CAR_Public/160308.mbx
             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, March 8, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 48


                            Headlines


ABBVIE INC: Medical Mutual & Allied Services Cases Pending
ABBVIE INC: Class Suit by Buyers of Shire Securities Pending
ABBVIE INC: Still Defends Sidney Hillman Case
AFFILIATED HOME CARE: "Alves" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
AGAPE WORLD: Broker Sent to Prison, Ordered to Repay Investors

AMERICAN TOBACCO: Attorney Wants Share of Fees in Class Action
ANTHEM INC: No Argument Date Yet in Conn. Supreme Court Appeal
ANTHEM INC: 11 Suits Over Out-of-Network Reimbursement Pending
ANTHEM INC: Discovery Commenced in Blue Cross Litigation
ANTHEM INC: Dismissal of Cyber Attack Claims Sought

ARIZONA: Fails to Comply with Settlement Over Prison Healthcare
ARROW LINEN: Faces "Rios" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ATLANTIC KRITCH: "Class" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
ATTENTIVE HOME CARE: "Nasimova" Suit Seeks Wages and OT
BANK OF THE OZARKS: Says Arkansas Supreme Court to Rule This Qtr

BARBUTO LLC: "Amaro" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
BIGCOMMERCE INC: "Lewis" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: "La Flamme" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
BLUE CROSS: Fla. Ct. Denies Preexisting Condition Class Cert.
BLUE CROSS: Faces Comet Capital Suit in Va. Over Insurance Plans

BUFFALO WILD WING: "Cho" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
BULLSEYE GLASS: Keller Rohrback Mulls Emissions Class Action
CALIFORNIA: Fire Prevention Fee Bills Mailed to Residents
CALIFORNIA WATER: Fixed Price of Ferric Chloride, Suit Says
CARMEL, IN: Attorney Seeks Injunction Against 8-2 Traffic Fines

CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Leaseholders Seek Mediator to Resolve Suit
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Bradford County Couple Files Class Action
COLUMBIA GAS: 6th Circuit Reverses Class Action Dismissal
CSX CORPORATION: "Toro" Misclassification Suit Moved to D. Mass.
CVR ENERGY: MOU Reached in Mustard and Sloan Lawsuits

CVS HEALTH: Misrepresents Flu Relief Products, "Saal" Suit Claims
DITOMASO INC: "Malee" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
E.G. CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Pepe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
EL MUNICIPIO DE SAN JUAN: "Cordova" Suit Seeks Wages & OT Pay
ENDOCYTE INC: Dismissal of "Vallabhaneni" Suit Under Appeal

EVERBANK FINANCIAL: "Vathana" Case Parties Reached Settlement
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Still Defends MERS-Related Cases
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Objector Appeals "Wilson" Case Settlement
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: "Bland" Plaintiffs Demand Arbitration
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: "West" Action Administratively Closed

FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Josh Angel Threatens to Sue Directors
FDM GROUP: Faces "Park" Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.Y.
FIRST AMERICAN: Still Faces Suits Alleging Misclassification
FIRST AMERICAN: Still Faces Suits Over Business Practices
FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Barthet" Says

GIFTS ON 8TH: "Haider" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Seeks Review of Avandia Class Action Ruling
HORTONWORKS INC: Faces Securities Class Action by "Monachelli"
LA PLATA TIRE: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks Wages and OT Pay
LANNETT COMPANY: Fixed Price of Doxycycline, Union Alleges

LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Wolfe" Suit Over VTech Merger
LOGMEIN INC: Ignition Plaintiffs' Claims Dismissed
LOOMIS ARMORED: Faces "Parez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Chinese Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Banner" Suit Over Chinese Flooring

MAGNETATION LLC: Faces "Abeyta" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MCCULLOUGH PAYNE: Faces "Mathis" Suit Over Debt Collection
MDL 2084: AndroGel Cases Remain Pending v. AbbVie
MDL 2406: "Krieger" Suit Transferred to N.D. Alabama
MDL 2406: "Goodman" Suit Transferred to N.D. Alabama

MDL 2460: Niaspan Cases Remain Pending v. AbbVie
MDL 2545: 2,500 TRT Claims v. AbbVie Consolidated for Pre-Trial
NATIONAL WEATHER STATION: Faces "FSK" TCPA Class Suit in Ga.
NATURE'S WAY: "Hunter" Suit Removed to S.D. California
NAVIENT CORP: Faces Securities Action by Policemen's Annuity

NEW HIGH TECH CAR: "Cruz" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
NOISE CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Pedroza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NOTTOWAY PLANTATION: "Wilford" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
PATRIARCH PARTNERS: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over TransCare Shutdown
PPL CORP: Discovery Pending in Cane Run Environmental Cases

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Huffman" Plaintiffs Seek Class Status
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Dismissal of "Lederman" Under Appeal
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Priac Seeks Dismissal of "Wood" Suit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Priac Faces "Rosen" Complaint in Conn.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Bouder" Complaint

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal in Retirement Fund Case May Proceed
QUAKER OATS: Faces "Eisenlord" Suit for False Advertisement
RCI ENTERTAINMENT: "Contreras" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
RESOLUTE FOREST: Faces "Reynolds" Suit Over Retiree Health Care
RESOLUTION SOLAR: "Walker" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay

RIZEN FLEET LOGISTICS: "Oliva" Suit Seeks Wages and OT Pay
SCOTT MEDICAL: EEOC Files Sex Discrimination Suit in Philadelphia
SEMPRA ENERGY: Faces "Plumley" Securities Class Action
SOCAL GAS: Bid to Halt Gas Leak Housing Costs Denied
SPEEDPAY INC: Continues to Defend "Pincus" Action

SAINT PATRICK'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Abrokwah" Suit Says
SUPERIOR ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Suarez Jr." Suit Says
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Julian" Labor Suit Moved to Arizona
TACT 1 LLC: "Hampton" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
TED WIENS TIRE: "Acuna" Suit Seeks OT Wages

TIMEKEEPERS INC: "McGee" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages
TOWER SERVICES: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
TRANSWOOD INC: "Long" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
UBER: May Face Damages, Fines in France as Trial Wraps Up
UBER: Fails to Cooperate with NLRB Probe, Officials Allege

ULTIMATE AUTO: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Simpson" Suit Says
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Camacho" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
UNITED RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Rosado" Suit Claims
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Denies Allegations on Emissions Disclosure Issues
WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Schulze" Suit Over Parmesan Cheese

WESTERN UNION: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Shareholder Suit
WESTERN UNION: Settlement in Douglas Action Has Preliminary OK
ZYNGA INC: Securities Class Suit Deal Has Final Approval
ZYNGA INC: No Schedule for Further Proceedings in "Lee" Case
* Scalia's Absence Impacts Decision on Key Class Action Issues

* Tech Companies May Face Reverse Discrimination Claims



                            *********


ABBVIE INC: Medical Mutual & Allied Services Cases Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, disclosed that it is defending these
lawsuits:

     1. A putative class action lawsuit, Medical Mutual of Ohio
        v. AbbVie Inc., et al., which was filed in November 2014
        against several manufacturers of testosterone replacement
        therapies (TRTs), including AbbVie, in the United States
        District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
        behalf of all insurance companies, health benefit
        providers, and other third party payors who paid for TRTs,
        including AndroGel. The claims asserted include violations
        of the federal RICO Act and state consumer fraud and
        deceptive trade practices laws. The complaint seeks
        monetary damages and injunctive relief.

     2. A similar lawsuit, Allied Services Division Welfare Fund
        v. AbbVie Inc., et al., which was filed in the same court
        in October 2015 on behalf of the same putative class
        members and a putative class of consumers.

No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-K
report.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company.


ABBVIE INC: Class Suit by Buyers of Shire Securities Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that product liability cases are pending
in which plaintiffs generally allege that AbbVie and other
manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs) did not
adequately warn about risks of certain injuries, primarily heart

In November 2014, five individuals filed a putative class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers and sellers of certain Shire
securities between June 20 and October 14, 2014, against AbbVie
and its chief executive officer in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the
defendants made and/or are responsible for material misstatements
in violation of federal securities laws in connection with
AbbVie's proposed transaction with Shire. The complaint seeks
monetary damages and injunctive relief.

No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-K
report.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company.


ABBVIE INC: Still Defends Sidney Hillman Case
---------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. continues to defend said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that

In August 2013, a putative class action lawsuit, Sidney Hillman
Health Center of Rochester, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was
filed against AbbVie in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois by three healthcare benefit
providers alleging violations of Federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes and state deceptive business
practice and unjust enrichment laws in connection with
reimbursements for certain uses of Depakote from 1998 to 2012.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and/or equitable relief and
attorneys' fees.

No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-K
report.

                           *     *     *

In February 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit reversed a district court ruling dismissing the class
suit.

The group of multi-employer benefit funds had challenged the
dismissal of their putative class action, which alleges that
Abbott Laboratories, Inc., and its subdivision AbbVie, violated
the RICO through efforts to promote the anticonvulsant medication
Depakote for ineffective and unsafe uses.

The district court dismissed the case with prejudice as barred by
the statute of limitations, concluding that a reasonable benefit
fund would have discovered its injuries in 1998, when the funds
first reimbursed the cost of an "off-label" prescription for
Depakote.

"We REVERSE the dismissal of the funds' RICO claims and REMAND for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Because the
state law claims were dismissed based on similar reasoning, they
are reinstated as well," the Seventh Circuit ruled.  A copy of the
Seventh Circuit's decision is available at http://is.gd/YZi42b
from Leagle.com.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company.


AFFILIATED HOME CARE: "Alves" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Maria Alves, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Affiliated Home Care of Putman, Inc and
Barbara Kessman, Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv-01593-KMK (S.D.N.Y.,
March 2, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Defendants employed Plaintiff and those similarly situated for
workweeks longer than 40 hours and willfully failed to compensate
the Plaintiffs for the time worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
at a rate of at least 1.5x the regular hourly rate.

Affiliated Home Care of Putman, Inc has been a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York.
Affiliated Home's corporate headquarters has been located at 4
Marina Drive, Mahopac, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel C. Stafford, Esq.
     McCABE & MACK LLP
     63 Washington Street
     P.O. Box 509
     Poughkeepsie, NY 12602-0509
     Tel: (845) 486-6800

          - and -

     Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq.
     CHARNY & ASSOCIATES
     9 West Market Street
     Rhinebeck, NY 12572
     Tel: (845) 876-7500


AGAPE WORLD: Broker Sent to Prison, Ordered to Repay Investors
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Long Island financial broker
is headed to prison and has been ordered to pay back investors
nearly $180 million.

Newsday reports that Jason Keryc was sentenced in federal court
Wednesday in Central Islip to serve nine years in prison and three
years of supervised release.

Mr. Keryc was convicted of conspiracy and fraud in April for his
role in a Ponzi scheme while working for a Hauppauge-based
investment firm that bilked thousands of investors out of $147
million.

Mr. Keryc was an account representative at Nicholas Cosmo's Agape
World from 2005 to 2009.  Federal prosecutors say he pocketed
nearly $9 million in the scheme and helped convince investors
their funds were safe in short-term business loans with high
interest rates.

Mr. Keryc says he's a good person who made "a terrible mistake."


AMERICAN TOBACCO: Attorney Wants Share of Fees in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
Nevada attorney is suing a group of lawyers and law firms who
helped prosecute a class action lawsuit against various tobacco
companies, arguing he is owed a portion of the attorneys fees
awarded.

Donald J. Bernard filed his nine-page complaint for damages and
declaratory judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana Feb. 16.

The named defendant is The Scott Litigation Group, "an
unincorporated association of lawyers and law firms who have
prosecuted a class action lawsuit entitled Gloria Scott, et al.
vs. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al."

Among the law firms included in the group: Bruno & Bruno, Simon
Peragine Smith & Redfearn LLP, Bencomo & Associates, Herman Herman
& Katz LLC (formerly Herman Herman Katz & Cotlar LLP), Murray Law
Firm, Leger & Mestayer, Gertler Gertler Vincent & Plotkin LLP,
Kenneth M. Carter PLC, Singleton Law Firm, Law Office of Daniel E.
Becnel Jr., Bruce C. Dean LLC, Due Price Guidry Piedrahita &
Andrews LC, St. Martin & Williams, and Fayard & Honeycutt APC.

According to Mr. Bernard's complaint, he entered into an attorney-
client relationship with Gloria Scott in April 1994.
Ms. Scott, along with other black Americans similarly situated,
filed a class action against the tobacco companies in May 1994 on
account of their addiction.

About a month later, in June 1994, Mr. Bernard alleges he was
approached by a group of attorneys also pursuing class action
litigation against the tobacco companies.

Members of the executive committee of Castano PLC represented to
Bernard that if he would dismiss his own litigation, Gloria Scott
would be added as a class representative in their litigation and,
upon certification as a class action, Mr. Bernard would
participate in the litigation as a member of the PLC and be paid
"on an equal basis with other committee members."

Based on those representations, Mr. Bernard says he dismissed the
litigation and executed a promissory note in favor of Castano PLC
in the amount of $100,000.

At that time, Mr. Bernard was designated as a member of the PLC
and was issued credentials.

Mr. Bernard says he immediately began attending meetings and
hearings and performing legal services in the Castano litigation
as a member of the PLC.

"At no time did any member of the Castano PLC advise Bernard that
he was not a member of the Castano PLC," he noted in his
complaint.

In May 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
denied class certification in Castano v. American Tobacco Co.,
with instructions to dismiss the case.

Soon after, as a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, members of
The Scott Litigation Group -- the majority of whose members were
also members of Castano PLC -- filed the lawsuit entitled
Gloria Scott, et al. vs. The American Tobacco Company, et al., as
a class action on behalf of Gloria Scott and other persons
addicted to tobacco smoking.

The class in the Scott litigation was eventually certified and a
jury verdict was entered.

After further appeals, a trial court in June 2011 adopted the
opinion of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal and a
final judgment was entered for $241,540,488 plus legal interest of
$37,180,302.55 for a total of $278,720,790.55 -- which was paid by
the tobacco companies into a registry.

Of that amount, $114,275,542 was to be paid to class counsel.

Mr. Bernard argues that he is part of the class counsel, and that
the Castano Group and Scott Group breached their contractual and
fiduciary obligations to him.

To date, Mr. Bernard claims he has not received any compensation
for his representation of Gloria Scott and his participation as a
member of the joint venture, or special partnership.

"At all material times herein, Bernard was a joint venturer with
the members of the Scott Group," he wrote in his complaint.  "They
pooled their resources and continued to hold out Bernard's Client,
Gloria Scott, as a representative plaintiff in all litigation and
other matters.

"As such, each joint venture was entitled to an equal share of all
profits.  As a joint venture or special partner owner, Bernard
maintained an ownership interest in past, present and future
profits from these joint ventures."

Mr. Bernard is asking the court to grant a declaratory judgment
ruling that he is a special partner with the other members of the
Scott Group and has a joint ownership interest in the settlements,
"including but not limited to share as a member of the class
counsel under the May 10 agreement."

The case has been assigned to Judge Susie Morgan.


ANTHEM INC: No Argument Date Yet in Conn. Supreme Court Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a date for argument has
not been set in an appeal before the Connecticut Supreme Court.

The lawsuit names Anthem Insurance as well as Anthem, Inc. and is
captioned Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al. Anthem
Insurance's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the
conversion of Anthem Insurance from a mutual insurance company
into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the
Plan, Anthem Insurance distributed the fair value of the company
at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or
ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for
their membership interests in the mutual company. Plaintiffs in
Gold allege that Anthem Insurance distributed value to the wrong
ESMs.

"Cross motions for summary judgment were granted in part and
denied in part in July 2006 with regard to the issue of sovereign
immunity asserted by co-defendant, the state of Connecticut, or
the State," the Company said.  "The trial court also denied our
motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' claims in January
2005. The State appealed the denial of its motion to the
Connecticut Supreme Court."

"We filed a cross-appeal on the sovereign immunity issue. In May
2010, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court
denying the State's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims under
sovereign immunity and dismissed our cross-appeal. The case was
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification was granted in December 2011.

"We and the plaintiffs filed renewed cross-motions for summary
judgment in January 2013. In August 2013, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The trial court deferred
a final ruling on our motion for summary judgment.

"In March 2014, the trial court denied our motion for summary
judgment finding that an issue of material fact existed. A trial
on liability was held in October 2014.

"In June 2015, the court entered judgment for Anthem Insurance on
all issues, finding that (1) Anthem Insurance correctly determined
the State to be an ESM, not Plaintiffs; (2) Anthem Insurance acted
in good faith in making this determination, while Plaintiffs
failed to present sufficient evidence to override a presumption
that Anthem Insurance's ESM determination was correct; and (3)
Plaintiffs failed to prove the breach of any contractual
obligation.

"In July 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
judgment entered for Anthem Insurance.

"In December 2015, the Connecticut Supreme Court decided it would
hear the appeal directly rather than the appeal going to the
intermediate appellate court. A date for argument has not been
set.

"We intend to vigorously seek the affirmation of the trial court's
judgment; however, the suit's ultimate outcome cannot be presently
determined."

Anthem is one of the largest health benefits companies in terms of
medical membership in the United States, serving 38.6 million
medical members through its affiliated health plans as of December
31, 2015.  It is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Association, or BCBSA, an association of independent
health benefit plans.


ANTHEM INC: 11 Suits Over Out-of-Network Reimbursement Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is currently
a defendant in 11 putative class actions relating to out-of-
network, or OON, reimbursement that were consolidated into a
single multi-district lawsuit called In re WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a
Anthem, Inc.)

Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation that is pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. The lawsuits were filed in 2009. The plaintiffs
include current and former members on behalf of a putative class
of members who received OON services for which the defendants paid
less than billed charges, the American Medical Association, four
state medical associations, OON physicians, OON non-physician
providers, the American Podiatric Medical Association, California
Chiropractic Association and the California Psychological
Association on behalf of putative classes of OON physicians and
all OON non-physician health care providers. The plaintiffs have
filed several amended complaints alleging that the defendants
violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA, federal regulations,
and state law by using an OON reimbursement database called
Ingenix and by using non-Ingenix OON reimbursement methodologies.

"We have filed motions to dismiss in response to each of those
amended complaints," the Company said.  "Our motions to dismiss
have been granted in part and denied in part by the court."

"The most recent pleading filed by the plaintiffs is a Fourth
Amended Complaint to which we filed a motion to dismiss most, but
not all, of the claims. In July 2013 the court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part our motion. The court held
that the state and federal anti-trust claims along with the RICO
claims should be dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The
court further found that the ERISA claims, to the extent they
involved non-Ingenix methodologies, along with those that involved
our alleged non-disclosures should be dismissed with prejudice.
The court also dismissed most of the plaintiffs' state law claims
with prejudice.

"The only claims that remain after the court's decision are an
ERISA benefits claim relating to claims priced based on Ingenix, a
breach of contract claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, a
breach of implied covenant claim on behalf of one subscriber
plaintiff, and one subscriber plaintiff's claim under the
California Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss order, which the
court granted in part and denied in part. The court ruled that the
plaintiffs adequately allege that one Georgia provider plaintiff
is deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies regarding non-
Ingenix methodologies based on the facts alleged regarding that
plaintiff so those claims are back in the case. Fact discovery is
complete.

"The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November
2013 seeking six different classes. Following expert discovery and
briefing, oral argument was held on the motion. In late 2014, the
court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in its
entirety. The California subscriber plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to file a renewed motion for class certification with more
narrowly defined proposed classes, which the court denied. All but
two of the individually named subscribers and all of the providers
and medical associations dismissed their claims with prejudice.
Motions for summary judgment are due in early 2016.

"Earlier in the case, in 2009, we filed a motion in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, or the
Florida Court, to enjoin the claims brought by the physician
plaintiffs and certain medical association plaintiffs based on
prior litigation releases, which was granted in 2011. The Florida
Court ordered those plaintiffs to dismiss their claims that are
barred by the release. The plaintiffs then filed a petition for
declaratory judgment asking the court to find that these claims
are not barred by the releases from the prior litigation.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action,
which was granted. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the
declaratory judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, but the dismissal was upheld. The enjoined
physicians and some of the medical associations did not dismiss
their barred claims. The Florida Court found those enjoined
plaintiffs in contempt and sanctioned them in July 2012. Those
plaintiffs appealed the Florida Court's sanctions order to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The
Eleventh Circuit upheld the Florida court's enforcement of the
injunction as it relates to the plaintiffs' RICO and antitrust
claims, but vacated it as it relates to certain ERISA claims. The
plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc as to the
antitrust claims only, which was denied. The plaintiffs then filed
a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The
American Medical Association filed an amicus brief in support of
the petition. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition in
February 2015. We intend to vigorously defend these suits;
however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."

Anthem is one of the largest health benefits companies in terms of
medical membership in the United States, serving 38.6 million
medical members through its affiliated health plans as of December
31, 2015.  It is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Association, or BCBSA, an association of independent
health benefit plans.


ANTHEM INC: Discovery Commenced in Blue Cross Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that discovery has commenced
in the case, In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation.

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

Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have
engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally allocate geographic
markets through license agreements, best efforts rules (which
limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan),
restrictions on acquisitions and other arrangements in violation
of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. The cases
were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs,
health plan subscribers and providers. Subscriber and provider
plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints in July
2013. The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was also
brought on behalf of putative state classes of health plan
subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii,
Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss in September 2013, which were
argued in April 2014. In June 2014, the court denied the majority
of the motions, ruling that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient
facts at this stage of the litigation to avoid dismissal of their
claims.

"Following the subsequent filing of amended complaints by each of
the subscriber and provider plaintiffs, we filed our answer and
asserted our affirmative defenses in December 2014. Discovery has
commenced. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however,
their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined," the
Company said.

Anthem is one of the largest health benefits companies in terms of
medical membership in the United States, serving 38.6 million
medical members through its affiliated health plans as of December
31, 2015.  It is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Association, or BCBSA, an association of independent
health benefit plans.


ANTHEM INC: Dismissal of Cyber Attack Claims Sought
---------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has filed
motions to dismiss several counts in the lawsuits related to the
cyber attack incident.

The Company said, "In February 2015, we reported that we were the
target of a sophisticated external cyber attack. The attackers
gained unauthorized access to certain of our information
technology systems and obtained personal information related to
many individuals and employees, such as names, birthdays, health
care identification/social security numbers, street addresses,
email addresses, phone numbers and employment information,
including income data. To date, there is no evidence that credit
card or medical information, such as claims, test results or
diagnostic codes, were targeted, accessed or obtained, although no
assurance can be given that we will not identify additional
information that was accessed or obtained."

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

"Actions have been filed in various federal and state courts and
other claims have been or may be asserted against us on behalf of
current or former members, current or former employees, other
individuals, shareholders or others seeking damages or other
related relief, allegedly arising out of the cyber attack. State
and federal agencies, including state insurance regulators, state
attorneys general, the Health and Human Services Office of Civil
Rights and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are investigating
events related to the cyber attack, including how it occurred, its
consequences and our responses. Although we are cooperating in
these investigations, we may be subject to fines or other
obligations, which may have an adverse effect on how we operate
our business and our results of operations.

"With respect to the civil actions, a motion to transfer was filed
with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in February
2015 and was subsequently heard by the Panel in May 2015. In June
2015, the Panel entered its order transferring the consolidated
matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The U.S. District Court entered its Case Management
Order in September 2015.

"We have filed a Motion to Dismiss several of the counts that are
before the U.S. District Court. There remain a few state court
cases that are presently proceeding outside of the Multidistrict
Litigation."

Anthem is one of the largest health benefits companies in terms of
medical membership in the United States, serving 38.6 million
medical members through its affiliated health plans as of December
31, 2015.  It is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Association, or BCBSA, an association of independent
health benefit plans.


ARIZONA: Fails to Comply with Settlement Over Prison Healthcare
---------------------------------------------------------------
12 News reports that prison healthcare is once again front and
center in federal court in downtown Phoenix on March 1 during a
mediation hearing before U.S. Magistrate John Buttrick.

Attorneys from the ACLU National Prison Project, Arizona Center
for Disability Law, ACLU of Arizona, Prison Law Office, Perkins
Coie and Jones Day who settled a class-action lawsuit filed
against the Arizona Department of Corrections in 2012, Parsons v.
Ryan, say the ADC is not coming close to meeting their obligations
to improve healthcare under the Parsons settlement.

12 News has been inundated with emails and phone calls from
families of prisoners alleging their loved ones are not getting
the treatment they need.  12 News aired a series of reports
beginning in 2011 regarding mental health care and medical care in
the Arizona prison system.

A 2014, 12 News investigative series revealed inadequate
healthcare by the state's contracted healthcare provider, Corizon,
resulting in deaths.

Documentation 12 News obtained details specific cases where
inmates appear to be in real medical trouble but their pleas for
help may be going unanswered.

Doctor Todd Wilcox identified a number of prisoners who required
urgent action so as to avoid imminent harm.

He detailed an inmate at the prison in Tucson needing surgery for
a severe and painful fistula between his intestines and bladder.

A 34-year-old inmate suffering 2 to 3 seizures per day had filed
health needs requests to see a neurologist but has not seen one.

A 60-year-old inmate who noticed his foot was turning black had to
have his leg amputated. Two days later his knee was removed as
well and he has still not been fitted for a prosthetic device.

An inmate's gum line is fully exposed to the roots and bone on the
lower jaw despite filing numerous requests to see a dentist.

A chronically ill inmate at the Eyman prison who's at risk for
pneumonia or death blames Corizon for not providing him with a
voice box or tracheotomy tube to plug an open tracheostomy hole.
Dr. Pablo Stewart stated that this inmate is at a high risk of
developing pneumonia if he aspirates his food, or of choking to
death if food or other objects get stuck in his windpipe.

Other documentation reveals a 30-year-old inmate experienced
extreme delays in detection and treatment of testicular cancer
which has since spread to his internal organs and is now
inoperable and untreatable.  That inmate, according to Dr. Wilcox,
has been given less than a year to live.

ADC spokesman Andrew Wilder issued the following email statement
to 12 News:

"The Department of Corrections is strongly committed to providing
high-quality healthcare to its inmate population.  We firmly
disagree with the plaintiffs' allegations.  Allegations are not
evidence.  Moreover, anecdotal complaints are not evidence of
substantial non-compliance among a patient population in excess of
35,000.  We are confident that the Court will agree when these
issues are presented for judicial resolution."

David Fathi, director of the ACLU National Prison Project told 12
News that the March 1 mediation was inconclusive but that the two
sides agreed to keep talking.

Mr. Fathi, however, says none of the major issues were
substantively addressed. But he added, "We remain extremely
concerned that, more than a year after the settlement went into
effect, ADC remains out of compliance with critically important
provisions designed to protect the health, safety and lives of the
34,000 men and women we represent.  While we continue to hope for
a negotiated resolution, we will not hesitate to return to court
if necessary to enforce our clients' right to minimally adequate
health care."


ARROW LINEN: Faces "Rios" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Danny Rios, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Arrow Linen Supply Company, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00801 (E.D.N.Y., February 16, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay the legally required
minimum hourly wage rate and overtime pay in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Arrow Linen Supply Company, Inc., is incorporated in the state of
New York and is engaged in the business of supplying textiles,
among others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Harrison, Esq.
     HARRISON HARISSON & ASSOCIATES
     110 State Highway 35, Suite 10
     Red Bank, NJ 07701
     Telephone: (718) 799-9111
     Facsimile: (718) 799-9171
     E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


ATLANTIC KRITCH: "Class" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Class, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Atlantic Kritch Crane Service, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-01154-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., March 1, 2016), alleges
that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs for the time spent
transporting vehicles, employees, and supplies to and from the
jobsite to the Employer's Facility; and that Plaintiffs are being
denied proper overtime compensation.

Atlantic Kritch Crane Service is a New Jersey Corporation with its
principal place of business located at 1608 Wyckoff Road,
Farmingdale, NJ 07727.  It operates out of a second location
located in Woodbridge, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Vincent M. Giblin, Esq.
     Joseph M. Bonomo, Esq.
     PITTA & GIBLIN LLP
     120 Broadway, 28th Floor
     New York, NY 10271
     Tel: (212) 652-3809
     Fax: (212) 652-3891
     Email: vgiblin@pittagiblin.com


ATTENTIVE HOME CARE: "Nasimova" Suit Seeks Wages and OT
-------------------------------------------------------
Norbivi Nasimova, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself individually and
as class representative of other employees similarly situated v.
Attentive Home Care Agency Inc. d/b/a Always Home Care, Always
Home Care Agency Inc, Yelena Pustilnik and John Does #1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01005 (E.D.N.Y., February 29, 2016),
seeks to prosecute her Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) claims as a
collective action on behalf of all persons who are or were
formerly employed by the Defendant at any time since February 29,
2010, who were non-exempt employees within the meaning of FLSA and
who were not paid minimum wages and/or overtime compensation at
rates not less than 1.5 times the regular rate of pay for hours
worked in excess 40 hours per workweek

Defendant Attentive Home Care Agency Inc. d/b/a Always Home Care
and Always Home Care Agency Inc. each is a New York corporation,
with its principal place of business at 2774 Coney Island Ave.,
N.Y. 11235.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Coudert Rand, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
     488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 286-1425
     Fax: (646) 688-3078
     Email: wcrand@wcrand.com


BANK OF THE OZARKS: Says Arkansas Supreme Court to Rule This Qtr
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank Of The Ozarks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a ruling from the
Arkansas Supreme Court is expected in the first quarter of 2016.

On January 5, 2012, the Company and the Bank were served with a
summons and complaint filed on December 19, 2011, in the Circuit
Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas, Division III, styled Robert
Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk vs. Bank of the Ozarks, Inc.
and Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. CV-2011-777. In addition, on
December 21, 2012, the Bank was served with a summons and
complaint filed on December 20, 2012, in the Circuit Court of
Pulaski County, Arkansas, Ninth Division, styled Audrey Muzingo v.
Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. 60 CV-12-6043. The complaint in each
case alleges that the Company and/or Bank have harmed the
plaintiffs, current or former customers of the Bank, by improper,
unfair, and unconscionable assessment and collection of excessive
overdraft fees from the plaintiffs.

According to the complaints, plaintiffs claim that the Bank
employs sophisticated software to automate its overdraft system,
and that this system unfairly and inequitably manipulates and
alters customers' transaction records in order to maximize
overdraft penalties, particularly utilizing a practice of posting
of items in "high-to-low" order, despite the actual sequence in
which such items are presented for payment. Plaintiffs claim that
the Bank's deposit agreements with customers do not adequately
disclose the Bank's overdraft assessment policies and are
ambiguous, deceptive, unfair, and misleading. The complaint in
each case alleges that these actions and omissions constitute
breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, unconscionable conduct, conversion, unjust
enrichment, and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.  Each of the complaints seeks to have the cases
certified by the court as a class action for all Bank account
holders similarly situated, and seeks a declaratory judgment as to
the wrongful nature of the Bank's overdraft fee policies,
restitution of overdraft fees paid by the plaintiffs and the
putative class (defined as all Bank customers residing in
Arkansas) as a result of the actions cited in the complaints,
disgorgement of profits as a result of the alleged wrongful
actions, and unspecified compensatory and statutory or punitive
damages, together with pre-judgment interest, costs, and
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

The Company and Bank filed a motion to dismiss and to compel
arbitration in the Walker case. The trial court denied the motion
and found that the arbitration provision contained in the
controlling Consumer Deposit Account Agreement was unconscionable
and thus unenforceable on the grounds that the provision was the
result of unequal bargaining power.

On September 18, 2013, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed the
trial court's ruling and remanded the case to the trial court for
the purpose of entering an order compelling arbitration. On
October 7, 2013, the plaintiffs filed petitions for
reconsideration and review before the Arkansas Court of Appeals
and Arkansas Supreme Court, respectively. On May 15, 2014, the
Arkansas Supreme Court vacated the Arkansas Court of Appeals'
decision, reversing and remanding the case to the trial court to
determine, in the first instance, whether there is a valid
agreement to arbitrate disputes between the named plaintiffs and
the Bank.

On October 30, 2014, the trial court issued an order once again
denying the Company and Bank's motion to dismiss and to compel
arbitration, finding that the Consumer Deposit Account Agreement
containing the arbitration provision was not enforceable because
of a lack of mutual agreement and lack of mutual obligation. The
Company and Bank have appealed the trial court's ruling to the
Arkansas Supreme Court on an interlocutory basis. A ruling from
the Arkansas Supreme Court is expected in the first quarter of
2016.

The Plaintiff in the Muzingo case has agreed to stay the
proceedings in that case pending the outcome of the appeal in the
Walker case. The Company and the Bank believe the Plaintiffs'
claims in each of these cases are unfounded and subject to
meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend against these
claims.

Bank of the Ozarks is a bank holding company registered under the
Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.  The Company owns an Arkansas
state chartered subsidiary bank, Bank of the Ozarks.


BARBUTO LLC: "Amaro" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Martin Amaro, Plaintiff on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Barbuto, LLC d/b/s Barbuto Restaurant and Jonathan
Waxman, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01581-AJN (S.D. N.Y., March
1, 2016), seeks payment for all hours worked and overtime hours
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

"Barbuto Restaurant" a food/beverage establishment located at 775
Washington Street, New York, NY 10014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert Kraselnik, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
     40-08 Case Street, 2nd Floor
     Elmhurst, NY 11373
     Tel: 646-342-2019
     Fax: 646-661-1317


BIGCOMMERCE INC: "Lewis" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Lewis, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BigCommerce, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-00235 (W.D. Tex., February 25, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime
wages.  Plaintiff said she routinely worked more than 60-65 hours
a week but was not paid overtime.

Defendant BigCommerce, Inc. can be served through its president,
Wadih Macharlani, at his last known place of employment at 11305
Four Points Drive, Bldg II 3rd, Austin, TX 78726.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John F. Melton, Esq.
     THE MELTON LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
     2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220
     Tel: (512) 330-0017
     Fax: (512) 330-0067
     E-mail: jmelton@jfmelton.com


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: "La Flamme" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Mary La Flamme, Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., OSI Restaurant
Partners, LLC and Carrabba's Italian Grill, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
8:16-cv-00452-RAL-TGW (M.D. Fla., February 25, 2015), seeks payment
of wages for all hours worked and minimum wages for non-tipped
work.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as interpreted by the
Department of Labor (the "DOL"), employers may not take the tip
credit for time the employee is engaged in a non-tipped job and
instead must pay at the minimum wage.  Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and Class
Members wages for all hours worked and failing to pay minimum
wages for non-tipped work in violation of the FLSA tip-credit
provisions.  Defendants failed to compensate their employees
including Plaintiff and the Class Members at the applicable
federal minimum wage for Non-Tipped Work that exceed 20% of hours
worked in the workweek.

Defendant Bloomin' Brands, Inc. is a corporation organized under
the laws of the State of Delaware and has conducted business
directly and through its subsidiaries in the State of Florida.
Bloomin' Brands principal place of business is located at 2202 N.
West Shore Boulevard, Tampa, Florida.

Defendant OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC ("OSI") is a limited
liability corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Delaware and has conducted business directly and through its
subsidiaries, managers and agents in the State of Florida. OSI's
principal place of business is located at 2202 N. West Shore
Boulevard, Tampa, Florida.

Defendant Carrabba's Italian Grill, LLC ("Carrabba's") is a limited
liability corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Florida and has conducted business directly and through its
subsidiaries, managers and agents in the State of Florida.
Carrabba's principal place of business is located at 2202 N. West
Shore Boulevard, Tampa, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David H. Lichter, Esq.
     LICHTER LAW FIIRM
     2999 N.E. 191st Street, Suite #330
     Aventure, FL 33180
     Tel: (786) 664-6727
     Fax: (786) 644-6788
     E-mail: dlichter@lichterlawfirm.com

           - and -

     Christopher B. Hall, Esq.
     Patrick J. Hannon, Esq.
     HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
     1230 Peachtree St. N.E., Suite 950
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Tel: (404) 876-8100
     Fax: (404) 876-3477
     E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com
             phannon@hallandlampros.com

          - and -

     Ted E. Trief, Esq.
     Shelly L. Friedland, Esq.
     Caitlin Duffy, Esq.
     TRIEF & OLK
     150 E 58th Street, 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10155
     Tel: (212) 486-6060
     Fax: (212) 317-2946
     E-mail: ttrief@triefandolk.com
             sfriedland@triefandolk.com
             cduffy@triefandolk.com


BLUE CROSS: Fla. Ct. Denies Preexisting Condition Class Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three women applied for individual health insurance policies from
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., between 2006 and
2010.  Because of preexisting medical conditions, Blue Cross
offered limited coverage.  Contending that Section 627.6487,
Florida Statutes, prohibited Blue Cross from doing that, the three
women sued on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.

Circuit Judge Gregory M. Keyser entered orders in Arduini v. Blue
Cross, Case No. 50-2011-CA-00364XXXXMB (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct.), last
week denying class certification and dismissing the lawsuits on
summary judgment in the health insurer's favor.

This is the first known decision under the subject Florida
statute.  Judge Keyser found the three women are not "eligible
individuals" as that phrase is defined in the statute because they
were eligible for coverage under other health insurance plans.
Two of the women were enrolled in other group health plans and one
of the women had declined COBRA coverage for which she was
eligible.  Therefore, Blue Cross' legal team at Holland & Knight
successfully argued, the statute imposed no duty on Blue Cross to
offer the women policies that would cover their preexisting
conditions.  Because the three women didn't fall within the
definition of eligible individuals under the Florida statute,
Judge Keyser said they lack standing and there's no way they could
serve as class representatives.

A copy of Judge Keyser's 31-page Order Denying Class Certification
is available at http://beardgroup.com/CAR/Arduini_v_BCBSF_2.pdfat
no charge and a copy of his 25-page order granting Final Summary
Judgment is available at
http://beardgroup.com/CAR/Arduini_v_BCBSF_1.pdfat no charge.

In this litigation, the Plaintiffs were represented by:

          Jeff Liggio, Esq.
          Michael R. Santana, Esq.
          LIGGIO BENRUBI, P.A.
          The Barristers Building, Suite 3B
          1615 Forum Place
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401

               - and -

          Louis Silber, Esq.
          SILBER, VALENTE & DAVIS
          1806 Old Okeechobee Blvd.
          West Palm Beach, FL 33409

               - and -

          Steven Earle, Esq.
          EARLE & SMITH
          120 E. Robinson St.
          Orlando, FL 32801

and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., was represented
by:

          Timothy J. Conner, Esq.
          Jennifer A. Mansfield, Esq.
          Raymond F. Treadwell, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          50 North Laura St., Suite 3900
          Jacksonville, FL 32202


BLUE CROSS: Faces Comet Capital Suit in Va. Over Insurance Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Comet Capital LLC, Plaintiffs, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama ("BCBS-
AL"), et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00021-NKM (W.D. Va.,
March 1, 2016), is brought on behalf of subscribers of Blue Cross
Blue Shield, Virginia health insurance to enjoin an ongoing
conspiracy between and among Blue Cross Blue Shield, Virginia, the
individual Blue Plans and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association to
allocate markets in violation of the prohibitions of the Sherman
Act.  The Complaint says BCBS-VA has abused and continues to abuse
its monopoly power to maintain and enhance its market dominance by
unreasonably restraining trade, thus artificially inflating the
premiums it charges to consumers.

Judge Norman K. Moon is assigned to the case.

The case is related to the multi-district litigation, IN RE: BLUE
CROSS BLUE SHIELD ANTITRUST LITIGATION MDL No. 2406 (N.D. Ala.),
pending before Judge R. David Proctor.

Defendant BCBSA is a corporation organized under the state of
Illinois and headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. It is owned and
controlled by 36 health insurance plans that operate under the
Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names. The
Principal headquarters for BCBSA is located at 225 North Michigan
Avenue, Chicago, IL 60601.

Defendant BCBS-VA is the health insurance plan operating under the
Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names in most of
Virginia, with the exception of a small portion of Northern
Virginia in the Washington, DC suburbs. The principal headquarters
for BCBS-VA is located at 2235 Staples Mill Road, Suite 401,
Richmond, VA 23230.


The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Wells Harrell, Esq.
     William A. Isaacson, Esq.
     Richard A. Feinstein, Esq.
     Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
     5301 Wisconsin Ave., NW
     Washington, DC 20015
     Tel: (202) 237-2727
     Fax: (201) 237-6131
     Email: wisaacson@bsfllp.com
            rfeinstein@bsfllp.com
            hhume@bsfllp.com
            wharrell@bsfllp.com


BUFFALO WILD WING: "Cho" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cho and Jennifer Walder, Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly v. Four M Franchising, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv-01613 (S.D. N.Y., March 2, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Buffalo Wild Wings is a casual dining restaurant and sports bar
franchise in the United States, Canada, Mexico and the
Philippines. Defendants own and operate 18 Buffalo Wild Wing
restaurant located at: 139 Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn, New York
11217; 107167 1st Ave, Forest Hills, New York 11375; 2319
Frederick Douglas Blvd., New York, New York 10027; 134-15 20th
Ave., College Point, New York 11356; 193 West 237th Street, Bronx,
New York 10463; 253 West 47th Street, New York, New York 10036;
632 Gateway Dr., Brooklyn, New York 11239; 358B Broadway Mall,
Hicksville, New York 11801; 33 LeCount Place, New Rochelle, New
York 10801; 44 Westchester Ave., Port Chester, New York 10573;
4640 Palisades Center Dr., West Nyack, New York 10994; 737 Merrick
Ave., Westbury, New York 11590; 1 Mamaroneck Ave., White Plains,
New York 10601; 208 Summer St., Stamford, Connecticut 06901; 1201
Boston Post Rd., STE R3, Milford, CT 06460; 74-76 Church Street,
New Haven, CT 06510; 350 Universal Dr., North Haven, CT 06473; 20
Backus Ave., Danbury, CT 06810.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
     Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
     Nicholas P. Melito, Esq.
     FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
     475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 300-0375


BULLSEYE GLASS: Keller Rohrback Mulls Emissions Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Jaquiss, writing for Willamette Week, reports that after
weeks of public outcry and hand-wringing from politicians, it
appears the controversy over heavy-metals emissions from Bullseye
Glass Co. is headed for court.

Keller Rohrback, a Seattle law firm, is looking into a class
action lawsuit on behalf of families living near Bullseye's
factory in the Southeast Portland neighborhood of Brooklyn.

"We are actively investigating what options residents who live
near Bullseye Glass might have to hold the company accountable and
to ensure that it doesn't continue to operate in a way that
potentially puts people and their property at risk,"
Matthew Preusch -- mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com -- a Keller
Rohrback lawyer, tells WW.

Mr. Preusch, a Lake Oswego native now living in California, used
to be an environmental reporter for The Oregonian.


CALIFORNIA: Fire Prevention Fee Bills Mailed to Residents
---------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Petersen, writing for MML News Reporter, reports that the
fifth round of controversial Fire Prevention Fee bills went out on
March 1 in California for the fiscal year 2015-16.

More than 700,000 rural residents will find the bill in their
mailboxes for the fifth year.  State Board of Equalization Vice
Chair George Runner has been very vocal in his opposition to the
fee claiming it instead a tax.  Mr. Runner concludes,
"Californians who live in rural areas already pay taxes to fund
essential fire services.  It's a shame this unfair and illegal tax
continues to extract dollars from hardworking people.  The
Legislature and Governor should repeal it."  A recent
myMotherlode.com poll found citizens in the Mother Lode agree and
support a class action lawsuit.  As previously reported, the
lawsuit garnered class action status in January.

The bills, nearly 10,000 a day, go out by county in alphabetical
order starting with Alameda County.  The final delivery is on June
13 in Yuba County.  Mr. Runner reminds property owners that they
must file a Petition for Redetermination within 30 days of the
billing date to be eligible for a refund if the class action suit
is successful.


CALIFORNIA WATER: Fixed Price of Ferric Chloride, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
City of Bismarck, Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. California Water Technologies, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01448 (C.D. Cal., March 2, 2016),
alleges that the Defendants and their co-conspirators met and
communicated secretly concerning the pricing and marketing of
Ferric Chloride so as to avoid detection, in violation of the
Sherman Act.

Defendant California Water is a corporation existing under the
laws of the state of California, with its principal place of
business at 8851 Dice Road, Santa Fe Springs, California.
California Water is a joint venture formed by Phibro-Tech, Inc.
and PVS Technologies.

Defendant PVS Chemicals is a corporation existing under the laws
of the state of Michigan, with its principal place of business at
10900 Harper Avenue, Detroit, MI.

Defendant PVS Technologies is a corporation existing under the
laws of the state of Michigan, with its principal place of
business at 10900 Harper Avenue, Detroit, MI.

Defendant Kemira is a publicly held Georgia corporation with its
principal place of business at 1000 Parkwood Circle, Suite 500,
Atlanta, Georgia. Kemira is a subsidiary of Kemira Oyj, a Finnish
company with its principal place of business in Helsinki, Finland.

Defendant Hawkins is a publicly held Minnesota corporation with
its principal place of business at 2381 Rosegate, Roseville,
Minnesota. Hawkins blends, manufactures, and distributes various
chemical products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence D. King, Esq.
     Mario M. Choi, Esq.
     KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
     350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (415) 772-4700
     Fax: (416) 772-4707
     Email: lking@kaplanfox.com
            mchoi@kaplanfox.com

          - and -

     Justin B. Farar, Esq.
     KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
     11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 620
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Tel: (310) 575-8670
     Fax: (310) 575-8697

          - and -

     Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
     Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq.
     KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
     850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 687-1980
     Fax: (212) 687-7714
     Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
            rkisheimer@kaplanfox.com


CARMEL, IN: Attorney Seeks Injunction Against 8-2 Traffic Fines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Sikich, writing for IndyStar, reports that attorney
Ed Bielski is seeking an injunction in federal court to prevent
the city of Carmel from collecting fines for traffic tickets
police issued under an invalid city ordinance.

The Court of Appeals of Indiana unanimously ruled on Dec. 11 that
Carmel traffic ordinance 8-2 improperly duplicated state law.

Through his effort to collect information for the federal lawsuit,
Mr. Bielski said, he learned Carmel has continued to try to
collect money from motorists cited under the local ordinance for
traffic tickets.  Carmel's fines can be more than three times as
much as the state's fines for the same infraction, he said.

Carmel police, he said, sent letters via certified mail on
Feb. 16 to motorists who had received traffic tickets under
ordinance 8-2 to alert them they were now being ticketed under a
different traffic law.  The letter, he said, provided the
motorists with a new court date.  They also were advised they
could pay their fines rather than go to court by signing their
traffic ticket and mailing in the money.

Mr. Bielski said the information in the letter was an outright
fabrication. He said the tickets had not been refiled and no new
court dates had been set in Carmel's traffic court.  And
regardless, he contends, Carmel can't retroactively cite motorists
under a different traffic law.

"The city is creating a problem by suggesting to people they
should be paying their tickets," he said, "because there are no
tickets pending."

Mr. Bielski has to amend a procedural matter in the federal
complaint before Judge Mark Dinsmore will decide whether to grant
the injunction.  There is no timeline for a decision.

In a prepared statement to IndyStar, John Maley, an attorney with
Barnes & Thornburg who represents the city of Carmel, said he
believes the federal court has no jurisdiction over claims
adjudicated against traffic offenders in state court.

He said the city would seek to dismiss the federal lawsuit.

"Carmel views the lawsuit as meritless," Mr. Maley said, "under
governing legal precedent, and is vigorously defending it.  Carmel
will seek recovery of all costs possible if successful in
defending the action."

The city also hopes to overturn the Dec. 11 decision by the state
Court of Appeals.  Carmel has appealed that decision to the
Indiana Supreme Court, which has not yet decided whether it will
hear the case.

Carmel attorney Doug Haney argued in Carmel's court filing that
the Court of Appeals ruling impinges on elected officials'
authority throughout the state to set speed limits and strips
cities and towns of their statutory power to collect monetary
judgment against traffic offenders.

The Indiana Association of Cities and Towns and Indiana Municipal
Lawyers Association have filed briefs supporting Carmel's effort,
saying the ruling could have dire impacts on cities and towns
throughout Indiana with similar ordinances.

The case stems from a traffic ticket Jason J. Maraman received
last year that cited him under Carmel traffic ordinance 8-2 for
driving 30 mph in a 20 mph zone. The state Court of Appeals ruled
Carmel's traffic ordinance 8-2 was invalid because it simply
copied the state code governing traffic.

The state's Home Rule Act says local governments can't simply
duplicate a state statute, Mr. Maraman argued in court,
representing himself.  The Home Rule Act of 1980 grants powers and
places restrictions on local governments in Indiana and delineates
the role of the state from the role of local governments.

If local governments adopt traffic ordinances, he argued they have
to write local ordinances detailing their city interests, such as
identifying a specific reason for a local speed limit on a
specific stretch of road.

In court filings, Carmel has said city police have issued 8,124
speeding tickets under ordinance 8-2 during the past three years
and notes they all would be declared invalid under the court
ruling.

Mr. Bielski said Carmel's motivation is, in part, financial.
Carmel police are citing motorists under the local ordinance, he
said, so the city, rather than the state, can collect the fines.

He said a speeding ticket for driving 20 mph over the limit
includes a $35.50 state fine, plus court costs, under state
statute.  Under Carmel's ordinance, he said, driving 20 mph over
the limit on the same road includes a $125 city fine, plus court
costs.

He said Carmel also appears to have used ordinance 8-2 to write
tickets to cite everything from expired license plates to drivers
without a valid license.  He said he can't imagine another reason
why a city would have a local interest to cite motorists under a
local ordinance, rather than a state statute, for such
infractions.

"Carmel is treating its police like a revenue source,"
Mr. Bielski said.  "When you make that a primary goal and function
in a community, you've lost direction.  I think Carmel is confused
as to what its police officers are.  They are protectors not tax
collectors."


CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Leaseholders Seek Mediator to Resolve Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for wcexaminer.com, reports that,
concerned Chesapeake Appalachia LLC may file for bankruptcy,
natural leaseholders included in an $11 million settlement are
asking a federal judge to appoint a mediator to resolve a court
action filed by the state Office of Attorney General that
jeopardizes the agreement.

In a motion filed on Feb. 26, Attorney Douglas Clark of the
Peckville section of Blakely says a decline natural gas prices has
hurt Chesapeake's finances.  There's concern the company may
withdraw from the settlement of a class action lawsuit if the
attorney general's case drags on.

Speculation over the future of the Chesapeake, the nation's second
largest natural gas producer, escalated in February upon news it
hired Kirkland & Ellis, a law firm that specializes in
restructuring debt.

The company also recently announced it has pulled all its drilling
rigs from Pennsylvania gas fields.

Chesapeake tried to quell concerns about its finances, issuing a
statement in February saying it has no plans to file for
bankruptcy.  That assurance did not allay concerns of leaseholders
who agreed to the settlement of the lawsuit.

Mr. Clark represents Russell and Gayle Burkett, who are among
leaseholders who sued Chesapeake in 2013.  The suit, filed by lead
plaintiffs Joseph and Billie Demchak, alleged the company wrongly
deducted post production costs for natural gas extracted through
Marcellus Shale drilling.

Chesapeake agreed in 2014 to settle the suit.  The deal was
derailed in December, however, when the attorney general's office
filed a motion opposing the settlement because it would preclude
the office from pursuing a complaint it filed in Bradford County
that alleges Chesapeake fraudulently induced landowners to enter
leases.  That case remains pending.

The proposed class action settlement was reached on behalf of
roughly 9,000 landowners who agreed to the terms of the deal,
Mr. Clark said.  Another 3,000 landowners opposed the agreement
and chose to opt out, which allows them to individually pursue
claims against Chesapeake.

In his motion, Mr. Clark said the attorney general's suit could
take years to resolve.  Given Chesapeake's precarious financial
condition, leaseholders risk losing the benefit of the settlement
if the matter is not resolved sooner.

"The proposed settlement agreement is the fair and reasonable
product of an armslength negotiation among the parties . . . It
provides certain recovery to all class members, and is the most
beneficial resolution of this matter," the motion says.

"The court's intervention is needed to prevent a significant
injustice to the more than 9,000 remaining class members."

Mr. Clark said he asked the attorney general's office to meet with
attorneys for the leaseholders and Chesapeake to try to resolve
the case, but the office refused.

The motion asks U.S. District Judge Malachy Mannion, who is
presiding over the class action lawsuit, to order all parties to
meet with a mediator.

Attempts on Feb. 29 to reach Gordon Pennoyer, spokesman for
Chesapeake, were unsuccessful.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Bradford County Couple Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
John Beauge, writing for PennLive, reports that a Bradford County
couple wants a judge to certify as a class action a federal
lawsuit that alleges Chesapeake Energy and its affiliates wrongly
reduced natural gas royalty payments.

Edward M. and Kathleen Ostroski on March 1, in a motion filed in
U.S. Middle District Court, claim there are more than 2,000
property owners in Pennsylvania like themselves who in aggregate
were cheated out of more than $5 million in royalty payments.

Chesapeake, of Oklahoma City, its subsidiaries Chesapeake
Appalachia and Chesapeake Operating, oppose the class action
motion.

The Athens-area couple's suit alleges Chesapeake:

   -- Paid no royalty on proceeds from derivative contracts.

   -- Deducted costs after Chesapeake Appalachia no longer held
title to the gas.

   -- Deducted costs that were inflated through collusion and
self-dealing with another company, transportation costs that were
fraudulent in their amounts and marketing fees that were not
incurred.

   -- Calculated royalties on a portion of the gas without
determining either the price paid or the costs deducted.

   -- Paid royalties on less than what a buyer paid for the gas.
The Ostroskis claim there is no other class action in commonwealth
that raises their claims.

The couple seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.


COLUMBIA GAS: 6th Circuit Reverses Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Parker G. Jordan, Esq. -- pjordan@bakerlaw.com -- of Baker &
Hostetler LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that in Baatz v.
Columbia Gas Transmission LLC, No. 15-3208, 2016 WL 731900 (6th
Cir. 2016), a panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a group of landowners in
Medina, Ohio against Columbia Gas Transmission for allegedly
storing natural gas under their property without compensation.
The district court had dismissed the lawsuit under the "first-to-
file" rule on the ground that it was duplicative of a class action
filed against Columbia over a year earlier by other Ohio
landowners: Wilson v. Columbia Gas Transmission LLC, No. 2:12-cv-
01203 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 21, 2012).  While the panel concluded that
the first-to-file rule applied, it nevertheless reversed the
district court's dismissal because it found that the Medina
landowners raised "serious concerns" about their ability to have
their claims heard in the earlier-filed class action.

The first-to-file rule provides that "when actions involving
nearly identical parties and issues have been filed in two
different district courts, 'the court in which the first suit was
filed should generally proceed to judgment.'" Certified
Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, LLC v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d
535, 551 (6th Cir. 2007).  One of the purposes of the rule is to
avoid duplicative litigation, but courts must also consider
whether equitable considerations, such as evidence of forum
shopping, should preclude application of the first-to-file rule.

In Baatz, the Medina landowners argued that the parties to their
action and the Wilson class action were not "nearly identical"
because (1) although the Medina landowners were within the
putative class in Wilson, the class had not yet been certified,
and (2) even if the class were certified, the Medina landowners
would opt out.  The Sixth Circuit rejected these arguments, noting
that if plaintiffs were allowed to avoid application of the first-
to-file rule simply by representing that they would opt out of an
earlier-filed class action, then litigants, rather than the
courts, would decide when the rule applied and could unilaterally
"force resource-draining duplicative class actions to proceed
simultaneously."

But while the Sixth Circuit agreed that the first-to-file rule
applied, the court nonetheless held that the district court's
dismissal of the Medina landowners' suit was inappropriate because
it allegedly jeopardized their ability to have their claims heard
on the merits if the Wilson class is not certified. This risk
stems both from statute of limitation concerns and the fact that
the district court's dismissal order did not specify that the
dismissal was without prejudice, and therefore is presumed to be
with prejudice.  Thus, if the Wilson class is not certified or if
the Medina landowners opt out, they would still be barred from
pursuing their claims.

While the Sixth Circuit left it to the district court to decide
how best to manage the suit going forward, the court suggested
that staying the case while the Wilson court resolved the issues
raised by the Medina landowners would be the most reasonable
course of action.  To that end, the court quoted Judge Posner:
"Why take chances? It is simpler just to stay the second suit."
Asset Allocation & Mgmt. Co. v. W. Emp'rs Ins. Co., 892 F.2d 566,
571 (7th Cir. 1989).

Baatz suggests that when class action defendants are faced with
subsequent, separate lawsuits covering similar issues as the class
action, the first-to-file rule may not be used to obtain dismissal
of the subsequent suit if there are legitimate concerns about
whether those claims could be heard in the "first-filed" class
action.  Courts in these situations may decide not to "take
chances" by dismissing the suit, and may instead opt to stay the
suit while the plaintiff's ability to participate in the earlier-
filed class action is litigated.


CSX CORPORATION: "Toro" Misclassification Suit Moved to D. Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Toro, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf all others
similarly situated v. CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc. CSX
Transportation, Inc., and CSX Corporation, Defendants, has been
removed from the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, County of Worcester (C.A. No. 12-40115, May 31,
2012), to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Case No. 4:16-cv-40022-TSH, March 2, 2016).

The complaint asserted claims for unlawful misclassification of
Toro as an independent contractor and violation of the
Massachusetts Wage Act, under M.G.L. c. 149, Sections 148B and
148, respectively.  The Complaint asserts these claims for relief:
(1) a yearly recovery of at least $25,000 for "wages and benefits"
prior to mandatory statutory trebling; (2) a yearly recovery of at
least $3,000 for deductions from weekly settlements prior to
mandatory trebling; (3) a yearly recovery of at least $50,000 to
pay for Plaintiff's out-of-pocket business expenses, prior to
trebling; and (4) attorneys' fees and costs in excess of "several
hundred thousand dollars,"  based on initial calculations.

The Defendant is represented by:

     Michael T. Maroney, Esq.
     Raplh T. Lepore, III, Esq.
     Robert M.  Shaw, Esq.
     Francesca S. Morency, Esq.
     HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
     10 St. James Avenue
     Boston, MA 02116
     Tel: 617-523-2700
     Fax: 617-523-6850
     Email: michael.maroney@hklaw.com
            ralph.lepore@hklaw.com
            robert.shaw@hklaw.com
            francesca.morency@hklaw.com


CVR ENERGY: MOU Reached in Mustard and Sloan Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------
CVR Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties to the
Mustard and Sloan lawsuits have entered into a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") providing for the proposed settlement of the
lawsuits related to the Rentech Nitrogen merger.

On August 29, 2015, Mike Mustard, a purported unitholder of
Rentech Nitrogen, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
public unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen against Rentech Nitrogen,
Rentech Nitrogen GP, Rentech Nitrogen Holdings, Inc., Rentech,
Inc., CVR Partners, DSHC, LLC, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2, and
the members of the board of directors of Rentech Nitrogen GP (the
"Rentech Nitrogen Board"), in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware (the "Mustard Lawsuit"). The Mustard Lawsuit alleges,
among other things, that the consideration offered by CVR Partners
is unfair and inadequate and that, by pursuing a transaction that
is the result of an allegedly conflicted and unfair process,
certain of the defendants have breached their duties owed to the
unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen, and are engaging in self-dealing.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the director defendants:
(i) failed to take steps to maximize the value of Rentech Nitrogen
to its public shareholders, (ii) failed to properly value Rentech
Nitrogen, and (iii) ignored or did not protect against the
numerous conflicts of interest arising out of the proposed
transaction. The Mustard Lawsuit also alleges that Rentech
Nitrogen, Rentech Nitrogen GP, Rentech Nitrogen Holdings, Inc.,
Rentech, Inc., CVR Partners, DSHC, LLC, Merger Sub 1 and Merger
Sub 2 aided and abetted the director defendants in their purported
breach of fiduciary duties.

On October 6, 2015, Jesse Sloan, a purported unitholder of Rentech
Nitrogen, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the public
unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen against Rentech Nitrogen, Rentech
Nitrogen GP, CVR Partners, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2, and the
members of the Rentech Nitrogen Board, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (the "Sloan
Lawsuit"). The Sloan Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the
attempted sale of Rentech Nitrogen to CVR Partners was conducted
by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that (i) Rentech Nitrogen GP and
the Rentech Nitrogen Board breached their obligations under the
partnership agreement and their implied duty of good faith and
fair dealing by causing Rentech Nitrogen to enter into the merger
agreement and failing to disclose material information to
unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen, (ii) the Rentech Nitrogen Board
violated fiduciary duties owed to the unitholders of Rentech
Nitrogen based primarily on allegations of inadequate
consideration, restrictive deal protection devices and improper
disclosure, (iii) each of the defendants aided and abetted in the
foregoing breaches described in items (i) and (ii), and (iv)
Rentech Nitrogen and the Rentech Nitrogen Board violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
14a-9 thereunder based on improper disclosure contained in the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 (Registration No. 333-206982),
which was originally filed with the SEC by CVR Partners on
September 17, 2015.

Among other remedies, the plaintiffs in these actions seek to
enjoin the mergers and seek unspecified money damages. The
lawsuits are at a preliminary state, and the outcome of any such
litigation is uncertain. An adverse ruling in these actions may
cause the mergers to be delayed or not be completed, which could
cause the Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership not to realize some or
all of the anticipated benefits of the mergers. No amounts have
been recognized in these consolidated financial statements
regarding the lawsuits.

On February 1, 2016, the parties to the Mustard Lawsuit and the
Sloan Lawsuit entered into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU")
providing for the proposed settlement of the lawsuits. While the
defendants believe that no supplemental disclosure is required
under applicable laws, in order to avoid the burden and expense of
further litigation, they have agreed, pursuant to the terms of the
MOU, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the
proposed mergers. The MOU contemplates that the parties will enter
into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement
will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Rentech Nitrogen's unitholders. In the event
that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing
will be scheduled at which the United States District Court for
the Central District of California (the "Court") will consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed settlement.
If the proposed settlement is finally approved by the Court, it
will resolve and release all claims by unitholders of Rentech
Nitrogen challenging any aspect of the proposed mergers, the
merger agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
including in the prospectus and definitive proxy statement,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to such unitholders prior
to final approval of the proposed settlement. In addition, in
connection with the proposed settlement, the parties contemplate
that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the Court for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Rentech
Nitrogen or its successor. The proposed settlement is also
contingent upon, among other things, the mergers becoming
effective under Delaware law. There can be no assurance that the
Court will approve the proposed settlement contemplated by the
MOU. In the event that the proposed settlement is not approved and
such conditions are not satisfied, the defendants will continue to
vigorously defend against the allegations in the lawsuits.

CVR Energy, Inc. is a diversified holding company primarily
engaged in the petroleum refining and nitrogen fertilizer
manufacturing industries through its holdings in CVR Refining, LP
("CVR Refining" or the "Refining Partnership") and CVR Partners,
LP ("CVR Partners" or the "Nitrogen Fertilizer Partnership").


CVS HEALTH: Misrepresents Flu Relief Products, "Saal" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Saal, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. CVS Health ("CVS"), Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-00968 (N.D. Cal., February 26, 2016), seeks declaratory
judgment that Defendant's representation of its "CVS Flu Relief"
are false, misleading and/or deceptive; and restitution and
disgorgement of Defendant's revenues.

Defendant CVS Health is a corporation organizes and existing under
the laws of the State of Rhode Island. CVS's headquarters is at
One CVS Drive, Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

Defendant CVS has manufactured, advertised, marketed, distributed
or sold Flu Relief to tens of thousands of consumers in California
and throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

    Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
    Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
    BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT,P.C.
    600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
    San Diego, CA 92101
    Telephone: (619) 756-7748
    E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com
            mmuecke@bffb.com

          - and -

    Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
    BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT,P.C.
    2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
    Phoenix, AZ 85016
    Telephone: (602) 274-1100
    Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
    E-mail: eryan@bffb.com

          - and -

    Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
    Max A. Stein, Esq.
    BOODELL & DOMANSKIS, LLC
    353 N. Clark St. Suite 1800
    Chicago, IL 60604
    E-mail: sweltman@boodlaw.com
            mstein@boodlaw.com


DITOMASO INC: "Malee" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Chanel Malee, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Anthony & Frank DiTomaso, Inc., Anthony
DiTomaso and Fred DiTomaso, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00490
(N.D. Ohio, March 1, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay wages and overtime compensation in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Anthony & Frank DiTomas, Inc. is an Ohio Corporation
with its principal place of business in Mayfield Heights, Ohio,
with this judicial district and division. According to records
maintained by the Ohio Secretary of State, Defendants' statutory
agent for service of process is Leonard F. Carr, 1392 SOM Center
Road.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
     Ryan A. Winter, Esq.
     SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
     The Superior Building
     815 Superior Avenue E., Suite 1325
     Cleveland, OH 44114
     Tel: 440-498-9100
     Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
            rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com


E.G. CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Pepe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marcelo Lucio Pepe, Plaintiff, and other similarly situated
individuals v. E.G. Braswell Construction, Inc. and Edgar G.
Braswell, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-14059-KAM (S.D. Fla.,
February 29, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay unpaid wage compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Defendant, E.G. Braswell Construction, Inc., is a Florida Profit
Corporation, located in Monroe County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: 305-416-5000
     Fax: 305-416-5005
     Email: agp@rgpattorneys.com
            apetisco@rgpattorneys.com
            rregueiro@rgpattorneys.com
            pn@rgpattorneys.com


EL MUNICIPIO DE SAN JUAN: "Cordova" Suit Seeks Wages & OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Santos Cordova, Ramon Agosto Sanchez, Luis Burgos Curcio,
Anthony Ayala Nieves, Neftali Garcia Santiago, Jaime Rivera
Garcia, Wilfredo Narvaez Cordero, Antonio Rosa Suarez, Plaintiffs
and their respective conjugal partnerships v. El Municipio De San
Juan, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01348 (D.P.R., February
29, 2016), seeks payment for all hours worked and overtime hours
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Municipio de San Juan in the City of San Juan, Puerto
Rico is the employer of the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jane Becker Whitaker, Esq.
     Law Offices of JANE BECKER WHITAKER
     P.O. Box 9023914
     San Juan, PR 00902-3914
     Tel: 787-754-9191
     Fax: 787-764-3101
     Email: janebeckerwhitaker@yahoo.com
            janebeckerwhitaker@gmail.com

          - and -

     Jean Paul Vissepo Garriga, Esq.
     PO Box 3671116
     San Juan, PR 00936
     Tel: 787 633-9601
     Email: jp@visseppolaw.com

          - and -

     J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
     Andrew B. Howie, Esq.
     HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER & ANDERSON, P.C.
     5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
     West Des Moines, IA 50265-5749
     Tel: (515) 223-4567
     Fax: (515) 223-8887
     Email: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net
              ahowie@hudsonlaw.net


ENDOCYTE INC: Dismissal of "Vallabhaneni" Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gopichand Vallabhaneni, Plaintiff-Appellant, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Endocyte, Inc., et al.
Defendants-Appellee(s), Case No. 16-1454 (7th Cir., March 1,
2016), is an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit from the dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit.

Following consolidation of this case and two others, Plaintiff,
Gopichand Vallabhaneni, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, filed an Amended Complaint alleging several claims of
Securities Exchange Act and Securities Act violations against
Defendants, Endocyte, Inc., Endocyte's officers and directors, and
securities underwriters.  Vallabhaneni alleges that Endocyte made
materially untrue and/or misleading statements and omissions in
the registration statement issued in connection with Endocyte's
April 2014 public offering for a potentially promising cancer
treatment drug -- Vintafolide -- which had to cease its Phase 3
clinical trial.

On March 6, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  District
Judge Tanya Walton Pratt (S.D. Ind.) granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss, in an order dated Jan. 4, 2016, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/FLZcoufrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mario Garcia, Esq.
     BRATTAIN & MINNIX
     151 N. Delaware Street
     Indianapolis, IN 46204-0000
     Tel: 317-231-1750

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

      Daniel Eugene Pulliam, Esq.
      FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
      300 N. Meridian Street
      Indianapolis, IN 46204-1782
      Tel: 317-237-0300

           - and -

      Judy L. Woods, Esq.
      BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF
      One American Square
      Indianapolis, IN 46282
      Tel: 317-632-3232


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: "Vathana" Case Parties Reached Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in the
Vathana class action have agreed to a settlement in principle and
are in the process of finalizing settlement documents.

In April 2009, a putative class action entitled Vathana v.
EverBank was filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County,
California, against EverBank on behalf of all persons who invested
in certain EverBank foreign currency certificates of deposit
between April 24, 2005 and April 24, 2009, whose certificates of
deposit were closed by EverBank and who were allegedly improperly
paid the value of the account. In May 2009, EverBank removed the
case to the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
EverBank breached its contract with its customers by invoking the
force majeure provision when closing certain foreign currency
certificates of deposit, and that at the time of account closing,
utilizing an improper conversion rate.

On March 15, 2010, a class was certified for purchasers of a
WorldCurrency(R) Certificate of Deposit denominated in Icelandic
Krona which matured between October 8 and December 31, 2008. On
October 14, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the issue of whether EverBank breached its contract
with the plaintiff by (1) failing to deliver Icelandic Krona when
EverBank closed the plaintiff's Icelandic Krona certificates of
deposit and (2) using commercially unreasonable conversion rates
when converting from Icelandic Krona to U.S. Dollars. EverBank
filed its reply and cross-motion for summary judgment on November
22, 2010.

On March 9, 2012, the Court entered an Order Granting EverBank's
Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that EverBank was permitted
to close the clients Icelandic Krona CDs without notice to avoid
losses to the clients or the bank. On September 7, 2012, plaintiff
filed a brief appealing the lower court's granting of summary
judgment in favor of EverBank. On October 9, 2012, EverBank filed
its responsive brief.

On October 31, 2014, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that EverBank did
not breach the Terms and Conditions by closing the CDs without
consent, but reversed and remanded the lower courts decision that
EverBank did not breach the customer deposit agreement as to the
conversion rate paid to customers. On October 9, 2015, the parties
agreed to a settlement in principle and are in the process of
finalizing settlement documents. All pending court dates have been
stayed in the interim.

EverBank Financial Corp, a Delaware corporation, is a unitary
savings and loan holding company headquartered in Jacksonville,
Florida.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Still Defends MERS-Related Cases
----------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp. remains a party to the so-called Mortgage
Electronic Registration Services related litigation, EverBank said
in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 19, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Services (MERS), EverHome
Mortgage Company, EverBank and other lenders and servicers that
have held mortgages through MERS are parties to the following
material and class action lawsuits where the plaintiffs allege
improper mortgage assignment and, in some instances, the failure
to pay recording fees in violation of state recording statutes:
(1) State of Ohio, ex. rel. David P. Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney
General of Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc., et al., filed in
October 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas for Geauga County, Ohio;
and (2) Delaware County, PA, Recorder of Deeds v. MERSCORP, Inc.,
et al., filed in November 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of
Delaware County, Pennsylvania.

In these material and class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs in
each case generally seek judgment from the courts compelling the
defendants to record all assignments, restitution, compensatory
and punitive damages, and appropriate attorneys' fees and costs.

"We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
contest all such claims vigorously," the Company said.

EverBank Financial Corp, a Delaware corporation, is a unitary
savings and loan holding company headquartered in Jacksonville,
Florida.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Objector Appeals "Wilson" Case Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, an objector has filed a
notice of appeal of the approved settlement in the class action
lawsuit by Dwight Wilson.

On June 18, 2014, a punitive class action entitled Dwight Wilson,
Jesus A. Avelar-Lemus, Jessie Cross, and Mattie Cross on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. EverBank, N.A.,
Everhome Mortgage, Assurant, Inc., Standard Guaranty Insurance
Company, and American Security Insurance Company was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
In this class action case, the plaintiffs seek damages for
overpayment of lender placed insurance premiums, injunctive
relief, declaratory relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 17, 2015, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
that was approved by the court on January 20, 2016. On February 8,
2016, the Court entered final judgment in the matter. On February
12, 2016, a notice of appeal was filed by an objector of the
approved settlement. The claims administration process remains
ongoing.

EverBank Financial Corp, a Delaware corporation, is a unitary
savings and loan holding company headquartered in Jacksonville,
Florida.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: "Bland" Plaintiffs Demand Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, the plaintiffs in the
"Bland" collective action filed on February 5, 2016, an amended
demand for arbitration naming nine (9) individual plaintiffs and
dropping the demand for collection action treatment.

"We are party to a collective action arbitration demand under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) entitled Edward Moise, James
Tyrrell, John Jahangani, Louis Andrew Doherty III, Calvin Cooper,
Lemuel Bland and all others similarly situated v. EverBank and
EverBank Financial Corp filed with the American Arbitration
Association on September 3, 2015," the Company said.  The
plaintiffs in this collective action arbitration allege that
plaintiffs and the class were (1) improperly classified as exempt
under the FLSA (2) entitled to and not paid overtime and (3) not
paid federally mandated minimum wage. The demand seeks (1) unpaid
back wages, (2) liquidated damages equal to the back pay and (3)
costs of the suit incurred by plaintiff.

"We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
intend to contest all such claims vigorously," the Company said.

EverBank Financial Corp, a Delaware corporation, is a unitary
savings and loan holding company headquartered in Jacksonville,
Florida.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: "West" Action Administratively Closed
---------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the lawsuit filed by
Anthony West has been administratively closed pending a ruling on
the motion for conditional certification.

The Company is a party to a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act entitled Anthony West and all others similarly
situated under 29 USC 216(B) v. EverBank Financial Corp filed on
May 19, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division. The plaintiff in this
collective action suit alleges that plaintiff and the class were
(1) improperly classified as exempt under the FLSA (2) entitled to
and not paid overtime and (3) not paid federally mandated minimum
wage. The suit seeks (1) unpaid back wages, (2) liquidated damages
equal to the back pay and (3) costs of the suit incurred by
plaintiff. EverBank filed an answer to the complaint denying the
claims. Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification on
August 6, 2015, and EverBank filed its opposition on September 14,
2015. The case has been administratively closed pending a ruling
on the motion for conditional certification.

EverBank Financial Corp, a Delaware corporation, is a unitary
savings and loan holding company headquartered in Jacksonville,
Florida.


FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Josh Angel Threatens to Sue Directors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua J. Angel, Esq., at Herrick, Feinstein LLP, delivered
letters last week to the directors for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Full-text copies of the letters are available at
http://gselinks.com/pdf/Perfidy_Part_3.pdfat no charge.  Mr.
Angel shared copied of his "Government Perfidy and Mismanagement
of the GSEs in Conservatorship" paper released last month that
concludes the U.S. government's implicit guarantee of the GSEs'
preferred stock was always there and still is.

"I have engaged counsel to commence suit against you and the
Company for class redress for breach of fiduciary duty and breach
of contract," Mr. Angel tells the duopoly's directors.  "However,
before directing counsel to proceed I am writing to you in the
hope that litigation can be avoided by your accepting my urging to
to seek and obtain clarification from outside counsel regarding
your duties and liabilites. . . ."  Mr. Angel asks the directors
to respond by Mar. 10, 2016.

Class Action Reporter editors had the opportunity and privilege to
speak with Mr. Angel last week.  Mr. Angel is hopeful the GSEs'
directors will come to their senses; thinks the GSEs' directors
will exercise their fiduciary duties under applicable state law
and obviate the need for protracted litigation; and is optimistic
that Mel Watt at the Federal Housing Finance Administration will
help guide the GSE's directors down that path.


FDM GROUP: Faces "Park" Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
Grace Park, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. FDM Group Holdings PLC and FDM Group,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01520 (S.D.N.Y., February 26,
2016), alleges that the Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs
and Class Members premium overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week; have refused to pay minimum wage; and
have failed to make, keep and preserve records with respect to
each of its employees sufficient to determine their wages, hours
and other conditions and practices of employment.

Defendant FDM Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation registered to
conduct business in New York and maintaining corporate
headquarters at 14 Wall Street, New York, NY, 10005. Defendant
maintains US-based offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut,
Tennessee, Texas and Illinois. FDM Group, Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Defendant FDM Group Holdings PLC.

Defendant FDM Group Holdings PLC is a Public Limited Company
registered in England (Reg. No. 07078823) with a principal place
of business in London.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Q. Davis, Esq.
     Rachel M. Haskell, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PLLC
     225 Broadway, Suite 1830
     New York, New York 10007
     Telephone: (646) 430-7930


FIRST AMERICAN: Still Faces Suits Alleging Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company is a party to lawsuits that alleging that the Company, one
of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents have misclassified
certain employees.  Those cases include:

     -- Sager v. Interthinx, Inc., filed on January 23, 2015 and
pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, and

     -- Weber v. Interthinx, Inc., et al., filed on April 17, 2015
and pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

These lawsuits are putative class actions for which a class has
not been certified.

The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business
of providing financial services through its title insurance and
services segment and its specialty insurance segment.


FIRST AMERICAN: Still Faces Suits Over Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company is a party to lawsuits alleging that the Company, one of
its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents have overcharged or
improperly charged fees for products and services, denied home
warranty claims, failed to timely file certain documents, and gave
items of value to developers, builders, brokers and others as
inducements to refer business in violation of certain laws, such
as consumer protection laws and laws generally prohibiting unfair
business practices, and certain obligations.  The cases include:

     -- Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on January 22, 2009 and pending in the United States
District Court of New Jersey,

     -- Downing v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
filed on October 2, 2015 and pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia,

     -- Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 21, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

     -- Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on June 15, 2006 and pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles,

     -- McCormick v. First American Real Estate Services, Inc., et
al., filed on December 31, 2015 and pending in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Orange,

     -- Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on February 25, 2005 and pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

     -- Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, and

     -- In re First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation,
consolidated on October 9, 2014 and pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

All of these lawsuits, except Kaufman and Kirk, are putative class
actions for which a class has not been certified. In Kaufman a
class was certified but that certification was subsequently
vacated. A trial of the Kirk matter has concluded, plaintiff has
filed a notice of appeal and the Company filed a cross appeal.

The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business
of providing financial services through its title insurance and
services segment and its specialty insurance segment.


FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Barthet" Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Barthet, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Firstsource Solutions USA, LLC d/b/a
MedAssist (MedAssist), Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-20756-JLK (S.D.
Fla., March 1, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
making unsolicited calls pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Defendant MedAssist is a Delaware limited liability company, with
its principal place of business at 1661 Lyndon Farm Court,
Louisville, Kentucky 40223. Defendant is in the business of
providing business process management solutions to organizations
in the healthcare industry and specifically, Mount Sinai Medical
Center ("Mount Sinai") in Miami Beach, Florida. Defendant
transacts business throughout the United States, including in
Miami, Florida and specifically in this district and division.
Indeed, Defendant has an office located in this district at 7715
NW 48th Street, Suite 100, Miami, FL 33166.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lance A. Harke, Esq.
     Sarah Clasby Engel, Esq.
     Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
     HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP
     9699 NE Second Avenue
     Miami Shores, FL 33138
     Tel: (305) 536-8220
     Fax: (305) 536-8229
     Email: lharke@harkeclasby.com
            sengel@harkeclasby.com
            hbushman@harkeclasby.com

          - and -

     Manuel L. Dobrinsky, Esq.
     Eric Bluestein, Esq.
     DOLAN DOBRINSKY ROSENBLUM LLP
     2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 609
     Miami, FL 33133
     Tel: (305) 371-2692
     Fax: (305) 371-2961
     Email: mdobrinsky@DDRLawyers.com
            EBluestein@DDRLawyers.com


GIFTS ON 8TH: "Haider" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Md Sahid Haider, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Gifts On 8th, Inc. and Muhammad Usman Nazir,
Case No. 7:16-cv-01584 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2016), is brought to
remedy acts committed by the Defendants amounting to wage and hour
violations, unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime wages in
willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Gifts On 8th, Inc. is a domestic corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York with s principal place of
business located at 799 8th Avenue, New York, NY 10019.

Defendant Muhammad Usman Nazir is the President and/or Owner of
Gifts on 8th, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Barak P. Cardenas, Esq.
     CARDENAS ISLAM & ASSOC., P.L.L.C.
     175-61 Hillside Ave. Ste. 302
     Jamaica, NY 11432
     Tel: (347) 809-7810
     Fax: (914) 861-0099


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Seeks Review of Avandia Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wolf, Martin Bricketto and Allissa Wickham, writing for
Law360, report that GlaxoSmithKline LLC has asked the U.S. Supreme
Court to review a Third Circuit order sustaining class action
claims of racketeering against the company for allegedly
concealing the risks associated with diabetes drug Avandia to reap
inflated profits from health benefit payors, saying it conflicts
with court precedents and ignores the absence of alleged injuries.

In a Feb. 23 high court petition, GSK said the high court should
review the Third Circuit's October decision allowing union health
and welfare funds to continue pursuing Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act claims against the company because it
conflicts with the Eleventh Circuit's ruling in a similar case --
Ironworkers Local Union 68 v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals -- as
well as the decisions of other appellate courts.

The drugmaker argued that the appeals court was incorrect to
conclude that the plaintiffs had advanced a plausible economic
injury -- that GSK concealed and misrepresented Avandia's risks,
leading third-party payors to cover the drug at favorable rates
when it should have been worth less and prescribed at a lower
rate.

The Third Circuit's decision should be reviewed because the
plaintiffs did not allege that the drug was ineffective or injured
any of their beneficiaries and the Eleventh Circuit held in
Ironworkers that a third-party payor cannot sustain a RICO claim
based solely on an allegation that a drug was misrepresented and
that cheaper alternatives were available, GSK said.

Further, the company argued, the circuit court's decision
contravenes circuit court and Supreme Court precedent with regards
to causation, saying that the intervening decisions of prescribing
doctors "break a causal chain and render causation too attenuated"
under authoritative RICO precedents and that the plaintiffs rest
on conclusory evidence of reliance without offering any factual
detail about the alleged Avandia misrepresentations.

"These important issues repeatedly arise in [third-party payor]
suits against drug manufacturers, which comprise a significant and
growing segment of prescription-drug litigation in this country,"
GSK said, urging the court to take up the case.  "The implications
for the entire pharmaceutical industry are enormous -- threatening
virtually limitless liability in many cases in which the drug
worked and none of the TPP's beneficiaries is alleged to have been
injured."

The suits argue that GSK caused third-party payors, such as
employee benefit funds and health insurance carriers, to favor
Avandia as a diabetes treatment on their drug formularies, which
caused the payors to cover a higher percentage of prescription
costs.

Since Avandia was favored on the formularies, doctors prescribed
the drug at a higher rate, the plaintiffs argued.  They claimed
that if GSK hadn't concealed the drug's alleged heart risks, the
payors would have covered cheaper alternatives and ultimately
spent far less.

In October 2013, a trial court judge found that the union benefit
funds had established statutory standing for a RICO claim and that
GSK's purported misrepresentations could plausibly be linked to
excessive coverage payments. The judge later granted an
interlocutory appeal filed by GSK to the Third Circuit.

On appeal, GSK tried to convince the court that the funds were
improperly relying on future events -- that Avandia and related
drugs would prove unsafe or ineffective -- to show RICO standing.
However, the court found that third-party payor's alleged damages
"do not depend on the effectiveness of the Avandia that they
purchased, but rather on the inflationary effect that GSK's
allegedly fraudulent behavior had on the price of Avandia."

The Third Circuit also found that the funds have so far linked
GSK's alleged conduct and that injury.

In an email to Law360 on March 2, plaintiffs' attorney James R.
Dugan II said his side believes the matter has already been
correctly determined twice, giving them confidence the high court
will decline to hear the case.

"Both the district court and the court of appeals were right on
the interpretation of the case as it relates to the law and we see
no reason why the Supreme Court would look at this issue again,"
he said.

GSK is represented by John H. Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com
-- Jessica D. Miller -- jessica.miller@skadden.com -- and Geoffrey
M. Wyatt of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom and Nina M. Gussack
and Anthony C. Vale -- valea@pepperlaw.com -- of Pepper &
Hamilton.

The funds are represented by James R. Dugan II, David B. Franco,
and Douglas R. Plymale of The Dugan Law Firm, Arnold Levin and
Frederick S. Longer -- flonger@lfsblaw.com -- of Levin Fishbein
Sedran & Berman, Tracy D. Rezvani -- trezvani@rezvanivolin.com --
of Rezvani Volin & Rotbert PC and Samuel Issacharoff.

The case is In Re: Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Product
Liability Litigation, case number 15-1078, in the Supreme Court of
the United States.


HORTONWORKS INC: Faces Securities Class Action by "Monachelli"
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Monachelli, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
other person similarly situated v. Hortonworks, Inc., Robert G.
Bearden and Scott J. Davidson, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00980
(N.D. Cal., February 29, 2016), is a securities class action on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Hortonworks
between November 4, 2015 and January 15, 2016 ("Class Period").
The Plaintiff alleged that throughout the class period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, cash position, prospects, and
material controls. As a result of Defendants' false and/or
misleading statements, Hortonworks securities traded at inflated
prices during the Class Period. Hortonwork's stock suffered a
precipitous decline in market value, thereby causing significant
losses and damages to the investors.

Santa Clara, California-based Hortonworks is a business computer
software company.

Defendant Robert G. Bearden ("Bearden") has served at all relevant
times as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Hortonworks.

Defendant Scott J. Davidson ("Davidson") has served at all
relevant times a Chief Financial Officer of Hortonworks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     468 North Camden Drive
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Tel: (818) 532-6449
     E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

          - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      Matthew L. Tuccillo, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Marc Gorrie, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 661-1100
      Fax: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             mltuccillo@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com
             mgorrie@pomlaw.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


LA PLATA TIRE: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks Wages and OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Ysaias Gutierrez, Plaintiff, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. La Plata Tire, Inc. d/b/a Big O Tires of Durango, Inc.
and Windsor Stantion Wilhelmsen, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00519 (D. Col., March 2, 2016), seeks payment of minimum wage and
overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Colorado
Minimum Wages of Workers Act.

Defendant La Plata Tire, Inc. is an Arizona corporation with a
principal business address of 1210 Escalante Ave., Durango, CO
81301.

Defendant La Plata Tire, Inc. does business under the trade name
"Big O Tires of Durango, Inc."

Defendant Windsor Stanton Wilhelmsen is an owner of the La Plata
Tire, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
     BUSECHER, KELMAN, PERERA & TURNER, P.C.
     600 Grant Street-Suite 450
     Denver, CO 80203
     Tel: (303)-333-7751
     Fax: (303)-333-7758
     Email: aturner@laborlawdenver.com


LANNETT COMPANY: Fixed Price of Doxycycline, Union Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund
("IUOE 30"), Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Lannett Company, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00990-CMR (E.D. Pa., March 2, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants on behalf of:

     (a) a national injunctive class of persons or entities in
         the United States and its territories who purchased,
         paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of
         the purchase price of generic digoxin or doxycycline
         products manufactured by Defendants during the period
         from October 1, 2012 to the present and

     (b) a damage class of persons or entities in the purchased,
         paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of
         the purchase price of generic digoxin or doxycycline
         products manufactured by the Defendant during the period
         from October 1, 2012 to the present in the 30 states
         identified herein and the District of Columbia.

The Defendants are accused of engaging in a conspiracy to fix,
maintain, and/or stabilized the prices of generic drug products.

Defendants Lannett Company, Inc., Impax Laboratories, Inc.
("Impax"), West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. ("West-Ward"), Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Mylan"), and Par Pharmaceutical Companies,
Inc. ("Par") are manufacturers and/or distributors of generic
digoxin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent W. Landau, Esq.
      Gary I. Smith, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      325 Chestnut St., Suite 900
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Tel: (215) 985-3270
      Fax: (215) 985-3271
      Email: blandau@hausfeld.com
             gsmith@hausfeld.com

          - and -

      Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
      Stephanie Y. Cho, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 633-1908
      Fax: (415) 358-4980
      Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
             bsweeney@hausfeld.com
             clebsock@hausfeld.com

          - and -

      Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Tel: (202) 540-7200
      Fax: (202) 540-7201
      Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com

          - and -

      Frank R.Schirripa, Esq.
      HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
      185 Madison Ave.
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 213-8311
      Email: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Wolfe" Suit Over VTech Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Wolfe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No.
RG16803906 (Cal. Super., February 16, 2016), is brought on behalf
of the stockholders of Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc., to enjoin
VTech's $72 million acquisition of the Company.  The Plaintiff
contends that the Defendants facilitated the acquisition of
LeapFrog for inadequate consideration and through a flawed
process.

Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc., is incorporated in the State of
Delaware and is a developer of educational entertainment for
children.

Vtech Holdings Limited is incorporated in Bermuda with limited
liability and is a developer of electronic learning products and
cordless telephones.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Telephone: (877) 534-2590

          - and -

     Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
     BROWER PIVEN
     475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 501-9000


LOGMEIN INC: Ignition Plaintiffs' Claims Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
LogMeIn, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California has granted the Company's
motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of the Ignition
Plaintiffs' claims.

The Company said, "On August 28, 2014, a putative class action
complaint was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California (Case No. 1:14-cv-01355) by an
individual on behalf of himself and purportedly on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals, or collectively, the
Ignition Plaintiffs. The Ignition Plaintiffs have amended their
initial complaint on February 17, 2015, May 6, 2015 and September
18, 2015. The amended complaint included claims made under
California's False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law
relating to the sale of our Ignition for iOS application, or the
App, and the Ignition Plaintiffs' continued use of the App and
sought restitution, damages in an unspecified amount, attorney's
fees and costs, and unspecified equitable and injunctive relief.
On January 27, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted our motion for summary judgment and
dismissed all of the Ignition Plaintiffs' claims."

On June 29, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed
against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Case No. 5:15-cv-01258) by an individual on behalf of
himself and purportedly on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, or collectively, the Central Plaintiffs, under
California's Automatic Purchase Renewal Statute and Unfair
Competition Law related to pricing changes and billing practices
for subscriptions to our LogMeIn Central service. On October 7,
2015, we entered into a Settlement Agreement resolving the matter
in exchange for a one-time settlement payment of $25,000. As a
result, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California dismissed the class action complaint on October 30,
2015.

LogMeIn provides cloud-based solutions make it possible for people
and companies to connect and engage with their workplace,
colleagues, customers and products anywhere, anytime. The services
are focused on high growth markets such as Identity and Access
Management, Collaboration and the Internet of Things and are
delivered via the cloud as hosted services, commonly called
software-as-a-service, or SaaS.


LOOMIS ARMORED: Faces "Parez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------
Francisco J. Perez, Plaintiff, and other similarly-situated
individuals v. Loomos Armored US, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-20733 (S.D. Fla., February 29, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Loomis Armored US, LLC is a Florida Corporation, having its main
place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Chinese Flooring
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy T. Jones and Dora D. Hall, Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators,
Inc, Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00286 (W.D. La., March 2, 2016),
alleges that the Defendant fails to comply with relevant and
applicable formaldehyde standards with respect to its Chinese
flooring products.

Defendant, Lumber Liquidators, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
with its principal executive offices located at 3000 John Deere
Road, Toano, VA 23168.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq.
     Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
     BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
     P.O. Drawer H
     Reserve, LA 70084
     Tel: 985-536-1186
     Fax: 985-536-6446
     Email: dbecnel@becnellaw.com
            schristina@becnellaw.com
            mmoreland@becnellaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Banner" Suit Over Chinese Flooring
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Banner, et al., Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01792 (E.D. La., March 2, 2016),
alleges that the Defendant fail to comply with relevant and
applicable formaldehyde standards with respect to their Chinese
flooring products.  The Defendant's illegal behavior with respect
to its manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Chinese flooring
products has caused the Plaintiffs and other Class members to
suffer direct financial harm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin Klibert, Esq.
     Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq.
     Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
     BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
     P.O. Drawer H
     Reserve, LA 70084
     Tel: 985-536-1186
     Fax: 985-536-6446
     Email: kklibert@becnellaw.com
            schristina@becnellaw.com
            mmoreland@becnellaw.com

          - and -

     Morris Bart, Esq.
     Mekel Alvarez, Esq.
     MORRIS BART, LLC
     909 Poydras Street, 20th Fl.
     New Orleans, LA 70112
     Tel: 504-599-3318
     Fax: 504-599-3392
     Email: morrisbart@morrisbart.com
            malverez@morrisbart.com


MAGNETATION LLC: Faces "Abeyta" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Abeyta, Krista Nordquist, Terrance Theisen and Craig Wiita,
Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated v. Larry Lehtinen and Matthew Lehtinen,Defendants, Case
No. 0:16-cv-00537-JNE-LIB (D. Minn., March 2, 2016), alleges that
the Defendants fail to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  During the applicable statutory period,
Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective routinely worked in excess of
40 hours a week without receiving full overtime compensation as
required by the FLSA.

Defendant Matthew Lehtinen is the President and Chief Operating
Officer of Magnetation LLC. His primary place of business is 102
NE 3rd St. Suite 120, Grand Rapids, MN 55744.

Defendant Larry Lehtinen is the Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board of Magnetation LLC. His primary place of
business is 102 NE 3rd St, Suite 120, Grand Rapids, MN 55744.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     M. William O'Brien, Esq.
     Timothy J. Louris, Esq.
     Emily L. Marshall, Esq.
     MILLER O'BRIEN JENSEN, P.A.
     Canadian Pacific Plaza, Suite 2400
     120 South Sixth Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: (612) 333-5831
     Fax: (612) 334-2613
     Email: bobrien@mojlaw.com
            tlouris@mojlaw.com
            emarshall@mojlaw.com


MCCULLOUGH PAYNE: Faces "Mathis" Suit Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------
Audrella Mathis, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. McCullough, Payne, and Haan, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00662-LMM-CMS (N.D. Ga., March 2, 2016), alleges
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marques J. Carter, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MARQUES J. CARTER
     Suite 100
     3400 Chapel Hill Road
     Douglasville, GA 30135
     Tel: (888) 595-9111
     Fax: (866) 842-3303
     Email: mjclawllc@comcast.net


MDL 2084: AndroGel Cases Remain Pending v. AbbVie
-------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that several pending lawsuits filed
against Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(a company Abbott acquired in February 2010 and now known as
AbbVie Products LLC) and others are consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia under the Multi-District Litigation (MDL)
Rules as In re: AndroGel Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2084.

These cases, brought by private plaintiffs and the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), generally allege Solvay's 2006 patent litigation
involving AndroGel was sham litigation and the patent litigation
settlement agreement and related agreements with three generic
companies violate federal and state antitrust laws and state
consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs
generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

MDL No. 2084 includes:

     (a) four individual plaintiff lawsuits;

     (b) six purported class actions; and

     (c) Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals,
         Inc. et al.

Following the district court's dismissal of all plaintiffs'
claims, appellate proceedings led to the reinstatement of the
claims regarding the patent litigation settlement, which are
proceeding in discovery in the district court.

The Attorney General of the State of Alaska has served AbbVie with
a Civil Investigative Demand, primarily seeking documents that
AbbVie produced in these lawsuits.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company.


MDL 2406: "Krieger" Suit Transferred to N.D. Alabama
----------------------------------------------------
Mark Krieger, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama ("BCBS-
AL"), et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00369 (S.D. Ind.,
January 19, 2016), is brought on behalf of subscribers of Blue
Cross Blue Shield, seeking to enjoin an ongoing conspiracy between
and among Blue Cross Blue Shield, the individual Blue Plans and
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association to allocate markets in
violation of the Sherman Act.  The Complaint alleges that BCBS-IN
has abused and continues to abuse its monopoly power to maintain
and enhance its market dominance by unreasonably restraining
trade, thus artificially inflating the premiums it charges to
consumers.

On March 1, 2016, the case was transferred to the Northern
District of Alabama, and assigned Case Number 2:16-cv-00020. The
Case was placed under IN RE: BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ANTITRUST
LITIGATION MDL No. 2406; and assigned to Judge R. David Proctor.

Defendant BCBSA is a corporation organized under the state of
Illinois and headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. It is owned and
controlled by 36 health insurance plans that operate under the
Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names. The
Principal headquarters for BCBSA is located at 225 North Michigan
Avenue, Chicago, IL 60601.

Defendant BCBS-IN is the health insurance plan operating under the
Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names in Indiana.
Like other Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans nationwide, BCBS-IN is
the largest health insurer, as measured by number of subscribers
within its service area, which is defined as the state of Indiana.
The principal headquarters for BCBS-IN is located at 120 Monument
Circle, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles R. Watkins, Esq.
     GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC
     321 S. Plymouth Ct., Suite 1250
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Tel: 312-878-8391

          - and -

     David J. Guin, Esq.
     Tammy M. Stokes
     GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC
     300 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd. North
     Suite 600/Title Building
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Tel: (205) 226-2282
     Fax: (205) 226-2357


MDL 2406: "Goodman" Suit Transferred to N.D. Alabama
----------------------------------------------------
Tom A. Goodman and Jason Goodman, Plaintiffs, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Alabama ("BCBS-AL"), et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00370-
RDP (D. Mont., February 4, 2016), is brought on behalf of
subscribers of Blue Cross Blue Shield, Montana health insurance to
enjoin an ongoing conspiracy between and among Blue Cross Blue
Shield, Montana, the individual Blue Plans and Blue Cross Blue
Shield Association to allocate markets in violation of the
prohibitions of the Sherman Act.  The Complaint alleges that BCBS-
MT has abused and continues to abuse its monopoly power to
maintain and enhance its market dominance by unreasonably
restraining trade, thus artificially inflating the premiums it
charges to consumers.

On March 1, 2016, the case was transferred to the Northern
District of Alabama, and assigned Case Number 2:16-cv-00007. The
Case was placed under IN RE: BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ANTITRUST
LITIGATION MDL No. 2406; and assigned to Judge R. David Proctor.

Defendant BCBSA is a corporation organized under the state of
Illinois and headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. It is owned and
controlled by 36 health insurance plans that operate under the
Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names. The
Principal headquarters for BCBSA is located at 225 North Michigan
Avenue, Chicago, IL 60601.

Defendant BCBS-MT is the health insurance plan operating under the
Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names in Montana.
The principal headquarters for BCBS-MT is located at 560 N. Park
Avenue, Helena, MT 59604-4309. BCBS-MT does business in each
country in Montana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Monte D. Beck, Esq.
     Anthony F. Jackson, Esq.
     BECK & AMSDEN, PLLC
     1946 Stadium Dr., Ste. 1
     Bozeman, MT 59715
     Tel: (406) 586-8700
     Fax: (406) 586-8960
     Email: mbeck@becklawyers.com
            Anthony@becklawyers.com


MDL 2460: Niaspan Cases Remain Pending v. AbbVie
------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that lawsuits are pending against AbbVie
and others generally alleging that the 2005 patent litigation
settlement involving Niaspan entered into between Kos
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company acquired by Abbott in 2006 and
presently a subsidiary of AbbVie) and a generic company violates
federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and deceptive
trade practices and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally
seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys'
fees.

The lawsuits consist of three individual plaintiff lawsuits and
two consolidated purported class actions:

     -- one brought by three named direct purchasers of Niaspan;
        and

     -- the other brought by ten named end-payor purchasers of
        Niaspan.

The cases are consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
under the MDL Rules as In re: Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 2460.

The office of the Attorney General of the State of Alaska has
served AbbVie with a Civil Investigative Demand, primarily seeking
documents that AbbVie produced in this lawsuit.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company.


MDL 2545: 2,500 TRT Claims v. AbbVie Consolidated for Pre-Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that product liability cases are pending
in which plaintiffs generally allege that AbbVie and other
manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs) did not
adequately warn about risks of certain injuries, primarily heart
attacks, strokes and blood clots. Approximately 2,500 claims are
consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the MDL Rules as
In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2545. Approximately 170 claims are pending in
various state courts. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive
damages.

Product liability cases are pending in which plaintiffs generally
allege that AbbVie did not adequately warn about risk of certain
injuries, primarily various birth defects, arising from use of
Depakote. Over ninety percent of the approximately 715 claims are
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, and the rest are pending in various other
federal and state courts. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company.


NATIONAL WEATHER STATION: Faces "FSK" TCPA Class Suit in Ga.
------------------------------------------------------------
Frazier, Soloway & Poorak, P.C. d/b/a Frazier, Soloway & Kennedy,
P.C. ("FSK") v. The National Weather Station, LLC, Case No. 1:16-
cv-00659-CAP (N.D. Ga., March 1, 2016), seeks redress for
Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited advertisements to fax
machines pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The TCPA prohibits people from sending fax advertisements without
first obtaining prior express invitation or permission from those
to whom they send their advertisements.

The National Weather Station, LLC is limited liability company
organized in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc B. Hershovitz, Esq.
     MARC B. HERSHOVITZ, P.C.
     One Alliance Center
     4th Floor
     3500 Lenox Road
     Atlanta, GA 30326
     Tel: (404) 262-1425
     Fax: (404) 262-1474
     Email: marc@hershovitz.com


NATURE'S WAY: "Hunter" Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Hunter and Malia Levin, Plaintiffs, on behalf of herself,
all others similarly situated and the general public v. Nature's
Way Products, LLC and Schwabe North America, Inc., Defendants, has
been removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Diego (Case No. 37-2016-00002933-CU-NP-CTL) to the
U.S. District Court for the South District of California (Case No.
3:16-cv-00532-WQH-BLM, March 2, 2016).

The case alleges fraud by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
     4125 West Point Loma Blvd. No. 206
     San Diego, CA 92110
     Tel: (619) 767-0356
     Fax: (619) 331-2943
     Email: paul@pauljosephlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     Geoffrey Kehlmann, Esq.
     Sidley Austin, Esq.
     555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
     Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010
     Tel: (213) 896-6000
     Email: gkehlmann@sidley.com


NAVIENT CORP: Faces Securities Action by Policemen's Annuity
------------------------------------------------------------
Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Navient Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00112-
UNA (D. Del., February 26, 2016), alleges that due to the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages.  Plaintiff says that Navient's "Safe Harbor" warnings
accompanying its forward-looking statements issued during the
Class Period were ineffective to shield those statements from
liability.

Navient Corp (NASDAQ:NAVI) is a publicly traded company based in
Wilmington, Delaware, whose operations include servicing and
collecting on student loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joel Friedlander, Esq.
     Jeffrey M. Gorris,
     Christopher P. Quinn,
     FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A.
     1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 573-3500
     E-mail: jfriedlander@friedlandergorris.com
             jgorris@friedlandergorris.com
             cquinn@friedlandergorris.com

          - and -

     Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
     Avi Josefson, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
     1251 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10020
     Tel: (212) 554-1400
     E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
             avi@bllbglaw.com


NEW HIGH TECH CAR: "Cruz" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Demetrio Cruz and Vanessa Pena, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs v. New High Tech Car
Wash & Lube, Inc., and David Baram, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
01051 (E.D. N.Y., March 2, 2016), alleges that the Plaintiffs are
entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime, unpaid
minimum wages, compensation for off-the-clock work, improper
deductions from tips earned by tipped employees, and unpaid spread
of hours premium.

New High Tech Car Wash & Lube, Inc., is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of New York, with a principal
place of business and an address for service of process located at
2450 Jericho Turnpike, Garden City, NY 11040.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NOISE CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Pedroza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Pedroza, Plaintiff, on behalf and all others similarly
situated v. Noise Attenuation Construction, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 4:16-cv-00164-A (N.D. Tex., February 29, 2016), alleges that
the Defendant fails to pay Plaintiff 1.5 his regular rate of pay
for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek.

Defendant Noise Attenuation Construction, LLC is a limited
liability company organized under the laws of the State of Texas.
Defendant's principal of business as listed with the Texas
Secretary of State, is 900 Taylor Road, Weatherford, Texas 76087.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
     BARON & BUDD, P.C.
     3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
     Dallas, TX 75219
     Tel: (214) 521-3605
     Fax: (214) 520-1181
     Email: avaught@baronbudd.com


NOTTOWAY PLANTATION: "Wilford" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Wilford, Plaintiff v. Nottoway Plantation, Inc, Nottoway
Properties, Inc., Nottoway Properties, LLC, Nottoway Plantation
and Nottoway Plantation & Resort, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
00135-JJB-EWD (M.D. La., February 29, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all time
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.   Plaintiff also asserts claims against
Nottoway Properties, LLC for successor liability to them under the
FLSA.

Nottoway Plantation and/or Nottoway Plantation & Resort are
Louisiana Partnership or trade names used by Nottoway Plantation,
Inc. and/or Nottoway Properties, Inc. and after the merger,
Nottoway Properties, LLC. Nottoway Plantation and/or Nottoway
Plantation & Resort did and continue to do business in the Parish
of Iberville, State of Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
     Jody Forester Jackson,Esq.
     JACKSON+JACKSON
     201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
     New Orleans, LA 70170
     Tel: (504) 599-5953
     Fax: (888) 988-6499
     Email: jjackson@jackson-law.net
            mjackson@jackson-law.net


PATRIARCH PARTNERS: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over TransCare Shutdown
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dalibel Garcia, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others situated v. Patriarch Partners, LLC, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01596 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2016), arises from the
sudden shutdown of TransCare Corporation, a for-profit ambulance
company headquartered in Brooklyn, New York, owned by the
Defendant.  Plaintiff seeks payment of wages and damages for the
Defendant's failure to give the Class Members 60 days' advance
notice pursuant to Worker Adjustment and Restraining Notification
Act before the termination of employees.

Defendant Patriarch is a private equity fund located at 1
Broadway, 5th Floor, New York, New York 10004. Patriarch describes
itself as focusing on the acquisition and invigoration of
undervalued iconic American brands where time, capital, and sound
strategy can rescue a business and restore value, creating and
preserving jobs in America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
     Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
     Michael B. Ershowsky, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (212) 363-7500
     Fax: (212) 363-7171


PPL CORP: Discovery Pending in Cane Run Environmental Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, LG&E and KU
Energy LLC, Louisville Gas and Electric Company, and Kentucky
Utilities Company said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that certain discovery
matters are before the district court related to the Cane Run
environmental claims.

In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
LG&E and PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky alleging violations of the Clean Air Act and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. In addition, these
plaintiffs assert common law claims of nuisance, trespass and
negligence. These plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and civil
penalties, plus costs and attorney fees, for the alleged statutory
violations. Under the common law claims, these plaintiffs seek
monetary compensation and punitive damages for property damage and
diminished property values for a class consisting of residents
within four miles of the plant. In their individual capacities,
these plaintiffs seek compensation for alleged adverse health
effects.

In response to a motion to dismiss filed by PPL and LG&E, in July
2014, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' RCRA claims and all but
one Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss their common law
tort claims. Upon motion of LG&E and PPL, the district court
certified for appellate review the issue of whether the state
common law claims are preempted by federal statute.

In December 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
issued an order granting appellate review regarding the above
matter. Oral argument before the Sixth Circuit was held in August
2015.

In November 2015, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion affirming
the District Court's ruling that plaintiffs' state law claims are
not preempted by the Clean Air Act and remanding the matter to the
District Court for further proceedings. Certain discovery matters
are currently before the District Court.

PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this matter. LG&E
retired one coal-fired unit at the Cane Run plant in March 2015
and the remaining two coal-fired units at the plant in June 2015.

PPL Corporation, headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania, is a
utility holding company that was incorporated in 1994. PPL,
through its regulated utility subsidiaries, delivers electricity
to customers in the U.K., Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia and
Tennessee; delivers natural gas to customers in Kentucky; and
generates electricity from power plants in Kentucky.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Huffman" Plaintiffs Seek Class Status
------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in the
case, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America,
filed a motion for class certification in February 2016.

In September 2010, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company of
America, a purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of
beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA")-governed
employee welfare benefit plans was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
challenging the use of retained asset accounts in employee welfare
benefit plans to settle death benefit claims as a violation of
ERISA and seeking injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits.

In July 2011, the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings
was denied. In February 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify
the class. In April 2012, the Court stayed the case pending the
outcome of a case involving another insurer that is before the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

In August 2014, the Court lifted the stay, and in September 2014,
Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to amend the complaint. In
July 2015, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint added two new class
representatives, a new common law breach of fiduciary duty claim,
and a prohibited transactions claim under Section 406(a)(1)(C) of
ERISA. In August 2015, the Company filed its answer to the First
Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
filed in February 2016.

Prudential Financial, Inc., a financial services leader with
approximately $1.184 trillion of assets under management as of
December 31, 2015, has operations in the United States, Asia,
Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
the Company offers a wide array of financial products and
services, including life insurance, annuities, retirement-related
services, mutual funds and investment management.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Dismissal of "Lederman" Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the remaining
plaintiffs in the case, Lederman v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et
al., have taken an appeal before the New Jersey Superior Court -
Appellate Division, from the dismissal of their case.

From November 2002 to March 2005, 11 separate complaints were
filed against the Company and the law firm of Leeds, Morelli &
Brown in New Jersey state court and in the New Jersey Superior
Court, Essex County as Lederman v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et
al. The complaints allege that an alternative dispute resolution
agreement entered into among Prudential Insurance, over 235
claimants who are current and former Prudential Insurance
employees, and Leeds, Morelli & Brown (the law firm representing
the claimants) was illegal and that Prudential Insurance conspired
with Leeds, Morelli & Brown to commit fraud, malpractice, breach
of contract, and violate racketeering laws by advancing legal fees
to the law firm with the purpose of limiting Prudential's
liability to the claimants.

In February 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court assigned the cases
for centralized case management to the Superior Court, Bergen
County. The Company participated in a court-ordered mediation that
resulted in a settlement involving 193 of the remaining 235
plaintiffs. The amounts paid to the 193 plaintiffs were within
existing reserves for this matter.

In December 2013, the Company participated in court-ordered
mediation that resulted in a December 2013 settlement involving 40
of the remaining 42 plaintiffs with litigation against the
Company, including plaintiffs who had not yet appealed the
dismissal of their claims. The amounts paid to the 40 plaintiffs
were within existing reserves for this matter.

In July 2014, the Court granted the Company's summary judgment
motion dismissing with prejudice the complaint of one of the two
remaining plaintiffs asserting claims against the Company. In
August 2014, an appeal was filed from the Court's summary judgment
decision.

In January 2015, the New Jersey Appellate Division dismissed the
appeal without prejudice. In March 2015, the court granted the
Company summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice the
complaint of the remaining plaintiff with claims against the
Company.

In October 2015, the Company settled with one of the two
plaintiffs remaining with claims against the Company. In November
2015, the remaining plaintiff filed an appeal with the New Jersey
Superior Court - Appellate Division.

Prudential Financial, Inc., a financial services leader with
approximately $1.184 trillion of assets under management as of
December 31, 2015, has operations in the United States, Asia,
Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
the Company offers a wide array of financial products and
services, including life insurance, annuities, retirement-related
services, mutual funds and investment management.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Priac Seeks Dismissal of "Wood" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that PRIAC in February
2016, filed a motion to dismiss the "Wood II, et al." complaint.

In December 2015, a putative class action complaint entitled,
Leonard D. Wood II on behalf of the KeHe Distributors, Inc. 401(k)
Retirement Saving Non-Union Plan and Maya Shaw on behalf of the
Exco Resources, Inc. 401(k) Plan and all other similarly situated
ERISA-covered employee pension benefit plans v. PRIAC was filed in
the United States District Court, District of Connecticut. The
complaint: (1) seeks certification of a class of all ERISA-covered
employee pension benefit plans whose plan assets were invested in
group annuity contract stable value funds within 6 years prior to,
on, or after December 3, 2015; and (2) alleges that PRIAC breached
its fiduciary obligations and accepted excessive compensation by
crediting rates on the stable value accounts that are less than
PRIAC's internal rate of return on those plan assets without
disclosing this spread to the plans.

Prudential Financial, Inc., a financial services leader with
approximately $1.184 trillion of assets under management as of
December 31, 2015, has operations in the United States, Asia,
Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
the Company offers a wide array of financial products and
services, including life insurance, annuities, retirement-related
services, mutual funds and investment management.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Priac Faces "Rosen" Complaint in Conn.
------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in December 2015, a
putative class action complaint entitled Richard A. Rosen, On
behalf of the Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Savings
Plan and On behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Employee
Benefit Plans v. PRIAC, Prudential Bank & Trust, FSB and
Prudential Investment Management Services, LLC was filed in the
United States District Court, District of Connecticut. The
complaint: (1) seeks certification of a class of all ERISA-covered
employee pension benefit plans with which Prudential has
maintained a contractual relationship based on a group annuity
contract or group funding agreement; and (2) alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary obligations by accepting
revenue sharing payments from investment vehicles in its separate
accounts and/or by accepting excessive compensation by crediting
rates on stable value accounts that are less that PRIAC's internal
rate of return.

Prudential Financial, Inc., a financial services leader with
approximately $1.184 trillion of assets under management as of
December 31, 2015, has operations in the United States, Asia,
Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
the Company offers a wide array of financial products and
services, including life insurance, annuities, retirement-related
services, mutual funds and investment management.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Bouder" Complaint
------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. continues to defend the "Bouder" class
action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

In October 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, Bouder v.
Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of
America, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, claiming that Prudential failed to pay
overtime to insurance agents in violation of federal and
Pennsylvania law, and that improper deductions were made from
these agents' wages in violation of state law. The complaint
sought back overtime pay and statutory damages, recovery of
improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees.  In March
2008, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class on the
federal overtime claim.

Separately, in March 2008, a purported nationwide class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, Wang v. Prudential Financial,
Inc. and Prudential Insurance, claiming that the Company failed to
pay its agents overtime and provide other benefits in violation of
California and federal law and seeking compensatory and punitive
damages in unspecified amounts.

In September 2008, Wang was transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated
with the Bouder matter. Subsequent amendments to the complaint
resulted in additional allegations involving purported violations
of an additional nine states' overtime and wage payment laws.

In February 2010, Prudential moved to decertify the federal
overtime class that had been conditionally certified in March 2008
and moved for summary judgment on the federal overtime claims of
the named plaintiffs. In July 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification of the state law claims. In August 2010, the
district court granted Prudential's motion for summary judgment,
dismissing the federal overtime claims.

In January 2013, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in its entirety. In July 2013, the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, permitting plaintiffs to
file a motion to certify a class of employee insurance agents
seeking recovery under state wage and hour laws.

In September 2013, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class
certification.

In February 2015, the federal District Court for New Jersey
granted in part, and denied in part, plaintiffs' renewed class
certification motion. It certified for class treatment plaintiffs'
wage payment claims which include allegations that the Company
made improper deductions from the wages of its former common law
agents in California, New York, and Pennsylvania, and its
financial services associates in California and New York. The
Court denied plaintiffs' attempt to certify a class based on the
Company's alleged failure to pay overtime to its former common law
agents and its financial services associates in California,
Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania. In March 2015, the Company
filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider its decision
to partially grant plaintiffs' renewed class certification motion
with regard to its former common law agents.

No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-K
report.

Prudential Financial, Inc., a financial services leader with
approximately $1.184 trillion of assets under management as of
December 31, 2015, has operations in the United States, Asia,
Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
the Company offers a wide array of financial products and
services, including life insurance, annuities, retirement-related
services, mutual funds and investment management.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal in Retirement Fund Case May Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in the case, City of
Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System v.
Prudential Financial, Inc., et al., the defendants' petition to
file an appeal has been granted.

In August 2012, a purported class action lawsuit, was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
alleging violations of federal securities law. The complaint names
as defendants the Company's Chief Executive Officer, the Chief
Financial Officer, the Principal Accounting Officer and certain
members of the Company's Board of Directors. The complaint alleges
that knowingly false and misleading statements were made regarding
the Company's current and future financial condition based on,
among other things, the alleged failure to disclose: (i) potential
liability for benefits that should either have been paid to
policyholders or their beneficiaries, or escheated to applicable
states; and (ii) the extent of the Company's exposure for alleged
state and federal law violations concerning the settlement of
claims and the escheatment of unclaimed property. The complaint
seeks an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

In May 2013, the complaint was amended to add three additional
putative institutional investors as lead plaintiffs: National
Shopmen Pension Fund, The Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 &
172 Pension & Annuity Funds, and Roofers Local No. 149 Pension
Fund. In June 2013, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

In February 2014, the Court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss. In July 2014, plaintiffs' filed a motion to certify a
class comprised of investors who purchased shares of the Company's
Common Stock between May 5, 2010 and November 4, 2011. That motion
was subsequently withdrawn and refiled in December 2014.

In August 2015, Plaintiffs' class certification motion was
granted. In September 2015, defendants filed a petition with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking
permission to file an appeal from the order certifying a class. In
January 2016, the defendants' petition to file an appeal was
granted.

Prudential Financial, Inc., a financial services leader with
approximately $1.184 trillion of assets under management as of
December 31, 2015, has operations in the United States, Asia,
Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
the Company offers a wide array of financial products and
services, including life insurance, annuities, retirement-related
services, mutual funds and investment management.


QUAKER OATS: Faces "Eisenlord" Suit for False Advertisement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Darren Eisenlord, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated individuals v. The Quaker Oats Company, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01442 (C.D. Cal., March 1,
2016), asks the Court to stop the Defendants from mislabeling food
products as containing maple syrup and maple sugar when they are
not ingredients in the product.

Chicago-based Quaker Oats Company is a manufacturer of oatmeal and
other food and beverage products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
      David C. Parisi, Esq.
      PARISI & HAVENS LLP
      212 Marine Street, Suite 100
      Santa Monica, CA 90405d
      Tel: (818) 990-1299
      Fax: (818) 501-7852
      Email: shavens@parisihavens.com
             dparisi@parisihavens.com

          - and -

      Yitzchak H. Liberman, Esq.
      PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW
      7400 Hollywood Blvd, #505
      Los Angeles, CA 90046
      Tel: (917) 657-6857
      Fax: (877) 501-3346
      Email: ylieberman@parasmoliebermanlaw.com

          - and -

      Grace E. Parasmo, Esq.
      PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW
      3304 Avenue K
      Brooklyn, NY 11210
      Tel: (646) 509-3913
      Fax: (877) 501-3346
      Email: gparasmo@parasmoliebermanlaw.com


RCI ENTERTAINMENT: "Contreras" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Contreras, et al., Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf
of other similarly situated individuals v. RCI Hospitality
Holdings, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00557 (S.D.
Tex., March 2, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime pay in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant, RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. ("RCI Holdings") is a
Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Harris
County, Texas and may be served with summons by serving its
registered agent, Robert D. Axelrod, at 5300 Memorial Drive, Suite
1000, Houston, Texas 77007.

Defendant, RCI Entertainment (Texas), Inc. ("RCI Texas"), is a
Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Harris
County, Texas, and may be served with summons by serving its
registered agent, Robert D. Axelrod, at 5300 Memorial Drive, Suite
1000, Houston, Texas 77007.

Defendant, Trumps, Inc. ("Trumps"), is a Texas corporation with
its principal place of business in Harris County, Texas, and may
be served with summons by serving its registered agent, Robert D.
Axelrod, at 5300 Memorial Drive, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77007.

Defendant, C.A. Ault Investments Inc. ("CAAI"), is a Texas
Corporation with its principal place of business in Harris County,
Texas and may be served with summons by serving its registered
agent, Robert D. Axelrod, at 5300 Memorial Drive, Suite 1000,
Houston, Texas 7707.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     G. Scott Fiddler, Esq.
     Andrew W. Reed, Esq.
     FIDDLER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     1004 Congress, 2nd Floor
     Houston, TX 77002
     Tel: 713-228-0070
     Fax: 713-228-0778
     Email: scott@fiddlerlaw.com
            areed@fiddlerlaw.com


RESOLUTE FOREST: Faces "Reynolds" Suit Over Retiree Health Care
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Reynolds and Norman Yarber, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Resolute
Forest Products, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00048
(E.D. Tenn., March 2, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act over the
reduction of retiree health care benefits.

Defendant Resolute Forest Products Inc. is a Delaware corporation
with its principal of business located at 111 Duke Street, Suite
5000, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 2M1. Resolute Forest Products
Inc. is the parent company of its wholly-owned subsidiary Resolute
FP US Inc.

Defendant Resolute FP US Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located at 5300 Cureton Ferry Rd.,
Catawba, SC 29704-7700. Resolute FP US Inc. is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Resolute Forest Products Inc. and is operator of the
Calhoun, Catawba and Coosa Pines Mills.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Garrison, Esq.
      Scott Tift, Esq.
      Seth Hyatt, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
      Bank of America Plaza
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Tel: (615) 252-3798
      Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com

          - and -

      William T. Payne, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
      Pittsburgh North Office
      12 Eastern Avenue, Suite 203
      Pittsburgh, PA 15215
      Tel: (412) 492-8797
      Email: wpayne@fdpklaw.com

          - and -

      Pamina Ewing, Esq.
      Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
      Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
      Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
      429 Forbes Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Tel: (412) 281-8400
      Email: pewing@fdpklaw.com
             jhurt@fdpklaw.com
             rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com

          - and -

      Joseph P. Stuligross, Esq.
      ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL UNITED STEELWORKERS
      Five Gateway Center, Suite 807
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 562-2526
      Email: jstuligross@usw.org


RESOLUTION SOLAR: "Walker" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Shani Walker and Edward Barnes, Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resolution Solar, LLC,
RNK Capital, LLC, Richard Propper and William Lawton, Defendants,
Case No. 4:16-cv-40021 (D. Mass., February 29, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay wages and overtime pay
in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act.

Resolution Solar, LLC ("RS") is a Delaware Limited Liability
Company with a principal place of business located at 545 Madison
Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, New York.

RNK Capital, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with a
principal place of business located at 545 Madison Avenue, 14th
Floor, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua N. Garick, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA N. GARICK, P.C.
     100 Trade Center, Suite G-700
     Woburn, MA 01801
     Tel: (617) 600-7520
     Email: Joshua@GarickLaw.com


RIZEN FLEET LOGISTICS: "Oliva" Suit Seeks Wages and OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Victor M. Oliva, Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
individuals v. A & A Auto Transfer LLC, JF Vehicle Transporters,
Inc., Rizen Fleet Logistics, Inc, Eduardo E. Rodriguez, Juan M.
Ferret and Eduardo F. Rodriguez Sr., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
20747 (S.D. Fla., February 29, 2016), contends that the Defendants
fail to pay minimum wages and overtime, and to follow the record-
keeping requirements of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Rizen Fleet Logistics, Inc is the successor-in-interest
of predecessor companies A & A Auto Transfer LLC and JF Vehicle
Transporters, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCOTT MEDICAL: EEOC Files Sex Discrimination Suit in Philadelphia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PennRecord.com reports that the United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced on March 1 it filed its
first federal sex discrimination lawsuits based on sexual
orientation.

The EEOC's Philadelphia District Office filed suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against
Scott Medical Health Center of Pittsburgh, and, in a separate
suit, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland's
Baltimore Division against Pallet Companies, which does business
as IFCO Systems NA.

Per its lawsuit versus Scott Medical Health Center, the EEOC
claimed a gay male employee was harassed because of his sexual
orientation.  The agency said the male employee's manager
repeatedly used anti-gay language in reference to him and made
other offensive comments about his sexuality and sex life.

According to the lawsuit, when the employee in question complained
to the clinic director, the director responded the manager was
"just doing his job," and did not act to put a stop to the
harassment.  Following weeks of these alleged comments from the
manager, the employee quit instead of being subject to further
harassment.

In the action against IFCO Systems, the EEOC charged a lesbian
employee was harassed by her supervisor, also because of her
sexual orientation.  Per the suit, her supervisor allegedly made
numerous comments to her regarding her sexual orientation and
appearance, such as "I want to turn you back into a woman" and
"You would look good in a dress," according to the suit.

At one point, the supervisor allegedly "blew a kiss at her and
circled his tongue at her in a suggestive manner."  The employee
in question complained to management and called an employee
hotline about the harassment, but the EEOC's suit said IFCO fired
the female employee several days later, supposedly in retaliation
for making the complaints.

According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sex-based
discrimination in the workplace is illegal.  It is the EEOC's view
that harassment and other discrimination because of sexual
orientation qualifies as prohibited sex discrimination.

Both lawsuits were brought under Title VII, which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as retaliation. In
both the case against Scott Medical Health Center (Case 2:16-cv-
00225) and the case against IFCO Systems (Case 1:16-cv-00595), the
EEOC made initial attempts at pre-litigation settlement before
filing suit.

In a decision reached last July, the EEOC determined that sexual
orientation discrimination is, by its very nature, discrimination
because of sex.

"With the filing of these two suits, EEOC is continuing to
solidify its commitment to ensuring that individuals are not
discriminated against in workplaces because of their sexual
orientation," EEOC General Counsel David Lopez said.  "While some
federal courts have begun to recognize this right under Title VII,
it is critical that all courts do so."

Robin E. Shea, of Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete in Winston-
Salem, N.C., is both a firm partner and attorney with more than 20
years of experience in employment discrimination litigation,
specifically regarding Title VII and other related legislation.
Ms. Shea commented on the EEOC's filing of both lawsuits.

"Historically, the EEOC took the position that Title VII did not
cover sexual orientation or gender identity," Ms. Shea said.  "In
the last couple of years, they've taken a more expansive view of
the Title VII sex discrimination prohibitions, and they've changed
their position."

Ms. Shea said the EEOC's new stance with respect to gender
identity is that discrimination on that basis is a form of "sex
stereotyping" and also illegal.

"Their position is that it's a form of sex discrimination," Ms.
Shea added.  "I think the EEOC has been looking for an opportunity
to expand Title VII to include sexual orientation, but they hadn't
really had an opportunity to do it until recently."

Ms. Shea labeled this position as a "new interpretation" of Title
VII, and an attempt on the part of the EEOC to update the view of
the law for modern times.

Ms. Shea stated the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a separate
law under consideration in the U.S. Congress for more than 20
years without passage, would have covered sexual orientation-based
discrimination if adopted.

"The EEOC may also just be thinking, well, here's a way to get
sexual orientation protected," Ms. Shea said.

Ms. Shea said if both of the EEOC's lawsuits proceed to a judicial
resolution, they have the potential for "significant precedential
effect" in future interpretation of Title VII.

"It's very possible that the employers in these cases will go
ahead and settle," Ms. Shea said.  "A lot of employers really
don't want to fight this, and a lot of employers already have
their own company policies prohibiting discrimination based on
sexual orientation.  If they feel one of their employees violated
those policies, I think they'd be inclined to settle the case.  It
could be that these two cases will settle way before we have any
kind of judicial decision."

With Pennsylvania included as part of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit and Maryland included in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Ms. Shea said the new EEOC cases
may influence similar litigation years down the road in those
jurisdictions.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Faces "Plumley" Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Craig M. Plumley, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Sempra Energy, Debra L. Reed and
Joseph A. Householder, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00512-BEN-RBB
(February 29, 2016), is a securities class action filed on behalf
of all purchasers of the Sempra securities between May 14, 2015
and November 23, 2016, inclusive.  According to the Plaintiffs,
during the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operation,
cash position, prospects, and/or failed to disclose public safety
and health risk.  Plaintiff says that Defendants' "Safe Harbor"
warnings accompanying its forward-looking statements issued during
the Class Period were ineffective to shield those statements from
liability.

San Diego, California-based Sempra Energy operates natural gas-
fired power plants, pipelines and storage facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     468 North Camden Drive
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Tel: (818) 532-6499
     E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     Matthew L. Tuccillo, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Marc Gorrie, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 661-1100
     Fax: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            mltuccillo@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com
            mgorrie@pomlaw.com

          - and -

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


SOCAL GAS: Bid to Halt Gas Leak Housing Costs Denied
----------------------------------------------------
Brian Melley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
California appeals court rejected efforts on March 2 by a utility
to stop housing Los Angeles residents driven from their homes by a
gas leak that lasted almost four months.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal denied a petition by Southern
California Gas Co. to reconsider a judge's order requiring the
company to extend paying short-term housing costs and other
expenses until March 18.

As residents in short-term housing were to return home on
Feb. 25, lawyers for Los Angeles County successfully won the
extension so the public health department could test homes to make
sure it was safe to return.

The company said it was spending about $2 million a day for
housing, but Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle said health risks to
residents outweighed the gas company's costs.

The gas company appealed, saying public health officials had
already determined air quality had returned to safe levels near
its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility.

Thousands of residents moved out of the Porter Ranch area during
the 16-week leak and many complained of nausea, headaches,
nosebleeds and other symptoms. Some who returned home after the
leak was sealed said they continued to suffer from maladies.

SoCalGas said it was disappointed with the decision because it
conflicts with independent scientific analysis and creates more
uncertainty in the community.

The leak, which scientists said was the largest known methane
release in U.S. history, uprooted 6,400 families.

The court case doesn't affect displaced residents who leased homes
and apartments as late as April 30.


SPEEDPAY INC: Continues to Defend "Pincus" Action
-------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that SpeedPay, Inc.,
continues to defend Caryn Pincus class action.

On February 10, 2015, Caryn Pincus filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against Speedpay, Inc. ("Speedpay"), a
subsidiary of the Company, asserting claims based on allegations
that Speedpay imposed an unlawful surcharge on credit card
transactions and that Speedpay engages in money transmission
without a license. The complaint requests certification of a class
and two subclasses generally comprised of consumers in Florida who
made a payment through Speedpay's bill payment services using a
credit card and were charged a surcharge for such payment during
the four-year and five-year periods prior to the filing of the
complaint through the date of class certification.

On April 6, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On April 23, 2015, in response to the motion to
dismiss, Pincus filed an amended complaint that adds claims (1)
under the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, which
authorizes civil remedies for certain criminal conduct; and (2)
for violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

On May 15, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On October 6, 2015, the Court entered an order denying
Speedpay's motion to dismiss.

On October 20, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the amended
complaint. On December 1, 2015, Pincus filed a second amended
complaint that revised her factual allegations, but added no new
claims. On December 18, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the
second amended complaint.

"As this action is in a preliminary stage, the Company is unable
to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, which could be associated with this action. Speedpay intends
to vigorously defend itself in this matter," the Company said.

The Western Union Company is a leader in global money movement and
payment services, providing people and businesses with fast,
reliable and convenient ways to send money and make payments
around the world.


SAINT PATRICK'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Abrokwah" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eve Abrokwah, on her own behalf and on behalf of those individuals
similarly situated v. Saint Patrick's Manor, Inc., Case No. 16-
0409 (Mass. Cmmw., February 16, 2016) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay proper wages in violation of the
Massachusetts Wage Act.

Saint Patrick's Manor, Inc., is a Massachusetts non-profit
corporation having its principal place of business at Framingham.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael J. Bace, Esq.
     BACE LAW GROUP, LLC
     PO Box 9316
     Boston, MA 02114
     Telephone: (508) 922-8328
     E-mail: mjb@bacelaw.com


SUPERIOR ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Suarez Jr." Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alfonso Suarez Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Superior Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-
cv-00051 (S.D. Tex., February 16, 2016), is brought against
Defendants for failure to pay overtime pay in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Superior Energy Services, Inc., is headquartered in Texas and
specializes in providing oilfield services to various drilling and
production companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
     LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Telephone: (214) 749-1400
     Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
     http://www.overtimelawyer.com/


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Julian" Labor Suit Moved to Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Julian, Plaintiff, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Swift Transportation, Inc. and Swift Transportation
Co. of Arizona LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-01212 (D. Del.,
December 29, 2015), seeks compensation and credit for all
unrecorded and uncompensated work time, including minimum wage,
overtime, liquidated damages and/or all other relief pursuant to
Fair Labor Standards Act.

On March 2, 2016, the case was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona and assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-
00576 before Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver.

Swift Transportation, Inc. is corporation incorporated in
Delaware, whose agent for service of process is the National
Registered Agents, Inc., 160 Greentree Drive, Suite 101, Dover,
Delaware 19904.

Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC is limited liability
partnership incorporated in Delaware, with several places of
business in Delaware, whose agent for service of process is the
National Registered Agent, Inc., 160 Greentree Drive, Suite 101,
Dover, Delaware 19904.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gary W. Aber, Esq.
     One Customs House, Suite 600
     704 N. King Street, P.O. Box 1675
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 472-4900
     Email: gaber@gablawde.com

          - and -

     Joshua Konecky, Esq.
     Nathan Piller, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (415) 421-7100


TACT 1 LLC: "Hampton" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Hampton, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated v. Tact 1 LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02766 (N.D. Ill., March 2, 2016), alleges that the Defendant
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay minimum
wage and overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
given workweek.

Defendant's corporate headquarters are located at 2255 E. 95th
Street, Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Terrence Bueler, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER
     55 West Wacker Drive
     Suite 1400
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 456-7790

          - and -

     Peter Lubin, Esq.
     Vincent DiTommaso, Esq.
     DITOMMASO-LUBIN P.C.
     The Oak Brook Terrace Atrium
     17W220 22nd Street, Suite 200
     Oak Brook Terrace, IL 60181


TED WIENS TIRE: "Acuna" Suit Seeks OT Wages
-------------------------------------------
Daniel Acuna, Plaintiff, as an individual, and on behalf and all
others similarly situated v. So. Nev. T.B.A. Supply Co., a Nevada
corporation, doing business as "Ted Wiens Tire & Auto Centers",
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00457 (D. Nev., March 2, 2016),
alleges that all "technicians" employed by Ted Wiens have worked,
at times, in excess of 40 hours but have been illegally deprived
their overtime wages.

So. Nev. T.B.A. Supply Co. is a Nevada corporation licensed to
conduct business in Nevada, and does business as "Ted Wiens Tire &
Auto Centers".

The Plaintiff represented by:

     Andrew L. Rempfer, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN J. PARSONS
     7201 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Ste. 108
     Las Vegas, NV 89128 8354
     Tel: (702) 384 9900
     Fax: (702) 384 5900
     Email: Andrew@Plawyer.com


TIMEKEEPERS INC: "McGee" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Kevin McGee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Timekeepers, Inc., Tier One Security, Inc.
and Shawn Fluitt, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00196 (W.D. Tex.),
alleges that the Defendants pay their security guards the same
hourly rate for all the hours they work including those hours in
excess of 40 in a workweek despite provision under the Fair Labor
Standards Act that hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek is entitled to 1.5 times their regular rates.

Defendant Timekeepers is a Texas corporation with its principal
place of business on Boerne, Kendall County, Texas. Timekeepers may
be served with process by serving its registered agent, Shawn
Fluitt at 41109 I-10 West, Suite C, Boerne, Texas 78006 or at any
other place where Shawn Fluitt may be found.

Defendant Tier One is a Texas corporation with its principal place
of business in Borne, Kendall County, Texas. Tier One may be served
with process by serving its registered agent, Shawn Fluitt at 41109
I-10 West, Suite C, Boerne, Texas 78006 or at any other place where
Shawn Fluitt may be found.

Defendant Fluitt is an individual who resides and does business in
Boerne, Kendall County, Texas. Fluitt may be served with process at
his principal place of business at 41109 I-10 West, Suite C, Boerne,
Texas 78006 or at any other place where Shawn Fluitt may be found.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael K. Burke, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. GUERRA BURKE & KHIRALLAH, LLP
     3900 N. 10th St., Suite 850
     McAllen, TX 78501
     Tel: (956) 682-5999
     Fax: (888) 317-8802
     E-mail: mburke@michaelmguerra.com


TOWER SERVICES: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Valentin Lopez, Janiel Santana, Obispo Espinosa Rodriguez, Alexander
Camarena, Frencis Jaquez and Vidal Camarina, Plaintiffs, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, by and through
their attorneys, Harrison, Harrison & Associates, Ltd., Plaintiffs
v. Tower Services Inc., Tower Building Services, Inc., Empire
Scaffolding Inc., Demari Installations Corp., The Tower Group Inc.,
Tordem Equipment Inc., Antonios Mamounas and Markos Psillis,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00961-LDH-CLP (E.D. N.Y., February
25,2016), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated for all of the hours that they worked at
their agreed upon hourly rates of pay; and that the Plaintiff and
members of the Class are entitled to recover from the Defendants
unpaid overtime wages at the rate of 1.5 times their regular
hourly wage rates of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek.

Defendant Tower Building Services, Inc. ("Tower Building") is
incorporated in the State of New York with its principal business
located in the county of Queens at 38-60/38-70 Review Avenue, Long
Island City, New York, 11101.

Defendant Tower Services, Inc. ("Tower Services") is incorporated
in New York with its principal place of business located in the
County of Queens at 38-60/38-70 Review Avenue, Long Island City,
New York, 11101.

Defendant Empire Scaffolding Inc. ("Empire") is incorporated in New
York with its principal place of business located in the County of
Queens at 38-60/38-70 Review Avenue, Long Island City, New York,
11101.

Defendant Demari Installations Corp. ("Demari") is incorporated in
New York with its principal place of business located in the
county of Bronx at 3312 Merritt Avenue, Bronx, New York, 10475.

Defendant The Tower Group Inc. ("Tower Group") is incorporated in
New York with a place of business located in the County of Queen
at 38-60/38-70 Review Avenue, Long Island City, New York, 11101.

Defendant Tordem Equipment Inc. ("Tordem") is incorporated in New
York with its principal place of business located in the County of
Queen at 38-60/38-70 Review Avenue, Long Island City, New York,
11101.

Defendant Antonnios Mamounas is a resident of the county of Nassau
in the State of New York. Defendant Mamounas is the owner and/or
Chief Executive officer of each of the Corporate Defendants.

Defendant Markos Psillis is a resident of the County of Queens in
the State of New York. Defendant Psillis hired and determined the
hourly rate of each of the Plaintiffs and had the power to fire
the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Harrison, Esq.
     Julie Salwen, Esq.
     HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
     Tel: (718) 799-9111
     Fax: (718) 799-9171
     E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


TRANSWOOD INC: "Long" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Mason Drew Long, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transwood, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 5:16-cv-00192 (N.D. Tex., September 15, 2015), alleges that the
Plaintiff was often required to work 70 hours or more on
Defendant's behalf and that the Defendant violated -- and is
violating -- the provisions of Sections 6 and/or 7 of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 206, 207 and 215(a)(2) by not
compensating the employees for their work in excess of 40 hours
per week at rates no less than 1-1/2 times the regular rates for
which they were employed.

Defendant Transwood, Inc. is a corporation licensed to conduct
business in Texas. Defendant can be served with process through
its registered agent, Kathi Ball, at 11331 I-10 East, Bayton, TX
77530.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Derek Brazel, Esq.
     J. Forester, Esq.
     LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Tel: (214) 749-1400
     Fax: (214) 749-1010
     www.overtimelawyer.com


UBER: May Face Damages, Fines in France as Trial Wraps Up
---------------------------------------------------------
Philippe Sotto, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Uber risks millions of euros in damages and fines and having two
top executives banned from running the ride-hailing company in
France as a trial wrapped up Thursday in a Paris court.

The San Francisco-based company is in trouble in France over its
now-suspended low-cost UberPop service, which connected clients to
non-professional drivers, infuriated French taxi drivers and
prompted the criminal charges.  Uber continues to operate its
standard service with registered professional drivers.

A Paris court wrapped up a protracted, high-profile trial on
Feb. 25 targeting Thibaud Simphal, general manager for France, and
Pierre-Dimitri Gore-Coty, chief for Europe, Middle East and
Africa.  The verdict will be delivered June 9.

They are accused of complicity in practicing an illegal taxi
activity.  Charges also include deceptive commercial activity and
violation of French privacy law by illegally stocking, processing
and recording personal information about the self-employed drivers
who work with Uber.

The charges could potentially carry prison terms, but the
prosecutor did not recommend prison in her closing arguments. She
asked for the two executives to be banned from managing, running
or heading any companies in France for five years.  She also
called for a 1 million euro ($1.1 million) fine against Uber
France, a 70,000 euro ($77,000) fine for Mr. Gore-Coty and a
50,000 euro ($55,000) fine for Simphal.

Dozens of taxi unions, associations and drivers are seeking more
than 100 million euros in damages overall.

Their lawyers argue that traditional taxi drivers are losing
business due to unfair competition by non-professional drivers.
They claimed during the trial that Uber sidesteps taxes, social
charges and licensing fees and works with unregistered, badly-
trained and improperly-insured drivers.

During the sometimes heated hearings, Uber was called names like
"monster," "thug" or "weasel."

In a rare mea culpa, Mr. Gore-Coty acknowledged in a statement on
his LinkedIn profile that "Uber sometimes went too far" in
"challenging the status quo" in the taxi industry, which "made us
appear as unnecessarily aggressive rather than constructive."  The
27-year-old manager added, "Paris has a pretty special place in
Uber's heart."

During the trial, lawyers for Uber argued Messrs. Simphal and
Gore-Coty are not the legal representatives for Uber in France,
have no such mandate from the shareholders and are only salaried
managers dealing mostly with marketing and advertising.

They said the people in the company actually responsible for
connecting users with UberPop drivers are those who organized the
app-based service, without naming anyone in specific.  Gore-Coty
and Uber's Europe operations are based in the Netherlands.

Uber lawyers also maintained the French agency that specializes in
privacy violations has never put the company on notice for any
breaches and never initiated any lawsuits.

More than 200 UberPop drivers have been fined under fast-track
procedures in France, and the company has already been convicted
of deceptive commercial practices and fined 150,000 euros
($170,000) over UberPop by a Paris court.  This is the first trial
for Uber managers in France.

The French Parliament voted to outlaw UberPop and other similar
services in 2014, and Uber suspended its UberPop service in France
last July.  But its standard app-based service still prompts
occasional strikes and clashes with taxi drivers, reflecting
larger tensions between long-regulated industries and the
borderless, online economy.

In Spain and Italy, Uber is outlawed entirely.


UBER: Fails to Cooperate with NLRB Probe, Officials Allege
----------------------------------------------------------
Cole Stangler, writing for International Business Times, reports
that federal officials have accused Uber in new court filings of
failing to cooperate with an investigation into whether its
drivers are employees or independent contractors.

Over the past few months the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
has asked the ride-hailing giant to hand over a wide range of
documents about the company's employment practices after receiving
several closely related complaints from drivers last year.  In the
complaints, workers allege that Uber's contracts barring drivers
from pursuing class-action lawsuits violate federal labor law.
Before the board can rule on that question, however, it has to
first determine that the drivers are
employees -- not independent contractors, as the company
maintains.  Only employees are covered by the law.

Apparently, the NLRB probe hasn't made much headway: Uber, it
says, is not cooperating.  On March 1, the agency asked a federal
judge in California to force the company to comply with two
subpoenas it issued last December.

The subpoenas request information about Uber's application
process, its training of drivers, monitoring of drivers, app
management, driver ratings and fares.  According to the NLRB, the
company has only provided limited information related to the
individual drivers who filed complaints with the agency.

"To date, [Uber] has only provided the licensing agreements they
entered into, their emails to and from respondent's service desk,
and a one-page policy on service animals," NLRB Attorney Carmen
Leon said in court filings.  "Respondent has not complied with a
majority of requests in both subpoenas and has impeded the ability
of the board to complete its investigation of the charges pending
before the board."

Uber has faced increased scrutiny over its business model --
especially its insistence that drivers are independent
contractors, not employees.  Independent contractors are not
protected by regulations such as mandatory overtime pay and
company reimbursements for job-related expenses like fuel and
maintenance.  Critics say the San Francisco-based company
improperly classifies workers as contractors in order to keep
labor costs low.

In a separate legal challenge, Uber faces a class-action lawsuit
from drivers in California who accuse the company of
misclassifying workers and dodging costs like overtime pay. That
case is slated to go to trial June 20.

Like that looming showdown, Uber's clash with the NLRB could have
potentially wide-reaching consequences.

A determination from the labor board that Uber drivers are in fact
employees would open the door for the company to face charges of
unfair labor practices and the prospects of unionization.

Labor unions have shown some interest in organizing Uber drivers:
Last month, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 1430, filed for an election to represent hundreds of drivers
at LaGuardia Airport in New York --but it eventually agreed to put
the brakes on the campaign after other unions raised strategic
concerns.

Rebecca Smith, deputy director of the left-leaning National
Employment Law Project, said that a ruling from the NLRB that Uber
drivers are employees could affect other workers in the
so-called on-demand economy: Many workers at the nation's growing
crop of app-based companies are classified as independent
contractors, including those at Uber's chief competitor, Lyft.

Such a ruling would not only suggest other on-demand economy
workers are protected by the National Labor Relations Act,
Ms. Smith said, but might also suggest this group of workers
should be covered by other key work-related regulations.

"Because the [National Labor Relations Act] has a more stringent
test than many other statutes, such a conclusion could cut off any
debate on whether on-demand workers are 'employees' for purposes
of minimum wage, overtime pay, worker's compensation and
unemployment insurance," Ms. Smith said.


ULTIMATE AUTO: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Simpson" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Simpson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Ultimate Auto Repair, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00361-
MSS-MAP (M.D. Fla., February 16, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ultimate Auto Repair, Inc., is a Florida Profit Corporation and
provides repair and services to its customers throughout Pinellas
County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     201 N. Franklin Street, #700
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Telephone: (813) 223-5505
     Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
     Email: Medelman@forthepeople.com


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Camacho" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Camacho, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. United HealthCare Services, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00073 (S.D. Tex., March 2, 2016), alleges that
the Plaintiff and the punitive class members were not paid at a
rate of 1.5x their respective regular rates for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek.

Defendant, United HealthCare Services, Inc., is foreign for-profit
corporation that may be served with process through its registered
agent for service of process: C T Corporation System, 1999 Bryan
St., Ste. 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Amie Augenstein Pratt, Esq.
     Christopher J. Gale, Esq.
     GALE LAW GROUP, PLLC
     711 N. Carancahua St., Suite 1660
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Tel: 361-808-4444
     Fax: 361-232-4139
     Email: Amie@GaleLawGroup.com
            Chris@GaleLawGroup.com


UNITED RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Rosado" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wendalee Rosado, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. United Recovery Systems, LP,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01103-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., February 26,
2016), seeks to redress for the Defendant's action of using an
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Defendant is a collection agency that focuses on debt
collection with its principal office located at 5800 North Course
Drive, Houston, Texas 77072 with a mailing address of PO Box
722929, Houston, Texas 77272-2929.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ari Marcus, Esq.
     MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
     1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
     Ocean, NJ 07712
     Telephone: (723) 660-8169
     Facsimile: (723) 298-6256
     E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Denies Allegations on Emissions Disclosure Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Geir Moulson, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Volkswagen on March 2 rejected allegations that it didn't go
public early enough with information on its emissions-rigging
scandal.

The company faces suits at a court in Braunschweig, Germany, from
shareholders.  They argue that, under German law, it should have
disclosed information two weeks before it did.  Volkswagen said
that it "considers the German shareholder lawsuits to be without
merit."

News of the scandal broke on Sept. 18 when the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency said Volkswagen had installed software on
482,000 cars that enabled them to cheat on emissions tests.  On
Sept. 22, Volkswagen said about 11 million diesel vehicles
worldwide were fitted with the software.

The company's shares were battered by the announcements.

VW said in a statement that until Sept. 18 "there were no
indications whatsoever of information with relevance for the stock
price" since the expectation was that only a "manageable" number
of vehicles was affected, that the matter could be contained by
"measures that were common in such cases" and that "fines in a
two-digit or lower three-digit million amount would be imposed."

The company said it "promptly" reported the global risks once it
had a "reliable data basis."

Longtime CEO Martin Winterkorn resigned on Sept. 23, saying he was
acting in the interests of the company but wasn't "aware of any
wrongdoing on my part."

The EPA was alerted to high emissions in VW cars by a 2014 report
from the International Council on Clean Transportation.

In the March 2 statement, Volkswagen said a memo about the ICCT
study was prepared for Mr. Winterkorn on May 23, 2014, and
"included in his extensive weekend mail."  It said that "whether
and to which extent Mr. Winterkorn took notice of this memo at
that time is not documented."

In November 2014, it said, Mr. Winterkorn received another memo
that reported on "several then-current product defect cases" and
mentioned a cost of some 20 million euros ($22 million) for "the
diesel issue in North America." The diesel matter didn't initially
receive "particular attention" at management level, it added.

On July 27 last year, "individual Volkswagen employees" discussed
the diesel issue on the sidelines of a regular meeting attended by
Mr. Winterkorn and VW brand chief Herbert Diess, Volkswagen said.
It added that details haven't yet been reconstructed and it's
unclear whether the participants understood that the software
modification violated U.S. environmental regulations.

Mr. Winterkorn, it said, "asked for further clarification of the
issue."

Explanations from VW technicians at the end of August led the
management board to realize that the software modification
constituted a banned "defeat device" under U.S. law, Volkswagen
said, and the company acknowledged the deception to U.S.
regulators on Sept. 3.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Schulze" Suit Over Parmesan Cheese
----------------------------------------------------------
Beverly Schulze, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-00208 (S.D. Ill., February 26, 2016), alleges that
Plaintiff and the members of the Class purchased Wal-Mart's "100%"
Parmesan cheese products because they were deceived into believing
that the products were 100% Parmesan cheese, but that Wal-Mart's
"100%" Parmesan cheese products contain a substantial amount of
fillers and are not "100%" Parmesan cheese.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., doing business as Walmart, operates a chain
of hypermarkets, discount department stores and grocery stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John J. Driscoll, Esq.
     Philip Sholtz, Esq.
     THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
     211 N. Broadway, 40th Floor
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Telephone: 314-932-3232
     Facsimile: 314-932-3233
     E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com
             phil@thedriscollfirm.com


WESTERN UNION: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs in a
consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit notified the court
on February 5, 2016, that a witness on whom they had relied in
bringing their claims did not have firsthand knowledge of events
occurring at Western Union during calendar year 2012, and that
without the witness' support of their claims the consolidated
amended complaint would not have survived the defendants' motion
to dismiss. The same day, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice.

On December 10, 2013, City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement
System filed a purported class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado against The
Western Union Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer
and a former executive officer of the Company, asserting claims
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange Commission rule
10b-5 against all defendants.

On September 26, 2014, the Court appointed SEB Asset Management
S.A. and SEB Investment Management AB as lead plaintiffs. On
October 27, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint, which asserts the same claims as the
original complaint, except that it brings the claims under section
20(a) of the Exchange Act only against the individual defendants.
The consolidated amended complaint also adds as a defendant
another former executive officer of the Company.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that, during the
purported class period, February 7, 2012 through October 30, 2012,
defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to
disclose adverse material facts known to them, including those
regarding: (1) the competitive advantage the Company derived from
its compliance program; (2) the Company's ability to increase
market share, make limited price adjustments and withstand
competitive pressures; (3) the effect of compliance measures under
the Southwest Border Agreement on agent retention and business in
Mexico; and (4) the Company's progress in implementing an anti-
money laundering program for the Southwest Border Area.

On December 11, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. The Court referred the motion to a
Magistrate Judge, who, on April 14, 2015, issued a report and
recommendation, which recommended that the defendants' motion to
dismiss be granted and that the consolidated amended complaint be
dismissed in full.

On April 28, 2015, plaintiffs filed objections to the report and
recommendation. On September 29, 2015, the Court (a) overruled in
part and sustained in part plaintiffs' objections to the report
and recommendation; (b) adopted in part the recommendation; (c)
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint; and (d) dismissed the claims
against one of the individual defendants and denied the motion as
to the remaining defendants. In particular, the Court denied the
motion to dismiss as to certain statements made by the Company's
President and Chief Executive Officer and a former executive
officer during an investor conference call on July 24, 2012,
related to category (3) above concerning the effect of compliance
measures under the Southwest Border Agreement on agent retention
and business in Mexico.

On November 3, 2015, defendants filed an answer to the
consolidated amended complaint.

The Western Union Company provides people and businesses with
fast, reliable and convenient ways to send money and make payments
around the world.


WESTERN UNION: Settlement in Douglas Action Has Preliminary OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has granted
preliminary approval of the settlement reached in the class action
by Jason Douglas.

On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq., based on
allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to
class members' wireless telephones without their consent.

During the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier
and the plaintiff reached an agreement to create an $8.5 million
settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims,
class counsel's fees and the costs of administering the
settlement. The agreement has been signed by the parties and, on
November 10, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement.

The Company accrued an amount equal to the retention under its
insurance policy in previous quarters and believes that any
amounts in excess of this accrual will be covered by the insurer.
However, if the Company's insurer is unable to or refuses to
satisfy its obligations under the policy or the parties are unable
to reach a definitive agreement or otherwise agree on a
resolution, the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, and cash flows could be adversely impacted. As the
parties have reached an agreement in this matter, the Company
believes that the potential for additional loss in excess of
amounts already accrued is remote.

The Western Union Company provides people and businesses with
fast, reliable and convenient ways to send money and make payments
around the world.


ZYNGA INC: Securities Class Suit Deal Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that a California court has granted final
approval of the settlement in the securities class action lawsuit
and the settlement was funded entirely by insurance.

On July 30, 2012, a purported securities class action captioned
DeStefano v. Zynga Inc. et al., Case No. 3: 12-cv-04007-JSW, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company, and certain of our
current and former directors, officers, and executives. Additional
purported securities class actions containing similar allegations
were filed in the Northern District.

On September 26, 2012, the court consolidated various of the class
actions as In re Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No.
12-cv-04007-JSW. On January 23, 2013, the court entered an order
appointing a lead plaintiff and approving lead plaintiff's
selection of lead counsel. On April 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff
and another named plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. On
February 25, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint and provided plaintiffs leave
to file an amended complaint.

The lead plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 31,
2014. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial projections. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between February 14, 2012 and July 25, 2012. The First
Amended Complaint asserts claims for unspecified damages, and an
award of costs and expenses to the putative class, including
attorneys' fees.

On March 25, 2015, the Court issued an order denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On
April 28, 2015, the Court denied the defendants' motion for leave
to seek reconsideration of that order.

On June 12, 2015, the Court entered a scheduling order setting
certain pretrial deadlines leading up to a hearing on any
dispositive motions scheduled for May 12, 2017. On June 24, 2015,
pursuant to a stipulation among the parties, the consolidated
class actions were reassigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott
Corley for all further proceedings.

Pursuant to court order, a mediation session was conducted before
the Honorable Edward Infante (Ret.) on August 4, 2015. The parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle In re Zynga Inc.
Securities Litigation as to all defendants for $23.0 million. The
parties negotiated and executed a final stipulation of settlement
and on October 2, 2015, lead plaintiff's counsel filed an
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. In
response to issues raised by the Court at an October 8, 2015
hearing and in an October 9, 2015 order, on October 15, 2015, lead
plaintiff's counsel revised the papers in support of preliminary
approval and filed a supplemental submission in support of lead
plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement.

On October 27, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
class action settlement. On February 11, 2016, the court conducted
a final fairness hearing and entered an order granting the motion
for final approval of the settlement. The settlement was funded
entirely by insurance and will result in the dismissal of all
claims against the defendants. Accordingly there will be no impact
to Zynga's financial statements.

Zynga Inc. is a provider of social game services.


ZYNGA INC: No Schedule for Further Proceedings in "Lee" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the Delaware Chancery Court has not
yet entered a schedule for further proceedings in the case, Lee v.
Pincus et al.

On April 4, 2013, a purported class action captioned Lee v.
Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company, and certain of our current and
former directors, officers, and executives. The complaint alleges
that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in connection with
the release of certain lock-up agreements entered into in
connection with the Company's initial public offering. The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain of the Company's
shareholders who were subject to the lock-up agreements and who
were not permitted to sell shares in an April 2012 secondary
offering.

On January 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On
March 6, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint and a motion to stay discovery while the motions to
dismiss were pending. On November 14, 2014, the court denied the
motion to dismiss brought by Zynga and the directors and granted
the motion to dismiss brought by the underwriters who had been
named as defendants.

On June 24, 2015, certain of the defendants filed a motion for
relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Briefing on the
motion for relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision is
complete. A hearing date has not been set.

On August 19, 2015 the parties agreed to voluntarily dismiss three
individual director defendants from the case.  Plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification on July 13, 2015, and, after
briefing was completed, the court held a hearing on plaintiff's
motion on November 20, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the court
granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. The court has
not yet entered a schedule for further proceedings in this action.

Although it is reasonably possible that our assessment of the
possibility of loss could change in the near term due to one or
more confirming events, the Company believes it has meritorious
defenses in the Lee v. Pincus class action and will vigorously
defend this action. Furthermore, given that we are in the early
stages of the litigation process, we are unable to estimate the
range of potential loss, if any.

Zynga Inc. is a provider of social game services.


* Scalia's Absence Impacts Decision on Key Class Action Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the U.S. Supreme Court has denied a petition to review a
closely watched consumer case, raising speculation among the
defense bar that Justice Antonin Scalia's absence could make it
harder to get key class action issues decided.


* Tech Companies May Face Reverse Discrimination Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Law.com, reports that a white
male employee at Yahoo Inc. recently hit the tech giant with a
reverse discrimination lawsuit.  One lesson from the case is that,
in their bid to become more diverse, tech companies may open
themselves up to reverse discrimination claims, writes Epstein
Becker & Green associate Daniel Green -- djgreen@ebglaw.com -- in
a recent blog post.

The good news is that companies can proactively mitigate the risk
of a reverse discrimination lawsuit. Green argues that companies
should focus on promoting diversity through recruitment, as
opposed to terminations.  He notes that, "in fiscal year 2015, the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received more than
nine times as many race and sex discrimination complaints alleging
wrongful termination as complaints alleging failure to hire."

Another way to minimize risk is to ask employees to sign a release
as part of their severance package.  "Before initiating a
reduction in force, conduct due diligence regarding each employee
who will be impacted," Mr. Green suggests.  "This will provide an
opportunity to negotiate release agreements with particularly
high-risk employees."


                            *********

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 2016. 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 Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *