2017), seeks to recover damages arising from Defendant's
violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Class members will continue to
suffer losses borne from Defendants breaches of Class members'
statutorily protected rights as well as monetary damages, thus
allowing and enabling: Defendants conduct to proceed; and
Defendants to further enjoy the benefit of its ill-gotten gains.
The Defendants have acted, and will act, on grounds generally
applicable to the entire Class, thereby making appropriate a final
injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect
to the Class as a whole.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          Elizabeth Apostola, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW, LLC
          78 John Miller Way Suite 430
          Kearny, New Jersey 07032
          Telephone: (862) 227 3106
          E-mail: dz@zemellawHc.com
                  ea@zemellawilc.com


JOHN C. HEATH: Faces "Wieseler-Myers" Suit in Colorado Fed. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against John C. Heath,
Attorney At Law, PLLC.  The case is entitled as Catherine
Wieseler-Myers, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. John C. Heath, Attorney At Law, PLLC,
doing business as: Lexington Law Firm, a Utah professional limited
liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02481-RM (D.
Colo., Oct. 17 , 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Raymond P. Moore.

The Defendant provides legal advisory services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael James Aschenbrener, Esq.
          KAMBER LAW
          220 North Green Street
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (646) 964 9604
          Facsimile: (212) 202 6364
          E-mail: masch@kamberlaw.com


KATHERINE, NT: Residents Want to Sue Over Water Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris McLennan, writing for Katherine Times, reports that
Katherine residents want to be compensated by the Department of
Defence for the contamination of their water.

Aside from genuine fears about health impacts from a life-long
exposure to PFAS, many of them claim their homes and properties
are now virtually worthless.

Almost 100 residents have already contacted two law firms in the
past few days which are holding public meetings in Katherine
proposing to launch a class action against the Defence Department.

It was suggested in some legal circles Power and Water
Corporation, Katherine Town Council and even Katherine MLA Sandra
Nelson could also be a possible targets for litigation.

Maddens Lawyers from Victoria will hold a public meeting at Knotts
Crossing from 6.30pm on October 16.

Shine Lawyers is holding its meeting at the Godinymayin Yijard
Rivers Arts & Culture Centre at 6.30pm on October 12.

Both legal firms are keen to register residents to join the class
action.

And both say they already have many residents who have expressed
an interest in joining the legal action.

The Maddens Lawyers spokeswoman said more than 30 Katherine people
had already made contact showing an interest in joining any class
action.

A spokeswoman for Shine Lawyers said more than 60 people had
already indicated they would be attending the October 12 meeting.

Shine Lawyers is already mounting a class action against Defence
in Oakey, Queensland.

"At present, to be eligible to participate in the Class Action,
your property or business must be located in or around the
investigation area," the law firm said.

The main categories of claimants that will be eligible to join are
the following:

   -- Property owners within or around the investigation area,
      whose land has been contaminated or has otherwise been
      impacted by the Contamination; and

   -- Commercial businesses within or around the investigation
      area who impacted commercially by the Contamination.

   -- It may be that the eligibility criteria for the Class Action
      will change, depending on legal advice. If the criteria
      changes, we will let you know.

An independent legal expert, who did not want to be named, said
they was "no rush" for people sign on for one law firm or another.

"I would go to both public meetings and hear what they have to
say," he said.

"There are downsides to becoming involved in a class action so I
would get other legal advice before signing anything, even an
indication of interest."

The law expert said some residents may receive less for their
claim than they might expect because they had not pursued it as an
individual.

The law firms traditionally pursue the expensive action on a no
win, no pay basis meaning they absorb all the costs but would take
about a third of any settlement for the risk they run.

Two years from a possible water fix. [GN]


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Class Action Settled for $61-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------
BolivarMoNews reports that Craig Heidemann and Nathan Duncan of
Douglas, Haun & Heidemann PC recently settled a class action
lawsuit against L-3 Communications, a U.S. defense contractor.

According to a news release from the firm, under the settlement
terms, "owners of EoTech gun sights will receive over $51 million
in class benefits," plus the court-approved $10 million in
attorney's fees.

In December 2015, the firm filed a national class action
complaint, Foster v. L-3, on behalf of Andrew Foster against L-3
Communications alleging "violations of Missouri's Merchandising
Practices Act and of other states' consumer protection statutes,
together with violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act," the
release said. Other attorneys around the country subsequently
filed similar suits.

The nationwide litigation was consolidated before Judge Brian C.
Wimes in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri in
the Foster case filed by Douglas, Haun & Heidemann. Heidemann was
appointed to the leadership committee and named co-lead counsel,
the release said.

The consolidated action "sought reimbursement of amounts paid by
tens of thousands of L-3 Communications customers who purchased
EOTech brand holographic weapon sights between 2004 and present,"
the release said. The action alleged the company's marketing was
"deceptive" because the sights did not perform as advertised and
the company "concealed the defects" from its customers.

The defendant denied the existence of these alleged defects and
denied liability, the release said.

The parties reached a settlement agreement making it possible for
class members to return their sights to L-3 for a full refund,
plus additional compensation, or to keep the sight and receive a
cash payment.

On, Feb. 15, Wimes preliminarily approved the class settlement and
entered his order finally approving the settlement July 7.

Prior to the return deadline, class members returned more than
78,300 sights at a total value of more than $51 million, the
release said. Class members began receiving their settlement
payments in mid-September, and no additional claims may now be
filed.

Attorneys for the plaintiff were Heidemann, Esq., Duncan, Esq.,
Tim Dollar, Esq., Sharon Almonrode, Esq. -- ssa@miller.law.com --
, Bonner Walsh, Esq., Adam Gonnelli, Esq., and Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
-- nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com

Attorneys for the defendant were Richard Godfrey, Esq. --
richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- and Jay Devecchio, Esq. --
jdevecchio@mofo.com [GN]


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Appeal in "Fosbre" Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the appeal in a class action lawsuit, Frank J.
Fosbre, Jr. v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., Sheldon G. Adelson and
William P. Weidner, remains pending.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon
G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that
LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false information, or failed to disclose material
facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other
means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The complaint
sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The
complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre
complaint, discussed above, sought, among other relief, class
certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases
are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a
purported class action amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William
P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the
individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false
and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts,
through press releases, investor conference calls and other means
from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended
complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part,
and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On
November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the
allegations remaining in the amended complaint.

On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing
defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the U.S.
District Court's order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional
portions of the plaintiffs' complaint and reducing the class
period to a period of February 4 to November 6, 2008.

On August 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action
second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") seeking
to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having
previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court)
essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously
stricken by the U.S. District Court.

On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the
motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their
reply on November 12, 2012.

On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay of
discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore, the
discovery process was suspended. On April 16, 2013, the case was
reassigned to a new judge. On July 30, 2013, the U.S. District
Court heard the motion to dismiss and took the matter under
advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge granted in part and
denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss.

On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the
Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the matter resumed.

On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the
certified class period, which was granted by the U.S. District
Court on June 15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015,
and expert discovery closed on December 18, 2015. On January 22,
2016, defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs
filed an opposition to the motions for summary judgment on March
11, 2016. Defendants filed their replies in support of summary
judgment on April 8, 2016. Summary judgment in favor of the
defendants was entered on January 4, 2017. The plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on February 2, 2017, and their opening brief in
support of their appeal on July 14, 2017. The Company intends to
defend this matter vigorously.


LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS: "Villanueva" Class Settlement Has Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for District of Oregon, Portland
Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Final
Approval of the Proposed Class Settlement in the case captioned
JESUS VILLANUEVA, JR., et al., Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS
SERVICING, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 3:14-CV-01610-HZ
(Lead Case), 3:15-CV-02354-HZ (Trailing Case)(D. Or.).

This Court granted preliminary approval to the proposed Settlement
between Representative Plaintiff and Defendants Liberty
Acquisitions Servicing, LLC (LAS), Liberty Holdings, LLC
(Holdings), Javlin One, LLC (Javlin One) and Javlin Capital, LLC
(Javlin Capital) (Javlin Parties) (Defendants). The proposed
Settlement resolves all of the Class's claims against Defendants
in exchange for LAS' agreement to pay certain amounts to eligible
Class Members as set forth in the Agreement.

This Court confirms the Class, as defined in the Court's Order
Granting Class Certification and as described in the Settlement
Agreement, has been appropriately identified by the parties.

Certain members of the Class have timely requested to be excluded
from the Class and the Settlement.

The Court hereby grants final approval to the Settlement and finds
that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best
interests of the Class as a whole. The Court has considered and
hereby overrules all objections brought to the Court's attention,
whether properly filed or not.

As payment in compensation for the time, effort, and risk he
undertook as representatives of the Class, the Court hereby awards
$9,000.00 to Jesus Villanueva, Jr.

The Court awards attorneys' fees and costs to compensate Class
Counsel for their time incurred and expenses advanced. The Court
has concluded that: (a) Class Counsel achieved a favorable result
for the Class by obtaining LAS' agreement to make funds available
to Class Members; (b) Class Counsel devoted substantial effort to
pre- and post-filing investigation, legal analysis, and
litigation; (c) Class Counsel prosecuted the Class' claims on a
contingent fee basis, investing significant time and accumulating
costs with no guarantee that they would receive compensation for
their services or recover their expenses; (d) Class Counsel
employed their knowledge of and experience with class action
litigation in achieving a valuable settlement for the Class, in
spite of Defendants' possible legal defenses and their experienced
and capable counsel; (e) Class Counsel has a standard contingent
fee agreement with Representative Plaintiff, who has reviewed the
Agreement and been informed of Class Counsel's attorney fee and
cost application and has approved; and (f) the Notice informed
Class Members of the amount and nature of Class Counsel's fee and
cost request under the Agreement, and Class Counsel filed and
posted their Fee and Cost Application in time for Class members to
make a meaningful decision whether to object to the Fee and Cost
Application.

For these reasons, the Court approves Class Counsel's Fee and Cost
Application and awards to Class Counsel fees and costs in the
total aggregate amount of $600,000.00. All these fees are in lieu
of statutory fees that Representative Plaintiff and/or the Class
might otherwise have been entitled to recover.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 14, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybe82rhxfrom Leagle.com.

Jesus Villanueva, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Keil M. Mueller -
- kmueller@stollberne.com -- Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter
P.C.

Jesus Villanueva, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Kelly D. Jones,
Kelly D. Jones, Attorney at Law, 19 SE Morrison St.- Suite 255,
Portland, OR 97214. & Joshua L. Ross -- ross@stollberne.com --
Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter, PC.

Liberty Acquisitions Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey I. Hasson, Hasson Law, LLC, 320 Cedar Ln, Teaneck, NJ
07666, USA

Liberty Holdings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel C.
Peterson -- dpeterson@cosgravelaw.com -- Cosgrave Vergeer Kester,
LLP & Robert E. Sabido -- rsabido@consgravelaw.com -- Cosgrave
Vergeer Kester, LLP.

Javlin One, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian C. Buescher --
Brian.Buescher@KutakRock.com -- Kutak Rock LLP, pro hac vice &
Jonathan Mark Radmacher, McEwen Gisvold LLP, 1100 SW Sixth Avenue,
Suite 1600, Portland, OR 97204

Javlin Capital, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian C. Buescher,
Kutak Rock LLP, pro hac vice & Jonathan Mark Radmacher, McEwen
Gisvold LLP.


LIFE STORAGE: Awaits Court Decision on Settlement
-------------------------------------------------
Life Storage, Inc., and Life Storage LP, said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a decision by the Court
on the settlement of a class action lawsuit is expected later in
2017.

On or about August 25, 2014, a putative class action was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law
Division Burlington County. The action seeks to obtain
declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of
consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of various
statutory laws.

On October 17, 2014, the action was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company
brought a motion to partially dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim, and on July 16, 2015, the Company's motion was
granted in part and denied in part.

On October 20, 2016, the complaint was amended to add additional
claims. The parties have entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle all claims for an aggregate amount of $8.0
million and will be jointly moving for preliminary judicial
approval of the settlement in August 2017. The aggregate
settlement amount of $8.0 million ($5.0 million after considering
income tax impact) has been recorded as a liability of the Company
in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of June 30,
2017. A portion of the settlement expense relates to self-storage
facilities that are managed by the Company through its taxable
REIT subsidiary.

There is an income tax impact to the Company on that portion of
the settlement expense as a result. The settlement is subject to
approval by the court, a decision on which is expected later in
2017.

The Parent Company operates as a self-administered and self-
managed real estate investment trust (a "REIT") that owns and
operates self-storage facilities throughout the United States.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Zimmerman Reed Announces Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached with the City of Los Angeles (the
"City"), the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power ("LADWP"),
and the LADWP Board of Water and Power Commissioners (together,
"Defendants") in a class action lawsuit claiming LADWP has
embedded in its power (electric) rates an 8% surcharge in order to
fund transfers to the City's Reserve Fund. The Plaintiffs claim
that the 8% surcharge is a tax that has not been approved by the
electorate and, thus, violates California Constitution article
XIII-C, section 2, subdivision (b) and/or (d), and Government Code
sections 53722 and/or 53723. Defendants deny the allegations, and
the Court has not decided who is right. Instead, the parties
agreed to a settlement to avoid the expense and risk of continued
litigation.

You are included in the settlement if, between January 29, 2012
and September 14, 2017, you held a retail customer account with
LADWP in which there was a charge for electricity.

The City has agreed to create a Settlement Fund, which is
currently estimated to be Fifty-Two Million Dollars ($52,000,000).
After administrative expenses, attorney's fees and expenses of up
to 29% of the Settlement Fund, service awards in the amount of
$5,000 to each of the four Class Representatives, and a $650,000
payment to non-profit charitable organization(s) are paid from the
Settlement Fund, the balance will be distributed as a per
kilowatt-hour credit to the electric rates of LADWP retail
electricity customers. The City and LADWP have also agreed to
deduct 8% from the amounts otherwise charged to LADWP retail
electricity customers pursuant to its 2016 Electric Rate Ordinance
and will no longer transfer any funds LADWP collects through the
2016 Electric Rate Ordinance to the City. Please see the Detailed
Notice and / or the Settlement Agreement available at
www.LACityTransferSettlement.com.

If you do nothing, you are staying in the Settlement, your rights
will be affected, and, if you are a LADWP retail electricity
customer during the first billing period after the Settlement is
finally approved by the Court, you will receive the benefits
described above. If you do not want to be legally bound by the
Settlement, you must exclude yourself from it by December 27,
2017. If you do not exclude yourself, you may object. Objections
are due December 27, 2017. More information, including the
Settlement Agreement, a Detailed Notice, and instructions on how
to exclude yourself and object, is available at
www.LACityTransferSettlement.com.

The Los Angeles Superior Court will hold a hearing in this case,
Eck v. The City of Los Angeles, No. BC577028, on February 14,
2018. At this hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve:
the Settlement; Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and
expenses; and service awards to the Class Representatives. You or
your lawyer may appear at the hearing at your own expense. [GN]


MAGICJACK: Levi & Korsinsky Proposes Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
You Are Hereby Notified, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure that a hearing will be held on January 19,
2018, at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable Victor Marrero, United
States District Judge, at the Courthouse for the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, Courtroom 11B,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York,
New York 10007, for the purpose of determining, among other
things, whether the following matters should be approved by the
Court: (1) the proposed Settlement of the claims in the Action for
the combined sum of $3,650,000 in cash as fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Members of the Class; (2) whether, thereafter, the
Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated September 20, 2017
("Stipulation"); (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; (4)
whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses incurred in
connection with the Action should be approved; and (5) whether the
named and lead plaintiffs should be awarded an incentive payment
of $5,000 each.

If you sold or otherwise divested magicJack securities from
November 12, 2013 through March 12, 2014, inclusive, your rights
may be affected by the settlement of this Class Action. If you
have not received the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof
of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain them free of charge by
contacting the Claims Administrator, by mail at: Gormley v.
magicJack Vocaltec Ltd. et al, c/o JND Legal Administration, PO
Box 6847, Broomfield, CO 80021

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim postmarked no later than January 17, 2018 establishing
that you are entitled to recovery. As further described in the
Notice, you will be bound by any Judgment entered in the Action,
regardless of whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you
exclude yourself from the Class, in accordance with the procedures
set forth in the Notice, postmarked no later than December 29,
2017. Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or
attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed and served, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later
than December 29, 2017.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead
Counsel for the Class: Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. --
nporritt@zlk.com -- of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, 1101 30th Street,
N.W., Suite 115, Washington, D.C. 20007.

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE,
THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL.

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact
Lead Counsel at the address listed above.

DATED:   September 29, 2017

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


MANITOBA: Lake-front Property Owners Fighting to Launch Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron MacLean, writing for CBC News, reports that the waters of
Lake Manitoba in front of Don Easton's home remain high, though
not quite as high as they reached during the massive flood of
2011.

Six years later, Easton and several other Lake Manitoba property
owners are fighting to launch a class-action lawsuit against the
province.

In spring of 2011, powerful winds whipped up waves on the swollen
lake, smashing into the shore and flooding properties along the
south basin. Easton's home in Twin Lakes Beach escaped the
flooding, but his boathouse was destroyed and many of his
neighbours were forced to demolish their homes.

He says the province failed to properly compensate people for the
flood, which he says was caused by the province diverting water
from the Assiniboine River into the lake in order to protect
properties downstream in Winnipeg.

"With the amount of water that was being put into the lake with
the Portage Diversion, it was obvious to any of us who've had time
out here that the day was going to come when we were going to be
in big trouble," he said.

The property owners are seeking certification for a $260-million
class-action lawsuit, but the lawyer representing owners says the
province is challenging them, saying they should file lawsuits
individually.

"It's tragic that six years later we're still fighting to get what
we're entitled to and the government's now resisting that it's
responsible," said Brian Meronek of DD West LLP.

Jack King's property in St. Laurent escaped the worst of the
flooding, but it forced him and his wife out of their house for 14
months. King's wife underwent hip replacement during that time,
and a relative wrecked his truck driving through deep water to
retrieve King's belongings.

Although he's opted not to join the lawsuit, King agrees that many
residents were not fairly compensated. He says the people employed
by the province to assess the damage were "ill-equipped" and some
had backgrounds assessing crop damage.

"They were not in a position to keep up with how catastrophic it
turned out to be and the number of people they were dealing with,
the claims, I think was overwhelming to them," King said.

Another class-action lawsuit involving nearby First Nations sets a
precedent for his case, Meronek said. Earlier this year, flood
evacuees from Lake St. Martin, Little Saskatchewan, Dauphin River
and Pinaymootang First Nations settled for $90 million.

"So we thought, well, that's great. It's the same case. Different
people, but it's all of the same arguments, the same facts. Well,
the government decided in its wisdom that it would argue that it's
different and here we are, back to square one, arguing."

Meronek said more than 100 property owners have joined the
lawsuit.

Many compensation claims denied: lawyer

During the flood of 2011, the province operated the Portage
Diversion -- which reduces flooding on the Assiniboine River as it
flows east through Portage la Prairie toward Winnipeg -- for
months.

Although property owners received some compensation for damaged
property and other expenses, Meronek said there were many limits
placed on the types and amounts of compensation they could receive
and many claims were denied.

Easton isn't sure how much money he lost, but he described the
province's attitude toward compensating people as "nonsense,"
saying the government should have admitted it was putting Lake
Manitoba residents at risk in order to protect people downstream.

"They made a conscious decision, and probably the right decision,
but they wouldn't just stand up and say it," he said. "I bet if
they had said that and then followed through with some decent
actions on it, they wouldn't be looking at a lawsuit."

A spokesperson for the province declined to comment for this story
because the matter is before the courts.

Risk of flood remains

Since 2011, flood mitigation projects have been completed,
offering property owners some protection, but the risk of another
flood remains.

Fears of a flood rose again in 2014, and Easton worries about
another flood in the spring.

"The lake being where it is right now, there's no room to put any
more water in should we have a large runoff in the spring and the
Assiniboine has to be diverted again, which wouldn't be a problem
if we had a way of getting the water out."

The province plans to cut two new outlet channels on Lake Manitoba
and Lake St. Martin to mitigate future floods. Channel
construction is expected to start in 2019. [GN]


MDL 2445: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Suboxone Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Opinion denying Moving
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint in the
Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone) antitrust
litigation.

In an effort to speed the entry of generic drugs into the market,
Congress passed the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Hatch-Waxman Act), under which generic
drug manufacturers may receive FDA approval for generic drugs
without replicating the clinical trials involved in an NDA.  In
lieu of an NDA, a generic drug manufacturer may submit an
abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) and incorporate data, such
as clinical studies, that the NDA filer submitted to the FDA.  To
be approved, an ANDA must demonstrate that the generic drug (a)
has the same active ingredients as; (b) is pharmaceutically
equivalent to (same dosage form and strength); and (c) is
bioequivalent to (exhibiting the same drug absorption
characteristics) the previously approved drug.

Once the FDA approves an ANDA and determines that the generic drug
is AB-rated to the branded drug, state laws govern how the generic
may be substituted for the brand name drug prescribed by
physicians. In most states and under most health plans, a
pharmacist may, and in many cases must, substitute an AB-rated
generic drug for a prescribed brand-name drug.

Indivior introduced Suboxone, designed for the treatment of opioid
addiction, as a sublingual tablet.  At that time, the two
component ingredients of Suboxone naloxone and buprenorphine were
not subject to any patent protection. In lieu of exclusivity
through patent protection, the FDA granted Indivior's Suboxone
tablets a seven-year period of exclusivity as an orphan drug based
on Indivior's representation that it would be unlikely to recover
the costs of developing and marketing the drug. Nonetheless,
Suboxone did not obtain actual marketing exclusivity, thus
allowing Indivior to market the sublingual Suboxone tablet without
the threat of competition from any generic co-formulated
buprenorphine/naloxone tablet. Indivior allegedly earned more than
$2 billion on Suboxone tablets by 2010.

As the orphan drug exclusivity period for Suboxone tablets neared
expiration, Indivior became concerned that lower-priced generic
versions of co-formulated buprenorphine/naloxone would enter the
market and significantly reduce its sales and revenue of Suboxone
tablets.  Faced with this impending loss of exclusivity, Indivior,
in connection with a company named MonoSol Rx, LLC (MonoSol),
began to formulate a Buprenorphine Generic Offensive Strategy.

This strategy relied on FDA regulations that allow branded
manufacturers to seek FDA approval to modify the dosage form and
strength of an existing product, which would in turn change its
pharmaceutical equivalence and alter the AB-rating of any proposed
or available generic substitutes. The first step of the plan was
to develop a new version of Suboxone which could be used to secure
patent protection, while the second step was to convert the market
for co-formulated buprenorphine/naloxone from Suboxone tablets to
the newly-developed version of Suboxone.

MonoSol and Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare UK Ltd. signed an
agreement to develop and market a sublingual film form of Suboxone
for the purpose of extending Indivior's exclusivity in the co-
formulated buprenorphine/naloxone market.

Indivior began a multi-front offensive to get film into the market
before the generics could enter with their version of the tablet,
including (1) aggressively promoting the alleged superiority of
the film to doctors, payors and pharmacists; (2) encouraging use
of the film through a targeted and sustainable payor strategy by
creating a patient subsidy program available only for Suboxone
film; (3) pricing film to be less expensive than tablets despite
the more expensive production costs for film; (4) hiring and
compensating its sales force so that it would earn bonuses for
convincing health care providers to convert to film; and (5)
coordinating efforts among field sales, marketing, and government
to drive film's stickiness with targeted payors.

Despite the fact that Indivior's Suboxone tablet REMS had just
been approved by the FDA in December 2011, Indivior allegedly did
not cooperate with the generic manufacturers in the finalization
and submission of a shared REMS. While not explicitly refusing to
participate, it engaged in multiple delay tactics to prolong the
approval of the ANDA for the generics.

After the Buprenorphine Products Manufacturers Group met with
Indivior for several months to negotiate a shared REMS, the Group
ultimately reported to the FDA that Indivior had no desire to
enter into a shared REMS, feigned cooperation with the shared REMS
development process, refused to participate in meetings with the
generic ANDA filers, refused to discuss any issues pertaining to
the shared REMS with the generic ANDA filers, placed conditions on
its cooperation with the shared REMS development process that it
knew the ANDA filers could not agree to, refused to share
information with the generic ANDA filers regarding the existing
REMS, raised last-minute issues to cause further delay once a
shared REMS was ready to be submitted in August 2012, and stopped
participating altogether in September 2012.

Indivior's refusal to cooperate successfully delayed submission of
the shared REMS until August of 2012, when the generic ANDA filers
obtained a waiver allowing them to submit a shared REMS program of
their own without Indivior's cooperation.

Several putative classes initiated litigation against Indivior
alleging anticompetitive behavior with respect to its marketing
and sale of Suboxone. These cases were consolidated into a multi-
district litigation (MDL) in this Court. Among those cases were
the class action complaint (Class Action Complaint) brought by
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and End-Payor Plaintiffs (Class
Plaintiffs) alleging that Defendants unlawfully delayed and
impeded competition from generic versions of Suboxone tablets,
resulting in ongoing overpayments by consumers. I issued an
opinion (Class Action Opinion) dismissing one of Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs' stand-alone antitrust claims, a variety of state law
claims by the End-Payor Plaintiffs, and claims against several of
the other Defendant entities.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a defendant bears
the burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff has not stated a
claim upon which relief can be granted.   The United States
Supreme Court has recognized that a plaintiff's obligation to
provide the grounds of his 'entitlement to relief' requires more
than labels and conclusions.

Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice and only a
complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a
motion to dismiss. A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged. A complaint does not show an entitlement to
relief when the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to
infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.

Monopolization Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act

Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful to monopolize
attempt to monopolize, or conspire to monopolize, interstate or
international commerce.  Therefore, to succeed on a claim for
actual monopolization under Section 2, a party must prove: (1) the
possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the
willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished
from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product,
business acumen, or historical accident.

In the present matter, Plaintiffs' allegations of anti-competitive
conduct fall into two broad categories: (1) product-hopping claims
and (2) delay claims.

Product Hopping Claim

Plaintiffs allege that Indivior effectuated a hard switch from
Suboxone tablets to Suboxone film. Film was approved by the FDA on
August 30, 2010 while Suboxone tablets were still on the market,
but prior to generic entry. Simultaneously with its introduction
of film and its anti-tablet marketing campaign described above,
Indivior, like the defendants in Namenda, issued a press release
advising the public and prescribing physicians of its intent to
withdraw tablets from the market in the next six months due to
safety issues. These actions had the alleged purpose and effect of
decreasing the prescription base for the tablet as physicians and
users were forced to convert to the film, the only other co-
formulated buprenorphine/naloxone on the market.

As such, the press release signified the start of Indivior's hard
switch. On March 18, 2013, less than two weeks after generic
entry, Indivior actually withdrew the tablets, thereby completing
the hard switch and leaving generic manufacturers without a
prescription base. Such actions cross the line from persuasion to
coercion and, if proven, may rise to the level of anticompetitive
conduct.

Moving Defendant offers two additional arguments in support of its
Motion to Dismiss. The first challenges Plaintiffs' failure to
include allegations of actual foreclosure in the market, which
Moving Defendant asserts is fatal to the claim. The second
argument contends that Plaintiffs neglected to include crucial
allegations of a price disconnect within the pharmaceutical
market. The Court found them each meritless.

Allegations of Actual Foreclosure

Plaintiffs plead sufficient facts to allow a plausible inference
that the product hop substantially foreclosed competition. The
Amended Complaint alleges that by "causing a hard product switch,
Indivior avoided, and continues to avoid, automatic substitution
of AB-rated generics under state generic substitution laws and,
therefore has limited . . . competition with generic substitutes
for Suboxone Tablets."  The Amended Complaint goes on to assert
that by the time generic tablets received FDA approval in February
2013, 85% of Suboxone prescriptions were written for film instead
of tablets.

While the summary judgment record might be different, such
allegations are sufficient at this juncture to allow a plausible
inference that Moving Defendant's alleged anticompetitive conduct
resulted in substantial foreclosure of competition. In Eisai, Inc.
v. Sonofi Aventis U.S., LLC, 821 F.3d 394, 404, recognizing that
even where competitors are not foreclosed from the market and
consumers have a choice between products, if a defendant's conduct
renders that choice meaningless, the defendant has acted in an
anticompetitive fashion.

Allegations of a Price Disconnect

The Amended Complaint relies on more than just the existence of a
"price disconnect" and sufficiently pleads facts allowing a
logical inference that Plaintiffs have been substantially
foreclosed from the market.  Plaintiffs explain that only oral
drugs that carry the FDA's AB generic rating in a particular
category may be substituted by pharmacists for a physician's
prescription for a brand-name drug without physician's approval
They go on to contend that by causing a hard product switch,
Indivior avoided, and continues to avoid, automatic substitution
of AB-rated generics under state generic substitution laws and,
therefore, has limited, and continues to limit, competition with
generic substitutes for Suboxone Tablets. This product hop scheme
was combined with Indivior's plan to delay the entry of generic
tablets, which enabled it to sell Suboxone at supra-competitive
prices. Such allegations are sufficient to establish, at the
motion to dismiss stage, substantial foreclosure of the generic
tablets from the market.

Moving Defendant's product-hopping actions, as alleged in the
Amended Complaint, constitute a combination of product withdrawal
with some other conduct, the overall effect of which is to coerce
consumers rather than persuade them on the merits and to impede
competition. Such actions are inherently anticompetitive in nature
and, if substantiated by evidence, could rise to the level of
monopolistic conduct in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Delay Claims

Moving Defendant challenges these allegations and argues that
Plaintiffs' delay claim must be dismissed.

Refusal to Cooperate in Shared REMS

Moving Defendant first contends that any allegations relating to
the shared REMS process cannot form the basis of an antitrust
claim. In so arguing, Moving Defendant relies heavily on my Class
Action Opinion, in which the plaintiffs claimed a Sherman Act Sec
2 violation based on Indivior's intentional delay of the SSRS
process and disregard of the requirement that parties work
together in good faith under 21 U.S.C. Section 355-1(f)(8).

The Amended Complaint in this case is far more akin to the Amneal
complaint than the Class Action Complaint. Rather than separately
challenging the delay in the SSRS process as anticompetitive,
Plaintiffs aver that, "Beginning in 2002, [Indivior] engaged in
exclusionary conduct including, but not limited to: devising and
implementing an anti-generic strategy by intentionally causing
delays to FDA approval of ANDAs for generic co-formulated
buprenorphine/naloxone, filing a baseless citizen petition to
delay ANDA approval, and alleging unfounded concerns regarding the
safety of the generic product while engaging in a campaign to
convert the co-formulated buprenorphine/naloxone market from
tablet formulations to their patent-protected Film."

In other words, the alleged SSRS delays are simply part of a
broader, overarching scheme of anticompetitive conduct by Moving
Defendant. Portions of this claim specifically the product hopping
and the citizen petition allegations likewise survive Rule
12(b)(6) review, meaning that the overall Sherman Act Section 2
claim survives. To sever out the particular facts regarding the
SSRS process from the claim would unfairly compartmentalize the
underlying conduct into separate causes of action.

Therefore, although Plaintiffs could not premise a Sherman Section
2 claim on the SSRS delays alone, such activity may be considered
as part of the broader scheme of anticompetitive conduct.

Citizen Petition

Moving Defendant also challenges the delay claim to the extent it
is premised on Indivior's citizen petition.

In Apotex, plaintiff Apotex filed an ANDA for a generic drug to
compete with defendant Acorda's branded drug. Subsequently, Acorda
filed a citizen petition with the FDA raising concerns with
Apotex's ANDA and objecting to (1) Apotex's statement that its
product was equivalent to Reference Listed Drugs and (2) allegedly
misleading or untrue statements in the proposed label for the
ANDA. The FDA denied Acorda's citizen petition and, on the same
day, approved Apotex's ANDA. Apotex brought an antitrust claim
alleging that Acorda's citizen petition was used to delay approval
of the ANDA.  The district court granted a motion to dismiss that
claim.

This argument attempts to extend Apotex far too broadly.  Apotex
dealt only with what allegations were required to plausibly plead
objective baselessness of a citizen petition. The Second Circuit
did not touch on causation or conclusively hold that sham citizen
petitions can never be the basis of a delay claim under the
Sherman Act. Nor did the court require that in order to plead a
delay claim, a plaintiff must set forth allegations that the ANDAs
were fully-approvable at the time the citizen petition at issue
was filed.  Given Moving Defendant's failure to identify any
jurisprudence consistent with their argument, the Court declined
to impose that requirement here.

Whether such a delay actually occurred in this case is a subject
more properly left for resolution after discovery. For the present
purposes, the Court found that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged
causation.

Allegations of Delay Relating to the Years 2009-2011 and From
February to March 2013

Moving Defendant seeks dismissal of any delay claims (a) relating
to the years 2009-2011 and (b) post-approval of Amneal and
Actavis' ANDAs. It contends that the complaint is devoid of any
allegations that Indivior did anything until the REMS negotiation
began in 2012 to hinder the approval and launch of a generic
alternative to Suboxone tablets.

Although Plaintiffs have not specifically alleged facts showing
any delay caused by Indivior prior to 2011 and subsequent to
February 22, 2013, the delay claim, as a whole, survives Rule
12(b)(6) scrutiny. The precise contours and impact of the delay
cannot be accurately defined until after discovery on this claim.
Accordingly, at this juncture, the Court declined to parse out
specific timeframes to which the delay claim will not apply.

In sum, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint pleads a plausible claim of
anticompetitive delay by Moving Defendant. Given that the
allegations of the Amended Complaint describe multiple actions
comprising an overarching scheme, the Court will not dismiss any
part of this cause of action.

Conspiracy Claims

Moving Defendant alleges that both claims fail because (a)
Plaintiffs fail to allege concerted action among entities that,
for antitrust purposes, do not represent a single enterprise; and
(b) Plaintiffs fail to allege facts showing that any cooperative
conduct was anticompetitive. Considering each argument
individually, the Court found them meritless.

Concerted Action

Moving Defendant now contends that these allegations are
insufficient to allege concerted action because Indivior and
MonoSol share a unity of interest and the Sherman Act does not
reach agreements between contracting parties who do not have
independent competitive interests in the relevant market.

Taking the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint as true,
the Court disagreed.

The Amended Complaint allows the reasonable inference that MonoSol
could have competed in the relevant market outside of its
agreement with Indivior. MonoSol purportedly encouraged Indivior
and other pharmaceutical companies to partner with MonoSol and use
its PharmFilm formulations to introduce products that are highly
differentiated from other dosage forms, both in performance and
marketability, creating fresh, dynamic revenue-creating
opportunities. Indivior was but one of the companies to enter into
such an agreement with MonoSol. In short, the relationship between
Indivior and MonoSol is one of competitive reality lacking
complete unity of interest, and does not possess either the
unitary decision making quality or the single aggregation of
economic power characteristic of independent action.

For purposes of the motion to dismiss, the Court finds that the
Amended Complaint sufficiently pleads facts to support an
inference of concerted action. Therefore, the Court will deny the
motion on this ground.

Purpose of the Conspiracy

Moving Defendant's second and final challenge to the conspiracy
claim asserts that a conspiracy to innovate is not
anticompetitive.

Moving Defendant intends to argue that the true purpose of the
joint venture was for procompetitive innovation, resolution of
that inquiry is premature. In addressing allegations of
anticompetitive conduct based on product hops, the rule of reason
burden-shifting framework set forth by the D.C. Circuit in United
States v. Microsoft Corp. applies. Under that framework, the party
seeking to impose liability must initially provide evidence of the
anticompetitive nature of a defendant's conduct.

Once established, the defendant then has the burden of proffering
non-pretextual pro-competitive justifications for its conduct and
the plaintiff may then either rebut those justifications or
demonstrate that the anticompetitive harm outweighs the pro-
competitive benefit. Such questions may only be fairly addressed
after full discovery on the merits.

Accordingly, the Court declined to dismiss the conspiracy claims
on this ground.

The case is IN RE SUBOXONE (BUPRENORPHINE HYDROCHLORIDE AND
NALOXONE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Wisconsin, et al. v. Indivior Inc. et al. Case No. 16-cv-5073.
STATE OF WISCONSIN By Attorney General Brad D. Schimel, et al.
Plaintiffs, v. INDIVIOR INC. f/k/a RECKITT BENCKISER
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al. Defendants. No. 13-MD-2445, Civ. A.
No. 16-5073. (E.D. Pa.)

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 8, 2017
Memorandum Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8l3gy3r
from Leagle.com.


MDL 2672: DOJ Can't Share Discovery Material to German Law Firm
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying the United States Government's
Request to Share MDL Discovery Material with Foreign Counsel in
the case captioned IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order
Relates To: Dkt. No. 3749 MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.).

Volkswagen's "clean diesel" emissions scandal has given rise to
considerable litigation not only in the District Court, but also
in Germany where the company is headquartered.  In around 1,600
cases, shareholders have sued Volkswagen in Germany for allegedly
deceiving them about the scandal in violation of German securities
laws.  The United States is a plaintiff in one of these cases, and
seeks to recover losses incurred by a federal employees'
retirement plan, which held Volkswagen stock that traded on the
Frankfurt Stock Exchange.  The DOJ's Civil Division is responsible
for directing the German action; but because the Civil Division's
attorneys are not licensed to practice law in Germany, they have
retained a German law firm, GSK Stockmann ("GSK"), to represent
the United States.  The Civil Division now seeks to share
discovery produced by Volkswagen in this MDL with GSK, and the
question before the Court is whether the parties' stipulated
Protective Order permits the Civil Division to do so.

Shortly after this MDL began, the parties agreed to the terms of
the stipulated Protective Order, which facilitates the production
of confidential and highly confidential discovery material,
referred to in the Order as Protected Material. Volkswagen and the
DOJ's Environmental and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) were
among those who signed the Protective Order. Once in place,
Volkswagen shared nearly 25 million pages of documents with ENRD
(Discovery Material), and ENRD used those documents to prosecute
and ultimately settle claims against Volkswagen based on the
emissions fraud. ENRD also shared these documents with the DOJ's
Civil Division, who investigated whether Volkswagen violated
certain U.S. customs laws and other federal laws.

From Section 7.4 it is clear that the parties contemplated that
the Protective Order did not permit the Discovery Material to be
disclosed to plaintiffs in the domestic securities actions.  Given
that, it seems almost inconceivable that Volkswagen would have
been willing to permit the Discovery Material to be used by
plaintiffs in foreign securities litigation.  And even though the
United States is only one plaintiff, the parties do not dispute
that all of the plaintiffs in the roughly 1,600 German securities
actions would have access to any Discovery Material that GSK
ultimately files in the German court, because all documents filed
with the German court must be filed on an electronic access site
to which all plaintiffs in the consolidated cases will have
access.

If ENRD and Volkswagen had intended for the United States to be
able to use the MDL Discovery Material in any proceeding foreign
or domestic they easily could have said so. But they did not, and
it is clear from what they did say, and from the Protective
Order's drafting history, that they did not mutually intend for
the Order to permit ENRD to share MDL Discovery Material with
foreign counsel representing the United States in securities
litigation against Volkswagen in Germany. This does not mean that
GSK cannot conduct discovery in Germany in the same way that
plaintiffs in any of the 1,600 cases could do so. But GSK, by way
of the Civil Division, cannot use the Protected Order to end-run
around German discovery rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 15, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybvqhs8mfrom Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.
Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice
& Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

David Fiol, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Audet --
waudet@audetlaw.com  --  Audet & Partners, LLP, Jeff D. Friedman -
- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Peter B.
Fredman -- peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of Peter
Fredman, Robert B. Carey  -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro.
Nicholas Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Marker --
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice &
Charles S. Zimmerman --  charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice.

Brett Alters, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Joan Cabraser --
ecabraser@lchb.com --  Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
David S. Stellings, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, Kevin R.
Budner -- kbudner@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and
Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor , San Francisco, CA
94111  & Tana Lin tlin@kellerrorhback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP.

Donald Ardine, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry --
awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Dean
Noburu Kawamoto -- dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
LLP, Derek William Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio --
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice,
Lynn Lincoln Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., pro hac vice & Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback LLP.

Annie Argento, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Dean Noburu Kawamoto, Keller Rohrback LLP,
Derek William Loeser, Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman
Cappio, Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn Lincoln Sarko,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice & Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback
LLP.

Arkansas State Highway Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Jai K. Chandrasekhar -- jai@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, James A.
Harrod -- jim.harrod@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger
Grossmann LLP, Matthew I. Henzi -- mhenzi@swappc.com -- Sullivan,
War, Niki L. Mendoza, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
Ross M. Shikowitz -- ross@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice & Susan Rebbeca Podolsky, The Law
Offices of Susan R. Podolsky, 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation (15-
4278), Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Esq. --
avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III -- cbaker@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and
Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang --
dlang@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden &
Rice, LLC, Elizabeth L. Deeley -- elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com --
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- HSmythe@wcsr.com
-- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Hugh J. Bode --
hbode@reminger.com -- Reminger & Reminger Co LPA, J. Randolph
Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com --
Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase, Chase Kurshan Herzfeld &
Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg -- jrugg@bhfs.com  -- Brownstein Hyatt
Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer Marino Thibodaux, Gibbons PC, One
Gateway Center, Newark, NJ 07102-5310, John W. Cowden --
cowden@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Ric, LLC, John W.
Cowden -- cowden@bscr-law.com -- Baker Sterchi Cowden and Rice
LLC.


MDL 2792: "Allen" Class Suit Moved to W. Dist. Okla.
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on May 12, 2017, captioned Larry
Allen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd,
The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC., Best Buy Co.,
Inc., and Sears Holding Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-03602, was
transferred on October 11, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-01098-D to the proceeding.

The case is being consolidated with MDL 2792. The MDL was created
by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on June 7, 2017. These cases concern the sale and
marketing of certain defective Samsung home washing machines that
have latent and inherent defects and Samsung's failed recall of
these same washing machines. The lead case is Case No. 5:17-ml-
02792-D.

The Defendants supply consumer electronics and digital products in
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Robert Noblin, Esq.
      GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
      4500 East Pacific Coast Highway, Fourth Floor
      Long Beach, CA 90804
      Telephone: (562) 391-2487
      Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
      E-mail:  gnecf@classcounsel.com

         - and -

      Robert S. Green, Esq.
      GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
      2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
      Larkspur, CA 94939
      Telephone: (415) 477-6700
      Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
      E-mail:  gnecf@classcounsel.com

         - and -

      William B. Federman, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
      Oklahoma City, OK 73120
      Telephone: (405) 235-1560
      Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
      E-mail:  wbf@federmanlaw.com


MDL 2792: "Madrid" Class Suit Moved to W. Dist. Okla.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on February 3, 2017, captioned
Michelle Madrid, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd, The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC., Best
Buy Co., Inc., and Sears Holding Corporation, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00203, was transferred on October 11, 2017, from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-01095-D to the proceeding.

The case is being consolidated with MDL 2792. The MDL was created
by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on October 10, 2017. These cases concern the sale and
marketing of certain defective Samsung home washing machines that
have latent and inherent defects and Samsung's failed recall of
these same washing machines. The lead case is Case No. 5:17-ml-
02792-D.

The Defendants supply consumer electronics and digital products in
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Robert Noblin, Esq.
      GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
      4500 East Pacific Coast Highway, Fourth Floor
      Long Beach, CA 90804
      Telephone: (562) 391-2487
      Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
      E-mail:  gnecf@classcounsel.com

         - and -

      Robert S. Green, Esq.
      GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
      2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
      Larkspur, CA 94939
      Telephone: (415) 477-6700
      Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
      E-mail:  gnecf@classcounsel.com

         - and -

      William B. Federman, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
      Oklahoma City, OK 73120
      Telephone: (405) 235-1560
      Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
      E-mail:  wbf@federmanlaw.com

The Defendant The Home Depot, Inc.is represented by:

      Paul Richard Johnson, Esq.
      KING & SPALDING LLP
      633 West 5th Street, Suite 1700
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 443-4370
      Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
      E-mail: pjohnson@kslaw.com


MDL 2792: "Moore" Class Suit Moved to W. Dist. Okla.
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on August 12, 2017, titled
Suzann Moore, Michelle Soto Fielder and Melissa Thaxton,
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons similarly
situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:16-cv-04966, was transferred on
October 11, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-
01087-D to the proceeding.

The case is being consolidated with MDL 2792. The MDL was created
by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on October 10, 2017. These cases concern the sale and
marketing of certain defective Samsung home washing machines that
have latent and inherent defects and Samsung's failed recall of
these same washing machines. The lead case is Case No. 5:17-ml-
02792-D.

The Defendants supply consumer electronics and digital products in
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Bryan Miller, Esq.
      Anthony W. Patterson,
      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744

         - and -

      John T. Spragens, Esq.
      Laura B. Heiman, Esq.
      Scott L. Starr, Esq.
      Jason Louis Lichtman, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
      250 Hudson River Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500


MDL 2792: "Troyan" Class Suit Moved to W. Dist. Okla.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on December 16, 2016, styled Joseph
Troyan, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Company,
Ltd., Case No. 2:16-cv-01873, was transferred on October 11, 2017,
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District Of
Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-
01096-D.

The case is being consolidated with MDL 2792. The MDL was created
by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on August 25, 2017. These cases concern the sale and
marketing of certain defective Samsung home washing machines that
have latent and inherent defects and Samsung's failed recall of
these same washing machines. The lead case is Case No. 5:17-ml-
02792-D.

The Defendants supply consumer electronics and digital products in
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
      Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
      LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
      Telephone: (215) 592-1500
      Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
      E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com

         - and -

      Daniel A. Rihn, Esq.
      ROBERT PIERCE & ASSOCIATES PC
      707 Grant St., Suite 2500
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 281-7229
      Facsimile: (412) 281-4229
      E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Arthur H. Stroyd Jr., Esq.
      REED SMITH LLP
      435 6th Ave
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 288-3110
      Facsimile: (412) 288-3063

         - and -

      Philip M. Oliss, Esq.
      SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP
      4900 Key Tower
      127 Public Square
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (216) 479-8448
      Facsimile: (216) 479-8780
      E-mail: philip.oliss@squirepb.com


MDL 2795: "Garten" Suit Moved to Minnesota Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled David H. Garten, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CenturyLink, Inc., doing business as: CenturyLink Communications,
LLC, doing business as: CenturyLink Public Communications, Inc.,
doing business as: CenturyLink Sales Solutions, Inc., a Louisiana
corporation, and Does 1 through 50 inclusive, and Does 1-10
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01794, was transferred
on Oct. 17, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
(DMN). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-04618-
MJD-KMM to the proceeding.

CenturyLink, Inc. is an American telecommunications company,
headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, that provides communications
and data services to residential, business, governmental, and
wholesale customers in 37 states.

The Garten case is being consolidated with MDL 2795 in re:
Centurylink Residential Customer Billing Disputes Litigation. The
MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on October 5, 2017. In its October 5,
2017 Order, the MDL Panel found these actions involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization of these cases will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions share
factual questions arising from allegations that defendants, a
family of telecommunications companies, have engaged in a range of
deceptive or otherwise improper practices, such as billing
subscribers for telephone lines or services that the subscribers
did not request, billing subscribers higher rates than the rates
quoted during sales calls, imposing early termination fees when
subscribers cancelled the services due to the higher-than-quoted
rates, charging for periods of service before the service was
connected or products received, and failing to process
subscribers' service cancellation requests in a timely manner.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other
pretrial matters, and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is the Hon.
Judge Michael J. Davis. The lead case is 0:17-md-02795-MJD-
KMM.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Esq.
          Mark J Geragos, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 625 3900
          E-mail: geragos@geragos.com
                  geragos@geragos.com

               - and -

          Brandon Claus Fernald, Esq.
          FERNALD LAW GROUP LLP
          6236 Laredo Street
          Las Vegas, NV 89146
          Telephone: (702) 410 7500
          Facsimile: (702) 410 7520
          E-mail: brandon.fernald@fernaldlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tamara Beatty Peterson, Esq.
          PETERSON BAKER, PLLC
          10001 Park Run Drive
          Las Vegas, NV 89145
          Telephone: (702) 786 1001
          Facsimile: (702) 786 1002
          E-mail: tpeterson@petersonbaker.com


MDL 2795: "McLeod" Suit Moved Minnesota Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Craig McLeod and Steven L.
McCauley, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. CenturyLink Inc.
doing business as: Centurylink Communications LLC, doing business
as: CenturyLink Public Communications, Inc., doing business as:
CenturyLink Sales Solutions, Inc., a Louisiana corporation, and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive , Case No. 2:17-cv-04504, was
transferred on Oct. 17, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota (DMN). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 0:17-cv-04614-MJD-KMM to the proceeding.

CenturyLink, Inc. is an American telecommunications company,
headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, that provides communications
and data services to residential, business, governmental, and
wholesale customers in 37 states.

The McLeod case is being consolidated with MDL 2795 in re:
Centurylink Residential Customer Billing Disputes Litigation. The
MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on October 5, 2017. In its October 5,
2017 Order, the MDL Panel found these actions involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization of these cases will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions share
factual questions arising from allegations that defendants, a
family of telecommunications companies, have engaged in a range of
deceptive or otherwise improper practices, such as billing
subscribers for telephone lines or services that the subscribers
did not request, billing subscribers higher rates than the rates
quoted during sales calls, imposing early termination fees when
subscribers cancelled the services due to the higher-than-quoted
rates, charging for periods of service before the service was
connected or products received, and failing to process
subscribers' service cancellation requests in a timely manner.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other
pretrial matters, and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
Judge Michael J. Davis. The lead case is 0:17-md-02795-MJD-
KMM.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark J Geragos, Esq.
          Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Esq.
          Eric Y Hahn, Esq.
          Zack Vincent Muljat, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 625-3900
          E-mail: geragos@geragos.com
                  geragos@geragos.com
                  eric@geragos.com
                  muljat@geragos.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William P Donovan, Jr., Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          Alto, CA 94304 1130
          Telephone: (310) 883 6435
          E-mail: wdonovan@cooley.com


MDL 2795: "Lawhead" Class Suit Moved to Minnesota Fed. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on June 23, 2017, styled Jubilee
Lawhead, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CenturyLink, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-05487, was
transferred from District of Washington Western to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota on October 11, 2017.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-04622-MJD-KMM
to the proceeding.

The Lawhead case is being consolidated with MDL 2795. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on August 29, 2017. These cases concern
the Defendant' scheme of billing consumers early termination fees
when they cancelled the services due to higher rates. The lead
case is Case No. 0:17-md-02795-MJD-KMM.

CenturyLink, Inc. operates a telecommunications company located at
711 Capitol Way S STE 204, Olympia, Washington 98501. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Esq.
      Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
      GERAGOS & GERAGOS
      644 South Figueroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 625-3900
      E-mail: geragos@geragos.com
              geragos@geragos.com

         - and -

      Michael Robert Fuller, Esq.
      OLSEN DAINES PC
      US Bancorp Tower
      111 SW 5th Ave, Suite 3150
      Portland, OR 97204
      Telephone: (503) 201-4570
      E-mail: michael@underdoglawyer.com

         - and -

      Bonner Charles Walsh, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BONNER C. WALSH
      21810 Pinecrest Dr., P.O. Box 7
      BLY, OR 97622
      Telephone: (541) 359-2827
      E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Christopher B. Durbin, Esq.
      COOLEY LLP
      1700 Seventh Avenue, Ste 1900
      Seattle, WA 98101-1355
      Telephone: (206) 452-8700
      E-mail: cdurbin@cooley.com

         - and -

      Douglas P. Lobel, Esq.
      COOLEY LLP
      11951 Freedom Dr., Ste. 1500
      Reston, VA 20190-5656
      Telephone: (703) 456-8019
      E-mail: dlobel@cooley.com


MENTOR PROTECTION: Faces "Tabb" Suit in Western Dist. of Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mentor Protection
Service LLC. The case is captioned as Roland Tabb, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Mentor Protection Service LLC and Mario Goggins, the Defendants,
Case No. 5:17-cv-01130-D (W.D. Okla., Oct. 17, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti.

The Defendant is private investigation firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noble K McIntyre, Esq.
          MCINTYRE LAW PC
          8601 S Western Ave
          Oklahoma City, OK 73139
          Telephone: (405) 917 5250
          Facsimile: (405) 917 5405
          E-mail: noble@mcintyrelaw.com


METLIFE INC: Unclaimed Property Litigation Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the
so-called Unclaimed Property Litigation.

City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife,
Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012), seeks to
represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common
shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011.  The
plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc. and several current and
former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated
the Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or
causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading
statements concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for
millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been
paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The defendants
intend to defend this action vigorously.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


METLIFE INC: Total Control Accounts Litigation Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the
so-called Total Control Accounts Litigation.

MLIC is a defendant in a lawsuit related to its use of retained
asset accounts, known as TCA, as a settlement option for death
benefits.

Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed
April 17, 2014)  Plaintiff filed this putative class action
lawsuit on behalf of all persons for whom MLIC established a
retained asset account, known as a TCA, to pay death benefits
under an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA")
plan. The action alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA as the
settlement option for life insurance benefits under some group
life insurance policies violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under
ERISA. As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that
MLIC realized on accounts owned by members of the putative class.

On September 27, 2016, the court denied MLIC's summary judgment
motion in full and granted plaintiff's partial summary judgment
motion. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Cases Pending against Sun Life
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada continues
to defend against sales practices cases.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of MLIC's Canadian operations, filed a
lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains liable
for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual life
insurance policies sold by MLIC that were subsequently transferred
to Sun Life.

In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely
notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that
Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted
MLIC's motion for summary judgment. Both parties agreed to
consider the indemnity claim through arbitration.

In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto alleging
sales practices claims regarding the policies sold by MLIC and
transferred to Sun Life.

On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that another purported
class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, BC
alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the same
policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life
contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or
all of the claims in these lawsuits. These sales practices cases
against Sun Life are ongoing, and the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising
from this litigation.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------
The case, Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8,
2015), remains pending, MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability
income insurance policy issued by MLIC to public entities in
California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015. Plaintiff
alleges that MLIC improperly reduced benefits by including cost of
living adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer
retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit
payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action
for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business &
Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Martin" Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------
The appeal in the case, Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, (Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015), remains pending, MetLife,
Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by MLIC in life insurance policy and/or premium
loan balances within the last four years. Plaintiffs allege that
MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound
interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without the
borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes
an unlawful business practice under California law. Plaintiff
asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and unjust
enrichment. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified amount.

On April 12, 2016, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs have appealed this ruling.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


METLIFE INC: Still Defends "Lau" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the
case, Lau v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y. filed,
December 3, 2015).

This putative class action lawsuit was filed by a single defined
contribution plan participant on behalf of all ERISA plans whose
assets were invested in MetLife's "Group Annuity Contract Stable
Value Funds" within the past six years. The suit alleges breaches
of fiduciary duty under ERISA and challenges the "spread" with
respect to the stable value fund group annuity products sold to
retirement plans. The allegations focus on the methodology MetLife
uses to establish and reset the crediting rate, the terms under
which plan participants are permitted to transfer funds from a
stable value option to another investment option, the procedures
followed if an employer terminates a contract, and the level of
disclosure provided. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as damages in an unspecified amount. The Company
intends to defend this action vigorously.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Newman" Class Action Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the appeal is pending in the case, Newman v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ill., filed March 23,
2016).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of
action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
based on MLIC's class-wide increase in premiums charged for long-
term care insurance policies. Plaintiff alleges a class consisting
of herself and all persons over age 65 who selected a Reduced Pay
at Age 65 payment feature and whose premium rates were increased
after age 65. Plaintiff asserts that premiums could not be
increased for these class members and/or that marketing material
was misleading as to MLIC's right to increase premiums. Plaintiff
seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and punitive damages as
well as recessionary and injunctive relief.

On April 12, 2017, the court granted MLIC's motion, dismissing the
action with prejudice. On April 21, 2017, plaintiff appealed this
ruling.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


METLIFE INC: Still Defends Against "Miller" Action
--------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the
case, Miller, et al. v. MetLife Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal., filed
April 7, 2017).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action against MetLife, Inc.
and MLIC purporting to assert claims on behalf of all persons who
replaced their MetLife Optional Term Life or Group Universal Life
policy for a Group Variable Universal Life policy wherein MetLife
allegedly charged smoker rates for certain non-smokers. Plaintiff
seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as
other relief. The Company intends to defend this action
vigorously.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


MGM: Several Hundred Million Dollars Could Be at Stake in Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cyndi Lundeburg, writing for Fox 5, reports that "[t]he loss of
life and the injuries sustained, and amount of individuals
involved, we are talking millions and millions of dollars,
possibly hundreds of millions of dollars."

That's how much MGM might have to pay out to victims of the 1
October shooting, according to Michael Cristalli, Esq. at the Law
offices of Gentile Cristalli Miller Armeni Savarese.

We've already seen the first lawsuits, including class action
lawsuits filed as a result of the shooting, and Cristalli said he
is not surprised.

"The only thing that can be done is to try and make individuals
whole is to file a lawsuit and seek monetary awards. Certainly
it's not going to put their loved ones back on earth or make them
right completely, but it's the only option they have," he said.

According to Cristalli, MGM could have to pay every single person
who was in attendance the night of the shooting, as well as the
families of those who lost someone. The lawsuit will also take
into account every person injured whether physically or mentally.
The money, Cristalli said will be used for medical expenses, time
victims had to take off work, future medical expenses, funerals
and any emotional trauma caused.

"In a single case, damages could be in the millions and millions
of dollars," he said.

If a single cases could mean millions, that means MGM could be on
the hook for not only the 546 injured, but those who are now
emotionally scarred, meaning potentially tens of thousands of
people.

"A company like MGM has massive amounts of liability coverage," he
explained. "They would be equipped as far as being able to cover
the losses from these claims."

As for whether or not MGM will go to court, or possibly settle out
of court, Cristalli said that decision is a likely a long ways
away, but added he doesn't believe MGM will be backing down.

"I believe MGM will take a position that they did everything they
could," he said. "I don't believe MGM will concede they're liable.
This litigation will likely continue."

Cristalli said the goals of the lawsuits isn't just money, they
could also enact change on the Strip and in hotels to prevent a
shooting like this from happening again. [GN]


MGM: Third Lawsuit Filed by Mass Shooting Victim
------------------------------------------------
Karen Castro, writing for Las Vegas Now, reports that lawsuits
related to the "1 October mass shooting in Las Vegas continue to
come to the forefront. Attorneys for another shooting survivor
filed a complaint this week alleging negligence, liability, and
emotional distress, among other claims.

It's the third lawsuit filed this week.  Attorneys for the victim
say they still have a lot of unanswered questions about Stephen
Paddock's 6-day stay at Mandalay Bay, along with the conflicting
timelines the night of the shooting.

Rachel Sheppard is still in the ICU at Sunrise Hospital after
taking three bullets to the abdomen.  She has undergone four
surgeries.

Her family doesn't know when she'll be able to return home to
central California.  The complaint names the same defendants
already facing at least one other lawsuit filed two days prior.

At the top of the list is MGM Resorts International, the owners of
Mandalay Bay.

Attorneys have questioned why the hotel staff didn't notice what
they're calling "Paddock's shooting gallery."  The attorneys claim
he had the "do not disturb" sign up for 36 hours.

The victim's mother says there are lessons to be learned, but
she's grateful for the response in the aftermath, including the
quick thinking of her daughter's friend and a good Samaritan.

"He said he wouldn't have seen Rachel if it wasn't for Elena and
he ran over, and they managed to pick her up and get her to an
ambulance, and they didn't," said Cheryl Shappard, victim's mom.
"They said they were full, but Jake insisted said 'ill put her on
my lap. I'll hold her.' He put his fingers in her body to try to
stop the bleeding, and the two of them got her staying conscious
almost all the way, and that was thirty minutes."

Attorneys have also filed a motion for an emergency temporary
restraining order to stop MGM from getting rid of anything that
can be considered evidence, including surveillance video, card
swipe data, and the long list goes on.

We're told it could be at least a week before lawyers learn if a
judge has granted or denied their motion.

The other defendants also listed in the complaint are Live Nation
Entertainment, which was the promoter for the country music
festival; the estate of the mass killer, and Slide Fire Solutions,
the makers and sellers of bump stocks.  Bump stocks was a gun
accessory Paddock used in the shooting to rapidly let out more
rounds at a time.

Slide Fire is also facing a separate class action lawsuit. [GN]


MIAMI, FL: Residents File Class Suit on Toxic Plume Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Smiley, writing for Miami Herald, reports that residents of
a predominately black neighborhood have joined together to file a
class-action lawsuit against the city of Miami, saying government
officials forced them to live for decades amid a toxic ash plume
and then kept quiet after learning of widespread contamination.

More than 100 people in the West Grove say a city trash
incinerator that burned rubbish and towered over their segregated
community for nearly 50 years caused or contributed to their
cancer, diabetes, leukemia, seizures, asthma and liver disease.
The facility was shuttered by the courts in 1970, but contaminants
left in the ground and discovered by the government at least six
years ago are also blamed for health problems and depressed
property values.

Even today, the city has yet to fully acknowledge or correct the
problem, says Louise Caro, Esq., the Napoli Shkolnik attorney
handling the case.

"We're talking about generations here. If the stuff wasn't still
in the ground, there would be fewer people affected," she told the
Miami Herald. "We think it's at least 14,000 people. It could be
more."

Of the dozens of clients named in a Sept. 25 letter Caro sent the
city two days before filing the lawsuit, the complaint names 10
class representatives. Among them are Gerald Tinker, who won a
gold medal in the 1972 Olympics, and Yvette Styles, who grew
vegetable gardens beneath the shadow of "Old Smokey" and played in
a park next door while growing up.

Styles suffers from diabetes, developmental issues and has had
multiple miscarriages, according to the lawsuit. Melinda Matheson,
another named plaintiff who moved to the neighborhood much more
recently, has three children who suffer from asthma, anemia and
seizures.

Caro is seeking compensation for damages to her clients' health
and properties and is demanding that the city fund a medical
monitoring program -- something civic activists requested years
ago.

"We're looking into the allegations," said City Attorney Victoria
MÇndez, Esq.

The lawsuit, which took years to put together, is the latest
development in a long-running saga that began when Miami annexed
the Bahamian enclave of the West Grove and erected the incinerator
in the 1920s. The facility, which ran six days a week, 16 hours a
day, at one point produced a ton of ash and smoke every day,
exceeding pollution control measures until a judge ordered the
incinerator shut down in 1970.

The site was razed, and a firefighter training center was built on
the property. It was when Miami began work to expand the training
facility in 2011 that an environmental consulting firm discovered
elevated levels of arsenic, barium, lead and cadmium in the soil.

Rather than inform the neighborhood and rush to clean up the site,
the city took two years to submit an environmental report to
county regulators, who ordered expanded testing throughout the
neighborhood. People in the neighborhood learned about the problem
after a University of Miami student uncovered the Old Smokey site
environmental report.

What ensued was an all-out public relations disaster for the city.
Expanded testing found public parks, some of which had been
converted from dumping grounds for incinerator ash, were tainted
with contaminated soil that forced their closing. Talk of a
pancreatic cancer cluster emerged as soil sampling was ordered
down West Grove streets and onto private properties, though health
officials have told the public that tainted soil does not pose an
immediate risk.

The new lawsuit, first reported by Miami New Times, alleges that
the city has yet to resolve its contamination problems, saying
that The Barnyard, an after-care center erected on part of the Old
Smokey property, and St. Alban's Day Nursery nearby, also have
soil that has tested positive for elevated levels of
contamination. Perhaps most galling, Caro says, is that Armbrister
Park, a field across the street from the old incinerator site used
by public school kids, remains an open case with county
environmental regulators, who contend it hasn't been properly
sealed.

"I think what we're going to find through the course of this case
is that the city knew a lot earlier than even we have alleged,"
said Caro, whose clients are also suing SCS, a consulting firm
that has worked with the city.

Potential class members include anyone who played at the city's
contaminated parks, attended the Barnyard and St. Alban's, or
lived within one mile of Old Smokey. [GN]


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Hernandez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY HERNANDEZ, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE OF
CALIFORNIA, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through
100, the Defendants, Case No. BC679784 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 16,
2017), seeks to recover overtime wages and minimum wage under
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants
as a non-exempt employee, who also earned non-discretionary
bonuses and/other income. Plaintiff was, and is, victim of
Defendant's policies and/or practices, lost money and/or property,
and has been deprived of the rights guaranteed by the California
Labor Code.

Molina Healthcare is a managed care company headquartered in Long
Beach, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher L. Burrows, Esq.
          BURROWS LAW FIRM
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 526 9998
          Facsimile: (424) 644 2446
          E-mail: cburrows@cburrowslaw.com

               - and -

          Sean M. Novak, Esq.
          NOVAK LAW FIRM, P.C.
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (323) 424 4313
          Facsimile: (323) 424 4357
          E-mail: smn@novaklawfirm.com


MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Amend Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the Court has not yet scheduled a
hearing on the motion to amend a class action complaint.

On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan
Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a
Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class action suit
against the Company and Sandoz Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain
purchasers of LOVENOX or generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection.

The complaint alleges that, in connection with filing the
September 2011 patent infringement suit against Amphastar and
Actavis, the Company and Sandoz Inc. sought to prevent Amphastar
from selling generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection and thereby
exclude competition for generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection in
violation of federal anti-trust laws. NGH is seeking injunctive
relief, disgorgement of profits and unspecified damages and fees.

In December 2015, the Company and Sandoz filed a motion to dismiss
and a motion to transfer the case to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On March 21, 2017, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee dismissed NGH's claim for damages against
the Company and Sandoz, but allowed the case to move forward, in
part, for NGH's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. In
the same opinion, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee denied the Company's motion to transfer.

On June 9, 2017, NGH filed a motion to amend its complaint to add
a new named plaintiff, the American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan
("DC37"). NGH and DC 37 seek to assert claims for damages under
the laws of more than 30 different states, on behalf of a putative
class of indirect purchasers of Lovenox or generic enoxaparin.

On June 30, 2017, the Company and Sandoz filed a brief opposing
the motion to amend the complaint. The Court has not yet scheduled
a hearing on the motion to amend. While the outcome of litigation
is inherently uncertain, the Company believes this suit is without
merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this
litigation.

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., was incorporated in the state of
Delaware in May 2001 and began operations in early 2002. Its
facilities are located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Momenta is a
biotechnology company focused on developing generic versions of
complex drugs, biosimilars and novel therapeutics for autoimmune
diseases. The Company presently derives all of its revenue from
its collaborations.


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Securities Action Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed a securities class action
against Moneygram International, Inc., the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On April 15, 2015, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, County of New Castle,
against MoneyGram, all of its directors, certain of its executive
officers, Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P., Goldman, Sachs & Co. and
the underwriters of the secondary public offering of the Company's
common stock that closed on April 2, 2014 (the "2014 Offering").
The lawsuit was brought by the Iron Workers District Council of
New England Pension Fund seeking to represent a class consisting
of all purchasers of the Company's common stock issued pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement and
prospectus, and all documents incorporated by reference therein,
for the 2014 Offering. The lawsuit alleged violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, due
to allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with
the 2014 Offering and seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
In May 2015, MoneyGram and the other defendants filed a notice of
removal to the federal district court of the District of Delaware.
On July 24, 2017, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its
complaint without prejudice.

MoneyGram is a global provider of innovative money transfer
services and is recognized worldwide as a financial connection to
friends and family. Whether


MONSANTO COMPANY: Sued Over Illegal Sale of Roundup(R) Herbicide
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Bailey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:17-cv-00367-RGE-CFB (S.D.
Iowa, October 11, 2017), is an action for damages suffered by the
Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the
herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology
corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
      WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
      865 S. Dixie Dr.
      Vandalia, OH 45377
      Telephone: (937) 435-7500
      Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
      E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com


MOTHERISK: Lawyers Spar Over Whether CA Scandal Should Go Ahead
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Mendleson, writing for The Star, reports Motherisk's flawed
hair-strand tests tainted thousands of child protection cases
across Canada, but was every parent who tested positive for drugs
or alcohol potentially harmed in some way? How much is that harm
is worth? And what's the best way to determine who should pay?

These are among the complex questions that were debated in a
Toronto courtroom in the high-stakes battle over the fate of a
proposed national class-action seeking millions in damages for
families affected by the litany of failings uncovered at the
Hospital for Sick Children's Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory.

Whether the class-action will proceed is now in the hands of
Superior Court Justice Paul Perell, who reserved his ruling on
October 12. His decision will play a key role in shaping what
promises to be years of legal wrangling in the fallout from the
problems at Motherisk. Already, some 275 plaintiffs are named in a
series of individual lawsuits against Sick Kids and the major
players at the lab, the court heard.

"This class-action is for the thousands of families who have
received an apology but no compensation," Rob Gain, a lawyer for
the plaintiff, told the court, at the outset of the two-day
hearing to determine whether the case meets the bar for class-
action certification.

The proposed class includes anyone who had a positive Motherisk
hair test between 2005 and 2015, the period during which a
government-commissioned review by retired judge Susan Lang
concluded Motherisk's results were "inadequate and unreliable" for
use in legal proceedings. (Close family members of those who
tested positive are also included.)

Gain argued that a class-action is the best way to ensure access
to justice to a vulnerable group of people who suffered a shared
harm due to Motherisk's faulty tests, ranging from parents who
briefly came under the scrutiny of a child welfare agency to cases
where children were removed permanently.

"When you're dealing with the child protection regime and there's
a test result from the lab showing drug or alcohol abuse, it is
not discretionary what a Children's Aid Society does. They must
act," he said. "That act is common to the entire class."

However, that rationale was rejected by the defendants, who
include Sick Kids, Motherisk's founder and longtime director, Dr.
Gideon Koren, and former lab manager Joey Gareri, who argued that
a class-action is not appropriate because the circumstances in
each case are highly individualized.

Koren's lawyer, Darryl Cruz, Esq. -- dcruz@mccarthy.ca -- of
McCarthy TÇtrault LLP told the court that his client "obviously
opposes certification."

Cruz said a negligence claim may be valid in some individual
cases, but only if the plaintiff proves there was a false positive
Motherisk result, and that result led to negative consequences.

"The link between what happened at Motherisk and these outcomes .
. . is absolutely crucial, and not simple," he said. "In each and
every claim, one needs to consider, who are the various players?
How do they relate to one another? How does the outcomes flow from
the various players?"

Sick Kids lawyer Kate Crawford, Esq. -- KCrawford@blg.com -- said
the hospital is "very willing to engage in discussions about
compensation with the appropriate people in appropriate
circumstances," but does not accept that there are "any common
issues" that could be litigated through a class-action.

Although much of Motherisk's hair-testing was performed at the
request of child welfare agencies, some of the lab's tests were
ordered by physicians for clinical purposes, which shows the
relationships between the lab and the proposed class members are
"different in every case," Crawford said.

Complicating matters further, the lab's practices were "not
consistent" and changed over time, as did the internationally
accepted standards for hair-testing, which evolved as the science
advanced, she said.

The proposed lead plaintiff is a mother whose access to her son
was "repeatedly interfered with as a result of unreliable
(Motherisk) hair tests" from 2009 to 2012, according to the
plaintiff's written arguments.

If the class-action is certified, the members of the class,
however it is defined, will have to choose whether they want to
pursue individual claims or join the class proceeding.

The hearing did not deal with the merits of the case. In a
statement of claim, the plaintiff argues the defendants were
"negligent in (their) operation and supervision" of Motherisk, and
were responsible for the consequences that followed. In his
statement of defence, Koren denied the claims, arguing the tests
were "accurate and reliable for their intended purpose" of
providing clinical information "relevant to the medical care and
safety of children." In a joint statement of defence, Sick Kids
and Gareri also disputed the claims, and said that if custody
decisions were based on the tests, which they denied, children's
aid societies were responsible.

Queen's Park appointed Lang to probe Motherisk in late 2014 after
a Star investigation exposed questions about the reliability of
the lab's hair tests. Sick Kids initially defended the reliability
of Motherisk's testing, but reversed course in the spring of 2015
after the hospital learned it had been misled about Motherisk's
international proficiency testing results, and closed the lab.

Sick Kids CEO Michael Apkon issued a public apology in October
2015. Koren retired in June of 2015, and is now working in Israel.

An independent commission is now probing individual child
protection cases in Ontario to determine whether Motherisk's hair
tests had a significant impact on individual decisions to remove
children from their families. [GN]


NANTKWEST INC: Scheduling Conference Set for Dec. 11
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, Sunil Sudunagunta v. Nantkwest, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:16-cv-01947 (C.D. Cal.),  Judge Michael W Fitzgerald on Oct. 17
entered an Order Setting Scheduling Conference for Dec. 11 at
11:00 a.m.  A Joint Rule 26(f) Meeting Report is due Nov. 27.

An Answer to the Consolidated Complaint with Jury Demand was filed
by Underwriter Defendants Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Jefferies
LLC, MLV and Co., LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith,
Inc., Piper Jaffray and Co. on Oct. 16.

NantkWest, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
third amended consolidated complaint remains pending.

On March 2016, a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-01947
was filed 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 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 complaint seeks
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 to dismiss plaintiffs' third amended
consolidated complaint. 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 clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company.


NCI INC: Defending Against Merger Class Suit
--------------------------------------------
NCI, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that the Company is defending against class action lawsuit
related to the acquisition of NCI by affiliates of H.I.G. Capital,
LLC.

On July 2, 2017, NCI entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement") with Cloud Intermediate Holdings, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), and Cloud Merger
Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent ("Purchaser"). Parent and Purchaser are beneficially owned
by affiliates of H.I.G. Capital, LLC (together with Parent and
Purchaser, "HIG").

The Company and members of NCI's Board of Directors are named as
defendants in three putative class action lawsuits, all filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, challenging the Transaction, one of which also names
Parent and Purchaser as defendants.

The first suit was filed on July 19, 2017 and is docketed as
Elliot Schwartz v. NCI, Inc., Charles K. Narang, Paul A. Dillahay,
James P. Allen, Paul V. Lombardi, Cindy E. Moran, Austin J. Yerks
and Daniel R. Young, Case No. 1:17-CV-00816-LO-TCB (the "Schwartz
Action"). The second suit was filed on July 21, 2017 and is
docketed as Colleen Witmer v. NCI, Inc., Charles K. Narang, Paul
A. Dillahay, James P. Allen, Paul V. Lombardi, Cindy E. Moran,
Austin J. Yerks, Daniel R. Young, H.I.G. Capital, L.L.C., Cloud
Intermediate Holdings, L.L.C., and Cloud Merger Sub, Inc., Case
No. 1:17-CV-00838-LO-JFA (the "Witmer Action"). The third suit was
filed on July 25, 2017 and is docketed as Deborah A. Nichols v.
NCI, Inc., Charles K. Narang, Paul A. Dillahay, Daniel R. Young,
Paul Lombardi, James P. Allen, Cindy E. Moran and Austin J. Yerks,
Case No. 1:17-CV-00839-LO-MSN (the "Nichols Action").

Each of the Schwartz Action, the Witmer Action and the Nichols
Action allege that NCI and the members of NCI's Board of Directors
violated Section 14 of the Exchange Act by issuing a Schedule 14D-
9 that was materially misleading and omitted material facts
related to the Offer and the Merger. Each of the Schwartz Action,
the Witmer Action and the Nichols Action also allege that the
members of NCI's Board of Directors violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, as controlling persons who had the ability to
prevent the Schedule 14D-9 from being materially false and
misleading. Each of the Schwartz Action, the Witmer Action and the
Nichols Action seek, among other things, an injunction against the
consummation of the proposed Offer and Merger and an award of
costs for the actions, including reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees.

NCI is a provider of information technology ("IT") and
professional services and solutions primarily to U.S. Federal
Government agencies.


NETGEAR INC: "Williams" Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
The case Williams v. Netgear, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-02096 (N.D.
Cal.), before Judge Lucy H Koh, has been voluntarily dismissed.

NETGEAR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 2, 2017, that on April 14, 2017, Plaintiff Stewart Williams
filed a putative class action against the Company in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Plaintiff is represented by Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP.

Plaintiff Stewart Williams alleges violations of California and
Nevada state consumer protection laws based on NETGEAR's sale and
marketing of its CM700 cable modem (the "Modem"). Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that the Modem contains a defect that causes
severe network latency, impairing network connectivity and
preventing consumers from utilizing the maximum advertised network
bandwidth. According to Plaintiff, NETGEAR had exclusive knowledge
of this alleged defect and actively concealed the defect from
consumers with false marketing and labeling.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff seeks to bring his lawsuit
as a class action representing a nationwide class of consumers.
Plaintiff states causes of action under California's (1) Song-
Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; (2) Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
(3) False Advertising Law, and (4) Unfair Competition Law. In
addition, Plaintiff seeks to represent a subclass of Nevada
consumers and brings a claim under Nevada's Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.

On June 15, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding
two new named plaintiffs, both residents of California, and also
adding the Company's C6300 cable gateway as a product at issue.
The parties agreed to extend the Company's time to answer the
complaint to August 11, 2017.

On August 9, 2017, a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice
was filed by Allan Hamilton, Jeffrey Torres, Stewart Williams.

NETGEAR is a global company that delivers innovative networking
and Internet connected products to consumers and growing
businesses.


NEUSTAR INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on October 12 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced by an institutional investor on
behalf of owners of NeuStar, Inc. ("NeuStar") (NYSE:NSR) common
stock as of January 30, 2017 (the "Class"), the record date for
determination of stockholders entitled to notice of and to vote
upon a proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement, as defined herein.
This action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia and is captioned Teamsters Local 210
Affiliated Pension Trust Fund v. NeuStar, Inc., et al.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from October 12. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman
or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at -- djr@rgrdlaw.com  If you are a
member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as
filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/neustar/.Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges NeuStar and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
NeuStar is a company comprised of two main parts: cellular
services and corporate cloud-based services. As part of the
cellular services segment, NeuStar is currently the Local Number
Portability Administrator ("LNPA") and has managed the Number
Portability Administration Center ("NPAC") under contract for the
U.S. Government (the "NPAC Contract") since number portability
became possible nearly 20 years ago. Number portability allows
telephone customers to retain their phone number if they switch
telephone service providers. The NPAC Contract was non-renewed,
and the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") engaged another
firm to build a replacement platform to service this need in the
future. NeuStar will continue to service the NPAC Contract under
the old terms until the cutover to the new system occurs.

On December 14, 2016, NeuStar and Golden Gate Private Equity, Inc.
("Golden Gate") executed a merger agreement (the "Merger
Agreement") pursuant to which NeuStar agreed to be acquired by
Golden Gate for $33.50 per share in cash (the "Transaction"). On
March 14, 2017, a majority of NeuStar shareholders voted to
approve the Transaction, and on August 8, 2017, the Transaction
closed. At issue is: (1) the valuation of the NPAC Contract based
on how its cash flows were modeled into NeuStar's management's
forecasts; and (2) whether NeuStar's Board of Directors adequately
informed shareholders when it disclosed an estimated transition
date for the NPAC Contract of September 30, 2018 in the proxy
statement filed with the SEC in connection with the Transaction,
which, plaintiff alleges, was materially false and misleading.

Unbeknownst to shareholders, NeuStar knew that the NPAC Contract
would not terminate by September 30, 2018. Specifically, NeuStar
represented to the FCC a projected transition completion date
sharply at odds with the expected transition completion date of
September 30, 2018. On at least two separate occasions, NeuStar
expressed concern that completion of the LNPA transition would be
seriously delayed and would not be completed until "sometime in
2019," and that even "2019 might be optimistic." Without this
material information, NeuStar stockholders were unable to properly
analyze the adequacy of the merger consideration and/or whether or
not to vote in favor of the Transaction.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all owners of
NeuStar common stock as of January 30, 2017 (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

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

         Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
         srudman@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


NFL: Aaron Hernandez Dropped Federal Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------
WBUR Newsroom reports that on October 13, the attorneys for the
estate of Aaron Hernandez dropped their federal lawsuit against
the National Football League and the New England Patriots.

However, lawyers will refile the case October 16 in Suffolk
Superior Court.

The suit will claim the league and the team failed to protect
Hernandez from head injuries that caused the brain condition, CTE.

George Leontire, Esq. an attorney for the family, explained the
motive behind the refiling.

"We think that based on a variety of legal factors there's not
what's called diversity of jurisdiction, so that we believe it's
better suited in state court and we think procedurally it will be
[a] better strategy for us to be in state court," Leontire said.

As for the arguments in the lawsuit against the league, Leontire
explained there are many counts, but the accusations involve
deception by the NFL.

"The essence of the count is that for many years the NFL and the
Patriots were deceiving players intentionally -- and the public --
as to what the consequences were of playing contact football with
respect to head trauma," he said. "And that deceit and failure to
advise what they knew was the reality about playing football with
many concussion-like or subconcussion hits resulting from hits --
is what caused significant brain damage to players."

Leontire and his team don't want to join any other lawsuits
against the league. "Not one single lawsuit against the NFL has
gone to trial," he said.  "They have used a variety of mechanisms
to prevent that from happening. There was a class action that was
settled without the NFL admitting any liability. We're not a
member of that class action. And we want to see this case go to
trial. And so we're pursuing it separately." [GN]


OMEGA FLEX: Class Action Pending in Missouri
--------------------------------------------
Omega Flex, Inc. continues to defend against a class action
lawsuit in Missouri, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

In May 2016, 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.


ONEBEACON INSURANCE: "Bushansky" Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
In the case, Bushansky v. OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. et al.,
Case No. 0:17-cv-01883 (D. Minn.), Judge Donovan W. Frank has
entered an order granting the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed
by Stephen Bushansky.  The order was entered August 7, 2017.

The Pretrial Conference set for Oct. 3, 2017, before Magistrate
Judge Becky R. Thorson was cancelled, according to a notice dated
Aug. 7.

OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that on June 2, Stephen Bushansky, a
purported Company shareholder, filed a class action complaint
against the Company and each of the Company's directors in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (the "Minnesota
Court"), purportedly on behalf of the Company's public
shareholders. Thereafter, three additional lawsuits were filed in
the Minnesota Court by additional purported shareholders, Darrin
Dickers, Raymond Martino and Robert Berg (collectively with
Bushansky, the "Plaintiffs").

The complaints in each pending class action allege that the
Company's preliminary proxy statement filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") omitted or
misrepresented certain material information, allegedly in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9 and sought to enjoin the Company
and Intact Financial Corporation from closing the OneBeacon
Acquisition, or if the Acquisition closes, to award Plaintiffs
damages and costs.

On June 26, 2017, Plaintiffs jointly filed a motion for
preliminary injunction to enjoin the shareholder vote on the
OneBeacon Acquisition, but withdrew their motion on July 7.
Company shareholders approved the OneBeacon Acquisition on July
18, 2017 at a special general meeting of shareholders.


OUTCOME HEALTH: Harwood Feffer Probes on Class Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Harwood Feffer LLP is investigating potential class action claims
against Outcome Health in connection with allegations that the
company misled advertisers.

Outcome Health installs video screens in doctors' offices and
charges advertisers to run ads aimed at patients on the screens.
On October 12, 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported that Outcome
Health is alleged to have misled advertisers with manipulated
information.  According to the article, Outcome Health employees
charged advertisers for ads that were never run, among other
things.

Our investigation concerns whether the company violated applicable
state and federal law in connection with the foregoing.

If you are a current or former client of Outcome Health and wish
to discuss this matter with us, or have any questions concerning
your rights and interests with regard to this matter, please
contact:


   Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
   Benjamin I. Sachs-Michaels, Esq.
   HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
   488 Madison Avenue
   New York, New York 10022
   Phone Numbers: (877) 935-7400
                  (212) 935-7400
   E-mail: rharqood@hfesq.com
           bsachsmichaels@hfesq.com
   Website: http://www.hfesq.com[GN]


PLY GEM: Still Defends "Pagliaroni" Action in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. continues to defend against the case,
Anthony Pagliaroni et al. v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and
Deceuninck North America, LLC, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2017.

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.


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

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, and on
June 1, 2017, plaintiff filed a reply in further support of the
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.


PLY GEM: Settlement of Raul Carrillo-Hueso Case Approved
--------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the case, Raul Carrillo-Hueso and Chec Xiong v.
Ply Gem Industries, Inc. and Ply Gem Pacific Windows Corporation,
has been approved by the Court, Ply Gem said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2017.

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, and on June 29, 2017, the Court
granted final approval of the settlement. The Company has accrued
for this amount in accrued expenses as of July 1, 2017 and
December 31, 2016 in the Company's condensed consolidated balance
sheets.

Ply Gem is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North
America.


PLY GEM: Settlement of "Morgan" Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------
The settlement of the case, Tina Morgan v. Ply Gem Industries,
Inc. and Simonton Industries, Inc., has been approved by the
Court, Ply Gem said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, for the quarterly period ended
July 1, 2017.

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, and on May 22, 2017, the Court granted
final approval of the settlement. The Company has accrued for this
amount in accrued expenses as of July 1, 2017 and December 31,
2016 in the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Ply Gem is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North
America.


POLYONE CORPORATION: Faces "Matheney" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Matheney, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Polyone Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-00472-JMS-MJD
(S.D. Ind., October 11, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Polyone Corporation operates a plastics manufacturing facility in
Terre Haute, Vigo County, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert P. Kondras Jr., Esq.
      HUNT, HASSLER, KONDRAS & MILLER LLP
      100 Cherry Street Terre
      Haute, IN 47807
      Telephone: (812) 232-9691
      Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
      E-mail: kondras@huntlawfirm.net

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Boulder" Settlement Has Preliminary OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that in the case, Bouder v. PFI, in August
2017, the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of
the parties' class action settlement.

Prudential Financial, a financial services leader with
approximately $1.334 trillion of assets under management as of
June 30, 2017, has operations primarily in the United States,
Asia, Europe and Latin America.  Through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, Prudential offers a wide array of financial products
and services, including life insurance, annuities, retirement-
related services, mutual funds, and investment management.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Certification Motion in PICA Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that in the case, PICA et al. v. HSBC, et
al., Plaintiffs filed in January 2017 a motion seeking class
certification and appointing class representatives and class
counsel.

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

The case is a Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Trustee
Litigation.

Prudential Financial, a financial services leader with
approximately $1.334 trillion of assets under management as of
June 30, 2017, has operations primarily in the United States,
Asia, Europe and Latin America.  Through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, Prudential offers a wide array of financial products
and services, including life insurance, annuities, retirement-
related services, mutual funds, and investment management.


RAYONIER ADVANCED: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Rayonier Advanced
Materials Inc. (NYSE:RYAM) who purchased shares between October
29, 2014 and August 19, 2015. The action, which was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that since 2013, one of Rayonier's top
customers, Eastman Chemical Company, had been informing Rayonier
of its competitors' pricing and had requested that Rayonier
respond to declines in market pricing, leading to a protracted
dispute between Rayonier and Eastman over the "meet and release"
provision of their agreement. Nevertheless, Rayonier claimed
during the Class Period that in 2015 it would "be able to maintain
or increase [its] share of volume at each of [its] top 10
customers." When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

Shareholders have until October 16, 2017 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does
not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to be
an absent class member.

If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain
additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by
telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-sbm/rayonier-advanced-
materials-inc?wire=2.

Joseph Klein, Esq. is an experienced attorney and has also
practiced as a Certified Public Accountant. Mr. Klein represents
investors and participates in securities litigations involving
financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


REALPAGE INC: Final Approval Hearing Set for Feb. 2018
------------------------------------------------------
RealPage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that final approval hearing of the settlement of a
class action lawsuit is set for February 6, 2018.

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.

"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.

"On June 19, 2017, the court in both the Stokes case and Jenkins
case consolidated the cases for purposes of settlement. On June
30, 2017, the parties signed a Settlement Agreement and Release
covering both cases and the plaintiffs in the consolidated cases
filed an uncontested motion for preliminary approval of the class
action settlement and the notice to class.  On August 3, 2017, the
court issued a written order preliminarily approving the proposed
class settlement. The final approval hearing is set for February
6, 2018."

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


REVLON INC: Motion to Dismiss Merger Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Revlon, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that a hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss
a class action lawsuit is expected to be held sometime in later
summer 2017.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Elizabeth Arden
Merger Agreement, several putative shareholder class action
lawsuits and a derivative lawsuit were filed challenging the
Merger. In addition to the complaints filed on behalf of
plaintiffs Parker, Christiansen, Ross and Stein, on July 25, 2016,
a lawsuit (Hutson v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., et al., Case No. CACE-
16-013566) (referred to as the "Hutson complaint") was filed in
the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
Florida (the "Court") against Elizabeth Arden, the members of the
board of directors of Elizabeth Arden, Revlon, Products
Corporation and Acquisition Sub. In general, the Hutson complaint
alleges that: (i) the members of Elizabeth Arden's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Elizabeth Arden's
shareholders with respect to the Merger, by, among other things,
approving the Merger pursuant to an unfair process and at an
inadequate and unfair price; and (ii) Revlon, Products Corporation
and Acquisition Sub aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary
duty by the members of Elizabeth Arden's board. The plaintiff
seeks relief similar to that sought in the Parker case.

By Order dated August 4, 2016, all five cases were consolidated by
the Court into a Consolidated Amended Class Action. Thereafter, on
August 11, 2016 a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was
filed, seeking to enjoin defendants from consummating the Merger
and/or from soliciting shareholder votes. To the extent that the
Merger was consummated, the Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint seeks to rescind the Merger or recover rescissory or
other compensatory damages, along with costs and fees. The grounds
for relief set forth in the Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint in large part track those grounds as asserted in the
five individual complaints, as previously disclosed. Class counsel
advised that post consummation of the Merger they were going to
file a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The
Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (which
superseded the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint) was
ultimately filed on or about January 26, 2017. Like the
Consolidated Amended Class Action complaint, the grounds for
relief set forth in the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint in large part track those grounds as asserted in the
five individual complaints.

The Company believes the allegations contained in the Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against them. Additional lawsuits
arising out of or relating to the Elizabeth Arden Merger Agreement
or the Merger may be filed in the future. The defendants' motions
to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
were filed on March 28, 2017. Plaintiffs' response was filed on
June 6, 2017 and defendants' replies were filed on July 13, 2017.
A hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss is expected to be
held sometime in later summer 2017.

The Company believes that the outcome of all pending legal
proceedings in the aggregate is not reasonably likely to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, prospects,
results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows.
However, in light of the uncertainties involved in legal
proceedings generally, the ultimate outcome of a particular matter
could be material to the Company's operating results for a
particular period depending on, among other things, the size of
the loss or the nature of the liability imposed and the level of
the Company's income for that particular period.

Revlon, Inc. is a global beauty company with an iconic portfolio
of brands.


RJ REYNOLDS: Fla. App. Affirms $2MM Compensatory Award to Evers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, issued
an Opinion affirming the Decision of the Trial Court awarding
Cindy Evers the original compensatory and punitive damages award
amounts in the case captioned R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY,
Appellant, v. CINDY EVERS, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Jacqueline Loyd, Appellee, Case No. 2D16-1603 (Fla.
Dist. App.).

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company appeals a second amended final
judgment entered in favor of Cindy Evers, in her capacity as
personal representative of the Estate of Jacqueline Loyd.

Evers sued R.J. Reynolds in 2007, alleging that her mother had
been a member of the class prospectively certified in Engle v.
Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246.  The Engle class comprised
all Florida residents who suffered or had died from diseases
caused by an addiction to cigarettes. Evers' amended complaint
alleged claims of negligence, strict liability, fraudulent
concealment, and conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment.

Prior to trial, the trial court ruled that Evers could only seek
punitive damages on her claims for concealment and conspiracy.
At the end of the first phase of the trial, the jury determined
that Loyd was an Engle class member and that Evers was entitled to
recover on all of her claims. The jury allocated 31% of the fault
to Loyd, 60% to R.J. Reynolds, and 9% to Lorillard, and the jury
awarded $2,950,000 to Evers for noneconomic compensatory damages.
At the end of the second phase of the trial, the jury awarded
$12,360,024 in punitive damages as they related to Evers'
conspiracy and concealment claims.  The trial court subsequently
directed a verdict in R.J. Reynolds' favor on the concealment and
conspiracy claims, thereby vacating the punitive damages award.
The trial court also reduced the compensatory damages award to
$2,035,500 to reflect the jury's allocation of comparative fault.

After the Fla. App. reversed the directed verdict on appeal and
the case was remanded, Evers moved for entry of judgment in the
full amount of the jury's compensatory and punitive damages
amounts. R.J. Reynolds opposed the motion, arguing in relevant
part that the post-1999 statutory cap on punitive damages applied
to this case. Ultimately, the trial court entered the second
amended final judgment, awarding Evers the original compensatory
and punitive damages award amounts. After Evers filed a subsequent
motion to amend, the trial court awarded interest accruing from
the date of the original final judgment.

Although it was Evers who sought damages in this case rather than
Loyd, Evers' wrongful death action, like all Engle-progeny
complaints, relates back to the 1994 Engle class-action complaint.
Consequently, the applicable statutory law regarding punitive
damages also relates back to the Engle class. This is because a
claim for punitive damages is not a separate, free-standing cause
of action, but is instead actually dependent on the underlying
cause of action. To the extent that R.J. Reynolds' argument could
be construed to suggest that the post-1999 version of the statute
applies because Evers filed an independent wrongful death action
rather than amending a prior personal injury action brought by
Loyd herself, the Fla. App. did not agree.  While Evers did not
file the wrongful death action until 2007 when Loyd died, her
right to do so was based on Loyd's status as an Engle class
member, Loyd's manifestation of a tobacco-related disease or
medical condition prior to November 21, 1996.

Accordingly, because Evers was entitled to the res judicata effect
of the Engle class, her cause of action was not controlled by the
1999 amendment to the punitive damages statute. Indeed,
application of the post-1999 amendments to the punitive damages
statute to Evers claims would impair those substantive rights.
R.J. Reynolds waived the issue of applying a three-to-one cap
under the pre-1999 version of the statute, but even if the cap
applied, Evers met her burden of proving that the punitive damages
award was not excessive.

R.J. Reynolds also argues that the trial court erroneously shifted
the burden of proof to it based on the trial court's finding that
R.J. Reynolds failed to refute Evers' evidence.
However, we do not agree with that interpretation. Rather, the
Fla. App. concluded that that finding was merely one factor
supporting the trial court's conclusion that Evers' presented
clear and convincing evidence to establish that the punitive
damages award was not excessive. Indeed, in other contexts, both
the Florida Supreme Court and this court have referred to evidence
being clear and convincing where unrebutted testimony was
presented.

Based on the fact that the trial court had the trial record before
it, including testimony that linked R.J. Reynolds' conduct to the
harm suffered by Loyd, and based on the trial court's
acknowledgement that it reviewed the record and did not limit
itself to consideration of the Engle findings, the Fla. App.
cannot say that no reasonable judge would have reached the same
conclusion as the trial judge in this case.

Nor can it say that the punitive damages award was so excessive so
as to violate due process where it is clear to this court that it
was based upon the facts and circumstances of R.J. Reynolds'
conduct and the harm to Loyd. Consequently, the Fla. App.
concluded that the trial court properly determined that the
punitive damages award was not excessive under the 1995 version of
section 768.73 and that clear and convincing evidence supported a
punitive damages award in excess of the statutory cap.

The trial court properly awarded interest accruing from the date
of the original judgment.

Finally, R.J. Reynolds argues that the trial court erred in
awarding interest on the judgment from the date of the original
final judgment entered on May 15, 2013.

R.J. Reynolds asserts that those certain issues were the arguments
concerning the applicability of the statutory cap and the
reduction for comparative fault. Notably, those issues only relate
to the amount of the final judgment. While the trial court had to
decide whether the damage awards were subject to reduction based
either on comparative fault or due to a statutory cap, the
underlying jury verdicts entered in favor of Evers were not
disturbed.

Even if R.J. Reynolds had prevailed on the comparative fault and
statutory cap arguments below, the only difference between the
original final judgment and the second amended final judgment
would have been the amount. The fact that the Fla. App. used the
word reversed in the prior appeal is not dispositive because its
reversal only extended to the amount of the award and otherwise
amounted to an affirmance in all other respects.

A full-text copy of the Fla. App.'s September 15, 2017 Opinion is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ya9m3fz2from Leagle.com.

Gregory G. Katsas and John M. Gore of Jones Day, 51 Louisiana Ave
NW, Washington, DC 20001, USA (withdrew after briefing); John M.
Walker -jmwalker@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day, Atlanta, Georgia;
Troy A. Fuhrman -- troy.fuhrman@hwhlaw.com -- and Marie A. Borland
marie.borland@hwhlaw.com -- of Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A.,
Tampa, for Appellant.

Hendrick Uiterwyk of Abrahamson & Uiterwyk, 900 W Platt St, Tampa,
FL 33606, USA; Michael J. Trentalange of Trentalange & Kelley,
P.A., 218 North Dale Mabry Highway, Tampa, FL, 33609 U.S.A.;
Celene H. Humphries, Maegen P. Luke, and Thomas Seider of Brannock
& Humphries, 1111 West Cass Street, Suite 200, Tampa, FL 33606,
for Appellee.


SAGINAW, MI: Court Dismisses Resident's Parking Ticket Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Northern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Dismissing Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint in the case captioned ALISON PATRICIA TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
v. CITY OF SAGINAW and TABITHA HOSKINS, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-
11067 (E.D. Mich.).

Plaintiff Alison Patricia Taylor lives in the County of Saginaw.
Since 2014, Taylor has received fourteen parking tickets for
allegedly exceeding the time limit of a parking spot. Taylor
alleges that all fourteen tickets were issued by Defendant Tabitha
Hoskins, the most prolific issuer of parking tickets in the City
of Saginaw. Each parking ticket included the date and time that
the tire of Taylor's vehicle was marked with a chalk-like
substance.

In her amended complaint, Taylor frames a putative class action
suit against Defendants premised on the theory that the chalk
marks violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution. Taylor requests the Court certify the case as a
class action, declare Defendants' chalking practice
unconstitutional, order Defendants to cease chalking vehicles, and
order refunds of all tickets issued in reliance on the chalk
marks.

Defendants are moving for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). A pleading fails to state a claim under
Rule 12(b)(6) if it does not contain allegations that support
recovery under any recognizable legal theory. In considering a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court construes the pleading in the
nonmovant's favor and accepts the allegations of facts therein as
true.  The pleader need not provide detailed factual allegations
to survive dismissal, but the obligation to provide the grounds of
his entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not do.

In their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue, simply, that the
Fourth Amendment does not prohibit municipalities from placing
chalk marks on parked vehicles to aid in enforcement of parking
regulations. That argument appears unremarkable. But Taylor
believes that the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Jones
clearly establishes the unconstitutionality of chalking. 565 U.S.
400. Taylor places more weight upon the Jones decision than it can
bear. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss will be
granted.

After the Supreme Court's decision in Katz v. United States, the
determination that a search or seizure occurred required
satisfaction of two elements: first that a person have exhibited
an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that
the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as
reasonable.

Jones's Fourth Amendment rights do not rise or fall with the Katz
formulation. At bottom, we must assure preservation of that degree
of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth
Amendment was adopted. As explained, for most of our history the
Fourth Amendment was understood to embody a particular concern for
government trespass upon the areas (persons, houses, papers, and
effects) it enumerates. Katz did not repudiate that understanding.

Less than two years later the Court upheld defendants' contention
that the Government could not introduce against them conversations
between other people obtained by warrantless placement of
electronic surveillance devices in their homes. The opinion
rejected the dissent's contention that there was no Fourth
Amendment violation unless the conversational privacy of the
homeowner himself is invaded. We do not believe that Katz, by
holding that the Fourth Amendment protects persons and their
private conversations, was intended to withdraw any of the
protection which the Amendment extends to the home.

Importantly, the Jones Court also clarified that trespass alone
does not qualify as a search. Rather, there must be both trespass
and an attempt to find something or to obtain information.
Defendants argue, first, that the chalking which occurred here was
not a search and further argue that, even if it constituted a
search, the search was reasonable.

The very fact that the parties appear to agree that chalking is a
widespread and long-standing feature of parking enforcement
undercuts Taylor's assertion that the physical trespass was
unlicensed. Taylor's decision to use public parking could be
construed as an implicit license for the City to enforce its
parking regulations, including via the longstanding practice of
chalking. Further, the type of physical trespass here appears to
be "no more than any private citizen might do. Private citizens
frequently leave fliers and coupons on vehicles without
permission. It is unclear how leaving a small, temporary chalk
mark is distinguishable.

Despite Taylor's apparent admission that chalking is a long-
standing and well-known practice, this is a close question. It is
conceivable that some might dispute the idea that chalking is a
habit of the country and thus that an implied license to chalking
exist. The question of whether an implicit license to chalk exists
is too factually driven to resolve at the motion to dismiss stage.
Accepting all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, Taylor has
likely alleged that Defendants searched her vehicle within the
meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

But, contrary to Taylor's assertion, the existence of a search
does not end the inquiry. Jones involved only the question of
whether a Fourth Amendment search had occurred. In fact, the Jones
Court took care to specify that it was not addressing whether the
attachment of the GPS-device was reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment.

Taylor argues that the crucial distinction here is that the chalk
mark was made before any suspicion of wrongdoing exists. But
Taylor does not explain why that difference mandates a finding
that the search is unreasonable. Rather, Taylor simply reiterates
her belief that Jones compels the conclusion that a search has
occurred. That may be true, but Jones provides no guidance in
determining whether the search was reasonable.

Considering the de minimis nature of the physical intrusion here
and the Government's undeniable authority to enforce parking
regulations, this practice seems to clearly fall within the
community caretaking exception. As such, the search (if one
occurred) was reasonable. Because, even accepting all well-pleaded
factual allegations as true, Taylor has not asserted a cognizable
constitutional claim, the motion to dismiss will be granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 15, 2017
Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7qd6tdhfrom
Leagle.com.

Alison Patricia Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew E.
Gronda, Matthew E. Gronda, J.D., P.L.C., 6A, 4855 State St,
Saginaw, MI 48603, United States

Alison Patricia Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by Philip L.
Ellison, Outside Legal Counsel PLC. PO Box 107
Hemlock, MI 48626

City of Saginaw, Defendant, represented by Brett T. Meyer,
O'Neill, Wallace & Doyle, P.C. & Gregory W. Mair, O'Neill,
Wallace,  P.O. Box 1966. Saginaw, MI 48605.

Tabitha Hoskins, Defendant, represented by Brett T. Meyer,
O'Neill, Wallace & Doyle, P.C. & Gregory W. Mair, O'Neill,
Wallace.


SAIC INC: High Court Decision Expected by June 2018, Leidos Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that a decision is expected by June 2018 in a U.S.
Supreme Court petition related to the case, In Re: SAIC, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two
cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint named as
defendants the Company, a former chief financial officer, two
former chief executive officers, a former group president and the
former program manager on the Company's contract to develop and
implement an automated time and attendance and workforce
management system for certain agencies of the City of New York
("CityTime") and was filed purportedly on behalf of all purchasers
of the Company's common stock from April 11, 2007, through
September 1, 2011. The consolidated securities complaint asserted
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 based on allegations that the Company and individual
defendants made misleading statements or omissions about the
Company's revenues, operating income and internal controls in
connection with disclosures relating to the CityTime project. The
plaintiffs sought to recover from the Company and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages class members
allegedly incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated price.

On October 1, 2013, the District Court dismissed many claims in
the complaint with prejudice and on January 30, 2014, the District
Court entered an order dismissing all remaining claims with
prejudice and without leave to replead.

The plaintiffs then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit. On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit
issued an opinion affirming in part, and vacating in part, the
District Court's ruling. In particular, the Second Circuit held
that the plaintiffs should be permitted to pursue omissions claims
against the Company with respect to the annual report the Company
filed on Form 10-K on March 25, 2011; the Second Circuit affirmed
dismissal of all other claims, including all the claims against
the individual defendants, and the case was remanded to the
District Court.

On September 23, 2016, the District Court issued an order
clarifying that the applicable class period relating to the March
2011 Form 10-K ends on June 2, 2011, not September 1, 2011, as
plaintiffs argued. The Company filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted on March
27, 2017. A decision is expected by June 2018. The District Court
granted the Company's request to stay all proceedings, including
discovery, pending the outcome at the Supreme Court.

Leidos Holdings, Inc. is a holding company whose direct 100%-owned
subsidiaries and principal operating companies are Leidos, Inc.
and Leidos Innovations Corporation.  Leidos is a FORTUNE 500(R)
science and technology company that provides technology and
engineering services and solutions in the defense, intelligence,
civil and health markets. Leidos' domestic customers include the
U.S. Department of Defense ("DoD"), the U.S. Intelligence
Community, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), the
Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), the Department of Health
and Human Services ("HHS"), U.S. Government civil agencies and
state and local government agencies. Leidos' international
customers include foreign governments and their agencies,
primarily located in the United Kingdom, the Middle East and
Australia.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Appeals Decision in "Velasquez-Reyes" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc., filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Dulce Velasquez-Reyes v.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-01953-DMG-KK,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Riverside.

The nature of suit is stated as "Other Fraud."

The appellate case is captioned as Dulce Velasquez-Reyes v.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 17-56556, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Samsung Electronics America, Inc.'s opening brief
      is due on December 12, 2017;

   -- Appellee Dulce Alondra Velasquez-Reyes' answering brief is
      due on January 11, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee DULCE ALONDRA VELASQUEZ-REYES, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  je@girardgibbs.com

Defendant-Appellant SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., New Jersey
corporation, is represented by:

          Robert James Herrington, Esq.
          Benjamin S. Kurtz, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com
                  kurtzb@gtlaw.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Wagner" Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on June 30, 2017, styled Rose
Wagner, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Company,
Ltd., Case No. 5:17-cv-01099-D, was transferred on October 11,
2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-
01099-D.

These cases concern the sale and marketing of certain defective
Samsung home washing machines that have latent and inherent
defects and Samsung's failed recall of these same washing
machines.

The Defendants supply consumer electronics and digital products in
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amy E. Keller, Esq.
      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Tyler J. Story, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      E-mail: aek@wexlerwallace.com
              eaw@wexlerwallace.com
              tjs@wexlerwallace.com

         - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      800 S Gay Street Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      E-mail: greg@gregcolemalaw.com
              lisa@gregcolemalaw.com

         - and -

      Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
      HALUNEN LAW
      80 South Eighth St.
      1650 IDS Center
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 605-4098

         - and -

      Michael T. Fantini, Esq.
      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      BERGER AND MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust St.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-5804
      E-mail: mfantini@bm.net
              scarson@bm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

      Mahnu V. Davar, Esq.
      ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
      601 Massachusetts Ave. NW
      Washington, DC 20001
      Telephone: (202) 942-5000
      E-mail: mahnu.davar@apks.com

         - and -

      Ingo Werner Sprie Jr., Esq.
      ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
      399 Park Ave.
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 715-1124
      E-mail: ingo.sprie@apks.com

         - and -

      Maggie C. Maurone, Esq.
      ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER, LLP
      250 West 55th Street
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 836-7443
      E-mail: maggie.maurone@apks.com


SEMPRA ENERGY: Still Defends Lawsuits over Gas Leak
---------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against
lawsuits relaed to the Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Storage Facility
Gas Leak.

On October 23, 2015, SoCalGas discovered a leak at one of its
injection-and-withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural
gas storage facility, located in the northern part of the San
Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The Aliso Canyon natural
gas storage facility has been operated by SoCalGas since 1972.
SS25 is one of more than 100 injection-and-withdrawal wells at the
storage facility.

The Company said, "As of August 3, 2017, 281 lawsuits, including
more than 25,500 plaintiffs, are pending in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court against SoCalGas, some of which have also named
Sempra Energy. These various lawsuits assert causes of action for
negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, property damage,
fraud, public and private nuisance (continuing and permanent),
trespass, inverse condemnation, fraudulent concealment, unfair
business practices and loss of consortium, among other things, and
additional litigation may be filed against us in the future
related to this incident.  A complaint alleging violations of
Proposition 65 was also filed."

"These complaints seek compensatory and punitive damages, civil
penalties, injunctive relief, costs of future medical monitoring
and attorneys' fees, and several seek class action status. All of
these cases, other than a matter brought by the Los Angeles County
District Attorney, the federal securities class action and one of
the shareholder derivative actions, are coordinated before a
single court in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for pretrial
management.

"In addition to the lawsuits, a federal securities class action
alleging violation of the federal securities laws has been filed
against Sempra Energy and certain of its officers and certain of
its directors in the SDCA, and six shareholder derivative actions
alleging breach of fiduciary duties against certain officers and
certain directors of Sempra Energy and/or SoCalGas are pending,
one in the SDCA and five in the coordination proceeding in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court.

"In March 2017, the SDCA dismissed the shareholder derivative
action pending in that court, ruling that the plaintiff did not
have standing to pursue the alleged claims; the plaintiff did not
seek to amend his complaint to cure its deficiencies.

"In June 2017, the SDCA dismissed the federal securities class
action on the grounds the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient
facts to establish a claim for securities fraud.  In July 2017,
the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, again alleging violation
of the federal securities laws.

"Pursuant to the coordination proceeding in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, in March 2017, the individuals and business
entities asserting tort and Proposition 65 claims filed a Second
Amended Consolidated Master Case Complaint for Individual Actions,
through which their separate lawsuits will be managed for pretrial
purposes. The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action for
negligence, negligence per se, private and public nuisance
(continuing and permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, strict
liability, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional
distress, fraudulent concealment, loss of consortium and
violations of Proposition 65 against SoCalGas, with certain causes
also naming Sempra Energy. The consolidated complaint seeks
compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries, lost
wages and/or lost profits, property damage and diminution in
property value, injunctive relief, costs of future medical
monitoring, civil penalties (including penalties associated with
Proposition 65 claims alleging violation of requirements for
warning about certain chemical exposures), and attorneys' fees.

"In January 2017, pursuant to the coordination proceeding, two
consolidated class action complaints were filed against SoCalGas
and Sempra Energy, one on behalf of a putative class of persons
and businesses who own or lease real property within a five-mile
radius of the well (the Property Class Action), and a second on
behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities conducting
business within five miles of the facility (the Business Class
Action). Both complaints assert claims for strict liability for
ultra-hazardous activities, negligence and violation of California
Unfair Competition Law.

The Property Class Action also asserts claims for negligence per
se, trespass, permanent and continuing public and private
nuisance, and inverse condemnation. The Business Class Action also
asserts a claim for negligent interference with prospective
economic advantage. Both complaints seek compensatory, statutory
and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

Three actions filed by public entities are pending, as follows.
These lawsuits are also included in the coordination proceeding in
the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

First, in July 2016, the County of Los Angeles, on behalf of
itself and the people of the State of California, filed a
complaint against SoCalGas in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court for public nuisance, unfair competition, breach of franchise
agreement, breach of lease, and damages. This suit alleges that
the four natural gas storage fields operated by SoCalGas in Los
Angeles County require safety upgrades, including the installation
of a sub-surface safety shut-off valve on every well. It
additionally alleges that SoCalGas failed to comply with the DPH
Directive. It seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
civil penalties, and damages for the County's costs to respond to
the leak, as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

Second, in August 2016, the California Attorney General, acting in
an independent capacity and on behalf of the people of the State
of California and the CARB, together with the Los Angeles City
Attorney, filed a third amended complaint on behalf of the people
of the State of California against SoCalGas alleging public
nuisance, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law,
violations of California Health and Safety Code sections 41700,
prohibiting discharge of air contaminants that cause annoyance to
the public, and 25510, requiring reporting of the release of
hazardous material, as well as California Government Code section
12607 for equitable relief for the protection of natural
resources. The complaint seeks an order for injunctive relief, to
abate the public nuisance, and to impose civil penalties.

Third, in March 2017, the County of Los Angeles filed a petition
for writ of mandate against DOGGR and its State Oil and Gas
Supervisor, as to which SoCalGas is the real party in interest.

In July 2017, the County amended the petition to add the CPUC and
its Executive Director. The petition alleges that in issuing its
July 19, 2017 determination that the requirements for the
resumption of injection operations have been met, DOGGR failed to
comply with the provisions of SB 380, which requires a
comprehensive safety review of the Aliso Canyon natural gas
storage facility before injection of natural gas may resume. The
County alleges, among other things, that DOGGR failed to comply
with the provisions of SB 380 in declaring the safety review
complete and authorizing the resumption of injection of natural
gas into the facility before the root cause analysis was complete,
failing to make its safety-review documents available to the
public and failing to address seismic risks to the field as part
of its safety review. The County further alleges that CEQA
requires DOGGR to perform an Environmental Impact Review before
the resumption of injection of natural gas at the facility may be
approved. The petition seeks a writ of mandate requiring DOGGR and
the State Oil and Gas Supervisor to comply with SB 380 and CEQA,
and to produce records in response to the County's Public Records
Act request; as well as, declaratory and injunctive relief against
any authorization to inject natural gas and attorneys' fees.

On July 24, 2017, the County filed an application for an immediate
stay of DOGGR's order, a temporary restraining order and order to
show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued to
stop the reopening of the facility. On July 28, 2017, the Superior
Court denied the application on the ground that, pursuant to
Public Utilities Code sections 714 and 1759(a), the CPUC has
jurisdiction over regulating injections at the Aliso Canyon
natural gas storage facility, and the Court therefore lacks
jurisdiction to rule on the County's application.

On July 31, 2017, the County filed a petition for writ of mandate,
prohibition, stay or other appropriate relief and a request for
immediate stay in the Court of Appeal, seeking review of the
Superior Court's order denying the County's application for a
temporary restraining order. Later the same day, the Court of
Appeal denied the County's request for an immediate stay on
injections.

A complaint filed by the SCAQMD against SoCalGas seeking civil
penalties for alleged violations of several nuisance-related
statutory provisions arising from the leak and delays in stopping
the leak was settled in February 2017, pursuant to which SoCalGas
paid $8.5 million, of which $1 million is to be used to pay for a
health study. The SCAQMD's complaint was dismissed in February
2017.

Separately, in February 2016, the Los Angeles County District
Attorney's Office filed a misdemeanor criminal complaint against
SoCalGas seeking penalties and other remedies for alleged failure
to provide timely notice of the leak pursuant to California Health
and Safety Code section 25510(a), Los Angeles County Code section
12.56.030, and Title 19 California Code of Regulations section
2703(a), and for allegedly violating California Health and Safety
Code section 41700 prohibiting discharge of air contaminants that
cause annoyance to the public.

In September 2016, SoCalGas entered into a settlement agreement
with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in which it
agreed to plead no contest to the notice charge under Health and
Safety Code section 25510(a) and agreed to pay the maximum fine of
$75,000, penalty assessments of approximately $233,500, and
operational commitments estimated to cost approximately $5
million, reimbursement and assessments in exchange for the Los
Angeles County District Attorney's Office moving to dismiss the
remaining counts at sentencing and settling the complaint
(collectively referred to as the District Attorney Settlement).

In November 2016, SoCalGas completed the commitments and
obligations under the District Attorney Settlement, and on
November 29, 2016, the Court approved the settlement and entered
judgment on the notice charge. Certain individuals residing near
the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility who objected to the
settlement have filed a notice of appeal of the judgment, as well
as a petition asking the Los Angeles County Superior Court to set
aside the November 29, 2016 order and grant them restitution.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court dismissed the petition in
January 2017, ruling that the petitioners have a remedy at law via
their direct appeal.

The costs of defending against these civil and criminal lawsuits,
cooperating with these investigations, and any damages,
restitution, and civil, administrative and criminal fines, costs
and other penalties, if awarded or imposed, as well as the costs
of mitigating the actual natural gas released, could be
significant and to the extent not covered by insurance (including
any costs in excess of applicable policy limits), or if there were
to be significant delays in receiving insurance recoveries, such
costs could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas' and Sempra
Energy's cash flows, financial condition and results of
operations.


SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: "Patton" Case in Delaware Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
ServiceSource International, Inc. continues to defend against the
case, Sarah Patton, et al v.  ServiceSource Delaware, Inc., the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

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: Appeal in "Kiefer" Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff's appeal in the case, Kiefer et al. v. Simonton Building
Products, LLC et al., remains pending, Ply Gem said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, for
the quarterly period ended July 1, 2017.

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. Plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal and its appellant brief on May 16, 2017 and July 7, 2017,
respectively. The damages sought in this action have not yet been
quantified.

Ply Gem is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North
America.


SONUS NETWORKS: Says Ming Huang Class Action Ended
--------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that no appeal has been filed, ending a class
action litigation.

On April 6, 2015, Ming Huang, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a Class Action Complaint (Civil Action No. 3:15-
02407), alleging violations of the federal securities laws (the
"Complaint") in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey (the "District of New Jersey"), against the Company
and two of its officers, Raymond P. Dolan, the Company's President
and Chief Executive Officer, and Mark T. Greenquist, the Company's
former Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Defendants").

On September 21, 2015, in response to motions subsequently filed
with the District of New Jersey by four other purported
shareholders of the Company seeking status as lead plaintiff, the
District of New Jersey appointed Richard Sousa as lead plaintiff
(the "Plaintiff"). The Plaintiff claims to represent purchasers of
the Company's common stock during the period from October 23, 2014
to March 24, 2015, and seeks unspecified damages. The principal
allegation contained in the Complaint is that the Defendants made
misleading forward-looking statements concerning the Company's
fiscal first quarter of 2015 financial performance.

On September 22, 2015, the Company filed a Motion to Transfer (the
"Motion to Transfer") this case to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "District of
Massachusetts"). On March 21, 2016, the District of New Jersey
granted the Company's Motion to Transfer.

On May 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the
"Amended Complaint") (Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-10657-GAO). On June
20, 2016, the Company and the other Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss") and on
July 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss.

The Company filed its reply to the Plaintiff's opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss on August 15, 2016. A hearing on the Motion to
Dismiss was held on February 28, 2017. On June 7, 2017, the
District of Massachusetts granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, with prejudice, and no appeal was filed, ending the
litigation.

Sonus Networks is a provider of networked solutions for
communications service providers (e.g., telecommunications,
wireless and cable service providers) and enterprises to help them
secure and unify their real-time communications infrastructures.


SUBARU: Lawsuit Claims Defect in WRX Models
-------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Courier-Post, reports that a proposed
class-action lawsuit alleges a mechanical problem can cause engine
failure in two Subaru models.

The suit contends a defect allows contaminated oil to carry
damaging metal debris through the engines of 2013-14 WRX and WRX
STI vehicles.

It alleges numerous people have experienced engine damage and
"catastrophic" failure while driving affected vehicles, "placing
themselves and those around them in immediate danger."

A Subaru spokesman, Michael McHale, said on October 13 the Cherry
Hill auto distributor is "investigating" the claims.

This is the second class action suit brought against Subaru by a
California-based law firm, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP. The parties
last year settled a suit alleging excessive oil consumption by
multiple Subaru models made between 2011 and 2015.

The latest suit, filed October 12 in federal court, Camden, "is
the result of an extensive investigation by our firm during the
past year," said attorney Matthew Schelkopf at the law firm's East
Coast offices in Berwyn, Pennsylvania.

The WRX and WRX STI models, marketed as high-performance, "sporty"
vehicles, sold almost 25,500 units in 2014, an annual increase of
about 42 percent. The brand sold more than 16,000 units in 2013,
also marking a sharp jump from year-before levels.

The suit, which contends Subaru failed to disclose the problem to
consumers, focuses on an engine component known as a rotating
assembly.

Among other demands, it wants Subaru to notify consumers of the
alleged defect and to reimburse drivers for repairs and other
expenses.

It says the potential cost to Subaru, a Japanese-based automaker
and owner of the Cherry Hill firm, could be more than $5 million.

The suit was filed in the name of Vincent Salcedo, a California
man who says his 2013 WRX developed a "knocking" sound, then broke
down on a highway in July of this year.

Salcedo faced a repair bill of about $5,700 due to damage caused
by metal shavings from a failed connecting rod. Subaru offered to
pay $2,000 of that amount as a goodwill gesture, the lawsuit adds.

The lawsuit says Salcedo would not have purchased his car, or
would have paid less, had he known of the alleged engine defect.

The 57-page lawsuit, with multiple drawings, diagrams and
photographs, contends the defect results from "an insufficient
supply" of oil to coat connecting rod bearings.

It says this can cause connecting rods to fracture, releasing
"large amounts of metal debris" that can damage various engine
parts.

In settling the previous case alleging excessive oil consumption,
Subaru denied any wrongdoing.

It agreed to extended warranty protections for Forester, Impreza,
Crosstrek, Legacy and Outback models made from 2011 through 2015.
More than 665,000 people owned or leased vehicles in those
categories, according to the suit.

The settlement also provided free oil-consumption testing,
reimbursement for eligible expenses and, when necessary, a new
engine "and other countermeasures" in some vehicles with oil-
burning issues. [GN]


SUNWEST BANK: Defeats Class Action After Five Years of Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunwest Bank and its management were totally vindicated in a
defeat of a class action lawsuit brought by two minority
shareholders.  These shareholders wrongfully claimed that
management had engaged in fraud and other misdeeds through the
initiation of a Private Placement, Reverse Stock Split and Short
Form Merger and sought over $24 million plus punitive damages.

After a lengthy trial, the Court found that Sunwest and its
management, including Eric Hovde, its Chairman and CEO, at all
times acted in good faith and exercised reasonable business
judgment in connection with these corporate transactions.

Michael J. Sachs, Esq. of Callahan & Blaine, APLC from Santa Ana,
California, the trial counsel, stated: "This case highlighted how
easy it is for a company, acting in good faith, to be held up for
greenmail.  Sunwest Bank, and in particular, Mr. Hovde, should be
applauded for refusing to bend to greenmail, despite the intense
pressures of five years of litigation and a lengthy trial." [GN]


TENET HEALTHCARE: Denial of Bid to Vacate Judgment Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division
Three, issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's Order
denying Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Judgment or Leave to Amend in
the case captioned KRISTIANE McELROY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents,
No. G053077 (Cal. App.).

After filing a notice of appeal from the order denying the motion
to vacate the judgment or for leave to amend, McElroy voluntarily
dismissed her individual causes of action and filed a notice of
appeal from that dismissal. The two appeals have been
consolidated.

This is the second time around for this case. When the parties
were here before, in 2013, the issue was the trial court's denial
of a motion to compel arbitration brought by respondent (then
appellant) Tenet Healthcare Corporation.  Tenet sought to
arbitrate the Labor Code violations claims alleged by a nurse, the
present appellant Kristiane McElroy, an employee of a Tenet
hospital.  Her complaint included individual claims for unpaid
wages, class claims, and a representative cause of action under
the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA).  The trial court had
found the arbitration agreement unenforceable.

McElroy has identified four issues on appeal. The first two are
related: the dismissal of her PAGA claims was erroneous, in light
of the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Iskanian v. CLS
Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, and the
trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion to
reconsider the dismissal. She also asserts that the court should
have granted her motion to vacate the judgment or should have
granted her leave to amend to re-allege the PAGA claims.

Dismissal and Reconsideration

McElroy's first two issues fail for at least two reasons. First,
she did not file a notice of appeal from either the dismissal or
the reconsideration motion. The notice of appeal defines Cal.
App.'s jurisdiction, and it said it cannot review a judgment or an
appealable order from which no notice of appeal has been filed.

Second, the PAGA claim was dismissed on March 26, 2014. The motion
for reconsideration was denied on May 13, 2015. The dismissal of
the PAGA claim was an appealable order under the death-knell
doctrine, which holds that an order that virtually demolishes a
class action claim is appealable.

The court dismissed the PAGA claim without prejudice to avoid
giving collateral estoppel effect to the dismissal, either for
McElroy or for other Tenet employees with similar claims.
Dismissal without prejudice means new action can be filed on same
allegations. Without prejudice did not mean that the claim had
entered a state of suspended animation, from which it could be
revived in the same case.

To the extent that McElroy's appeal encompasses the March 2014
dismissal of the PAGA claim and the denial of the motion for
reconsideration, the appeal is dismissed.

Motion to Vacate Judgment

The California state Supreme Court has recently confirmed that an
order denying a motion to vacate a judgment under section 663 is a
separately appealable order which the Cal. App. now considers. In
this case, the trial court denied the motion to vacate the
judgment on several grounds. First, it perceived this motion as a
disguised motion for reconsideration, one that failed to comply
with the requirements of section 1008.

Second, even considering the motion under section 663 alone, the
motion failed to comply with the prescribed time limit 180 days
after entry of judgment at the latest.  Finally, contrary to the
requirements of section 663, McElroy did not propose "another and
different judgment" to be entered in place of the dismissal of the
PAGA claim. Instead, she proposed to reinstate allegations in the
existing complaint.

The Cal. App. agreed with the trial court's interpretation of the
statutes. Section 663a includes strict time limits within which a
party may file a motion to vacate a judgment.  Like the time
limits of section 1008, these limits are jurisdictional. The
latest McElroy could possibly file such a motion was 180 days
after the entry of judgment. As the Cal. App. has already
explained, judgment was entered on March 26, 2014. McElroy did not
file her motion to vacate the judgment until October 20, 2015,
well over a year after the time to make this motion expired.

An order denying leave to amend a complaint is not appealable,
unless it has the effect of eliminating all issues between the
plaintiff and a defendant so that there is nothing left to be
tried or determined. The issues between McElroy as an individual
and Tenet were all still in the case, albeit in arbitration, at
the time she filed her first notice of appeal. Thus there was
still something to be determined when the notice of appeal was
filed.

In refusing to allow McElroy to amend the complaint, the trial
court cited the long and unexcused delay, resulting in the
inevitable fading of memories and loss of documents, in addition
to the prejudice to the defendants from the expansion of the scope
of the claims.  The court also pointed out that McElroy had
options to keep the PAGA claim alive.

The Cal. App. cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in
denying leave to amend. The judge has discretion to deny leave to
amend when the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory and
the delay has prejudiced the opposing party. Prejudice exists
where the amendment would result in a delay of trial, along with
loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, increased
burden of discovery, etc. That is precisely what the trial court
found in this case. The Cal. App. cannot say it abused its
discretion so deciding.

Second Appeal

After filing a notice of appeal from the order denying her motion
to vacate the judgment, McElroy voluntarily dismissed her
individual claims and filed another notice of appeal from this
dismissal, thereby giving rise to this consolidated appeal.
Normally there is no right to appeal after a voluntary dismissal.
An appeal taken after an adverse trial court ruling, however,
operates as a request for entry of judgment based on the adverse
ruling. The appeal of the voluntary dismissal is therefore proper.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 20, 2017
Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/yb74jhabfrom
Leagle.com.

Capstone Law, Glenn A. Danas -- Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com -
Robert Drexler -- Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Stan Karas
-- Stan.Karas@capstonelawyers.com -- and  -- Bevin Pike --
Bevin.Pike@CapstoneLawyers.com for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Littler Mendelson, Elizabeth Staggs -- estaggs-wilson@littler.com
-- Shannon R. Boyce -- sboyce@littler.com -- Anthony G. Ly --
aly@littler.com -- Emily T. Patajo -- epatajo@littler.com -- and
Keith A. Jacoby -- kjacoby@littler.com -- for Defendants and
Respondents.


TESLA INC: Hearing on Appeal in November 2017
---------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that the parties anticipate a hearing on the appeal in a
securities class action lawsuit no earlier than November 2017.

On March 28, 2014, a purported stockholder class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against SolarCity and two of its officers. The
complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of SolarCity's securities from March
6, 2013 to March 18, 2014. After a series of amendments to the
original complaint, the District Court dismissed the amended
complaint and entered a judgment in our favor on August 9, 2016.

The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal, and the parties
anticipate a hearing on the appeal no earlier than November 2017.

"We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend
against this lawsuit and appeal vigorously," the Company said.

"We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, associated with this lawsuit."

Tesla, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and sells high-
performance fully electric vehicles and designs, manufactures,
installs and sells solar energy generation and energy storage
products.


TESLA INC: Motion to Dismiss Calif. Suit Taken under Submission
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that the court has taken the Company's fully-briefed motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit under submission.

On August 15, 2016, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against SolarCity, two of its officers and
a former officer.

On March 20, 2017, the purported stockholder class filed a
consolidated complaint that includes the original matter in the
same court against SolarCity, one of its officers and three former
officers.

As consolidated, the complaint alleges that SolarCity made
projections of future sales and installations that it failed to
achieve and that these projections were fraudulent when made. The
plaintiffs claim violations of federal securities laws and seek
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of SolarCity's securities from May
6, 2015 to May 9, 2016.

"We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend
against them vigorously," the Company said. "On July 25, 2017, the
court took our fully-briefed motion to dismiss under submission.
We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, associated with this lawsuit."

Tesla, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and sells high-
performance fully electric vehicles and designs, manufactures,
installs and sells solar energy generation and energy storage
products.


TESLA INC: Delaware Case over SolarCity Acquisition Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that the Company continues to defend litigation relating to
the SolarCity Acquisition.

The Company said, "Between September 1, 2016 and October 5, 2016,
seven lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware by purported stockholders of Tesla challenging our
acquisition of SolarCity. Following consolidation, the lawsuit
names as defendants the members of our board of directors and
alleges, among other things, that board members breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition. The complaint
asserts both derivative claims and direct claims on behalf of a
purported class and seeks, among other relief, unspecified
monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and costs."

"On January 27, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
operative complaint. Rather than respond to the defendants'
motion, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On March 17,
2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint; that motion is pending. These same plaintiffs filed a
parallel action in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on April 21, 2017, adding claims for
violations of the federal securities laws.

"On February 6, 2017, a purported stockholder made a demand to
inspect our books and records, purportedly to investigate
potential breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the
SolarCity acquisition. On April 17, 2017, the purported
stockholder filed a petition for a writ of mandate in California
Superior Court, seeking to compel us to provide the documents
requested in the demand. We filed a demurrer to the writ petition
or, in the alternative, a motion to stay the action, which remain
pending.

"On March 24, 2017, another lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware by a purported Tesla
stockholder challenging the SolarCity acquisition. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that our board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition and
alleges violations of the federal securities laws.

"We believe that claims challenging the SolarCity acquisition are
without merit. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, associated with these claims."

Tesla, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and sells high-
performance fully electric vehicles and designs, manufactures,
installs and sells solar energy generation and energy storage
products.


TYSON FOODS: Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. continues to defend against the Broiler Chicken
Grower Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, for the quarterly
period ended July 1, 2017.

The Company said, "On January 27, 2017, Haff Poultry, Inc., Craig
Watts, Johnny Upchurch, Jonathan Walters and Brad Carr, acting on
behalf of themselves and a putative class of broiler chicken
farmers, filed a class action complaint against us and certain of
our poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other vertically-
integrated poultry processing companies, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma."

"On March 28, 2017, a second class action complaint making similar
claims on behalf of a similarly defined putative class was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma. Plaintiffs in the two cases sought to have the matters
consolidated, and, on July 10, 2017, filed a consolidated amended
complaint styled In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation.

"The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
colluded not to compete for broiler raising services "with the
purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing
grower compensation below competitive levels." The plaintiffs also
allege that the defendants "agreed to share detailed data on
[g]rower compensation with one another, with the purpose and
effect of artificially depressing [g]rower compensation below
competitive levels." The plaintiffs contend these alleged acts
constitute violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202
of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The
plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative
class. This matter is in its initial stage, and we intend to
defend against these allegations."

Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies and a
recognized leader in protein.


TYSON FOODS: Says 3 Class Actions Resolved for $12.6 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, for the quarterly period ended
July 1, 2017, that the parties agreed to settle all three class
action lawsuits for a total payment of $12.6 million, inclusive of
wages, penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and costs
of settlement administration.

     -- Bouaphakeo (f/k/a Sharp), et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
        N.D. Iowa, February 6, 2007

A jury trial was held involving our Storm Lake, Iowa, pork plant
which resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for
violations of federal and state laws for pre- and post-shift work
activities. The trial court also awarded the plaintiffs liquidated
damages, resulting in total damages awarded in the amount of
$5,784,758. The plaintiffs' counsel has also filed an application
for attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $2,692,145.

The Company said, "We appealed the jury's verdict and trial
court's award to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The
appellate court affirmed the jury verdict and judgment on August
25, 2014, and we filed a petition for rehearing on September 22,
2014, which was denied. We filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was granted
on June 8, 2015, and oral arguments before the Supreme Court
occurred on November 10, 2015. On March 22, 2016, the Supreme
Court affirmed the appellate court's rulings and remanded to the
trial court to allocate the lump sum award among the class
participants. On remand, the trial court determined that the lump
sum award should be allocated to class participants according to
the method prescribed by plaintiffs' expert at trial. The trial
court has yet to enter a judgment. A joint notice advising the
court of a global settlement of this case, the Edwards matter
(described below), and the consolidated Murray and DeVoss matter
(also described below) was filed on July 11, 2017. The parties
agreed to settle all three matters for a total payment of $12.6
million, inclusive of wages, penalties, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs, and costs of settlement administration."

     -- Edwards, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. d.b.a. Tyson Fresh
        Meats, Inc., S.D. Iowa, March 20, 2008

The Company said, "The trial court in this case, which involves
our Perry and Waterloo, Iowa, pork plants, decertified the state
law class and granted other pre-trial motions that resulted in
judgment in our favor with respect to the plaintiffs' claims. The
plaintiffs have filed a motion to modify this judgment. A joint
motion for preliminary approval of the collective and class action
settlement was filed on July 7, 2017."

     -- Murray, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., C.D. Illinois,
        January 2, 2008; and DeVoss v. Tyson Foods, Inc. d.b.a.
        Tyson Fresh Meats, C.D. Illinois, March 2, 2011

The Company said, "This consolidated case involves our Joslin,
Illinois, beef plant and is in the preliminary stages. A joint
notice of settlement and a request to stay the proceedings was
filed with and granted by the court on June 28, 2017."

Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies and a
recognized leader in protein.


TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Maplevale Farms Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, for the quarterly period ended
July 1, 2017, that the Company's motions to dismiss the Maplevale
Farms, Inc., complaint remains pending.

The Company said, "On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc.,
acting on behalf of itself and a putative class of direct
purchasers of poultry products, filed a class action complaint
against us and certain of our poultry subsidiaries, as well as
several other poultry processing companies, in the Northern
District of Illinois. Subsequent to the filing of this initial
complaint, additional lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of
putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

"The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes,
into actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. These three actions
are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. Several
amended and consolidated complaints have been filed on behalf of
each putative class.

"The currently operative complaints allege, among other things,
that beginning in January 2008 the defendants conspired and
combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of
broiler chickens in violation of United States antitrust laws. The
complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state
unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust
enrichment common laws.

"The complaints also allege that defendants "manipulated and
artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price index, the
Georgia Dock." It is further alleged that the defendants concealed
this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the putative
classes. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive
relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys'
fees on behalf of the putative classes.

"We filed motions to dismiss these complaints; the court has yet
to rule on our motions."

Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies and a
recognized leader in protein.


TYSON FOODS: Court Approves Bid to Dismiss "Huster" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, for the quarterly period ended
July 1, 2017, that the Company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit by
William Huster has been granted.

The Company said, "On October 17, 2016, William Huser, acting on
behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased
shares of Tyson Foods' stock between November 23, 2015, and
October 7, 2016, filed a class action complaint against Tyson
Foods, Inc., Donnie Smith and Dennis Leatherby in the Central
District of California. The complaint alleged, among other things,
that our periodic filings contained materially false and
misleading statements by failing to disclose that the Company has
colluded with other producers to manipulate the supply of broiler
chickens in order to keep supply artificially low, as alleged in
In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

"Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims were filed in the United States
District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the Western
District of Arkansas, and the Southern District of Ohio. Each of
those cases have now been transferred to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas and
consolidated, and lead plaintiffs have been appointed.

"A consolidated complaint was filed on March 22, 2017, (which also
named additional individual defendants). The consolidated
complaint seek damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs,
and attorneys' fees.

"We filed a motion to dismiss this complaint, which the court
granted on July 26, 2017."

Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies and a
recognized leader in protein.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Appeals Court Affirms Claims Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that an appellate court has affirmed
the decision of the district court in favor of the Company to
dismiss the claim in the case, City of Roseville Employees'
Retirement System v. Sterling Financial Corp., et al.

The Company assumed, as successor-in-interest to Sterling, the
defense of litigation matters pending against Sterling. Sterling
previously reported that on December 11, 2009, a putative
securities class action complaint captioned City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System v. Sterling Financial Corp., et al.,
No. CV 09-00368-EFS, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington against Sterling and
certain of its current and former officers.

On June 18, 2010, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
alleging that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making
false and misleading statements concerning Sterling's business and
financial results. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the Complaint, and
the court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice on
August 5, 2013. On October 11, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended consolidated complaint with the same defendants, class
period, alleged violations, and relief sought.

On January 24, 2014, Sterling moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint, and on September 17, 2014, the court
entered an order dismissing the amended consolidated complaint in
its entirety with no further leave to amend.

On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the district
court's order granting the motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint. The appellate court held a hearing on May
10, 2017. On May 22, 2017, the appellate court issued a judgment
affirming the decision of the district court in favor of the
Company to dismiss the claim. On June 13, 2017, the appellate
court issued a formal mandate that the judgment of appellate court
took effect on that date.

Umpqua Holdings Corporation, an Oregon corporation, is a financial
holding company with two principal operating subsidiaries, Umpqua
Bank and Umpqua Investments, Inc.


UNITED PARCEL: Seeks 6th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Solo" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant United Parcel Service Co. filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Joe Solo, et al. v. United Parcel
Service Co., Case No. 2:14-cv-12719, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Denise
Page Hood denied the Defendant's Motion to Stay or Dismiss
Proceedings.

The Plaintiffs have asserted claims for relief on behalf of
purchasers for declared value coverage in excess of $300, alleging
breach of contract and unjust enrichment.  The claims are based on
the theory that the Defendant charges more for declared value of
packages than permitted by contract.

The appellate case is captioned as Joe Solo, et al. v. United
Parcel Service Co., Case No. 17-2244, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JOE SOLO and BLEACHTECH LLC, and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Sanford P. Dumain, Esq.
          Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Esq.
          Charles Slidders, Esq.
          MILBERG, WEISS, BERSHAD, SPECTHRIE & LERACH
          1 Pennsylvania Avenue, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119-0000
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: sdumain@milberg.com
                  cslidders@milberg.com
                  emckenna@milberg.com

               - and -

          Daniel Richard Karon, Esq.
          KARON LLC
          700 W. St. Clair Avenue, Suite 204
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 622-1851
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. McGuinness, Esq.
          P. O. Box 7711
          Ann Arbor, MI
          Telephone: (734) 274-9374
          Facsimile: (734) 786-9935
          E-mail: drewmcg@topclasslaw.com

Defendant-Appellant UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CO. is represented by:

          Gregory Bryant Koltun, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 892-5200
          E-mail: gkoltun@mofo.com

               - and -

          Bonnie L. Mayfield, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          39577 Woodward Avenue, Suite 300
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 203-0700
          E-mail: bmayfield@dykema.com


UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in AMB's Suit vs. HUD
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Columbia, issued a
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned ASSOCIATED
MORTGAGE BANKERS INC., Plaintiff, v. BEN CARSON, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-0075 (ESH) (D.D.C.).

This suit involves a disagreement about the import of an
indemnification agreement between plaintiff and defendants.
Plaintiff Associated Mortgage Bankers, Inc., (AMB) originates
mortgage loans, including mortgages that were eligible for
insurance under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) insurance program
administered by defendant Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and its Secretary, defendant Ben Carson
(defendants).  In connection with a HUD audit of an individual
mortgage loan (the Loan), AMB entered into the Indemnification
Agreement with HUD.

AMB received notification that HUD sought $160,448.62 from AMB as
insurable losses due under the Indemnification Agreement.  When
AMB objected to the sale, HUD replied that HUD believes that this
debt is both past due and legally enforceable despite
acknowledging that the indemnified loan was erroneously included
in a Single Family Loan Sale (SFLS) Program.

AMB timely appealed to HUD's Office of Hearings and Appeals, the
Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a stay pending a final decision
on AMB's appeal. Accordingly, the AJ vacated the stay and
authorized the collection of the outstanding obligation by means
of administrative offset of any federal payment due.

AMB filed the instant complaint requesting that the Court: (1) set
aside the AJ's decision as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with the law in
violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); (2) declare
HUD to be in breach of the Indemnification Agreement; (3) enjoin
HUD from issuing any administrative offset or referring the debt
to Treasury for collection; (4) certify this matter as a class
action with AMB representing a class of similarly-situated
lenders; (5) issue a preliminary injunction restraining HUD and
its agents from taking action against AMB or the proposed class;
and (6) award AMB attorney's fees and expenses, as well as
granting any other proper relief.

AMB pleaded two substantive counts to support its requested
relief: (1) violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. Section 706(2)(A), and
(2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

COUNT II: GOOD-FAITH-AND-FAIR-DEALING CLAIM

Plaintiff's Count II breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing appears to relate to plaintiff's request that this Court
declare HUD to be in breach of the Indemnification Agreement.

The Tucker Act grants the United States Court of Federal Claims
jurisdiction over "claims against the United States founded upon
any express or implied contract with the United States.

The fact that a plaintiff does not ask for monetary damages is not
dispositive. A plaintiff cannot bypass Tucker Act jurisdiction by
converting complaints which at their essence' seek money damages
from the government into complaints requesting injunctive relief
or declaratory actions. Instead, requested relief must have
considerable value independent of any future potential for
monetary relief to escape the Tucker Act's exclusive jurisdiction.

A declaration that HUD has breached the Indemnification Agreement
does not have considerable value independent of its future
potential for monetary relief.  Thus, the Court dismisses
plaintiff's good-faith-and-fair-dealing claim for it cannot enter
declaratory relief, injunctive relief, or certify a class where it
lacks jurisdiction over the claim at issue.

COUNT I: APA CLAIM

Jurisdiction

To go forward with an APA challenge, a plaintiff must demonstrate
a basis for jurisdiction and a waiver of sovereign immunity.
After examining the relevant factors, this Court finds that
plaintiff's claim under Count I is not a disguised contract action
insofar as it challenges the AJ's decision. Plaintiff challenges
the AJ's decision, and the concomitant administrative offset, as
arbitrary and capricious. That decision involves the AJ's
interpretation of the Indemnification Agreement and the PSA, but
mere reference to a contract does not determine the source of
rights upon which a plaintiff relies.

The source of rights upon which plaintiff relies is the statutes
and regulations that give HUD the authority to collect
administrative offsets and prescribe the way in which HUD may
reach decisions about administrative offsets.  This source of
rights is not contractual.  Moreover, the requested relief that
appears to relate to Count I setting aside the AJ's decision and
enjoining HUD from issuing any administrative offset represent
claims for relief that are not inherently contractual. In short,
the APA waives defendants' sovereign immunity insofar as Count I
challenges the AJ's decision as arbitrary and capricious.

Count I's Facial Plausibility

Still, to state a facially plausible claim under the APA a
plaintiff must be challenging final agency action for which there
is no other adequate remedy in a court.

From the beginning of its dealings with plaintiff, defendants have
treated its administrative offset proceeding as separate and
distinct from a breach of contract action. The Indemnification
Agreement itself states any material breach of the terms and
conditions of this Indemnification Agreement shall constitute
independent grounds for imposition of administrative sanctions by
the Mortgagee Review Board against Mortgagee pursuant to 24 CFR
Part 25. A breach of contract action cannot adequately remedy the
threat of costly sanctions for failure to comply with the offset
proceeding's ruling, including the possible revocation of
plaintiff's approval to originate FHA-insured loans.

Defendants have failed to cite any statute, regulation, or policy
that requires plaintiff to further exhaust administrative remedies
or renders an offset decision unreviewable by a court. If
plaintiff does not challenge the AJ's decision now, it will not be
able to escape its binding authority later.  Thus, recourse is
available through review of the AJ's decision.

Scope of this Court's Review

Plaintiff's arbitrary-and-capricious challenge otherwise exhibits
facial plausibility insofar as it challenges the manner in which
the AJ reached her decision.

The parties are not litigating a breach of contract action before
this Court. This action will not include discovery or class
certification. After the administrative record is filed, the Court
will decide whether the AJ reached her decision in an arbitrary
and capricious manner, or otherwise violated an applicable statute
or regulation.  Under well-established principles of
administrative law, the scope of review under the arbitrary and
capricious standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its
judgment for that of the agency.

Accordingly, the Court ordered that defendants' motion to dismiss
with regard to Count II is granted, and Count II is dismissed with
prejudice.  The Court ordered that defendants' motion to dismiss
with regard to Count I is denied only to the extent that Count I
is a challenge to the AJ's decision.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 20, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/y9d5b63xfrom Leagle.com.

ASSOCIATED MORTGAGE BANKERS, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Brian
Michael Serafin -- serafin@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider
PC.

ASSOCIATED MORTGAGE BANKERS, INC., Plaintiff, represented by David
M. Souders -- souders@thewbkfirm.com -- WEINER BRODSKY KIDER PC.

JULIAN CASTRO, Defendant, represented by Kevin Paul VanLandingham,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Defendant,
represented by Kevin Paul VanLandingham, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.


UNITED STATES: Turping Appeals Fed. Claims Ct. Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Peter Turping, Dick Cartmell, Philip Isaacs, Greg Brown
and John Bongers filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Turping, et al. v. US, Case No. 1:16-cv-00872-SGB,
in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Plaintiffs are entitled by the Tucker Act and the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to
obtain just compensation from the United States of America.

The case is filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs whose property
interests in their pension retirement benefits were illegally
eliminated, discontinued, or substantially reduced and taken by
the Government contrary to its own policies and the regulations of
an executive department, the United States Department of Energy,
according to the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are all present and former employees of Boeing
Computer Services, Richland, Westinghouse Hanford Company and
Kaiser Engineering Hanford at the Department of Energy's Hanford
Nuclear Reservation, who were transferred to Lockheed Martin
Services, Inc.

The appellate case is captioned as Turping, et al. v. US, Case No.
18-1005, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

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

   -- Docketing Statement is due on November 3, 2017; and

   -- Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on December 4,
      2017.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants PETER TURPING, DICK CARTMELL, PHILIP ISAACS,
GREG BROWN and JOHN BONGERS, and other similarly situated persons,
are represented by:

          Douglas Edward McKinley, Jr.
          DOUGLAS E. MCKINLEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          1030 North Center Parkway
          Kennewick, WA 99336
          Telephone: (509) 628-0809
          Facsimile: (509) 392-8083
          E-mail: doug@mckinleylaw.com

Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by:

          DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH, CIVIL DIVISION
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          PO Box 480
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044


UNIVEST CORP: Defending Class Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------
Univest Corporation of Pennsylvania is defending against a class
action lawsuit in federal court in Texas, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

During the first quarter of 2017, certain lessees stopped making
payments and Univest Capital, Inc., a subsidiary of the
Corporation, filed legal complaints to pursue collection of all
amounts owed.  A complaint was subsequently filed against Univest
Capital, Inc. and certain other defendants on March 28, 2017 by
one of the lessees in federal court in Texas seeking, among other
things, class action certification and a declaration that the
contracts and related guarantees are null and void.

Univest Capital, Inc. has not been served with the complaint, and
the plaintiff had been directed to file an amended complaint on or
before August 7, 2017.  As of the filing date, the outcome of the
matter is neither probable nor estimable.

Univest Corporation of Pennsylvania is a Bank Holding Company
owning all of the capital stock of Univest Bank and Trust Co.

The Bank is engaged in the commercial and consumer banking
business and provides a full range of banking and trust services
to customers.


VALLE FOAM: Canadians May Be Eligible for $20 Cheque After CA Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Lagerquist, writing for CTV News, reports that there may be
more money hiding in your couch than a few stray coins.

Canadians who bought sofas, mattresses, padded chairs and certain
carpet products may be entitled to compensation for being
overcharged thanks to legal settlements against dozens of foam
manufacturers who allegedly conspired to fix prices between 1999
and 2012.

Claims start as low as $20 for those who purchased eligible
products containing flexible polyurethane foam that were made in
Canada. The material is a type of padding commonly used in
furniture, mattresses, and carpet underlay.

In order to claim a piece of the $38 million out-of-court
settlement, one of the largest related to price-fixing in Canadian
history according to an awareness campaign, consumers must fill
out a form on the Foam for Cash website and include a photo of the
product label or receipt.

Eligible consumers must live in Canada or have lived in Canada
between Jan. 1, 1999 and Jan. 10, 2012, and have bought a
qualifying item in Canada.

"Twenty dollars is kind of the standard claim. All you have to do
is indicate that you purchased one foam item in the appropriate
period," Heather Rumble Peterson, a partner at Strosberg Sasso
Sutts, told CTV Toronto. "There is a calculator on the website
that will help you determine whether or not you purchased enough
additional items that we will take you above a $20 compensation
file."

Strosberg Sasso Sutts is one of four law firms that prosecuted
class actions related to foam price fixing beginning in 2010.
Submitting a claim is free for both consumers and businesses until
the Feb. 6, 2018 deadline.

For consumers, members of the same family who live together must
pool their purchases into a single claim.

Manufacturers and resellers who purchased flexible polyurethane
foam made in Canada, or eligible products, during this period may
also be entitled to compensation.

The Foam for Cash campaign said the dollar amounts received will
depend on the volume and type of Canadian flexible polyurethane
foam, or eligible foam products purchased, as well as the volume
of claimants.

"We hope to have the cheques out by the end of 2018," Rumble
Peterson said. "The courts have to approve the payment out, and
eventually you will receive a cheque in the mail."

She said these types of large settlements are essential to
maintaining consumer confidence, and ensuring industry players act
with integrity.

"People expect a fair and honest marketplace, and that is what
these kinds of class actions that result in large settlements
ensure is happening," Rumble Peterson said. "This is your money."
[GN]


VECTREN CORP: Class Certification Bid & Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Class certification and final settlement approval in a class
action lawsuit remains pending, Vectren Corporation said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

A hearing on the class certification and settlement approval was
set for August 15, 2017.

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 Court preliminarily certified the Class and approved the
settlement, subject to: (1) providing notification to the Class
members, (2) providing Class members an opportunity to object
and/or opt out and (3) a full fairness hearing. Notice was
provided, the deadline for class members to object to the
settlement has passed with no objections. The deadline for class
members to opt out of the settlement expired July 31, 2017. The
Company is not aware of any opt outs. The Court has set the class
certification and final settlement approval hearing for August 15,
2017. The terms of the settlement in principle are not expected to
have a material impact on the Plan or the Company.

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. Utility Holdings'
consolidated operations are collectively referred to as the
Utility Group. Both Vectren and Utility Holdings are holding
companies as defined by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Vectren was
incorporated under the laws of Indiana on June 10, 1999.


VEIN CENTERS: Court Allows St. Louis Coverage Suit to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, issued Memorandum and Order granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Defendant St.
Louis Center, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
ST. LOUIS HEART CENTER, INC. and EIN CENTERS FOR EXCELLENCE, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:15CV1544 JCH (E.D. Mo.).

Defendant Vein Centers for Excellence, Inc., provided marketing
and graphic design for doctors providing varicose and spider vein
procedures.  Plaintiff American Family Mutual Insurance Company
issued a Business owners Policy to Vein Centers, policy number
24XG853004, with a policy period. American Family later renewed
the Business owners Policy to Vein Centers, with a policy period.

Vein Centers obtained new clients, i.e., doctors, by, among other
ways, sending faxes.  On or about December 23, 2011, St. Louis
Heart filed a Class Action Petition against Vein Centers in the
Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, asserting claims for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA")
(Count I), conversion for unsolicited faxing (Count II), and
violations of the Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act (Count III).  St. Louis Heart's action was removed
to federal court on January 31, 2012, and presently is pending as
St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Vein Centers for Excellence, Inc.,
Case No. 4:12CV174 CDP (the "Heart Center Action").  Vein Centers
tendered the Heart Center Action to American Family for defense
and indemnification, and American Family agreed to provide a
defense to Vein Centers subject to a reservation of rights.

American Family filed its Complaint in this matter on October 8,
2015.  In its Second Amended Complaint, filed November 14, 2016,
American Family seeks a declaration (i) that there is no coverage
under either the Businessowners Policies or the Umbrella Policies
for the damages sought in the Heart Center Action, and that
American Family has no duty to indemnify Vein Centers in the Heart
Center Action; (ii) that under both the Businessowners Policies
and the Umbrella Policies, American Family has no duty to defend
Vein Centers in the Heart Center Action; and (iii) that American
Family has no duty to pay St. Louis Heart or any other Plaintiff
in the Heart Center Action any amount under the Businessowners
Policies or the Umbrella Policies.

In its Motion for Summary Judgment, American Family asserts both
the Businessowners Policies and the Umbrella Policies specifically
exclude coverage for property damages and personal and advertising
injury arising directly or indirectly out of any action or
omission that violates or is alleged to violate the TCPA.

In response, St. Louis Heart posits two reasons why coverage is
nevertheless mandated.

In its Motion for Summary Judgment, St. Louis Heart first asserts
American Family has waived its coverage defenses by controlling
the defense of Vein Centers in the Heart Center Action without
disclosing conflicts of interest, or offering paid, independent
counsel.  In response, American Family contends it satisfied its
obligations under Missouri law, as Vein Centers was fully informed
of American Family's coverage position and accepted its defense
subject to a reservation of rights.

Under Missouri law, a reservation of rights' refers to an
insurer's offer to defend its insured but reserve the right to
later disclaim coverage. The insured may reject an insurer's offer
to defend with a reservation of rights, and if the insurer refuses
to withdraw the reservation of rights, the insured is then free to
hire independent counsel to defend the underlying suit and obtain
compensation from the insurer if the underlying suit later is held
to be covered by the policy.

Upon consideration of this, the Court finds that with its
reservation of rights correspondence, American Family satisfied
its obligations under Missouri law. American Family informed Vein
Centers of specific policy provisions that might preclude
coverage, and encouraged Vein Centers to consider employing its
own attorney to protect its interests.

Finally, while American Family stated that any attorney so
retained would be at Vein Centers' expense, such expense would
have been subject to reimbursement from American Family if the
underlying suit was found to be covered by the policy.

Failure To Provide Notice

Under Missouri law, there is a presumption that a letter duly
mailed has been received by the addressee. A letter is duly mailed
when it is placed in an envelope with the correct address of the
recipient, stamped with sufficient postage, and deposited in the
mail. When the customary volume of mail is large, so that direct
proof that a particular letter was mailed is not feasible,
evidence of the settled custom and usage of the sender in the
regular and systematic transaction of its business is sufficient
to give rise to the presumption of receipt by the addressee.
The presumption that a letter duly mailed has been received is
rebuttable, and when proof of proper mailing is adduced, it may be
rebutted by evidence it was not, in fact, received. Evidence of
non-receipt, however, does not nullify the presumption but leaves
the question for the determination of the jury under all of the
facts and circumstances of the case.

The Court finds St. Louis Heart fails to submit evidence
sufficient to overcome the presumption of delivery and receipt.
American Family presented testimony from its corporate
representative that in the regular course of its business,
American Family would have sent both the CSL and the PLC to Vein
Centers. St. Louis Heart offers no evidence, nor even allegation,
to rebut the presumption that Vein Centers in fact received the
CSL and PLC.

Instead, St. Louis Heart merely speculates that American Family's
normal business procedures were not followed in this case, and
such conjecture is insufficient to carry its burden. The
presumption that the Distribution of Material in Violation of
Statutes exclusion was mailed and received, and thus became a
valid part of the Business owners Policies, thus stands, and so
American Family's Motion for Summary Judgment on St. Louis Heart's
TCPA claims must be granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 14, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ya7w9jp9
from Leagle.com.

American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented
by Kenneth M. Lander, KORTENHOF AND ELY, Suite 500 1015 Locust
Street St. Louis, MO 63101-1333

American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented
by Anthony L. Martin -- amartin@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg
Phoenix & von Gontard P.C. & Stephen M. Murphy --
smurphy@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C.

St. Louis Heart Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Max
Oppenheim -- david@classlawyers.com -- BOCK AND HATCH, LLC, Max G.
Margulis, MARGULIS LAW GROUP, 28 Old Belle Monte Rd, Chesterfield,
MO 63017 & Jeffrey A. Berman -- jberman@andersonwanca.com --
ANDERSON AND WANCA.


VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: Golan Appeals Orders to Eighth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ron Golan and Dorit Golan filed an appeal from Court
orders dated August 14, 2017, and August 15, 2017, judgment dated
August 18, 2017, order dated September 7, 2017, amended judgment
dated September 11, 2017, and order dated October 4, 2017, entered
in their lawsuit styled Ron Golan, et al. v. Veritas Marketing
Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00069-ERW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge E.
Richard Webber (a) granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine; and (b) held in abeyance (i)
Defendant James R. Leininger's Motion in Limine to Preclude
Evidence or Argument Regarding His Counsel's Prior Representation
of Other Defendants, (ii) Defendant Leininger's Motion in Limine
to Preclude Evidence or Argument Regarding His Personal Monetary
Wealth, and (iii) denied as moot Defendant Leininger's Motion in
Limine to Preclude Plaintiffs' from Offering Party and Non-Party
Document Productions into Evidence.

The appellate case is captioned as Ron Golan, et al. v. Veritas
Marketing Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-3156, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Appendix is due on November 13, 2017;

   -- BRIEF OF APPELLANTS Dorit Golan and Ron Golan is due on
      November 13 2017;

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

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants Ron Golan and Dorit Golan, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Brian A. Abramson, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & KHERKHER
          8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite 600
          Houston, TX 77017
          Telephone: (713) 230-2200
          Facsimile: (713) 643-6226
          E-mail: babramson@williamskherkher.com

               - and -

          Kevin M. Carnie, Jr., Esq.
          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: kcarnie@simonlawpc.com
                  asimon@simonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Ronald J. Eisenberg, Esq.
          Robert Schultz, Esq.
          SCHULTZ & ASSOCIATES
          640 Cepi Drive, Suite A
          Chesterfield, MO 63005-1221
          Telephone: (636) 537-4645
          E-mail: reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com
                  rschultz@sl-lawyers.com

Defendants-Appellees Veritas Marketing Group, LLC, and Stephen
Wayne Griffin are represented by:

          Fredrick J. Ludwig, Esq.
          LUDWIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          9666 Olive Boulevard, Suite 690
          Saint Louis, MO 63132
          Telephone: (314) 203-0660
          E-mail: fredrick@ludwig.law

Defendants-Appellees FreeEats.com, Inc., doing business as CC
Advertising; AIC Communications, LLC, doing business as CC
Advertising; and Gabriel S. Joseph, III, are represented by:

          Teresa Michelle Young, Esq.
          BROWN AND JAMES, P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 421-3400
          E-mail: tyoung@bjpc.com

Defendant-Appellee Courage 2012, LLC, is represented by:

          Eric David Block, Esq.
          Patrick Thomas McLaughlin, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          1 N. Brentwood Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
          Telephone: (314) 863-7733
          Facsimile: (314) 862-4656
          E-mail: eblock@spencerfane.com
                  pmclaughlin@spencerfane.com

Defendant-Appellee James R. Leininger is represented by:

          Ronald Michael Jacobs, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          575 Seventh Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004-0000
          Telephone: (202) 344-8215
          E-mail: rmjacobs@venable.com

               - and -

          Ari Nicholas Rothman, Esq.
          Brian L. Schwalb, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          600 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 344-4000
          E-mail: anrothman@venable.com
                  blschwalb@venable.com

               - and -

          John W. Moticka, Esq.
          STINSON AND LEONARD LLP
          7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Saint Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863-0800
          Facsimile: (314) 259-4467
          E-mail: john.moticka@stinson.com


VERMEX PRODUCE: Produce Pay Sues over Unpaid Trust Beneficiaries
----------------------------------------------------------------
PRODUCE PAY, INC., the Plaintiff, v. VERMEX PRODUCE LLC, CATALINA
VILLARREAL, MARIA G. VILLARREAL, ARTURO VILLARREAL, JR., and DAVID
VILLARREAL, each individually, the Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-
00349 (S.D. Tex., Sep. 14, 2017), seeks entry of an Order
directing the Defendants to immediately turn over to the Registry
of the Court all assets impressed with the PACA trust for the
benefit of all unpaid trust beneficiaries such as the Plaintiff,
thereby creating a fund for the benefit of the trust
beneficiaries.

In March 2017, Plaintiff and Corsan Produce LLC entered into a
written agreement wherein Corsan agreed to sell, and Plaintiff
agreed to purchase, certain of its Produce related accounts
receivable. Pursuant to Plaintiff's agreement with Corsan, Corsan
sold, conveyed, voluntarily transferred, and assigned all or the
entirety of its right, title, and interest in and to its Produce
related accounts receivable, including any and all PACA trust
rights appurtenant thereto, if any, to Plaintiff.  On or about May
27, 2017, Plaintiff and Corsan notified Company of Corsan's
assignment of its Produce related accounts receivables to
Plaintiff and directed Company to make all checks payable to
"Produce Pay, Inc." and remit all payments to Plaintiff at 110 E.
9th Street, Suite C1029, Los Angeles, California 90079.  As a
direct result of the Company and its Principals' actions and
inactions, Plaintiff has incurred damages in an amount not less
than $132,622.06, plus further interest and contractually due
costs of collection, including attorneys' fees.

Defendants failed to ensure that Company's funds were freely
available to satisfy its outstanding obligations to Plaintiff or
other similarly situated Produce suppliers, the lawsuit says.

Vermex Produce LLC is in the Fruit and Vegetable Markets
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason R. Klinowski, Esq.
          WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF
          & BRANDT, LLC
          First Commercial Bank Building
          800 Shades Creek Parkway, Suite 300
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 874 0371
          Facsimile: (205) 874 3287
          E-mail: jklinowski@wallacejordan.com

               - and -

          Bruce W. Akerly, Esq.
          MALONE AKERLY MARTIN PLLC
          8750 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1850
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (214) 346 2636
          Facsimile: (214) 346 2631
          E-mail: bakerly@mamlaw.com


WCI COMMUNITIES: Putative Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
This Notice contains information regarding the dismissal of a
putative class action concerning the acquisition of WCI
Communities, Inc., and an agreement to pay attorneys' fees and
expenses to counsel for Plaintiff in that action.

The purpose of this notice is to inform former stockholders of WCI
Communities, Inc. ("WCI") about developments with respect to the
litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled Bushansky v.
WCI Communities, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 12947-CB (the "Delaware
Action").

On November 10, 2016, Lennar Corporation ("Lennar") filed a
Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
connection with the proposed acquisition of WCI by Lennar pursuant
to a definitive agreement and plan of merger filed with the SEC on
September 22, 2016 (the "Transaction").

On November 29, 2016, a purported WCI stockholder ("Plaintiff")
commenced the Delaware Action by filing a Verified Class Action
Complaint (the "Complaint") in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
alleging that WCI's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary
duties in connection with the Transaction, that WCI and Lennar
aided and abetted those alleged breaches, and that the disclosures
in the Registration Statement were deficient.  A purported WCI
stockholder also filed an action in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida styled Parshall v. WCI
Communities, Inc., et al., No. 16-846 (the "Federal Action") on
November 23, 2016, alleging, among other things, that the
Registration Statement omitted material information.  Defendants
denied any wrongdoing and any liability to plaintiffs in both the
Delaware Action and the Federal Action.

On December 13, 2016, Lennar filed Amendment No. 1 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-4/A with the SEC containing
certain supplemental disclosures (the "Supplemental Disclosures"),
which Plaintiff believes mooted the claims raised in the Delaware
Action regarding the sufficiency of the disclosures in the
Registration Statement.

On February 10, 2017, WCI stockholders voted to approve the
Transaction, which closed on February 10, 2017.

On March 22, 2017, the Federal Action was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice.

On May 8, 2017, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered a
Stipulated Order dismissing the Delaware Action with prejudice as
to Plaintiff, and without prejudice as to any other members of the
putative class, and retaining jurisdiction solely for the purpose
of determining Plaintiff's counsel's anticipated application for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses based
upon the alleged benefits provided by the Supplemental Disclosures
(the "Fee and Expense Application").

After negotiations, WCI and the plaintiffs have agreed to resolve
the Fee and Expense Application and an anticipated fee and expense
application in the Federal Action with a payment by WCI of
$100,000 to counsel for plaintiffs in the Delaware Action and the
Federal Action in attorneys' fees (inclusive of expenses).  The
Delaware Court of Chancery has not been asked to review, and will
pass no judgment on, this payment of fees and expenses or its
reasonableness.

Attorneys for Plaintiff and WCI may be contacted at the following
addresses:

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     Weisslaw LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Tel No: (212) 682-3025
     E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com


Attorney for Plaintiff

         Deborah S. Birnbach, Esq.
         Goodwin Procter LLP
         100 Northern Avenue
         Boston, MA 02210
         Tel No. (617) 570-1000
         E-mail: dbirnbach@goodwinlaw.com [GN]


WELLS FARGO: More Small Businesses Join Federal Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Stoogenke, writing for WSOCTV, reports that more small
businesses are latching on to the potential federal class action
against embattled Wells Fargo.

Business owners said the bank lied to them when it came to credit
cards. They said Wells Fargo charged them hidden and excessive
fees to process credit card transactions. They also accuse the
bank of instilling hefty penalties if they took their business
elsewhere.

In August, a Charlotte tour group, Queen City Tours, was one of
the first two businesses in the country to sue Wells Fargo over
this credit card controversy.  A Pennsylvania restaurant, Patti's
Pitas, was the other.

Action 9 investigator Jason Stoogenke found four more companies
are plaintiffs in the lawsuit: a California dentist, a California
manufacturer, a Texas cafe and a Colorado chiropractor.

Thomas Chapman, owner of TJ's Quality RV Storage in Concord, said
his company is not one of the ones suing Wells Fargo, but he
accuses the bank of the same things as the businesses which are
suing.

He said the bank was supposed to charge him less than 3 percent
when his customers paid by credit card, but charged him 4.75
percent and more than 5 percent instead.

Chapman dropped the bank and said it tried to charge him a $500
early termination fee.

Chapman said he didn't see that coming and complained. He said the
bank waived the fee, but still expects him to keep paying for the
credit card equipment, which is more than $70 per month.

Chapman said he still has roughly 30 months left on that lease and
said Wells Fargo has not waived that.

"I feel betrayed, I feel lied to, totally," Chapman said. "I feel
like my bank robbed me."

Wells Fargo officials said the bank's original statement still
applies from when the lawsuit was filed.

Officials said, "We believe our negotiated pricing terms are fair
and were administered appropriately. We deny these claims and
intend to defend against the lawsuit."

As for Chapman, the bank said, "We are currently looking into this
individual merchant complaint and cannot disclose details per
customer confidentiality."

This is the latest controversy for Wells Fargo.

First, there was the fake account scandal. Then, bank officials
admitted signing customers up for auto insurance they didn't want
or need. There have also been allegations involving gap insurance.
Finally, there are these allegations involving credit card
processing for businesses. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: HOLA Preempted Claims, 9th Cir. Rules
--------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming in part, vacating in part District Court's Order
granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the appeals
cases captioned CAMPIDOGLIO LLC; CARMEN LLC; SAN MARCO LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY,
Defendant, and WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-
Appellant, Nos. 14-35898, 14-36091 (9th Cir.).

The appeals present four issues for review:

   First, the Ninth Circuit is called upon to determine whether
the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) pre-empts the Borrowers' Interest
Rate Calculation breach of contract claim, which arises under
Washington law.

   Second, the Ninth Circuit addresses whether the district court
erred in granting summary judgment in Wells Fargo's favor on the
Borrowers' Use of Unapproved Indexe breach of contract claim, and
the other claims related to this alleged conduct by the Lenders.

   Third, the district court's denial of the Borrowers' motion for
discovery sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37.

   Fourth, the district court's denial of attorneys' fees.

The Borrowers filed a putative class action in Washington state
court in May 2012, alleging four separate claims for breach of
contract, a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, violations of the Washington Consumer Protection
Act (WCPA), and unjust enrichment. The breach of contract claims
are based on the Lenders' allegedly improper Interest Rate
Calculation, Substitution of Indexes, Transparency of Calculation,
and Use of Unapproved Indexes.

The district court found that HOLA preempted a number of the
Borrowers' breach of contract claims and dismissed them pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On appeal, the
Borrowers contend that the district court erred in dismissing one
claim: their Interest Rate Calculation claim, which alleged that
the Lenders breached their contractual obligation to apply the
Index the Notes said they would apply.

The Ninth Circuit found that Washington's common law of contracts,
under which the Borrowers assert their breach of contract claim,
is not the type of law listed in paragraph (b) of the regulation.
To the contrary, Washington contract law, as alleged in the
Borrowers' complaint, imposes no requirements on Wells Fargo
regarding banking regulations. While the Borrowers' breach of
contract claim undoubtedly relates to terms of credit, it is the
parties' own agreement, rather than Washington state law, that
imposes any requirements on Wells Fargo regarding these terms.
Cipollone v. Ligegett Grp., Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 525, held that an
express warranty was not a requirement imposed under State law
because the obligation was imposed by the warrantor. Wells Fargo
cannot be excused from an alleged failure to comply with its
contractual obligations simply because those obligations relate to
the subject matter contained in paragraph (b) of the regulation.

The plaintiffs further alleged that the false statement was made
in [the defendant's] website and its customer disclosures and thus
constituted false advertising. The plaintiffs' unfair competition
claim was based on allegations that the lock-in policy itself
violated UCL Section 17200 as an unlawful business act, and that
the defendant's practice of misrepresenting consumers' legal
rights in advertisements and other documents was unfair,
deceptive, and contrary to the policy of California. The Ninth
Circuit found that sections 17200 and 17500, as applied to the
plaintiffs' claims, imposed requirements regarding disclosure and
advertising as well as loan-related fees on a federal savings
association. Because these matters came clearly within paragraph
(b) of 12 C.F.R. Section 560.2.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that HOLA pre-empted the plaintiffs'
claims.  The Ninth Circuit therefore vacate the district court's
order dismissing the "Interest Rate Calculation" breach of
contract claim and remand for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.

The inquiry is whether the OTS approved this proposed Index
substitution. The undisputed facts establish that OTS did not
object to Wachovia's use of the Wachovia COSI as the Index on
existing loans. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit found that, as a
matter of law, Wachovia received approval from its primary
regulator. The regulations provide that OTS is deemed to have
approved the proposed substitution thirty days after the savings
association gives notice unless, within that 30-day period, OTS
has notified the association that the notice presents supervisory
concerns or raises significant issues of law or policy. 12 C.F.R.
Section 560.35(d)(3).

The parties argue at length about the import of conversations
between Wachovia's representatives and OTS officials and the
meaning of the OTS's January 2007 response to Wachovia. But
nothing in the record indicates, and no party contends, that the
OTS raised any supervisory concerns or significant issues of law
or policy to Wachovia's December 2006 notice. The Ninth Circuit
therefore need not resolve whether the OTS affirmatively approved
the proposed substitution; the undisputed facts show that the OTS
did not object to it.

Accordingly, Wachovia could use the Wachovia COSI as the Index.

The Ninth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court's grant of
summary judgment in Wells Fargo's favor on the Borrowers' Use of
Unapproved Indexes claim.

Rule 37 provides parties with a mechanism for seeking sanctions
against another party for failure to comply with a court order.

Here, the Borrowers filed their Rule 37 motion because Wells
Fargo, asserting the attorney-client privilege, refused to produce
documents in response to a court order. The Borrowers argued that
Wells Fargo's attorney-client privilege designations were
overbroad, and thus the documents were improperly withheld from
production.

Perhaps the district court erred in finding that the OCC waived
the bank examination privilege for only thirteen documents, and
thus erroneously concluded that seven of the twenty designated
documents remained subject to the bank examination privilege.5
Moreover, if Wells Fargo incorrectly designated documents within
the twenty-document sample as privileged, it is not irrational to
infer that Wells Fargo also incorrectly designated as privileged
other documents within the larger group of 4,636 documents
withheld from production.

But because the language of Wachovia's December 2006 letter
establishes, as a matter of law, that Wachovia notified the OTS
that it would substitute the Wachovia COSI as the Index for
existing loans, the suggested "inference" does nothing to aid the
Borrowers. Whatever Wachovia's internal communications might show,
they would not, and could not, change the December 2006 letter's
language. Thus, even assuming the district court erred in defining
the scope of the bank examination privilege, and assuming that the
seven documents at issue were not actually subject to the bank
examination privilege as asserted by the OCC in this case, the
Borrowers have failed to demonstrate that the district court's
refusal to compel production of the additional documents
prejudiced them.

The Ninth Circuit thus affirmed the district court's denial of the
Borrowers' Rule 37 motion.

Applying Washington law, the district court determined that Wells
Fargo's defense of this action did not constitute the enforcement
or collection of the Notes. Although we question this
interpretation, the Ninth Circuit said it need not reach the
merits of Wells Fargo's appeal. Rather, because it determined that
the district court erred in dismissing the Borrowers' breach of
contract claim as pre-empted by HOLA, and thus vacate the district
court's entry of final judgment in Wells Fargo's favor, the Ninth
Circuit likewise vacated its order on attorneys' fees. This order
is vacated without prejudice to the district court's consideration
of the prevailing party's entitlement to fees after entry of a new
judgment.

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order dismissing,
as pre-empted by HOLA, the Borrowers' claim that the Lenders
breached their contracts by using Indexes other than those
actually approved by their primary regulator to calculate the
Borrowers' interest rates, the Interest Rate Calculation breach of
contract claim.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary
judgment in Wells Fargo's favor on the Borrowers' claims premised
on the Lenders' alleged failure to obtain approval from their
primary regulators to substitute the COSIs as the Index (the Use
of Unapproved Indexes breach of contract claim). The Ninth Circuit
further affirmed the district court's denial of the Borrowers'
Rule 37 discovery motion. Finally, the Ninth Circuit vacated
without prejudice the district court's order denying Wells Fargo's
motion for attorneys' fees.
A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's September 12, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycjyeah6from Leagle.com.

Benjamin Gould (argued), Ryan McDevitt --
rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com -- Raymond J. Farrow-
rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com -- and Mark A. Griffin --
mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Seattle,
Washington, for Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Robert Collings Little (argued), Robin C. Campbell --
rcampbell@afrct.com -- Mark T. Flewelling -- mflewelling@afrct.com
-- and Leigh O. Curran -- lcurran@afrct.com -- Anglin Flewelling
Rasmussen Campbell & Trytten LLP, Pasadena, California, for
Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.


WEST VIRGINIA: Claims Filing Begins in Water Crisis Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ward Jr., writing for Gazette-Mail, reports that thousands of
Kanawha Valley residents, businesses and workers now can file
claims to receive their share of the $151 million settlement of
the class-action lawsuit over the January 2014 water crisis.

This week, tens of thousands of notices about the settlement went
out in the mail, along with separate notices that were emailed to
a list of West Virginia American Water Co. customers.

Notices sent by mail include the simple claim form that most
residents can use to file their claims. Claims can also be filed
online and paper copies of claim forms downloaded from the
settlement website, https://www.wvwaterclaims.com/. More
information is available by calling 1-855-829-8121 or reading the
"Frequently Asked Questions" list on the website.

Deadline for filing claims is Feb. 21, 2018, under an order issued
by U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver Jr., who is overseeing the
case.

"This is the only way to make sure you get any money from the
settlement," the notice mailed out says in encouraging claims to
be filed.

Under the settlement, residential households -- including
homeowners and renters -- can file a simple claim form and obtain
$550 for the first resident and $180 for each additional resident.
Residents also may file more detailed information about their
losses -- for things such as bottled water or replacement
appliances -- if they provide proof of those expenditures on a
separate type of claim form.

Businesses and nonprofit organizations can likewise obtain flat
payments, based on their size, or can submit documentation of
specific losses to have those recouped.

The settlement also provides additional payments to women who were
pregnant at the time of the chemical spill that sparked the water
crisis, residents who had medical expenses and hourly-wage earners
who lost money when businesses they worked in closed during the
crisis. Government agencies also are eligible to submit claims.

Residents, businesses and others don't have to have previously
hired a lawyer or signed up for a lawsuit to be eligible, but they
do have to file claims.

Anyone who falls within the definition of the "class" covered by
the settlement can file a claim for compensation. The class
covered by the case includes 224,000 residents and 7,300
businesses. It includes basically any business or resident who
received tap water from the Elk River intake plant and any hourly-
wage earner whose employer closed because of the spill and
resulting water system contamination.

In the case, lawyers for residents and businesses had alleged that
West Virginia American did not adequately prepare for or respond
to the spill and that MCHM-maker Eastman did not properly warn
Freedom of the dangers of its chemical or take any action when
Eastman officials learned that the Freedom facility was in
disrepair. West Virginia American and Eastman continue to deny any
liability. They say the blame for the crisis rests with Freedom
Industries, which admitted to criminal pollution violations
related to the spill.

Distribution of the settlement funds will not start until the
settlement receives final approval from Copenhaver, following a
hearing scheduled for Jan. 9, and until after the Feb. 21 deadline
for filing claims.

Members of the class have the right to "opt-out" of the settlement
or to object to certain terms of the deal. The deadline for opting
out or filing objections is Dec. 8. Class members also may ask for
permission to speak during the Jan. 9 hearing on the settlement.
[GN]


WESTPAC BANKING: $100MM Class Action Filed for Overcharging
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sean Thompson, writing for 9News, reports that a $100 million
class action has been filed against Westpac Banking Corporation
over claims it overcharged customers for life insurance.

Shine Lawyers filed the action in Federal Court on October 12,
alleging the bank took advantage of its customers through
referrals to Westpac financial planners who would then sign them
up for more expensive life insurance products.

The bank and its subsidiaries St George, Bank of Melbourne and
Bank of SA are accused of charging customers 4.5 percent more for
Westpac life insurance packages than they would have been charged
if the insurance was obtained elsewhere.

Customers who received financial advice and obtained life
insurance from a Westpac financial planner from 2010 onwards may
be entitled to join the class action if they took that advice and
then obtained a policy through them.

Shine Lawyers Class Actions Special Counsel Jan Saddler, Esq. said
the extra charges could impact tens of thousands of customers.

"We believe that Westpac took advantage of its relationships with
customers to boost its bottom line, by signing clients up to their
own in-house insurance which they knew was more expensive," she
said.

"The bank and its financial planners have an obligation to act in
the best interests of their clients. In this case Westpac has
abused its powers and the trust of its customers."

"This action is about accountability and ensuring customers who
have been duped have the opportunity to stand up and demand more
from an institution they entrusted to act in their interests."

Financial planning and insurance industry specialist Brian Boggs
said Westpac's conduct was not surprising given the behaviour he
had seen from some of Australia's biggest banks.

"It is common knowledge that the big banks try to sell their in-
house life product even though there are dozens of other life
insurers charging far lower premiums," said Mr Boggs.

"Based on over 500,000 quotes analysed by Lifecompare, it seems
that big bank cover averages 26.8 per cent more than the cheapest
product in each category," he said. "The alleged Westpac
overcharge may even go beyond this."

Westpac has been contacted for comment. [GN]


WILLIS TOWERS: Settlement of Troice and Janvey Actions Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The court has reserved judgment on the settlement of the Troice
and Janvey actions, Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 15 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker
of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these
actions generally allege that the defendants actively and
materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford
with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be
used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford
client investors. The complaints further allege that these
letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance
policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained
untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this
manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent
certificates of deposit.

The 15 actions are as follows:

* Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate,
among others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative
Third Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of
a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis
Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory
and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion,
punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint,
arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA').
On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related
actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order
providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the
Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate
Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N ('Roland'). On August 31, 2011,
the court issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action
with prejudice under SLUSA.

On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing
without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011,
the court entered a final judgment in the action.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,
et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,
which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland
decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of
briefing and oral argument. Following the completion of briefing
and oral argument, on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed
and remanded the actions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants-
appellees filed petitions for rehearing en banc. On April 19,
2012, the petitions for rehearing en banc were denied. On July 18,
2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's
reversal in Troice. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted
our petition. Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the
Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 7, 2013. On February
26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision.
On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to
Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f)
Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated
to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes
under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March
28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs'
request to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss,
but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order;
(b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all
parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties
submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting
a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, which schedule, among other things,
provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on April 20, 2015.

On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, the defendants filed their opposition to
plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in
further support of the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation
also filed with the court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on
June 4, 2015 filed sur-replies in further opposition to the
motion. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion.

On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On
November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion.
On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle.

* Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-22085, was
filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and
Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of
a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford
investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida
statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be
determined at trial. On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred,
for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related
actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML').
The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni.
On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action without prejudice.

* Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in
the Northern District of Texas. The complaint was filed
individually and on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan
Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas statutory and
common law and sought damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On December 18, 2009, the
parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of
those actions (under the Troice civil action number), and, on
December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of
dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice.

* Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was
filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and
the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court
(Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities
Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law
and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than
$300 million, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 20, 2009,
certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i)
removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination
by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions. On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a
final transfer order for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern
District of Texas. On January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert
to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until
further order of the court. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to lift the stay, which motion was denied by the
court on September 16, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs
appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 5,
2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in
the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action discussed below,
and the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as of March 24,
2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on
September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit
affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint
in Rupert.

* Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of seven
Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate,
among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The
complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and
seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs. On February 13, 2015, the parties filed
an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they
agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion
to dismiss decisions in the Troice action discussed above and the
Janvey action discussed below. Also on February 13, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the complaint
in the Casanova action. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings
plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion.

* Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585, was
filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors,
individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million
and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 11, 2011, certain
defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed
Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML
of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the
action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should
be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On August
8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer
of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it is
currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined with
the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift the
court's stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the court
remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed
the action until further order of the court and denied the
plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay. On October 10, 2014, the
plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the
stay to the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit
consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rupert action, and
the consolidated appeal was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015.
Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2,
2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague.

* MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed on
February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately
$4 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 29, 2013,
Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. (i) removed
MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of
Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to
stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether
it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for
consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related
actions. Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur
in the Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the
Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with
the other Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the
parties stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris
County)) and stay of MacArthur until further order of the court
(in accordance with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in
Rishmague (discussed above)), which stipulation was 'so ordered'
by the court on October 14, 2014. The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint in MacArthur.

* Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of
Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) alleging
violations of Florida common law. The five suits are: (1) Barbar,
et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al.,
Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors
seeking compensatory damages in excess of $30 million; (2) de
Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64
Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $83.5
million; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of
two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
$3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of
11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
$6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings
Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on
behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in
excess of $12.5 million. On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc.
removed all five cases to the Southern District of Florida and, on
June 4, 2013, notified the JPML of the pendency of these related
actions. On June 10, 2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order
sua sponte staying and administratively closing that action
pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be
transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
and coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On June
11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other four
actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20, 2013,
the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer of
the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the
transmittal of which was stayed for 7 days to allow for any
opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition
having been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer
to go forward.

On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria.
On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively,
remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County)
and stayed both actions until further order of the court. On
January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and
Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and
March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015
and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or
Barbar.

On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 15,
2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its
entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21, 2015,
the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de Gadala-
Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On
August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other
things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a
defendant). On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaints. The motions await disposition by
the court.

* Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern
District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and
the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S.
Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the
Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors
Committee (the 'OSIC') against all defendants and (ii) on behalf
of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against
Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege
claims under Texas common law and the court's Amended Order
Appointing Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege
claims under Texas statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek
actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and
costs. As alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of
collective losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford
certificates of deposit is approximately $4.6 billion.
On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative
First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants
unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which
motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc's
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted
in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014. On
December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's
December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth
Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend
and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5
order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First
Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's
motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an
interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015,
the court granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent
necessary, reconsider the December 5 order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to
the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28,
2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule
for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided
for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on July 20, 2015. By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties
requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered
in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification
submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015,
the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in
Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission
date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20,
2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey
scheduling order.

On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle.

* Martin v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 201652115,
was filed on August 5, 2016, on behalf of one Stanford investor
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate in Texas state court
(Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas
statutory and common law and seeks actual damages of less than
$100,000, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On
September 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which added five more Stanford investors as plaintiffs and seeks
damages in excess of $1 million. The defendants have not yet
responded to the amended complaint in Martin.

* Abel, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:16-
cv-2601, was filed on September 12, 2016, on behalf of more than
300 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate,
also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges
claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual
damages in excess of $135 million, exemplary damages, attorneys'
fees and costs. On November 10, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, which, among other things, added several more
Stanford investors as plaintiffs. The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint in Abel.

The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions above
seek overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a
portion of the total alleged collective losses incurred by
investors in Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the
fact that Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a
portion of time that Stanford issued certificates of deposit. In
the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a $70 million
litigation provision for loss contingencies relating to the
Stanford matters based on its ongoing review of a variety of
factors as required by accounting standards.
On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle for $120 million relating to this litigation, and
increased its provisions by $50 million during that quarter.

The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including
court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any
continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford,
which may not be given. Therefore, the ultimate resolution of
these matters may differ from the amount provided for. The Company
continues to dispute the allegations and, to the extent litigation
proceeds, to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

                            Settlement

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term Sheet, relating to
the Stanford litigation matter. The Company agreed to the
Settlement Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction, burden,
expense and uncertainty of further litigation. In particular, if
the settlement and the related bar orders described below are
approved by the Court and become effective, the Company (a newly-
combined firm) would be able to conduct itself with the bar
orders' protection from the continued overhang of matters alleged
to have occurred approximately a decade ago. Further, the
Settlement Term Sheet provided that the parties understood and
agreed that there is no admission of liability or wrongdoing by
the Company. The Company expressly denies any liability or
wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the Stanford
litigation.

On or about August 31, 2016, the parties to the settlement signed
a formal Settlement Agreement memorializing the terms of the
settlement as originally set forth in the Settlement Term Sheet.
The parties to the Settlement Agreement are Ralph S. Janvey (in
his capacity as the Court-appointed receiver (the 'Receiver') for
The Stanford Financial Group and its affiliated entities in
receivership (collectively, 'Stanford')), the Official Stanford
Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha Diaz, Paula Gilly-
Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel Canabal, Daniel Gomez
Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A. (collectively,
'Plaintiffs'), on the one hand, and Willis Towers Watson Public
Limited Company (formerly Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company), Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and the Willis associate referenced above
(collectively, 'Defendants'), on the other hand. Under the terms
of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to settle and
dismiss the Janvey and Troice actions (collectively, the
'Actions') and all current or future claims arising from or
related to Stanford. If the settlement, including the bar orders
described below, is approved by the Court and is not subject to
further appeal, Willis North America Inc. will make a one-time
cash payment of $120 million to the Receiver to be distributed to
all Stanford investors who have claims recognized by the Receiver
pursuant to the distribution plan in place at the time the payment
is made.

The Settlement Agreement also provides the parties' agreement to
seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or
future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties
of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not.
The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all Stanford-
related litigation, and not just the Actions, but including any
pending matters and any actions that may be brought in the future.
Final Court approval of these bar orders is a condition of the
settlement.

On September 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed with the Court a motion to
approve the settlement. On October 19, 2016, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement. Several of the plaintiffs
in the other actions above have objected to the settlement. A
hearing to consider final approval of the settlement was held on
January 20, 2017, and the Court reserved decision. The Actions are
stayed pending final approval of the settlement. The timing of any
final decision is subject to the discretion of the Court and any
appeal, and the Court may decide not to approve the settlement.

Willis Towers Watson plc was formed upon completion of the Merger
on January 4, 2016, between Willis and Towers Watson.  Willis
Towers Watson is a global advisory, broking and solutions company
that helps clients around the world turn risk into a path for
growth. The Company has more than 41,000 employees and services
clients in more than 140 countries and territories.


XEROX CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
remains pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017.

On Oct. 13, documents in support of the Motion to Dismiss were
filed in the case, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System v. Xerox Corporation, Ursula M. Burns, Luca Maestri,
Kathryn A. Mikells, Lynn R. Blodgett, Robert K. Zapfel, David H.
Bywater and Mary Scanlon:

     -- Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss,
        filed by Lynn R. Blodgett, Ursula M. Burns, David H.
        Bywater, Luca Maestri, Kathryn A. Mikells, Mary Scanlon,
        Xerox Corporation; and

     -- Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss
        the Amended Complaint, filed by Robert K. Zapfel.

On October 21, 2016, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System ("plaintiff") filed a purported securities class
action complaint against Xerox Corporation, Ursula Burns, Luca
Maestri, Kathryn Mikells, Lynn Blodgett and Robert Zapfel
(collectively, "defendants") in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of the plaintiff and
certain purchasers or acquirers of Xerox common stock. The
complaint alleged that defendants made false and misleading
statements, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, relating to the
operations and prospects of Xerox's Health Enterprise business.
Plaintiff sought, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and attorneys' fees. Other, similar lawsuits may follow.

On December 28, 2016, the Court entered a stipulated order setting
out a schedule for amendment of the complaint and for defendants'
response to that complaint following the Court's appointment of
lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On February 28, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order
appointing the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System
("APERS") as lead plaintiff. On May 1, 2017, APERS filed an
amended complaint, alleging substantially similar claims and
seeking substantially similar relief, but adding David Bywater and
Mary Scanlon as defendants.

On June 30, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. Xerox will vigorously defend against this matter. At
this time, it is premature to make any conclusion regarding the
probability of incurring material losses in this litigation.
Should developments cause a change in our determination as to an
unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment or
settlement, there could be a material adverse effect on our
results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the
period in which such change in determination, judgment, or
settlement occurs.


XPO LOGISTICS: "Cortez" Suit in Initial Pleading Stage
------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the case, M. Cortez v. Pacer, is in the
initial pleading stage.

There are putative class action litigation matters pending against
the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries in which the
plaintiffs claim they should have been classified as employees,
rather than independent contractors, and seek damages for alleged
violations of various California wage and hour laws. The
particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the claims
generally allege unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, or failure to
provide meal and rest periods, and seek reimbursement of the
contract carriers' business expenses. However, these claims are
all subject to arbitration provisions in the claimants'
independent contractor agreements, and class action certification
is therefore unlikely.

These cases include the following matters filed in the Superior
Court for the State of California, Los Angeles District: M. Cortez
v. Pacer filed in June 2016; and the following case filed in U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California: I.
Hernandez v. Pacer filed in May 2016.

One of these cases, Cortez, has filed a California Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") claim, which is not subject to
arbitration and therefore is subject to PAGA class action
procedures.  However, this matter is in the initial pleading stage
and the court has not yet determined whether to certify the PAGA
claim to proceed.

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the
potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and
reasonably estimable relating to these claims. The Company is
unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it
may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons,
that the number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are
uncertain and the range of potential loss could be impacted
substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including
on the merits of the claims.

XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company")
use an integrated network of people, technology and physical
assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently
throughout their supply chains.


XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against Last
Mile Logistics Classification Claims.

Certain of the Company's last mile logistics subsidiaries are
party to several putative class action litigations brought by
independent contract carriers who contracted with these
subsidiaries in which the contract carriers assert that they
should be classified as employees, rather than independent
contractors. The particular claims asserted vary from case to
case, but the claims generally allege unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime, or failure to provide meal and rest periods, and seek
reimbursement of the contract carriers' business expenses.

Putative class actions against the Company's subsidiaries are
pending in California (Fernando Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp.,
filed in May 2005 in the Federal District Court, Southern District
of California -- the Company has reached an agreement to settle
this litigation, which is waiting for Court approval; Ron Carter,
Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald and Joel
Morales v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in March 2016 in the Federal
District Court, Northern District of California; Ramon Garcia v.
Macy's and XPO Logistics Inc., filed in July 2016 in Superior
Court of the State of California, Alameda County; and Kevin Kramer
v. XPO Logistics Inc., filed in September 2016 in Superior Court
of the State of California, Alameda County); New Jersey (Leonardo
Alegre v. Atlantic Central Logistics, Simply Logistics, Inc.,
filed in March 2015 in the Federal District Court, New Jersey --
the Company has reached an agreement to settle this litigation,
which is waiting for Court approval); and Connecticut (Carlos
Taveras v. XPO Last Mile, Inc., filed in November 2015 in the
Federal District Court, Connecticut -- the Company has reached an
agreement to settle this litigation, which is waiting for Court
approval).

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the
potential impact of loss contingencies relating to the foregoing
claims that are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company is
unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it
may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons,
that the number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are
uncertain and the range of potential loss could be impacted
substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including
on the merits of the claims.

XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company")
use an integrated network of people, technology and physical
assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently
throughout their supply chains.


XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile TCPA Claims Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the case, Leung v. XPO Logistics, Inc., is in
the initial pleading stage.

The Company is a party to a putative class action litigation
(Leung v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in May 2015 in the U.S.
District Court, Illinois) alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") related to an automated customer
call system used by a last mile logistics business that the
Company acquired. This matter is in the initial pleading stage and
the court has not yet determined whether to certify the matter as
a class action.

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the
potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and
reasonably estimable relating to this matter. The Company is
unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it
may incur as a result of this matter given, among other reasons,
that the Company is vigorously defending the matter and believes
that it has a number of meritorious legal defenses and that it
remains uncertain what evidence of their claims and damages, if
any, plaintiffs will be able to present.

XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company")
use an integrated network of people, technology and physical
assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently
throughout their supply chains.


XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement of Meal Break Case Has No Opposition
--------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that no interested parties have timely filed
objections to the proposed settlement of the Less-Than-Truckload
Meal Break Claims class action.

The Company's LTL subsidiary is a party to several class action
litigations alleging violations of the state of California's wage
and hour laws with respect to its driver employees. Plaintiffs
allege failure to provide drivers with required meal breaks and
rest breaks. Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary
damages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees.

The primary case is Jose Alberto Fonseca Pina, et al. v. Con-way
Freight Inc., et al. (the "Pina case"). The Pina case was
initially filed in November 2009 in Monterey County Superior Court
and was removed to the U.S. District Court of California, Northern
District.

The Company has reached an agreement to settle the Pina case,
which has been tentatively approved by the court, and no
interested parties have timely filed objections to the proposed
settlement. The Company has accrued the full amount of the
proposed settlement.

XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company")
use an integrated network of people, technology and physical
assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently
throughout their supply chains.


YUSEN LOGISTICS: Atty's Contingency Fee Agreement Claims Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and denying
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
RODRIGUEZ O'DONNELL GONZALEZ & WILLIAMS, P.C. f/k/a RODRIGUEZ
O'DONNELL ROSS, Plaintiff, v. YUSEN LOGISTICS (AMERICAS) INC.
f/k/a YUSEN AIR & SEA SERVICE (U.S.A. INCORPORATED, Defendant. and
YUSEN LOGISTICS (AMERICAS) INC. f/k/a YUSEN AIR & SEA SERVICE
(U.S.A. INCORPORATED, Counter-Plaintiff, v. RODRIGUEZ O'DONNELL
GONZALEZ & WILLIAMS, P.C. f/k/a RODRIGUEZ O'DONNELL ROSS, THOMAS
J. O'DONNELL, R. KEVIN WILLIAMS, CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, and HENRY
GONZALEZ, Counter-Defendants, No. 15 CV 3030 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff and counter-defendant, Rodriguez O'Donnell Gonzalez &
Williams, P.C., and defendant and counter-plaintiff, Yusen
Logistics, entered into a contingency fee agreement that governed
ROGW's representation of Yusen as a claimant against settlement
funds, which arose from a multidistrict civil antitrust class
action. Seven years after signing the agreement, Yusen terminated
ROGW.

Yusen continued to receive payments from the settlement funds
after it fired ROGW, which prompted ROGW to file this action to
recover its contingency fee from the later-received payments.
Yusen counterclaimed against the firm and its lawyers, Thomas J.
O'Donnell, R. Kevin Williams, Carlos Rodriguez, and Henry
Gonzalez, seeking disgorgement of the fees it had already paid
ROGW on the basis of breach of fiduciary duty.

Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On cross-motions for
summary judgment, a court must draw inferences in favor of the
party against whom the motion under consideration was made.

Timeliness of Yusen's Counterclaim

Yusen's counterclaim alleges that ROGW breached its fiduciary duty
to Yusen by collecting an excessive fee. Yusen's theory of the
case is that the contingency fee agreement described a broad range
of legal tasks that ROGW would perform for Yusen in the antitrust
litigation, but that ROGW only performed perfunctory work to
submit claims against the settlement funds, and that as a result,
taking twenty-five percent of the moneys Yusen recovered is
excessive.

A plaintiff must bring an action against an attorney that arises
out of an act or omission in the performance of professional
services within two years from the time the plaintiff knew or
reasonably should have known of the injury.

A cause of action accrues when the facts that authorize bringing
the cause of action exist. Henderson Square Based on the
undisputed record, Yusen had knowledge of facts that support its
theory by March 2012. First, Yusen knew that it would have to pay
ROGW twenty-five percent of its recovery in the antitrust
litigation as early as November 3, 2007, when it executed the
contingency fee agreement. Yusen reaffirmed the contingency fee
agreement at least twice during its attorney-client relationship
with ROGW.

Yusen argues that its counterclaim is not barred under 735 ILCS
5/13-207. Section 13-207 saves counterclaims from being time-
barred if the primary cause of action, to which the counterclaim
responds, commences before the counterclaim would have become
time-barred.  In this case, Yusen's counterclaim became time-
barred as of March 20, 2014, which was before ROGW filed its
complaint, the primary cause of action in DuPage County on March
6, 2015. Thus, Section 13-207 cannot save Yusen's counterclaim.
The counterclaim is barred by the statute of limitations.
The parties have fully briefed the merits of the counterclaim, and
I address them in the interests of completeness.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Presumption of Undue Influence

Yusen argues that the presumption of undue influence applies since
it had ROGW on retainer for almost a decade before it signed the
contingency fee agreement. When a previously retained attorney
enters into a transaction with a client, it is presumed that the
attorney exercised undue influence.

ROGW did not advise Yusen to review the contingency fee agreement
with independent counsel, but Yusen received hundreds of
solicitations from other firms to represent Yusen on a contingency
fee basis in submitting claims against the settlement funds, which
gave Yusen some indication that it had options beyond ROGW in
pursuing its legal rights in the antitrust litigation. The absence
of evidence of independent counsel, compared to the evidence that
Yusen considered the agreement before signing it and that Yusen
reportedly understood it before signing it, is not enough to
warrant the presumption here. ROGW provided clear and convincing
and, most importantly at summary judgment, undisputed evidence
that Yusen was not unduly influenced when it signed the
contingency fee agreement.

Collection of an Excessive Fee

Yusen maintains that ROGW breached its fiduciary duty to not
collect an excessive fee. The reasonableness of a contingency fee
agreement is always subject to court supervision.

The record does not show that ROGW only (or mostly) performed
administrative work; it shows that ROGW did work that Yusen could
not have done itself, such as consulting with class counsel
regarding claim submission requirements and facilitating Yusen's
recovery against several settlement funds through submissions of
claim forms. That the claims administrator decided to rely on data
from Settlement 2 to determine Yusen's recovery for future
settlements was not known to ROGW until 2012; thus, the fact that
ROGW only had to perform new work in the first two settlement
funds in order for Yusen to recover was out of ROGW's control.
Finally, to the same extent that ROGW overstates its contribution
to the resolution of the affiliate issue, Yusen understates it.
The record shows that Yusen wanted to return the moneys it had
recovered from the Lufthansa Settlement and seek the court's
guidance in the antitrust litigation. ROGW complied with its
client's request by returning the money and seeking the court's
guidance. In so doing, and with Yusen's permission, ROGW made the
case for Yusen's entitlement to recover from the funds. ROGW
raised an alternative argument about Yusen recovering on a pro
rata basis; ROGW did not support that argument with a citation to
a legal authority.

In turn, class counsel provided supportive authority for ROGW's
alternative argument and the claims administrator ultimately cited
that authority in deciding to permit Yusen to recover from the
Lufthansa Settlement on a pro rata basis. That decision allowed
Yusen to recover from future settlements as well.24 In other
words, without ROGW's alternative argument and the supporting
authority class counsel provided, Yusen likely would not have
recovered from any of the settlement funds. In sum, ROGW performed
work that the claims administrator required to ensure Yusen's
recovery from the settlement funds. A twenty-five percent
contingency fee for that work is not unreasonable.

Quantum Meruit

ROGW's quantum meruit claim is based on ROGW's theory that the
only reason Yusen is entitled to collect from the settlement funds
is because of the work ROGW performed for Yusen in submitting
claims for the Lufthansa Settlement and for Settlement 2.

There are four elements to a quantum meruit claim; the attorney
must show that: (1) he performed a service to the benefit of the
client; (2) he did not perform that service gratuitously; (3) the
client accepted the service; and (4) no contract existed to
prescribe payment.

To satisfy the four elements, ROGW first notes that it performed
legal services for Yusen for over seven years in the antitrust
litigation, which resulted in a benefit for Yusen for over $3.5
million. To prove the remaining elements--that such services were
not gratuitous, that Yusen accepted them, and that no contract
exists regarding payment ROGW points to the contingency fee
agreement that Yusen executed in 2007 and terminated in 2014.
Nevertheless, Yusen argues that ROGW cannot recover on a quantum
meruit basis because ROGW cannot establish that its fee was
reasonable. Yusen also re-iterates many of its arguments from the
breach of fiduciary duty issue, discrediting the work ROGW did
under the contingency fee agreement.

A seven-year representation results in not an insignificant amount
of time and labor spent by the attorney on the client's behalf,
even when that representation only requires intermittent work.
ROGW was not experienced in antitrust law, but it was skilled in
customs and international trade law, as well as transportation
regulatory law, which provided useful context about the underlying
air cargo industry. ROGW was in good enough standing to have
maintained Yusen as a client for approximately ten years before
the antitrust litigation commenced and to have appeared more
attractive to Yusen than the hundreds of other solicitations it
received to represent Yusen in the antitrust litigation. ROGW was
only responsible for analyzing and submitting Yusen's data, not
the entire class's data.

At the outset, ROGW helped Yusen decide whether it was worth it to
participate in the litigation; advised Yusen on the potential
liability Yusen faced if it was not forthright with its customers
about its participation in the litigation; informed Yusen about
the data collection process; and discussed general strategies with
Yusen. Later on, ROGW had to analyze the affiliate issue for Yusen
and to advocate for Yusen's entitlement to the funds.
Beyond those more involved tasks, managing the case typically
involved communicating with Yusen, class counsel, and the claims
administrator regarding submission requirements, timelines,
updates, as well as deciding what and how to submit on Yusen's
behalf. Given the hundreds of solicitations, a contingency fee
arrangement is typical here, and Yusen offers no evidence that a
twenty-five percent fee is non-standard.

Finally, Yusen has benefitted from ROGW's services; it recovered
millions of dollars before it fired ROGW, and that same work led
to successful claims after the firm was fired. ROGW is entitled to
recover from Yusen on a quantum meruit basis.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 12, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/y7yxwqmnfrom Leagle.com.

Rodriguez O'Donnell Gonzalez & Williams P.C., Plaintiff,
represented by Michael Alan Kraft -- mkraft@quinnjohnston.com --
Kraft Law Office.

Yusen Logistics (Americas) Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael
J. Flaherty -- mflaherty@fylegal.com -- Flaherty & Youngerman,
P.C. & Christopher L. Gallinari -- cgallinari@fylegal.com --
Flaherty & Youngerman, P.C..

Yusen Logistics (Americas) Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by
Michael J. Flaherty, Flaherty & Youngerman, P.C. & Christopher L.
Gallinari, Flaherty & Youngerman, P.C.

Thomas J. O'Donnell, Counter Defendant, represented by Michael
Alan Kraft, Kraft Law Office.

R. Kevin Williams, Counter Defendant, represented by Michael Alan
Kraft, Kraft Law Office.

Carlos Rodriguez, Counter Defendant, represented by Michael Alan
Kraft, Kraft Law Office.

Henry Gonzalez, Counter Defendant, represented by Michael Alan
Kraft, Kraft Law Office.

Rodriguez O'Donnell Gonzalez & Williams P.C., Counter Defendant,
represented by Michael Alan Kraft, Kraft Law Office.


* Arbitration Rules Should Stay Unchanged
-----------------------------------------
Dan McCue wrote in an opinion column for Juneaue Empire that in a
recent class action lawsuit against Ticketmaster, the court
ordered the company to pay out $42 million over four years, and no
less than $10.5 million per year to consumers. However, the
reality of what consumer's actually received is detailed in a New
York Times article entitled, "Why You Probably Won't Get to Use
Your Ticketmaster Vouchers."

Outlined in the article is the fine print of the settlement
including the difficulty consumers have in actually receiving any
remuneration.

The author of the article notes, "How and when those vouchers can
be used has befuddled people, and confusion has only grown since
Ticketmaster released $5 million worth of free tickets this week.
Those tickets were quickly claimed, leaving most people unable to
redeem their vouchers and feeling pretty irritated." Such a measly
payout to those who actually deserve to be made whole is not an
uncommon result for class-action litigation.

For credit union members, the results of class-action litigation
are even worse since it essentially means that the resources of
all of that credit union's members is moved to a small pool of
members (or even nonmembers), with plaintiffs' attorneys taking
their cut in-between. At a credit union, each member with an
account is also an owner -- an owner that has pooled his or her
resources with fellow owners. This means all the financial
resources of the credit union is money that belongs to all its
members. Therefore, members are directly affected by any negative
monetary impact, especially regarding any costly legal matters.

Yet, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is taking
away the ability to limit class action litigation. In what's known
widely in Washington as the arbitration rule, the claim from
supporters is that arbitration harms consumers and that class-
action litigation is the consumer-friendly ideal. Unfortunately,
even the agency's own research does not support this rhetoric
championed by the trial bar.

Instead, it shows that 87 percent of putative class actions
resulted in zero class-wide recovery and that of the 13 percent of
class actions that did settle on a class-wide settlement, a
weighted average of only 4 percent of consumers in those cases
received any monetary recovery at all. According to the CFPB's own
study, the average payout for the few consumers who actually
recover something is about $32, while the average plaintiff's
lawyer pockets $1 million. In arbitration, however, consumers
recover $5,389 on average. The CFPB's study also shows that the
average time frame for arbitration is two to seven months while
the average class action suit takes one to two years to complete.
It is quite unclear how adding the pockets of trial lawyers
improves the financial situation of most Alaskans.

Credit unions are the go-to financial institution for a majority
of Alaskans. There are several reasons for this, including the
fact that credit unions are known for excellent customer service
and their personal relationships with their members, which means
disputes between credit unions and their member-owners are rare.

However, should a dispute between a credit union and a member
arise, the credit union's structure as a not-for-profit, member-
owned financial cooperative provides numerous ways to quickly and
amicably resolve the dispute. While credit unions are less likely
to enforce an arbitration clause, it can be an important resource
to protect the equity built by and owned by the credit union's
members.

A rule banning the ability to use arbitration doesn't make sense
for any credit union member across this state. Thankfully, there's
a chance we can avoid any negative impact. The House of
Representatives disapproved of this anti-arbitration rule and the
Senate has the chance to do the same. Unfortunately, more
Washington-based groups, many representing the interest of trial
lawyers, are putting pressure on our senators to back the anti-
arbitration rule, and we couldn't disagree with them more on this
matter.

As the original protectors of consumers' finances, credit unions
believe this rule has the potential to hurt more Alaskans than it
protects. [GN]


* Slovenia Adopts Class Action Law
----------------------------------
The Slovenian National Assembly adopted the Class Action Law,
which will implement an important institute to the Slovenian legal
system, i.e. mechanism of class action. This mechanism is already
applied in the UK, Belgium, Netherlands and Sweden, but is yet to
be implemented in numerous EU member states. The new mechanism of
class action will provide for the injured parties, both natural
and legal persons, to file a compensation claim in case of mass
harm situations. Besides a collective action for compensation, the
law also provides for the possibility to file a collective action
for the cessation of illegal behaviour against the infringers, as
well as the procedure of collective settlement in case of mass
harm events. The law will come into force on the 21st of October,
2017, while it will apply with effect from the 21st of April,
2018.

The law regulates procedures for collective redress in cases when
the infringer breached consumers' or workers' rights, as well as
rights arising from the prohibition on the restriction of
competition, or rights from the financial instruments market, and
in cases of damage caused by environmental accidents. The law aims
to offer solutions for numerous cases of harm mass situations, in
which individuals, injured by the same infringer's act, did not
seek judicial protection mainly due to the high cost and low
amount of individual claims for compensation. Apart from providing
for easier access to the court protection, the law also aims to
stop and prohibit infringers from carrying out illegal behaviour
by providing the possibility to file a collective action for the
cessation of illegal behaviour against the infringers.

Court procedure under the new law can be commenced by the senior
state attorney or by the private-law legal person, the activity of
which is non-profit and is related to the breached right, wherein
the court will assess in each case individually whether the above
mentioned person is representative to start the procedure or not.
An exception regarding the commencement of the court procedure
applies to the consumer disputes, in which the action for
cessation of illegal behaviour of the breaching companies can be
submitted only by the Slovenian Consumers' Association, chamber,
or association of companies of which the breaching company is a
member. In case the company with its seat located in Slovenia
breaches the rights of consumers, coming from any other European
Union member state, an action against the Slovenian company can be
also submitted by the organisation, established for the protection
of consumers' rights under that EU member state.

Even though the injured party will not be party to the court
procedures, governed by the new law, the injured party will
nevertheless have the possibility to submit comments during the
procedure. After the court procedure is finished, the infringer
will pay the notional amount, whether directly to the injured
parties, or to the notary public, who will act as a fiduciary of
the compensation in certain cases. The law also introduces a
public registry of class actions, where everyone will be able to
access certain documents within the individual procedures free of
charge.

The aim of the new law is therefore to provide for the easier
enforcement of the right to compensation to injured individuals
and legal persons, while the breaching companies can also be
prohibited from carrying out illegal behaviour in the future. On
the other hand, the law also provides for the safeguards against
abusing such court procedures by regulating the procedure, based
on which the court will first -- after preliminary assessing the
admissibility and completeness of the action -- assess whether the
requirements for approval of the action exist, while only after
that it will proceed with deciding on the claim. It is also
important to note that it will be possible to commence a procedure
under the new law in relation to the mass harm situations which
occur before the new law comes into force, if the claim for
compensation is not statute-barred. [GN]




                             *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, 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  * * *