CAR_Public/160418.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 18, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 77


                            Headlines


A10 NETWORKS: Case Management Conference Scheduled for May 20
AARON'S INC: Fights "Foster" Plaintiff on Arbitration Bid
AARON'S INC: Motions Pending in "Korrow" Class Action
AARON'S INC: "Byrd" Webcam Suit Remains Pending
AARON'S INC: Bids to Dismiss & Strike in "Winslow" Action Pending

AARON'S INC: Claim for Aiding & Abetting Pending in "Peterson"
ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Updates on Reglan/Metoclopramide Suits
ADVANCED EMISSIONS SOLUTIONS: Union Suit Stayed Pending Talks
AIG DIRECT: "Van Wegen" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
ALCOVE ASSISTED: "Linville" Sues Over Unpaid Wage, Overtime

ALTISOURCE ASSET: Motion to Dismiss Cambridge Case Still Pending
ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Still Faces "Martin" Case in D. V.I.
ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Held in Class Action Appeal
ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties in "Montalbano" Case in Discovery
ASCENA RETAIL: Court Scheduled May 20 Final Approval Hearing

BERNALILLO, NM: Sued Over Civil Rights Act Violation
BGC PARTNERS: Gross v. GFI Group Remains Pending
BLUE CROSS: Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Violation of Sherman Act
BLUE CROSS: Faces "McGill" Suit over Market Allocation Conspiracy
BON SECOURS: "Hodges" Suit Alleges Underfunding of Plans

BROADWAY SPIRITS: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Damages
BROOKFIELD BUSINESS: Still Defends Suit Over Graftech Merger
C&J ENERGY: April 26 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Merger Lawsuit
CAESARS ACQUISITION: Engaged in Document Production
CASKERS LLC: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Automatic Renewal Policies

CALENDAR GIRLS: Faces Suit in Florida Over Alleged FLSA Violation
CHATHAM LODGING TRUST: Affiliate Defending "Martinez" Suit
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Faces "Hayes" Class Suit in Massachusetts
COLONY STARWOOD: Defending Against Shareholder Action in Maryland
COLUMBIA PIPELINE: Officers Sued Over Proposed TransCanada Merger

COMMUNITY BANK SYSTEM: Expects Final Settlement OK in 1st Quarter
CVB FINANCIAL: Expects to Undertake Discovery in Shareholder Case
CVB FINANCIAL: Engaged in Discovery in Calif. Employee Action
CYNOSURE INC: Completion of Discovery Scheduled for May 31
DEVILS ARENA: Faces "Guzman" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey

ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Updates on 4 Wage-and-Hour Class Suits
ETSY INC: To Defend Against "Altayyar" Case
ETSY INC: Still Defending "Cervantes" Case
ETSY INC: Court Stays Proceedings in "Weiss" Case
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Hearing Loss Litigation Remains Pending

FENNY JAPANESE: "Lan" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Suit Over Repossessed Cars Still Pending
FORTIS INC: "Severance" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
FRESH MARKET: "Jantz" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
FRESH MARKET: "Solak" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal

GOPRO INC: Shareholder Suits Filed in N.D. California
GOPRO INC: Faces Suit Over IPO in California Superior Court
GRUNDY PIZZA: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GUPER PAINTING: Faces "Cardenas" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
HALYARD HEALTH: "Shahinian" Parties Engaged in Discovery

HANAHAN, SC: Fails to Pay EMS Employees OT, "Regan" Suit Claims
HOME DEPOT: "Utne" Class Suit Removed to Calif. N. District
HONEST COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Cleaning Products, Action Claims
IMPERIAL DISTRIBUTORS: "Begin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement in Securities Case Has Final OK

INSYS THERAPEUTICS: To Defend Against "Donato" Suit in Arizona
INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Defending 2 Class Actions in New York
JB HUNT: Sued in N.J. Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
JP MORGAN: "Gebauer" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
JRN INC: "Jones" Labor Suit Transferred to M.D. Ga.

KEANNE GROUP: "Metz" Labor Suit Transferred from W.D. Pa.
LENDINGTREE INC: Established $3.2M Reserve in "Dijkstra" Case
LOKEY OLDSMOBILE: "Dettloff" Suit Transferred to Calif. N.D.
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Morris" Class Action Dismissed
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Ross" Suit Over Chinese Flooring

MAGNUM OIL: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
MARS INCORPORATED: Faces "Godsonov" Suit Over Under-filled M&M's
MDL 1674: Supreme Court Rejects PNC Bank's Appeal
MDL 1688: Pfizer Updates on Celebrex and Bextra Class Suits
MDL 2036: PNC Appeal on Denial of Arbitration Motion Pending

MDL 2332: Pfizer Updates on Lipitor Antitrust Suits
MDL 2342: Pfizer Updates on Zoloft Personal Injury Lawsuits
MDL 2458: Pfizer Updates on Effexor Personal Injury Actions
MDL 2521: Trial to Begin 2017 in Lidoderm Antitrust Suit
MDL 2545: 935 Testosterone Cases v. Endo Pending as of Feb. 19

MDL 2566: Synovus Bank's Bid to Dismiss Still Pending
MELITTA UNITED STATES: Faces "Decerbo" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Admin. Issues Pending in Hi! Neighbor Case
MOISHE'S MINI: "Soberanis" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: To Defend Against St. Clair Action

NESTLE USA: "McFarland" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Defending Suits Related to Astoria Merger
NOODLES & CO: Faces "Carter" Class Action in Colorado
ORTHOFIX INT'L: April 28 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
PACIFIC MARITIME: Sued Over Gender and Racial Discrimination

PEARLAND CAPITAL: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PELLA CORP: Faces "Cooks" Suit Over Defective Designer Windows
PFIZER INC: Updates on Effexor XR Antitrust Suits
PNC FINANCIAL: Wins Favorable Judgment in "White" Case Appeal
POPULAR INC: All Discovery Stayed in "Valle" Case

POPULAR INC: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Quiles" Case
POPULAR INC: Motions to Dismiss UBS Litigation Pending
POPULAR INC: RadioShack Submits Opposition to BPPR Settlement
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces "Colbert" Suit Over Old Spice Deodorant
QUESTAR CORPORATION: Sued over Misleading Financial Reports

QUIKRETE CALIFORNIA: "Martinez" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Proper Wages
RAYONIER INC: Motions to Dismiss Remains Pending
RENASANT CORPORATION: Settlement of Stockholder Action Approved
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Defending 5 Class Suits in California
RODS PRODUCTION: "Saenz" FLSA Suit Transferred to W.D. Okla.

ROTSEN FURNITURE: "Perdomo" Sues for OT Pay, Damages
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Reifer" Suit Says
SCANDRILL INC: Faces "Pineda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Appeal in Oregon State Lottery Action Pending
SELECT COMFORT: To Defend Against "Azimpour" Class Action

SNYDER'S-LANCE: To Pay $2.9M to Resolve IBO Litigation
SWISSPORT SA: "Ground Re-fuelers" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay
TD BANK: "Macias" Sues Over Short-Changing Coin Counting Machine
THIRD AVENUE: "Wagner" Sues Over Breach of Contract
TRI-BOROUGH HOME: "Hall" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay

ULTA SALON: "Hearn" Sues Over Shortchanged Refunds
UNIQUE EYEWEAR: Faces "Mitchell" Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Overtime
US FLOORS: Sued Over Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Violation
WATTS WATER: Has $6.5M Remaining Liability in Class Suit Deal
WAYFAIR INC: Still Defends "Dingee" Class Action in New York

WAYFAIR INC: Faces "Carson" Class Action in California
WINDSOR WINDOW: "Koty" Warrant Suit Transferred to E.D. Wis.


                            *********


A10 NETWORKS: Case Management Conference Scheduled for May 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
A10 Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in the case, In re A10
Networks, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, a case management
conference is scheduled for May 20, 2016, to address the schedule
of upcoming discovery.

The Company said, "On January 29, 2015, A10, the members of our
Board of Directors, our Chief Financial Officer, and the
underwriters of our March 21, 2014, initial public offering
("IPO") were named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement System v. A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-276207.
Several substantially identical lawsuits were subsequently filed
in the same court, bringing the same claims against the same
defendants, captioned Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. A10
Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-278575 (filed March 25, 2015) and
Kaveny v. A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-279006 (filed April
6, 2015)."

On May 29, 2015, the aforementioned putative class actions were
consolidated under the caption In re A10 Networks, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, 1-15-CV-276207 (the "Securities Class
Action"). On June 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief. On July 31, 2015, the
defendants filed demurrers, which the plaintiffs opposed.  On
November 12, 2015, the Superior Court issued an order overruling
the joint demurrer in part.

"The Superior Court sustained the demurrer, with leave to amend
within ten days, with respect to claims against A10 and one of our
directors under Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933," the
Company said.  "On November 23, 2015, plaintiffs filed their First
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which defendants
answered on January 8, 2016. A case management conference is
scheduled for May 20, 2016, to address the schedule of upcoming
discovery. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit."

A10 is a provider of advanced application networking and network
security technologies.


AARON'S INC: Fights "Foster" Plaintiff on Arbitration Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. on Feb. 8 filed a motion to compel arbitration and
to stay proceedings in the "Foster" class action lawsuit.  The
Plaintiff filed a response to the motion on March 10 and Aaron's
replied on March 21.

Aaron's said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that in the case, Foster v. Aaron's,
Inc., filed on August 21, 2015, in the United States District
Court in Phoenix, Arizona (No. CV-15-1637-PHX-SRB), the plaintiff
in this putative class action alleges that the Company violates
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by placing
automated calls to customer references, or otherwise violates the
TCPA in the manner in which the Company contacts customer
references. The Company's initial responsive pleading was filed on
October 7, 2015. A Scheduling Order was entered on January 26,
2016.

Judge Susan R Bolton held a Scheduling Conference on Feb. 1.
Thereafter, she directed Plaintiff's counsel to submit to
chamber's mailbox no later than Feb. 3 a proposed Order dismissing
fictitious defendants, and directed Defense counsel to file a
Motion to Compel Arbitration no later than Feb. 8.  If the motion
is denied, the Court will set another Rule 16 Scheduling
Conference regarding the motion for class certification.

Established in 1955 and incorporated in 1962 as a Georgia
corporation, Aaron's, Inc., is a specialty retailer of furniture,
consumer electronics, computers, appliances and household
accessories.


AARON'S INC: Motions Pending in "Korrow" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's motion for
partial summary judgment and motion requesting permission for an
interlocutory appeal remains pending in the "Korrow" class action
lawsuit.

In Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., originally filed in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division
on October 26, 2010, plaintiff filed suit on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated alleging that the Company is liable in
damages to plaintiff and each class member because the Company's
lease agreements issued after March 16, 2006 purportedly violated
certain New Jersey state consumer statutes. Plaintiff's complaint
seeks treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and
statutory penalty damages of $100 per violation of all contracts
issued in New Jersey, and also claims that there are multiple
violations per contract.

The Company removed the lawsuit to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on December 6, 2010 (Civil
Action No.: 10-06317(JAP)(LHG)). Plaintiff on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated seeks equitable relief, statutory
and treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees. Discovery on this matter is closed.

On July 31, 2013, the Court certified a class comprising all
persons who entered into a rent-to-own contract with the Company
in New Jersey from March 16, 2006 through March 31, 2011. In
August 2013, the Court of Appeals denied the Company's request for
an interlocutory appeal of the class certification issue.

The Company filed a motion to allow counterclaims against all
newly certified class members who may owe legitimate fees or
damages to the Company or who failed to return merchandise to the
Company prior to obtaining ownership. That motion was denied by
the magistrate judge and confirmed by the District Court on
November 30, 2015.

On August 14, 2015, the Company filed a motion for partial summary
judgment seeking judicial dismissal of a portion of the claims in
the case, which remains pending.

On December 23, 2015, the Company filed a motion requesting
permission for an interlocutory appeal of this denial to the
United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which also remains
pending.

Established in 1955 and incorporated in 1962 as a Georgia
corporation, Aaron's, Inc., is a specialty retailer of furniture,
consumer electronics, computers, appliances and household
accessories.


AARON'S INC: "Byrd" Webcam Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the District Court has
not issued a new ruling in the case by Crystal and Brian Byrd.

Information about the lawsuit is available at:

                   http://www.webcamlawsuit.com/

Brian Byrd and Crystal Byrd, of Casper, Wyo., allege the "rent-to-
own" laptop computer they paid off ahead of schedule in October
2010 was mistakenly listed in default by Aaron's. The lawsuit
asserts that an Aaron's representative wrongly appeared at the
Byrd's home on Dec. 22, 2010 to repossess the computer and showed
the family an unauthorized web-camera image of Brian Byrd using
the computer at home. A subsequent investigation by local law
enforcement confirmed the electronic surveillance by Aaron's
management, the lawsuit alleges.

In Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises,
Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC,
filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court,
Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 1:11-CV-00101-SPB),
plaintiffs alleged that the Company and its independently owned
and operated franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises ("Aspen Way")
knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy in violation of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") and the Computer
Fraud Abuse Act and sought certification of a putative nationwide
class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of a
software program called "PC Rental Agent."

Although the District Court dismissed the Company from the
original lawsuit on March 20, 2012, after certain procedural
motions, on May 23, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file a third amended complaint, which asserted the claims
under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, added a request
for injunction, and named additional independently owned and
operated Company franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the
third amended complaint, and the Company moved to dismiss that
complaint on substantially the same grounds as it sought to
dismiss plaintiffs' prior complaints. Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages as well as injunctive relief. Plaintiffs filed their
motion for class certification on July 1, 2013, and the Company's
response was filed in August 2013.

On March 31, 2014, the United States District Judge dismissed all
claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises,
LLC. The Court also dismissed claims for invasion of privacy,
aiding and abetting, and conspiracy against all defendants. In
addition, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the
class. Finally, the Judge denied the Company's motion to dismiss
the violation of ECPA claims.

Plaintiffs requested and received immediate appellate review of
these rulings by the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
On April 10, 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed the denial of
class certification on the grounds stated by the District Court,
and remanded the case back to the District Court for further
consideration of that and the other elements necessary for class
certification. The District Court has not issued a new ruling on
those matters.

The Byrds are represented by Jamieson & Robinson, LLC, of Casper,
Wyo.; HermanGerel LLP, of Atlanta; The Spence Law Firm, of
Jackson, Wyo.; and Levin, Fishbein, Sedran and Berman, of
Philadelphia.

Established in 1955 and incorporated in 1962 as a Georgia
corporation, Aaron's, Inc., is a specialty retailer of furniture,
consumer electronics, computers, appliances and household
accessories.


AARON'S INC: Bids to Dismiss & Strike in "Winslow" Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's motions to
dismiss and strike certain allegations in the case by Michael and
Fonda Winslow remain pending.

In Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial
Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees
and Designerware, LLC, filed on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles
Superior Court (Case No. BC502304), plaintiffs assert claims
against the Company and its independently owned and operated
franchisee, Sultan Financial Corporation (as well as certain John
Doe franchisees), for unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping,
electronic stalking, and violation of California's Comprehensive
Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law.
Each of these claims arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental
Agent software. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and
damages in connection with the allegations of the complaint.
Plaintiffs are also seeking certification of a putative California
class. Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel as in the
Byrd litigation.

In April 2013, the Company timely removed this matter to federal
court. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay this
litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim, and a motion to strike
certain allegations in the complaint. The Court subsequently
stayed the case. The Company's motions to dismiss and strike
certain allegations remain pending. On June 6, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied on
July 11, 2015.

Established in 1955 and incorporated in 1962 as a Georgia
corporation, Aaron's, Inc., is a specialty retailer of furniture,
consumer electronics, computers, appliances and household
accessories.


AARON'S INC: Claim for Aiding & Abetting Pending in "Peterson"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in the case by Michael
Peterson, the only remaining claim against the Company is a claim
for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy.

In Michael Peterson v. Aaron's, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises,
Inc., filed on June 19, 2014, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No. 1:14-cv-01919-TWT),
several plaintiffs allege that they leased computers for use in
their law practice. The plaintiffs claim that the Company and
Aspen Way knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy and the privacy
of plaintiff's legal clients in violation of the ECPA and the
Computer Fraud Abuse Act. Plaintiffs seek certification of a
putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen
Way's use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiffs claim that
information and data obtained by defendants through PC Rental
Agent was attorney-client privileged.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended
complaint. On June 4, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss all claims except a claim for aiding and abetting
invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs then filed a second amended
complaint alleging only the invasion of privacy claims that
survived the June 4, 2015 court order, and adding a claim for
unjust enrichment.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint, and on September 16, 2015, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim.
The only remaining claim against the Company is a claim for aiding
and abetting invasion of privacy.

Established in 1955 and incorporated in 1962 as a Georgia
corporation, Aaron's, Inc., is a specialty retailer of furniture,
consumer electronics, computers, appliances and household
accessories.


ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Updates on Reglan/Metoclopramide Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, provided updates on
Reglan(R)/Metoclopramide Litigation.

The Company said, "Halsey Drug Company, as predecessor to us, has
been named along with numerous other companies as a defendant in
cases filed in three separate state coordinated litigations
pending in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and California, respectively
captioned In re: Reglan(R)/Metoclopramide Mass Tort Litigation,
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, January Term, 2010, No.
01997; In re: Reglan Litigation, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Atlantic County, Case No. 289, Master Docket No. ATL-L-
3865-10; and Reglan/Metoclopramide Cases, Superior Court of
California, San Francisco County, Judicial Council Coordination
Proceeding No. 4631, Superior Court No.: CJC-10-004631."

In addition, Acura was served with a similar complaint by two
individual plaintiffs in Nebraska federal court, which plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed in December 2014. In this product liability
litigation against numerous pharmaceutical product manufacturers
and distributors, including Acura, plaintiffs claim injuries from
their use of the Reglan brand of metoclopramide and generic
metoclopramide.

In the Pennsylvania action, over 200 lawsuits have been filed
against Acura and Halsey Drug Company alleging that plaintiffs
developed neurological disorders as a result of their use of the
Reglan brand and/or generic metoclopramide. In the New Jersey
action, plaintiffs filed approximately 150 lawsuits against us,
but served less than 50 individual lawsuits upon us. In the
California action, there are 89 pending cases against us, with
more than 445 individual plaintiffs.

In the lawsuits filed to date, plaintiffs have not confirmed they
ingested any of the generic metoclopramide manufactured by Acura.

"We discontinued manufacture and distribution of generic
metoclopramide more than 18 years ago," the Company said.

"In addition, we believe the June 23, 2011 decision by the U.S.
Supreme Court in PLIVA v. Mensing ("Mensing decision") holding
that state tort law failure to warn claims against generic drug
companies are pre-empted by the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act Amendments
and federal drug regulations will assist us in favorably resolving
these cases.

"In New Jersey, Generic Defendants, including Acura, filed
dispositive motions based on the Mensing decision, which the Court
granted with a limited exception. In June 2012, the New Jersey
trial court dismissed all of the New Jersey cases pending against
Acura with prejudice.  It is possible that this ruling may
eventually be appealed by plaintiffs at the conclusion of the
litigation in the trial court.

In Pennsylvania, and California, Generic Defendants, including
Acura, also filed dispositive motions based on the Mensing
decision.

In Pennsylvania, on November 18, 2011, the trial court denied
Generic Defendants' dispositive preemption motions, without
prejudice. In July 2013, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an
adverse decision, and a subsequent appeal to the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court was denied. On December 16, 2014, the Generic
Defendants filed a Joint Petition for Certiorari with the United
States Supreme Court captioned Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et
al. v. Dorothy Bentley, et al., No. 14-711 (U.S.) seeking reversal
of the Pennsylvania state court decision.

On April 27, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied this Petition and
this matter has been returned to the trial court for further
proceedings. From July, 2015 to date, the court has been moving
forward with procedural steps to narrow this litigation, including
requests for plaintiffs to voluntarily discontinue cases, such as
those filed against Acura, where there is no case-specific product
identification. To the extent, however, that plaintiffs intend to
pursue these claims, Acura nonetheless remains optimistic that
most, if not all, of these Philadelphia cases will eventually be
dismissed against it based upon the favorable aspects of the
Superior Court's narrow preemption ruling and lack of product
identification, although there can be no assurance in this regard.
Legal fees related to this matter are currently covered by Acura's
insurance carrier.

In California, the trial court entered a May 25, 2012 Order
denying Generic Defendants' dispositive preemption motions. The
Generic Defendants' appeals from this order were denied by the
California appellate courts. In May 2014, the California Court
denied a subsequent demurrer and motion to strike seeking
dismissal of plaintiffs' manufacturing defect and defective
product claims to the extent that they are barred by federal
preemption based upon the June 2013 Bartlett decision.  Thus far,
Acura and most Generic Defendants have not been required to file
answers or other responsive pleadings in each individual case in
which they are named defendants. However, the individual cases
against Acura have been stayed pending resolution of certain
jurisdictional issues relating to cases filed by non-resident
California plaintiffs and further action by the trial court.
Subject to further developments, plaintiffs may be permitted to
proceed with these lawsuits against Acura including state law
claims based on (1) failing to communicate warnings to physicians
through "Dear Doctor" letters; and (2) failure to update labeling
to adopt brand labeling changes. The California trial court also
has acknowledged the preemptive effect of Mensing so that any
claim "that would render the generic defendants in violation of
federal law if they are found responsible under a state law cause
of action, would not be permissible." To date, however, none of
these plaintiffs have confirmed they ingested any of the generic
metoclopramide manufactured by Acura.  Therefore, we expect the
number of plaintiffs with possible claims to be reduced
voluntarily or by motion practice.  Action will be taken in an
effort to dismiss Acura from these cases, although there can be no
assurance in this regard. Legal fees related to this matter are
currently covered by our insurance carrier.

"As any potential loss is neither probable nor estimable, we have
not accrued for any potential loss related to these matters as of
December 31, 2015 and we are presently unable to determine if any
potential loss would be covered by our insurance carrier."

Acura is a specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the
research, development and commercialization of technologies and
products intended to address medication abuse and misuse.


ADVANCED EMISSIONS SOLUTIONS: Union Suit Stayed Pending Talks
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, United Food And Commercial Workers Union And
Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., Michael D.
Durham, Mark H. McKinnies, C. Jean Bustard, Sharon M. Sjostrom,
Christine B. Amrhein, and L. Heath Sampson, Defendants, Civil
Action Nos. 14-cv-01243-CMA-KMT, 14-cv-01402-CMA-KMT (D. Colo.),
District Judge Christine M. Arguello:

     -- granted the Parties' Stipulated Motion to Stay Under
D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6 and the case is stayed until further Court
order;

     -- denied, without prejudice, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint Under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(B)(6), with the option to refile should
mediation fail.

     -- directed the parties to file a Status Report, on or before
May 31, 2016, informing the Court as to the status of parties'
settlement discussions.

A copy of that order dated March 8, 2016, is available at
http://is.gd/3611bsfrom Leagle.com.

Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court
has not yet ruled on Defendants' motion to dismiss the securities
class action lawsuit, United Food and Commercial Workers Union v.
Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., No. 14-cv-01243-CMA-KMT (U.S.
District Court, D. Colo.)

A class action lawsuit against ADES and certain of its current and
former officers is pending in the federal court in Denver,
Colorado. This lawsuit and a companion case were originally filed
in May 2014.

On February 19, 2015, the Court consolidated these cases and
appointed the United Foods and Commercial Workers Union and
Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund as
lead plaintiff and approved its selection of the law firms. The
consolidated case is now captioned United Food and Commercial
Workers Union v. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., No. 14-cv-
01243-CMA-KMT (U.S. District Court, D. Colo.).

The lead plaintiff filed "Lead Plaintiff's Consolidated Class
Action Complaint" on April 20, 2015 (the "Consolidated
Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the
Company and certain current and former Company officers.

Plaintiffs allege that ADES and other defendants misrepresented to
the investing public ADES's financial condition and its financial
controls to artificially inflate and maintain the market price of
ADES's common stock. The Consolidated Complaint alleges two claims
for relief for: 1) alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and 2) control
person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages together with costs
and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting the class action,
among other relief. The Consolidated Complaint alleges a class
period covering all purchasers or acquirers of the common stock of
ADES or its predecessor-in-interest during the proposed class
period from May 12, 2011 through January 29, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on
June 19, 2015, contending the Consolidated Complaint: 1) fails to
meet the strict pleading standards required for Section 10(b)
claims; and 2) fails to establish the primary violation required
for any claim of secondary (control person) liability. Plaintiffs
filed a response in opposition to this motion on July 2, 2015 and
Defendants filed their reply brief on July 16, 2015.

United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food
Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund, Plaintiff, is
represented by:

     David Walter Edgar, Esq.
     Edgar Law Firm, LLC
     The Spectrum Building
     1580 Lincoln St., Ste. 1100
     Denver, CO 80203
     Tel: 720-529-0505
     Fax: 303-486-0001

          - and -

     James Edward Miller, Esq.
     Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
     Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP
     65 Main Street
     Chester, CT 06412
     Tel: 860-526-1100
     Toll Free: 866-540-5505
     Fax: 866-300-7367

          - and -

     Kolin Chen-Ting Tang, Esq.
     Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP
     11755 Wilshire Blvd, 15th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Tel: 323-510-4060
     Fax: 866-300-7367

          - and -

     Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
     Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP
     1625 N. Commerce Pkwy Suite 320
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
     Toll Free: 866-849-7545
     Fax: 866-300-7367

Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., and certain of the other
Defendants, are represented by Allison Kaye Kostecka --
akostecka@gibsondunn.com -- and Gregory J. Kerwin --
gkerwin@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP; and
Stephen M. Dehoff -- sdehoff@fortislawpartners.com -- at Fortis
Law Partners LLC d/b/a Friesen Lamb LLP.

Mark H. McKinnies, Defendant, represented by Nicole K. Serfoss --
nserfoss@mofo.com -- and Steven M. Kaufmann -- skaufmann@mofo.com
-- at Morrison & Foerster, LLP.


AIG DIRECT: "Van Wegen" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Celine Van Wegen, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AIG Direct Insurance Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00849-H-NLS (S.D. Cal., April 8,
2016), seeks statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq., together with costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees.

AIG Direct is a term life insurance company that maintains its
corporate office at 9640 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 200, San
Diego, California 92123. It contacts consumers through telephone
calls with automatic telephone dialing equipment without consent
and the Plaintiff is once a recipient of such call.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
      Alexis Wood, Esq.
      Kas Gallucci, Esq.
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      Facsimile: (619) 564-6665


ALCOVE ASSISTED: "Linville" Sues Over Unpaid Wage, Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Linville on her own behalf and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Alcove Assisted Living Facility, Inc., Case No.
8:16-cv-00847-MSS-MAP (M.D. Fla., April 8, 2016), seeks unpaid
wages and overtime, attorney fees and costs and such other further
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is an assisted living facility at 2801 4th Street N.
Saint Petersburg, FL 33704 where Plaintiff rendered secretarial
and manual work.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. John Gadd, Esq.
      Bank of America Building
      2727 Ulmerton Rd. Ste. 250
      Clearwater, FL 33762
      Tel: (727)524-6300
      Email: wjg@mazgadd.com


ALTISOURCE ASSET: Motion to Dismiss Cambridge Case Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Asset Management Corporation said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the Company is awaiting on the court's decision on the motion
to dismiss the case, City of Cambridge Retirement System v.
Altisource Asset Management Corp., et al.

On January 16, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin
Islands by a purported shareholder of AAMC under the caption City
of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management
Corp., et al., 15-cv-00004. The action names as defendants AAMC,
William C. Erbey and certain officers of AAMC and alleges that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose
material information to AAMC shareholders concerning alleged
conflicts of interest held by Mr. Erbey with respect to AAMC's
relationship and transactions with Residential, Altisource, Home
Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., Southwest Business Corporation,
NewSource Reinsurance Company and Ocwen Financial Corporation,
including allegations that the defendants failed to disclose (i)
the nature of relationships between Mr. Erbey, AAMC and those
entities; and (ii) that the transactions were the result of an
allegedly unfair process from which Mr. Erbey failed to recuse
himself. The action seeks, among other things, an award of
monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount
and an award of attorney's and other fees and expenses. AAMC and
Mr. Erbey are the only defendants who have been served with the
complaint.

On May 12, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of
Denver Employees Retirement Plan to be lead plaintiff. On May 15,
2015, the court entered a scheduling order requiring plaintiff to
file an amended complaint on or before June 19, 2015, and setting
a briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on June 19, 2015. On July 20, 2015, AAMC and Mr.
Erbey filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

"Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on September 3,
2015, and we are awaiting a decision from the court on the
motion," the Company said. "We believe the amended complaint is
without merit. At this time, we are not able to predict the
ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can we estimate the range of
possible loss, if any."

Plaintiff is represented by A. Jeffrey Weiss --
jeffweiss@weisslaw-vi.net -- at A. J. Weiss & Associates.


ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Still Faces "Martin" Case in D. V.I.
------------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Residential Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company is defending against the case, Martin v. Altisource
Residential Corporation et al.

On March 27, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin
Islands by a purported shareholder of the Company under the
caption Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-
cv-00024. The action names as defendants the Company, Mr. Erbey
and certain officers and a former officer of the Company and
alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by,
among other things, making materially false statements and/or
failing to disclose material information to the Company's
shareholders regarding the Company's relationship and transactions
with AAMC, Ocwen and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd.

These alleged misstatements and omissions include allegations that
the defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's
reliance on Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with
Ocwen, including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling
loans, that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for
violating state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and
Ocwen's lack of proper internal controls.

The complaint also contains allegations that certain of the
Company's disclosure documents were false and misleading because
they failed to disclose fully the entire details of a certain
asset management agreement between the Company and AAMC that
allegedly benefited AAMC to the detriment of the Company's
shareholders. The action seeks, among other things, an award of
monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount
and an award of attorney's and other fees and expenses.

The Company said, "In May 2015, two of our purported shareholders
filed competing motions with the court to be appointed lead
plaintiff and for selection of lead counsel in the action.
Subsequently, opposition and reply briefs were filed by the
purported shareholders with respect to these motions. On October
7, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of Lei Shi
to be lead plaintiff and denying the other motion to be lead
plaintiff."

"On January 23, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. Our motion to dismiss the amended complaint is due on
March 22, 2016.

"We believe the complaint is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the action. At this time, we are not able to
predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can we estimate
the range of possible loss, if any."

Altisource Residential Corporation is a Maryland real estate
investment trust ("REIT") focused on acquiring and managing
quality, affordable single-family rental properties for working
class families throughout the United States.


ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Held in Class Action Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that briefing on the
plaintiffs' appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit has been completed, and oral argument was held on
February 3, 2016.

On October 10, 2013, October 17, 2013, December 3, 2013 and
December 6, 2013, purported shareholder class actions, styled
Jimmy Wang v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., James L. Burch
v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters' Pension Fund v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al,
and Nabil Elmachtoub v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al,
respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts (the "District Court"), naming the
Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The lawsuits
allege that the defendants made material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact regarding clinical and safety data for
Iclusig in its public disclosures during the period from December
12, 2011 through October 8, 2013 or October 17, 2013, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On January 9, 2014, the District Court consolidated the actions
and appointed lead plaintiffs. On February 18, 2014, the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as contemplated by the order
of the District Court. The amended complaint extends the class
period for the Securities Exchange Act claims through October 30,
2013. In addition, plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company's
officers, directors and certain underwriters made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding
clinical and safety data for Iclusig in connection with the
Company's January 24, 2013 follow-on public offering of common
stock in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages
on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees.

On April 14, 2014, the defendants and the underwriters filed
separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 10,
2014, the District Court heard oral argument on the motion to
dismiss. On March 24, 2015, the District Court granted the
defendants' and the underwriters' motions to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaint in these consolidated actions.

On April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District
Court's decision to grant the motions to dismiss with the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Briefing on the
plaintiffs' appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit has been completed, and oral argument was held on
February 3, 2016.


ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties in "Montalbano" Case in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in
the case Thomas Montalbano are currently engaged in discovery.

On March 11, 2015, a product liability lawsuit, styled Thomas
Montalbano, Jr. v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
naming the Company as defendant. The lawsuit alleges that the
Company's cancer medicine Iclusig was defective, dangerous and
lacked adequate warnings when the plaintiff used it from July to
August 2013. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages,
punitive damages and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees.

On May 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in this action. On July 31, 2015, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida heard oral
argument on the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint.

On August 4, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with respect to the plaintiff's cause of action for
punitive damages and denied the remainder of the Company's motion
to dismiss.

In response, on August 7, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint asserts punitive damages as a
remedy, in addition to seeking unspecified monetary damages and an
award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. The
parties are currently engaged in discovery.


ASCENA RETAIL: Court Scheduled May 20 Final Approval Hearing
------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended January 23, 2016, that in the case, Justice
Pricing Litigation, the Court has scheduled a hearing on final
approval for May 20, 2016.

The Company is a defendant in a number of class action lawsuits
that allege that Justice's promotional practices violated state
comparative pricing laws in connection with advertisements
promoting a 40% discount. The plaintiffs further allege false
advertising, violation of state consumer protection statutes,
breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and unfair benefit
to Justice. The plaintiffs seek to stop Justice's allegedly
unlawful practice, and obtain damages for Justice's customers in
the named states. They also seek interest and legal fees.

In July 2015, an agreement was reached with the plaintiffs in the
Rougvie case to settle the lawsuits on a class basis with all
Justice customers who made purchases between January 1, 2012 and
February 28, 2015 for approximately $50 million, including
payments to members of the class, payment of legal fees and
expenses of settlement administration. As a result, the Company
established a reserve for approximately $50 million during Fiscal
2015.

The proposed Settlement Agreement was filed with the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
preliminary approval on September 24, 2015, and received
preliminary approval by the court on October 27, 2015. The Company
paid approximately $50 million representing the agreed settlement
amount into an escrow account on November 16, 2015. Formal notice
of settlement was sent to the class members on December 1, 2015.
The Company continues to believe that the previously accrued
amount of approximately $50 million reflects a liability that is
both probable and reasonably estimable.

The settlement remains subject to an opportunity for class members
to object or exclude themselves from the settlement, final
approval by the Court after consideration of any objections and a
potential appeal. The Court has scheduled a hearing on final
approval for May 20, 2016. Once final non-appealable approval is
granted, it will resolve all claims in all of the outstanding
class actions on behalf of customers who made purchases between
January 1, 2012 and February 28, 2015, and any claims for
purchases outside that time frame.

Recently, potential claims related to purchases made in 2010 and
2011 have been raised. The Company believes it has strong defenses
to any such claims and is prepared to defend any such claims. In
the event that individual class members exclude themselves from
the settlement, they would then only be able to pursue individual
claims rather than class claims.  If the plaintiffs who have
brought the other actions excluded themselves from the settlement,
the Company believes that the liability associated with any of
their individual cases would not be material. If the matters
described herein do not occur and the pricing lawsuits are not
settled, the ultimate resolution of these matters may or may not
result in an additional material loss, which cannot be reasonably
estimated at this time.

Ascena Retail Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("ascena" or the
"Company"), is a national specialty retailer of apparel for women
and tween girls.


BERNALILLO, NM: Sued Over Civil Rights Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------
A. L., and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Bernalillo
County, Art de la Cruz, Maggie Hart-Stebbins, Wayne A. Johnson,
Debbie O'Malley, Lonnie C. Talbert, Board of County Commissioners,
Ken Martinez, County Attorney, Randy M. Autio
County Attorney (Retired), Theresa Baca Sandoval, Assistant County
Attorney, Senior, Margaret Maggie Toulouse-Oliver
County Clerk, Patricia Nicasio, Executive Assistant or Officer
Nancy Beck, Administrative Assistant Senior, Arthur Dow
Supervisor, Denine Morelos, Imaging and Records Coordinator Robert
Kidd, Compliance Officer and Supervisor, Brandi E. Sanchez
Inspection of Records "IPRA" Coordinator, Julie Bacas Morgas
County Manager, and Supervisor to Deputy Manager, Tom Zdunek
County Manager (Retired), and Supervisor to Deputy Manager,
Vincent Murphy, County Deputy Manager and Housing Director
Supervisor, Maria E. Salazar, Executive Officer to Deputy County
Manager, Meaghan Ellsworth, Special Projects Coordinator, Betty M.
Valdez, Director of the Public Housing Authority, BCHD, Marilyn E.
Ayala, Home Ownership Coordinator, David L. Montoya, Hearing
Support, Christi L. Baker, Section 504/ADA Coordinator, Johnny J.
Armijo, Section 504/ADA Coordinator, Patrick W. Pearson, Inspector
Supervisor Coordinator, Mark A. Garcia, Rehabilitation and
Construction Coordinator, Angelina G. Parea, Section 8 Housing
Specialist, Craig T. Smith, Housing Records Custodian,
Adminstrative Assistant Sr., Maricruz Sosa, Administrative
Assistant Intern, and Anita Hill, Program Assistant III, Case No.
1:16-cv-00266-KK (D.N.M., April 7, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for Civil Rights Act violations.

Bernalillo County is a county in the state of New Mexico.

A. L. is a pro se plaintiff.


BGC PARTNERS: Gross v. GFI Group Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------
BGC Partners, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2016, that
the case, Gross v. GFI Group, Inc., remains pending.

Following the announcement of the CME Merger, nine putative class
action complaints challenging the CME Merger were filed on behalf
of purported stockholders of GFI (one of which also purported to
be brought derivatively on behalf of GFI), two in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York, six in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, and one in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaints were captioned Coyne v. GFI Group Inc., et al. ,
Index No. 652704/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed September 4, 2014),
Suprina v. GFI Group, Inc., et al. , Index No. 652668/2014 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., filed August 29, 2014), Brown v. GFI Group Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 10082-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 3, 2014),
Hughes v. CME Group, Inc., et al. , Civil Action No. 10103-VCL
(Del. Ch., filed September 8, 2014), Al Ammary v. Gooch, et al. ,
Civil Action No. 10125-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 11, 2014),
Giardalas v. GFI Group, Inc. , Civil Action No. 10132-VCL (Del.
Ch., filed September 15, 2014), City of Lakeland Employees'
Pension Plan v. Gooch, et al. , Civil Action No. 10136-VCL (Del.
Ch., filed September 16, 2014), Michocki v. Gooch., et al. , Civil
Action No. 10166-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 25, 2014) and
Szarek v. GFI Group Inc., et al. , Case No. 14-CV-8228 (S.D.N.Y.,
filed October 14, 2014).

On September 26, 2014, the Court of Chancery granted voluntary
dismissal of the Giardalas action. On October 6, 2014, a
consolidation order was entered by Vice Chancellor Laster,
consolidating the Delaware cases into the Consolidated Delaware
Action. The consolidation order designated the complaint filed in
City of Lakeland Employees' Pension Plan v. Gooch, et al ., Civil
Action No. 10136-VCL (Del. Ch.) as the operative complaint in the
Consolidated Delaware Action.

The complaints named as Defendants various combinations of the
Company, GFI Holdco Ltd. ("IDB Buyer"), the members of the
Company's board of directors, GFI managing director Nick Brown,
CME, Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore Acquisition LLC,
Cheetah Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI and New
JPI Inc. ("New JPI"). The complaints generally allege, among other
things, that the members of the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders
during merger negotiations by entering into the CME Merger
Agreement and approving the CME Merger, and that the Company, CME,
Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore Acquisition LLC, IDB Buyer,
Cheetah Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI, and New
JPI aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaints further allege, among other things, (i) that the merger
consideration provided for in the CME Merger Agreement undervalued
the Company, (ii) that the sales process leading up to the CME
Merger was flawed due to the members of the Company's board of
director's and Jefferies' conflicts of interest, and (iii) that
certain provisions of the CME Merger Agreement inappropriately
favored CME and precluded or impeded third parties from submitting
potentially superior proposals.

In addition, the Hughes complaint asserts a derivative claim on
behalf of the Company against the members of the Company's board
of directors for breaching their fiduciary duties of loyalty and
care to the Company by negotiating and agreeing to the CME Merger
and against Defendants Gooch and Heffron for usurping a corporate
opportunity. The Michocki complaint alleges that the CME Merger is
not a solitary transaction but a series of related transactions
and further alleges that the IDB Transaction must be approved by
an affirmative two-thirds vote of the Shares pursuant to the terms
of the Charter.

The complaints seek, among other relief: (i) certification of the
class, (ii) injunctive relief enjoining the CME Merger, (iii) a
declaration that the members of the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties and that certain provisions of the
CME Merger Agreement are unlawful, (iv) a directive to the members
of the Company's board of directors to execute their fiduciary
duties to obtain a transaction in the best interest of the
Company's stockholders, (v) rescission of the CME Merger to the
extent already implemented, (vi) granting of rescissory damages
and an accounting of all of the damages suffered as a result of
the alleged wrongdoing, (vii) and reimbursement of fees and costs.
The Coyne and Suprina Plaintiffs also demand a jury trial.
Certain Defendants have moved to dismiss or, in the alternative,
stay the Coyne and Suprina actions in favor of the Consolidated
Delaware Action.

A hearing was held on December 15, 2014 on (i) the Defendants'
motions to dismiss or stay the Coyne and Suprina actions; (ii) the
Plaintiffs' motion by order to show cause for consolidation and
appointment of a leadership structure; and (iii) Plaintiff
Suprina's motion by order to show cause to compel and expedite
discovery. In an order filed on January 30, 2015, the Court
ordered the Suprina and Coyne cases consolidated as In re GFI
Group Inc. Shareholder Litigation , Index No. 652668/2014. In
another order filed that same day, the Court denied Plaintiff
Suprina's motion to compel and expedite discovery. The parties are
awaiting a ruling on the Defendants' motions to dismiss or stay
the consolidated action.

On November 18, 2014, the Delaware court entered a Revised Order
Setting Expedited Discovery Schedule in the Consolidated Delaware
Action. On December 19, 2014, the court entered a Further Revised
Scheduling Order scheduling a preliminary injunction hearing for
January 16, 2015. On December 29, 2014, Plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Delaware Action filed a Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction, and a brief in support thereof, seeking to enjoin
enforcement of Article V of the Support Agreement and
preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote on the CME Merger until
(i) certain additional disclosures were made and (ii) the
Company's stockholders were provided the opportunity to vote on
the CME Merger, the JPI Merger and the IDB Transaction. On January
8, 2015, the parties agreed to move the preliminary injunction
hearing from January 16, 2015 to January 20, 2015. On January 15,
2015, the preliminary injunction hearing (scheduled for January
20) was taken off the court's calendar.

On January 15, 2015, Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware
Action filed a Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint.
On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Second Supplement to the
Verified Class Action Complaint. On February 4, 2015, Plaintiffs
filed a Motion for Expedited Proceedings and a brief in support
thereof. On February 6, 2015, the Court scheduled a merits hearing
for February 17 and 18, 2015.

On February 7, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Third Supplement to the
Verified Class Action Complaint, seeking certain additional
injunctive and declaratory relief. On February 11, 2015, the
Court, with the consent of the parties, moved the merits hearing
(scheduled for February 17 and 18, 2015) to the first available
dates on the Court's schedule after March 4, 2015. On February 20,
2015, Plaintiffs informed the Court that an expedited merits
hearing was no longer necessary.

In the New York Szarek action, the Court scheduled an initial
pretrial conference for December 16, 2014, which the Court
adjourned upon application of the parties until March 12, 2015 and
adjourned again upon application of Plaintiff until May 21, 2015.
In addition to the foregoing litigation, on November 26, 2014, a
putative class action complaint alleging violations of the federal
securities laws, captioned Gross v. GFI Group, Inc., et al. , was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaint names the Company, Colin
Heffron, Michael Gooch and Nick Brown as Defendants.  The
complaint seeks, among other relief: (i) certification of the
class, (ii) compensatory damages for Defendants purported
wrongdoing and (iii) reimbursement of costs and expenses.

On February 20, 2015, the Court in Gross v. GFI Group, Inc.
granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff and approved his selection of co-lead counsel on behalf
of the putative class. The Court also extended Defendants' time to
respond to the complaint from February 23, 2015 to March 25, 2015;
granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by March 16,
2015; and rescheduled the initial pre-trial conference to March
27, 2015.

Defendants believe that the claims asserted against them are
without merit and intend to defend the litigation vigorously.

On March 4, 2015, BGC Partners, Inc. filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission a Current Report on Form 8-K in connection
with the successful completion of the Company's all-cash tender
offer to acquire the shares of GFI Group Inc. ("GFI").


BLUE CROSS: Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Violation of Sherman Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
BETSY JANE BELZER, CONSTANCE DUMMER, and CENTERPOINTE DENTAL,
Plaintiffs, v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama ("BCBS-AL");
Premera Blue Cross ("BC-WA"), which also does business as Premera
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska ("BCBS-AK"); Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Arizona ("BCBS-AZ"); USAble Mutual Insurance Company,
d/b/a Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield ("BCBS-AR"); Anthem,
Inc., f/k/a WellPoint, Inc., d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross Life
and Health Insurance Company and Blue Cross of California as well
as Blue Cross of Southern California and Blue Cross of Northern
California (together, "BC-CA"), Rocky Mountain Hospital & Medical
Service Inc., doing business as Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Colorado ("BCBS-CO") and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nevada
("BCBS-NV"), Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Connecticut ("BCBS-
CT"), Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia ("BCBS-GA"), Anthem Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Indiana ("BCBS-IN"), Anthem Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Kentucky ("BCBS-KY"), Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Maine ("BCBS-ME"), Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Missouri as
well as RightCHOICE Managed Care, Inc. and HMO Missouri Inc.
("BCBSMO"), Anthem Health Plans of New Hampshire as Anthem Blue
Cross Blue Shield of New Hampshire ("BCBS-NH"), Empire
HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. as Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield
("Empire BCBS"), Community Insurance Company as Anthem Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Ohio ("BCBS-OH"), Anthem Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Virginia ("BCBS-VA"), and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Wisconsin ("BCBSWI"); California Physicians' Service, d/b/a
Blue Shield of California ("BS-CA"); Highmark, Inc. ("Highmark
BCBS"); Highmark West Virginia, Inc. ("BCBS-WV"); Highmark Blue
Cross Blue Shield Delaware, Inc. ("BCBS-DE"); CareFirst, Inc.
(a/k/a CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield); Group Hospitalization and
Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield
("BCBS-DC"); CareFirst of Maryland, Inc., d/b/a Carefirst
BlueCross BlueShield ("BCBS-MD"); Blue Cross Blue and Shield of
Florida, Inc. ("BCBS-FL"); Hawai'i Medical Service Association
d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Hawai'i ("BCBS-HI"); Blue
Cross of Idaho Health Service, Inc. d/b/a Blue Cross of Idaho
("BC-ID"); Cambia Health Solutions, Inc., f/d/b/a Regence
BlueShield of Idaho ("BS-ID"), Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Oregon ("BCBS-OR"), Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of Utah ("BCBS-
UT"), and Regence Blue Shield (in Washington) ("BS-WA"); Health
Care Service Corporation, d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Illinois ("BCBS-IL"), Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Montana, (BCBS-MT"), Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico
("BCBS-NM"), Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma as well as GHS
Property and Casualty Insurance Company and GHS Health
Maintenance Organization ("BCBS-OK"), and Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Texas ("BCBS-TX"); Caring for Montanans, Inc.; Wellmark,
Inc. d/b/a Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Iowa ("BCBS-
IA"); Wellmark of South Dakota, Inc., d/b/a Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of South Dakota ("BCBS-SD"); Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Kansas, Inc. ("BCBS-KS"); Louisiana Health Service &
Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana
("BCBS-LA"); Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc.
("BCBS-MA"); Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan ("BCBS-MI");
BCBSM, Inc., d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota ("BCBS-
MN"); Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mississippi ("BCBS-MS"); Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City ("BCBS-KC"); Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Nebraska ("BCBS-NE"); Horizon Healthcare Services,
Inc., d/b/a Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey
("BCBSNJ"); HealthNow New York, Inc., d/b/a BlueCross BlueShield
of Western New York ("BCBS-Western NY") and BlueShield of
Northeastern New York ("BS-Northeastern NY"); Excellus Health
Plan, Inc., d/b/a Excellus BlueCross BlueShield ("Excellus
BCBS"); Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Inc. ("BCBS-
NC"); Noridian Mutual Insurance Company d/b/a Blue Cross Blue
Shield of North Dakota ("BCBSND"); Hospital Service Association of
Northeastern Pennsylvania d/b/a Blue Cross of
Northeastern Pennsylvania ("BC-Northeastern PA"); Capital
BlueCross ("Capital BC"); Independence Hospital Indemnity Plan,
Inc., f/k/a Independence Blue Cross ("Independence BC"); Triple S-
Salud, Inc. ("BCBS-Puerto Rico"); Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Rhode Island ("BCBS-RI"); Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
South Carolina ("BCBS-SC"); Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee,
Inc. ("BCBS-TN"); Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont ("BCBS-
VT"); and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wyoming ("BCBS-WY")
(collectively, the "Individual Blue Plans"); and the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association ("BCBSA"), Case 2:16-cv-00570-RDP (D.
Minn., March 22, 2016), was brought on behalf of subscribers of
BCBS-MN health insurance to enjoin an ongoing alleged conspiracy
between and among BCBS-MN, the Individual Blue Plans and BCBSA to
allocate markets in violation of the prohibitions of the
Sherman Act.

BCBSA is owned and controlled by 36 health insurance plans that
operate under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade
names. BCBSA was created by these plans and operates as a licensor
for these plans.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
     Rebecca Peterson, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
     100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
             rapeterson@locklaw.com

        - and -

     Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
     LEMON LAW FIRM
     650 Poydras St., Suite 2335
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Robert Christopher Cowan, Esq.
     THE COWAN LAW FIRM
     One Meadows Building
     5005 Greenville Avenue, Suite 200
     Dallas, TX 75206
     E-mail: chris@cowanlaw.net

        - and -

     Genevieve M. Zimmerman, Esq.
     MESHBESHER & SPENCE, LTD.
     1616 Park Avenue South
     Minneapolis, MN 55404
     E-mail: gzimmerman@meshbesher.com


BLUE CROSS: Faces "McGill" Suit over Market Allocation Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rochelle and Brian McGill and Sadler Electric v. Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Alabama, et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-0014 (D. Neb., April
7, 2016), is brought on behalf of subscribers of BCBS-NE health
insurance to enjoin an ongoing market allocation conspiracy
between and among BCBS-NE, the Individual Blue Plans and BCBSA.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Alabama, is owned and controlled by thirty-six health insurance
plans that operate under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks
and trade names.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Ausman, Esq.
      AUSMAN LAW FIRM
      9850 Nichols Street, Ste. 305
      Omaha, NE 68114
      Telephone: (402) 933-8140
      Facsimile: (402) 718-9423
      E-mail: jausman@asumanlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Michael J. Fleming, Esq.
      FORBES LAW GROUP
      6900 College Boulevard, Ste. 840
      Overland Park, Kansas 66211
      Telephone: (913) 341-8600
      Facsimile: (913) 341-8606
      E-mail: mfleming@forbeslawgroup.com

         - and -

      Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
      PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFIN
      Post Office Drawer 71 24110 Eden Street
      Plaquemine, LA 70765
      Telephone: (888) 725-2477
      Facsimile: (225) 687-6398
      E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com


BON SECOURS: "Hodges" Suit Alleges Underfunding of Plans
--------------------------------------------------------
Arlene Hodges, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Bon Secours
Plan, Plaintiff, v. Bon Secours Health System, Inc., The Benefit
Plan Administrative Committee, John and Jane Does 1-20, Case No.
1:16-cv-01079-RDB (D. Md., April 11, 2016), seeks money penalties,
declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and expenses
pre-judgment interest under the under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

Hodges is a participant in a pension plan maintained by Bon
Secours. She accuses the Defendant of underfunding the Bon Secours
Plans.

Defendant is headquartered in Marriotsville, Maryland. Bon Secours
operates in Kentucky, Florida, Maryland, New York, South Carolina,
and Virginia and owns, manages, or joint ventures 19 acute-care
hospitals, one psychiatric hospital, five nursing care facilities,
four assisted living facilities, and 14 home care and hospice
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
      Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
      Michelle Yau, Esq.
      Kira Hettinger, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
      1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
      Suite 500, West Tower
      Washington, D.C. 20005
      Tel: (202) 408-4600
      Fax: (202) 408-4699
      Email: jbarton@cohenmilstein.com
             khandorf@cohenmilstein.com
             myau@cohenmilstein.com
             khettinger@cohenmilstein.com

           - and -

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Tel: (206) 623-1900
      Fax: (206) 623-3384
      Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

           - and -

      Ron Kilgard, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK P.L.C.
      3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
      Phoenix, AZ 85012\
      Tel: (602) 248-0088
      Fax: (602) 248-2822
      Email: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com


BROADWAY SPIRITS: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Damages
--------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Gutierrez, William Delgado, Jose Antonio Gutierrez, Cristian
Garcia and Fernando Ponce, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Broadway Spirits Inc. and Megha
Duggal, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02681 (S.D.N.Y., April 11,
2016), seeks unpaid overtime wages, damages for any improper
deductions or credits taken against wages, unpaid minimum wages,
spread of hours pay, liquidated damages, counsel fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Broadway Spirits is a Liquor store owned by Megha Duggal located
at 315 Broadway, New York, New York 10007 where Plaintiffs were
employed as cashiers, stockers and ostensibly as delivery workers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200


BROOKFIELD BUSINESS: Still Defends Suit Over Graftech Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Brookfield Business Partners L.P. said in the Amendment No. 3 to
Form F-1 Registration Statement Under The Securities Act Of 1933
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29,
2016, that the Company continues to defend pending litigation
against Graftech International Ltd. and Brookfield.

A number of putative class action complaints have been filed
relating to the merger. The lawsuits, which contain substantially
similar allegations, include allegations that the transactions do
not appropriately value the Company, were the result of an
inadequate process, include preclusive deal protection devices,
involved conflicts of interests and further allege that the public
disclosures made by the Company in connection with such
transactions were materially misleading. GrafTech, Brookfield and
its affiliates are alleged to have aided and abetted the alleged
fiduciary breaches. The lawsuits seek a variety of equitable
relief, including enjoining the GrafTech board of directors from
proceeding with the proposed merger unless and until they have
acted in accordance with their fiduciary duties to maximize
shareholder value and rescission of the merger to the extent
implemented, in addition to damages arising from the defendants'
alleged breaches and attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants
believe that the allegations are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the lawsuits.

The lawsuits include: a lawsuit captioned Travis J. Kelleher, etc.
v. GrafTech International Ltd., et. al. (Case No. CV-15-846032)
filed on May 22, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas in the State
of Ohio; a lawsuit captioned David Widlewski v. Randy Carson,
Thomas A. Danjczek, Karen Finerman, Joel L. Hawthorne, David R.
Jardini, Nathan Milikowsky, M. Catherine Morris, BCP IV GrafTech
Holdings LP, and Athena Acquisition Subsidiary Inc. (Civil Action
No. 11086-VCL) filed on June 2, 2015, in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware; a lawsuit captioned Walter Watson. v.
GrafTech International Ltd., Randy Carson, Thomas A. Danjczek,
Karen Finerman, Joel L. Hawthorne, David R. Jardini, Nathan
Milikowsky, M. Catherine Morris, Brookfield Asset Management,
Inc., Brookfield Capital Partners Ltd., Brookfield Capital
Partners IV L.P., BCP IV GrafTech Holdings LP, and Athena
Acquisition Subsidiary Inc. (Civil Action No. 11096-VCL) filed on
June 4, 2015, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware; a
lawsuit captioned CyHyoung Park v. GrafTech International Ltd.,
Randy Carson, Thomas A. Danjczek, Karen Finerman, Joel L.
Hawthorne, David R. Jardini, Nathan Milikowsky, M. Catherine
Morris, BCP IV GrafTech Holdings LP, and Athena Acquisition
Subsidiary Inc. (Civil Action No. 11125-VCL) filed on June 9,
2015, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware; a lawsuit
captioned Charles Daeda v. GrafTech International Ltd., Randy
Carson, Thomas A. Danjczek, Karen Finerman, Joel L. Hawthorne,
David R. Jardini, Nathan Milikowsky, M. Catherine Morris,
Brookfield Asset Management Inc., BCP IV GrafTech Holdings LP, and
Athena Acquisition Subsidiary Inc. (Civil Action No. 11145-VCL)
filed on June 15, 2015, in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware; a lawsuit captioned Abraham Grinberger, v. GrafTech
International Ltd., Randy Carson, Thomas A. Danjczek, Karen L.
Finerman, Joel L. Hawthorne, David R. Jardini, Nathan Milikowsky,
M. Catherine Morris, Brookfield Asset Management Inc., Brookfield
Capital Partners Ltd., BCP IV GrafTech Holdings LP, Athena
Acquisition Subsidiary Inc. (Civil Action No. 11148-VCL) filed on
June 15, 2015, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware;
a lawsuit captioned Bruce Wells v. GrafTech International Ltd.,
Randy Carson, Thomas A. Danjczek, Karen Finerman, Joel L.
Hawthorne, David R. Jardini, Nathan Milikowsky, M. Catherine
Morris, BCP IV GrafTech Holdings LP, Athena Acquisition Subsidiary
Inc., and Brookfield Capital Partners Ltd. (Civil Action No.
11166-VCL) filed on June 17, 2015, in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware; and a lawsuit captioned Mark O'Neill and
Adoracion Guerrero, et. al. v. Joel L. Hawthorne, et. al. (Case
No. CV-15-847670) filed on June 29, 2015, in the Court of Common
Pleas in the State of Ohio.


C&J ENERGY: April 26 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Merger Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
C&J Energy Services Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a hearing is
currently set for April 26, 2016, on defendants' motions to
dismiss the amended complaint related to a merger transaction.

In July 2014, following the announcement that Legacy C&J, Nabors,
and New C&J had entered into the Merger Agreement, a putative
class action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder of
Legacy C&J challenging the Merger. The lawsuit is styled City of
Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement
Trust, et al. ("Plaintiff") v. Comstock, et al.; C.A. No. 9980-CB,
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, filed on July
30, 2014 (the "Merger Lawsuit").

Plaintiff in the Merger Lawsuit generally alleges that the board
of directors for Legacy C&J breached fiduciary duties of loyalty,
due care, good faith, candor and independence by allegedly
approving the Merger Agreement at an unfair price and through an
unfair process. Plaintiff alleges that the Legacy C&J board
directors, or certain of them (i) failed to fully inform
themselves of the market value of Legacy C&J, maximize its value
and obtain the best price reasonably available for Legacy C&J,
(ii) acted in bad faith and for improper motives, (iii) erected
barriers to discourage other strategic alternatives and (iv) put
their personal interests ahead of the interests of Legacy C&J
shareholders. The Merger Lawsuit further alleges that Legacy C&J,
Nabors and New C&J aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by the Legacy C&J board of directors.

On November 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction. On November 24, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered a
bench ruling, followed by a written order on November 25, 2014,
that (i) ordered certain members of the Legacy C&J board of
directors to solicit for a period of 30 days alternative proposals
to purchase Legacy C&J (or a controlling stake in Legacy C&J) that
was superior to the Merger, and (ii) preliminarily enjoined Legacy
C&J from holding its shareholder meeting until it had complied
with the foregoing. The order provided that the solicitation of
proposals consistent with the order, and any subsequent
negotiations of any alternative proposal that emerges, would not
constitute a breach of the Merger Agreement in any respect.

Legacy C&J complied with the Court of Chancery's order while it
simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal of the Court of
Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. On
November 26, 2014, in response to, and in compliance with, the
Court of Chancery's order, the Legacy C&J board of directors
established a special committee, which retained separate legal and
financial advisors, to proceed with the ordered solicitation.

On December 19, 2014, following oral argument, the Delaware
Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Chancery and
vacated the order. As such, Legacy C&J's special committee
immediately discontinued the solicitation required by the order.
On March 25, 2015, the C&J Defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint and filed their opening brief in support on September
15, 2015.

On October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming
additional defendants and generally alleging, in addition to the
allegations described, that (i) the special committee of the
Legacy C&J board of directors and its advisors improperly
conducted the court-ordered solicitation that the Delaware Supreme
Court vacated, and (ii) the proxy statement filed in connection
with the Merger contains alleged misrepresentations and omits
allegedly material information concerning the Merger and court-
ordered solicitation process. The Lawsuit asserts, in addition to
the claims described above, claims for breach of fiduciary duty
and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the
special committee of the Legacy C&J board of directors, its
financial advisor Morgan Stanley, and certain employees of Legacy
C&J.

The defendants in the Lawsuit have filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint.  A hearing on these motions to dismiss is
currently set for April 26, 2016.

"We cannot predict the outcome of this or any other lawsuit that
might be filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense
that will be required to resolve the Merger Lawsuit. We believe
the Merger Lawsuit is without merit and we intend to defend
against it vigorously," the Company said.

C&J Energy Services Ltd. is a Bermuda exempt company listed on the
New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol "CJES."
Effective as of March 24, 2015 (the "Effective Time"), we
completed the combination of C&J Energy Services, Inc. ("Legacy
C&J") with the completion and production services business (the
"C&P Business") of Nabors Industries Ltd. ("Nabors") pursuant to
that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger (as amended, the "Merger
Agreement"), dated as of June 25, 2014, by and among Legacy C&J,
Nabors, Nabors Red Lion Limited (subsequently renamed C&J Energy
Services Ltd., "New C&J"), Nabors CJ Merger Co. and CJ Holding Co.
Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Nabors separated the C&P
Business from the rest of its operations and consolidated this
business under New C&J. A Delaware subsidiary of New C&J then
merged with and into Legacy C&J, with Legacy C&J continuing as the
surviving corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New
C&J (such transactions referred to herein collectively as the
"Merger"). As of the Effective Time, common shares of Legacy C&J
were converted into common shares of New C&J on a 1-for-1 basis,
New C&J was renamed "C&J Energy Services Ltd." and its common
shares began trading on the NYSE under the symbol "CJES", which
was previously used by Legacy C&J following completion of our
initial public offering in 2011. After giving effect to the
Merger, Nabors owned approximately 53% of our outstanding common
shares, with Legacy C&J shareholders owning the remaining 47% of
our outstanding common shares. As of February 23, 2016, Nabors
owns approximately 52% of our outstanding common shares.


CAESARS ACQUISITION: Engaged in Document Production
---------------------------------------------------
Caesars Acquisition Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in the class
action lawsuit related to the CAC-CEC proposed merger, the Company
is engaged in producing documents.

On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie, on behalf of himself and,
he alleges, all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit (the
"Nevada Lawsuit") in the Clark County District Court in the State
of Nevada against CAC, CEC and members of the CAC board of
directors Marc Beilinson, Philip Erlanger, Dhiren Fonseca, Don
Kornstein, Karl Peterson, Marc Rowan, and David Sambur (the
individual defendants collectively, the "CAC Directors").

The Nevada Lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against the CAC Directors and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty against CAC and CEC. It seeks (1) a declaration
that the claim for breach of fiduciary duty is a proper class
action claim; (2) to order the CAC Directors to fulfill their
fiduciary duties to CAC in connection with the Proposed Merger,
specifically by announcing their intention to (a) cooperate with
bona fide interested parties proposing alternative transactions,
(b) ensure that no conflicts exist between the CAC Directors'
personal interests and their fiduciary duties to maximize
shareholder value in the Proposed Merger, or resolve all such
conflicts in favor of the latter, and (c) act independently to
protect the interests of the shareholders; (3) to order the CAC
Directors to account for all damages suffered or to be suffered by
the plaintiff and the putative class as a result of the Proposed
Merger; and (4) to award the plaintiff for his costs and
attorneys' fees. It is unclear whether the Nevada Lawsuit also
seeks to enjoin the Proposed Merger.

CAC and the CAC Directors believe this lawsuit is without merit
and will defend themselves vigorously. The deadline to respond to
the Nevada Lawsuit has been indefinitely extended by agreement of
the parties.

On April 20, 2015, CAC received a demand for production of CAC's
books and records pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law on behalf of a purported stockholder. The alleged
purpose of the demand is to investigate potential misconduct and
breaches of fiduciary duties by CAC's directors and explore
certain remedial measures in connection with the Proposed Merger.
After exchanging correspondence with purported shareholder's
counsel, CAC began and is currently engaged in producing documents
as required by Section 220.

"We cannot provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters or
of the range of reasonably possible losses should these matters
ultimately be resolved against us due to the inherent uncertainty
of litigation and the stage of the related litigation," the
Company said.


CASKERS LLC: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Automatic Renewal Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Caskers, LLC and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:16-
cv-00837-LAB-RBB (S.D. Cal., April 7, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of making automatic renewal or continuous
service offers to consumers in and throughout California and at
the time of making the automatic renewal or continuous service
offers, failed to present the automatic renewal offer terms or
continuous service offer terms, in a clear and conspicuous manner
and in visual proximity to the request for consent to the offer
before the subscription or purchasing agreement was fulfilled.

Caskers, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that offers
subscriptions for alcohol deliveries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
      MILSTEIN, ADELMAN, JACKSON, FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
      10250 Constellation Blvd.
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 396-9600
      E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com

         - and -

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
      David W. Reid, Esq.
      Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
      NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
      A Professional Corporation
      4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
      Newport Beach, CA  92660
      Telephone: (949) 706-6464
      Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
      E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
              rhikida@trialnewport.com
              dreid@trialnewport.com
              vknowles@trialnewport.com


CALENDAR GIRLS: Faces Suit in Florida Over Alleged FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MONIC BAILEY, and CONNIE IDGAF, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CALENDAR GIRLS OF HUDSON,
INC., d/b/a CALENDAR GIRLS, a Florida Corporation,
Defendant, Case 8:16-cv-00844-SDM-EAJ (M.D. Fla., April 8, 2016),
seeks to recover the alleged unpaid wages owed to current and
former employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Purported Class Members are all of CALENDAR GIRLS' current and
former exotic entertainers who worked at CALENDAR GIRLS.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Chad E. Levy, Esq.
     LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
     915 Middle River Drive, Suite 518
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304
     Phone: 954-763-5722
     Fax: 954-763-5723
     E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com


CHATHAM LODGING TRUST: Affiliate Defending "Martinez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Chatham Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an affiliate of the
Company is currently a defendant, along with Island Hospitality
Management, Inc., in a class action lawsuit pending in the San
Diego County Superior Court.

Two class action lawsuits were filed on April 25, 2012 and
February 27, 2013, respectively, and were subsequently
consolidated on November 8, 2013 under the title Martinez et al v.
Island Hospitality Management, Inc., et al. Case No. 37-2012-
00096221-CU-OE-CTL.  The class action relates to fifteen hotels
operated by IHM in the state of CA and owned by affiliates of the
Company, the NewINK JV, the Innkeepers JV, and/or certain third
parties.  Both complaints in the now consolidated lawsuit allege
various wage and hour law violations including unpaid off-the-
clock work, failure to provide meal breaks and failure to provide
rest breaks.  The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, money
damages, penalties, and interest.

"We are defending our case vigorously," the Company said.

"As of December 31, 2015, included in accounts payable and
expenses is $171,000, which represents an estimate of our exposure
to the litigation and is also estimated as the maximum possible
loss that the Company may incur."


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Faces "Hayes" Class Suit in Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Citizens
Financial Group, Inc., Citizens Bank, N.A f/k/a RBS Citizens Bank,
N.A., and Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania.

The case is captioned Scott Hayes and Jasmeet Hayes, jointly and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Citizens
Financial Group, Inc., Citizens Bank, N.A f/k/a RBS Citizens Bank,
N.A., and Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania, Case No. 1:16-cv-10671-
RGS (D. Mass., April 11, 2016).

The Defendants own and operate a banking company, which operates
in the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island and Vermont.
The Plaintiff Scott Hayes is represented by:

      Fredric L. Ellis, Esq.
      ELLIS & RAPACKI
      85 Merrimac Street, Suite 500
      Boston, MA 02114
      Telephone: (617) 523-4800
      Facsimile: (617) 523-6901
      E-mail: rellis@ellisrapacki.com

Jasmeet Hayes is a pro se plaintiff.


COLONY STARWOOD: Defending Against Shareholder Action in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colony Starwood Homes is defending against a class action by one
of its shareholders, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company said, "On October 30, 2015, a putative class action
was filed by one of our purported shareholders ("Plaintiff")
against us, our trustees, the Manager, SWAY Holdco, LLC, Starwood
Capital Group and CAH ("Defendants") challenging the Merger and
the Internalization. The case is captioned South Miami Pension
Plan v. Starwood Waypoint Residential Trust, et al., Circuit Court
for Baltimore City, State of Maryland, Case No. 24C15005482. The
complaint alleged, among other things, that some or all of our
trustees breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger
and the Internalization, and that the other defendants aided and
abetted those alleged breaches. The complaint also challenged the
adequacy of the public disclosures made in connection with the
Merger and the Internalization. Plaintiff sought, among other
relief, an injunction preventing our shareholders from voting on
the Internalization or the Merger, rescission of the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and damages, including
attorneys' fees and experts' fees."

"On December 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a
preliminary injunction preventing our shareholders from voting on
whether to approve the Merger and the Internalization. On December
16, 2015, the day before the shareholder vote, the Court denied
Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion. Plaintiff thereafter
notified the Defendants that it intended to file an amended
complaint.

"Plaintiff filed its amended complaint on February 3, 2016,
asserting substantially similar claims and seeking substantially
similar relief as in its earlier complaint. The Court has ordered
Defendants to respond by March 21, 2016.

"We believe that this action has no merit and intend to defend
vigorously against it."

Colony Starwood is an internally managed Maryland real estate
investment trust formed in May 2012 primarily to acquire,
renovate, lease and manage residential assets in select markets
throughout the United States.


COLUMBIA PIPELINE: Officers Sued Over Proposed TransCanada Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Baldino, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Robert C. Skaggs, Jr., Sigmund L. Cornelius,
Marty R. Kittrell, W. Lee Nutter, Deborah S. Parker, Lester P.
Silverman, and Teresa A. Taylor, Case No. 1217 (Del. Ch. Ct.,
April 7, 2016), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of
Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc., to enjoin the proposed acquisition
of CPG by TransCanada Corporation through an unfair process and
inadequate consideration.

Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. owns and operates more than 15,000
miles of strategically located interstate pipeline, gathering and
processing assets extending from New York to the Gulf of Mexico,
integrated with one of the largest underground natural gas storage
systems in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
      James R. Banko, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 482-3182
      Facsimile: (302) 482-3612
      E-mail: dfarrell@faruqilaw.com
              jbanko@faruqilaw.com

         - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
      E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


COMMUNITY BANK SYSTEM: Expects Final Settlement OK in 1st Quarter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Bank System Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the settlement in a
class action lawsuit is subject to the Court's final approval
which is expected to occur in the first quarter of 2016.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania issued an order on July 14, 2015 preliminarily
approving the settlement reached in the first of two related class
actions, which were commenced on October 30, 2013 and May 23,
2014, respectively.  The two related cases allege, on behalf of
similarly situated class members, that notices provided by the
Bank in connection with the repossession of automobiles failed to
comply with certain requirements of the Pennsylvania and New York
Uniform Commercial Code and related statutes.

In accordance with mediation occurring in September 2014, the
settlement provides for establishment of a settlement fund of $2.8
million in exchange for release of all claims of the class members
covered by these actions. A litigation settlement charge of $2.8
million with respect to the settlement of the class actions was
previously recorded in the third quarter of 2014.  The settlement
is subject to the Court's final approval which is expected to
occur in the first quarter of 2016.

Community Bank System, Inc. (the "Company") was incorporated on
April 15, 1983, under the Delaware General Corporation Law.  Its
principal office is located at 5790 Widewaters Parkway, DeWitt,
New York 13214.  The Company is a registered financial holding
company which wholly-owns two significant subsidiaries: Community
Bank, N.A. (the "Bank" or "CBNA"), and Benefit Plans
Administrative Services, Inc. ("BPAS").  BPAS owns four
subsidiaries: Benefit Plans Administrative Services, LLC ("BPA"),
a provider of defined contribution plan administration services;
BPAS Actuarial & Pension Services, LLC ("BPAS-APS") (formally
known as Harbridge Consulting Group, LLC), a provider of actuarial
and benefit consulting services; BPAS Trust Company of Puerto
Rico, a Puerto Rican trust company; and Hand Benefits & Trust
Company ("HB&T"), a provider of collective investment fund
administration and institutional trust services.  HB&T owns one
subsidiary, Hand Securities, Inc. ("HSI"), an introducing broker
dealer.  The Company also wholly-owns two unconsolidated
subsidiary business trusts formed for the purpose of issuing
mandatorily-redeemable preferred securities which are considered
Tier I capital under regulatory capital adequacy guidelines.


CVB FINANCIAL: Expects to Undertake Discovery in Shareholder Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CVB Financial Corp. expects to undertake discovery and motion
practice in a shareholder class action lawsuit with respect to the
remaining claims of the plaintiffs which survived appeal, the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015.

The Company said, "A purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed against the Company on August 23, 2010, in an action
captioned Lloyd v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-
06256- MMM, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. Along with the Company, Christopher D.
Myers (our President and Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J.
Biebrich, Jr. (our former Chief Financial Officer) were also named
as defendants."

On September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the Company, in an action originally
captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-
06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The Englund complaint named the same
defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations
substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint.

On January 21, 2011, the District Court consolidated the two
actions for all purposes under the Lloyd action, now captioned as
Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM (PJWx). At the same time, the District
Court also appointed the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund
(the "Jacksonville Fund") as lead plaintiff in the consolidated
action and approved the Jacksonville Fund's selection of lead
counsel for the plaintiffs in the consolidated action.

On March 7, 2011, the Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated
complaint naming the same defendants and alleging violations by
all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the
individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
consolidated complaint alleges that defendants, among other
things, misrepresented and failed to disclose conditions adversely
affecting the Company throughout the purported class period, which
is alleged to be between October 21, 2009 and August 9, 2010.
Specifically, defendants are alleged to have violated applicable
accounting rules and to have made misrepresentations in connection
with the Company's allowance for loan loss methodology, loan
underwriting guidelines, methodology for grading loans, and the
process for making provisions for loan losses. The consolidated
complaint sought compensatory damages and other relief in favor of
the purported class.

Following the filing by each side of various motions and briefs,
and a hearing on August 29, 2011, the District Court issued a
ruling on January 12, 2012, granting defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint, but the ruling provided the plaintiffs
with leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the date
of the order.

On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint against the same defendants, and, following filings by
both sides and another hearing on June 4, 2012, the District Court
issued a ruling on August 21, 2012, granting defendants' motion to
dismiss the first amended complaint, but providing the plaintiffs
with leave to file another amended complaint within 30 days of
this ruling. On September 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint against the same defendants, the Company filed
its third motion to dismiss on October 25, 2012, and following
another hearing on February 25, 2013, the District Court issued an
order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint for the third time on
May 9, 2013, which became a final, appealable order on September
30, 2013.

On October 24, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
the District Court's final order of dismissal with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following the filing of
appellate briefs by the respective parties, the Court of Appeals
conducted a hearing and oral argument in the case on December 10,
2015. On February 1, 2016, subsequent to the end of the reporting
period covered by this Form 10-K, the Court of Appeals issued its
decision in the case. This decision affirmed the district court's
decision in part, reversed it in part and remanded the case for
further proceedings in the District Court.

"Upon remand to the District Court, we expect to undertake
discovery and motion practice with respect to the remaining claims
of the plaintiffs which survived the appeal."

The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest and defend
the plaintiff's allegations with respect to the remaining claims
in this case.


CVB FINANCIAL: Engaged in Discovery in Calif. Employee Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
CVB Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in a class
action by a former employee are currently engaged in discovery.

A former employee and service manager filed a complaint against
the Company, on December 29, 2014, in an action entitled Glenda
Morgan v. Citizens Business Bank, et al., Case No. BC568004, in
the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, individually and on
behalf of the Company's branch-based employees and managers who
are classified as "exempt" under California and federal employment
laws. The case is styled as a putative class action lawsuit and
alleges, among other things, that (i) the Company misclassified
certain employees and managers as "exempt" employees, (ii) the
Company violated California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break
and rest break rules and regulations, (iii) certain employees did
not receive proper expense reimbursements, (iv) the Company did
not maintain accurate and complete payroll records, and (v) the
Company engaged in unfair business practices.

On February 11, 2015, the same law firm representing Morgan filed
a second complaint, entitled Jessica Osuna v. Citizens Business
Bank, et al., Case No. CIVDS1501781, in the Superior Court for San
Bernardino County, alleging wage and hour claims on behalf of the
Company's "non-exempt" hourly employees.

On April 6, 2015, these two cases were consolidated in a first
amended complaint under the rubric of the Morgan case in Los
Angeles County Superior Court. The first amended complaint seeks
class certification, the appointment of the plaintiffs as class
representatives, and an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties.

On May 11, 2015, the Company filed its answer to the first amended
complaint denying all allegations regarding the plaintiffs' claims
and asserting various defenses. The parties are currently engaged
in discovery, and briefing by the parties in connection with the
class certification motion is not expected to commence until at
least the summer of 2016.

The Company intends to vigorously contest both (x) the allegations
that the case should be certified as one or more class or
representative actions as well as (y) the substantive merits of
any consolidated lawsuit in the event that it is permitted to
proceed.


CYNOSURE INC: Completion of Discovery Scheduled for May 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Cynosure, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that completion of discovery
regarding class certification is scheduled for May 31, 2016, in
the PicoSure Litigation.

The Company said, "On June 26, 2015, a plaintiff, LDGP, LLC d/b/a
Hartsough Dermatology, individually and on behalf of a putative
class, filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois - Western Division seeking
monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees."

"The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2015,
which added three new plaintiffs. The amended complaint alleges
that we falsely represented that the PicoSure laser removes and
eliminates tattoos and difficult colors, and alleges violations of
several state consumer fraud laws, breach of warranty, common law
fraud and negligent misrepresentation. It seeks to assert claims
on behalf of all entities in the United States who purchased a
PicoSure laser, except those located in Louisiana.

"On December 7, 2015, we filed our answer and motion for partial
judgment on the pleadings regarding several counts in the amended
complaint. No hearing or ruling date has been scheduled by the
court.

"Completion of discovery regarding class certification is
scheduled for May 31, 2016. We believe that the claims are without
merit and that we have meritorious defenses."

Cynosure develops, manufactures and markets aesthetic treatment
systems that enable plastic surgeons, dermatologists and other
medical practitioners to perform non-invasive and minimally
invasive procedures to remove hair, treat vascular and benign
pigmented lesions, remove multi-colored tattoos, revitalize the
skin, reduce fat through laser lipolysis, reduce cellulite, clear
nails infected by toe fungus, ablate sweat glands and improve
gynecologic health.


DEVILS ARENA: Faces "Guzman" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Devils Arena Entertainment, LLC.
The case is captioned Josephine Guzman, Individually an on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Devils Arena
Entertainment, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01984-JLL-JAD
(D.N.J., Newark, April 11, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Jose
L. Linares.

Devil Arena Entertainment is the operator of Prudential Center.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi Aaron Naveh, Esq.
          NAVEH LAW
          32-02 Norwood Dr.
          Fair Lawn, N.J. 07410
          Telephone: (646) 881 4471
          Facsimile: (661) 430 4471
          E-mail avi@navehlaw.com


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Updates on 4 Wage-and-Hour Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, provides updates on
four different putative class action lawsuits that were filed
against its AMR unit and certain subsidiaries in California
alleging violations of California wage and hour laws.

On April 16, 2008, Laura Bartoni commenced a suit in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Alameda; on July 8,
2008, Vaughn Banta filed suit in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles; on January 22, 2009, Laura
Karapetian filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles; and on March 11, 2010, Melanie
Aguilar filed suit in Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.

The Banta, Aguilar and Karapetian cases have been coordinated in
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, and the Aguilar and Karapetian cases have subsequently
been consolidated into a single action.

In these cases, the plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR
entities failed to pay wages, including overtime wages, in
compliance with California law, and failed to provide required
meal breaks, rest breaks or pay premium compensation for missed
breaks. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify classes on these
claims and are seeking lost wages, various penalties, and
attorneys' fees under California law.

While certification of the rest period claims in the consolidated
Karapetian/ Aguilar case was denied, the Court certified classes
on claims alleging that AMR has not provided meal periods in
compliance with the law as to dispatchers and call takers, that
AMR has an unlawful time rounding policy, and that AMR has an
unlawful practice of setting rates for those employees.  On
October 13, 2015, the Court decertified all classes in the
Karapetian/Aguilar case, a decision that is being appealed.

In the Banta case, the Court denied certification of the meal and
rest period claims as to EMTs and paramedics, a decision that is
being appealed; the Court indicated that it would certify a class
on overtime claims, but plaintiff's counsel has indicated that it
intends to dismiss that claim as AMR's policy complies with a
recent Court of Appeals decision.

In the Bartoni case, the Court denied certification on the meal
and rest period claims of all unionized employees in Northern
California, a decision that is being appealed; while the Court
certified a class on the overtime claims, plaintiffs' counsel
stipulated to decertify and dismiss those claims as AMR's policy
complies with a recent Court of Appeals decision. The Company is
unable at this time to estimate the amount of potential damages,
if any.

Envision Healthcare is a provider of physician-led, medical
services in the United States, offering a broad range of
clinically based and coordinated care solutions across the patient
continuum.


ETSY INC: To Defend Against "Altayyar" Case
-------------------------------------------
Etsy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the Company and the named officers
and directors intend to defend themselves vigorously against the
action, Altayyar v. Etsy, Inc.

On May 13, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint
(Altayyar v. Etsy, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-02785) was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York against the Company and certain officers. The
complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
of the Company's common stock from April 16, 2015 through and
including May 10, 2015. It asserted violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with
respect to, among other things, merchandise for sale on the
Company's website that may be counterfeit or constitute trademark
or copyright infringement and actions taken by third-party brands
against Etsy sellers for trademark or copyright infringement.

On October 22, 2015, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel. On January 21, 2016, lead plaintiff filed an
amended class action complaint alleging false or misleading
statements or omissions with respect to substantially the same
topics as the original complaint. The amended complaint adds
certain outside directors and underwriters as defendants, expands
the purported class period to be April 16, 2015 to August 4, 2015,
inclusive, and asserts violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint
seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory
damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

The Company and the named officers and directors intend to defend
themselves vigorously against this action. In light of, among
other things, the early stage of the litigation, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome of this matter and is unable to make
a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that
could result from an unfavorable outcome.

Etsy Inc. operates a marketplace where people around the world
connect, both online and offline, to make, sell and buy unique
goods.


ETSY INC: Still Defending "Cervantes" Case
------------------------------------------
Etsy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the Company and the named officers
and directors are still defending the securities class action,
Cervantes v. Dickerson, et al.

On July 21, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint
(Cervantes v. Dickerson, et al., Case No. CIV 534768) was filed in
the Superior Court of State of California, County of San Mateo
against the Company, certain officers, directors and underwriters.
The complaint asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  As in the Altayyar litigation, the
complaint alleges misrepresentations in the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-1 and Prospectus with respect to, among other
things, merchandise for sale on the Company's website that may be
counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement. The
complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. On
December 7, 2015, the Company and the underwriter defendants moved
to stay the Cervantes action on the grounds of forum non
conveniens.

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

Etsy Inc. operates a marketplace where people around the world
connect, both online and offline, to make, sell and buy unique
goods.


ETSY INC: Court Stays Proceedings in "Weiss" Case
-------------------------------------------------
Etsy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the court granted the Company's
motion to stay the consolidated actions in the case, Weiss v. Etsy
et al.

On November 5, 2015, another purported securities class action
complaint (Weiss v. Etsy et al., No. CIV 536123) was filed in the
Superior Court of State of California, County of San Mateo. The
Weiss complaint names as defendants the Company and the same
officers, directors and underwriters named in the Cervantes
complaint, and also asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly false or misleading
statements or omissions with respect to, among other things,
merchandise for sale on the Company's website that may be
counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement.

On December 24, 2015, the court consolidated the Cervantes and
Weiss actions. The Company and the named officers and directors
intend to defend themselves vigorously against these consolidated
actions. In light of, among other things, the early stage of the
litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount
or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable
outcome.

On February 3, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to
stay the consolidated actions.

Etsy Inc. operates a marketplace where people around the world
connect, both online and offline, to make, sell and buy unique
goods.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Hearing Loss Litigation Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
continues to face hearing loss litigation in various courts.

The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters who
claim that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their
hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33
cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a
total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter
plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six
additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299
Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. During 2014, another case was
filed in Cook County involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the
number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine
plaintiffs concluded with a verdict against the Company and for
the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The
Company appealed this verdict.

On September 13, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court rejected this
appeal. The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with
the Illinois Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7,
2013. The Company sought further review by filing a petition for
leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013.
On May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order
declining to accept review of this case. On July 1, 2013, the
Company satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs,
which has resulted in final dismissal of these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of
this trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The
Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory
appeal of this ruling.

On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court accepted the
Company's petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs moved to dismiss
the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the trial court had
erred in certifying a class action trial in this matter. Pursuant
to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the
trial court's certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012,
the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.

Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify
a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the
sole issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company's objection, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March
11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,
2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class
certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the
Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to
satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of
the firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues
and that there is an adequate representative for the class. During
a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented to the
Court that they would again seek to certify a class of
firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were
defective and unreasonably dangerous.

On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to amend their
complaints to add class action allegations with respect to Chicago
firefighter plaintiffs as well as the approximately 1,800
firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. On March
11, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiff's motions to amend
their complaints. Plaintiffs have indicated that they will now
file motions to certify classes in these cases.

On April 24, 2015, the cases were transferred to Cook County
chancery court, which will decide all class certification issues.
The Company intends to continue its objections to any attempt at
certification. The Company also has filed motions to dismiss cases
involving firefighters located outside of Cook County based on
improper venue. Plaintiffs have requested discovery from the
Company related to these venue motions. The Court has scheduled a
further status hearing regarding venue matters for March 18, 2016.
The Company has also been sued on this issue outside of the Cook
County, Illinois venue. Many of these cases have involved lawsuits
filed by a single attorney in the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

During 2007 and through 2009, this attorney filed a total of 71
lawsuits involving 71 plaintiffs in this jurisdiction. Three of
these cases were dismissed pursuant to pretrial motions filed by
the Company. Another case was voluntarily dismissed. Prior to
trial in four cases, the Company paid nominal sums to obtain
dismissals.

Three trials occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases filed
in 2007 through 2009. The first trial involving one of these
plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff. In particular, the jury found that the Company's
siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company
negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the
amount of $0.1 million, which was subsequently reduced to $0.08
million. The Company appealed this verdict.

Another trial, involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs,
also occurred in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for
the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that
trial. The third trial, also involving nine Philadelphia
firefighter plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury
returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and
all plaintiffs involved in that trial.

Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials,
the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining
filed cases in Philadelphia at that time, as well as other
firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the
Philadelphia cases.

On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a Global Settlement
Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with the law firm of the
attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants, on behalf of
1,125 claimants the firm represented (the "Claimants") and who had
asserted product claims against the Company (the "Claims"). Three
hundred eight of the Claimants had lawsuits pending against the
Company in Cook County, Illinois.

The Settlement Agreement, as amended, provided that the Company
pay a total amount of $3.8 million (the "Settlement Payment") to
settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of
the law firm in connection with its representation of the
Claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures
set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In order for the Company to
be required to make the Settlement Payment: (i) each Claimant who
agreed to settle his or her claims had to sign a release
acceptable to the Company (a "Release"), (ii) each Claimant who
agreed to the settlement and who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit, had
to dismiss his or her lawsuit with prejudice, (iii) by April 29,
2011, at least 93% of the Claimants identified in the Settlement
Agreement must have agreed to settle their claims and provide a
signed Release to the Company and (iv) the law firm had to
withdraw from representing any Claimants who did not agree to the
settlement, including those who filed lawsuits. If the conditions
to the settlement were met, but less than 100% of the Claimants
agreed to settle their Claims and sign a Release, the Settlement
Payment would be reduced by the percentage of Claimants who did
not agree to the settlement.

On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and
conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a
payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was
based upon the Company's receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided
by Claimants, which was 95.02% of all Claimants identified in the
Settlement Agreement.

The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims
and lawsuits by the Claimants and denies that its products caused
any injuries to the Claimants. Nonetheless, the Company entered
into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its
expenses, including legal fees, and avoiding the inconvenience,
uncertainty and distraction of the claims and lawsuits.

During April through October 2012, 20 new cases were filed in the
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These
cases were filed on behalf of 20 Philadelphia firefighters and
involve various defendants in addition to the Company. Five of
these cases were subsequently dismissed.

The first trial involving these 2012 Philadelphia cases occurred
during December 2014 and involved three firefighter plaintiffs.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company. Following
this trial, all of the parties agreed to settle cases involving
seven firefighter plaintiffs set for trial during January 2015 for
nominal amounts per plaintiff. In January 2015, plaintiffs'
attorneys filed two new complaints in the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf of approximately 70
additional firefighter plaintiffs. The vast majority of the
firefighters identified in these complaints are located outside of
Pennsylvania. One of the complaints in these cases, which involves
11 firefighter plaintiffs from the District of Columbia, has been
removed to federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
With respect to claims of other out-of-state firefighters involved
in these two cases, the Company moved to dismiss these claims as
improperly filed in Pennsylvania. The Court granted this motion
and dismissed these claims on November 5, 2015.

During August through December 2015, another nine new cases were
filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania. These cases involve a total of 193 firefighters,
most of whom are located outside of Pennsylvania. The Company is
seeking dismissal of claims filed by these out-of-state
firefighters as improperly filed in Pennsylvania.

During April through July 2013, additional cases were filed in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. These cases involve 247 plaintiff
firefighters from Pittsburgh and various defendants, including the
Company. After the Company filed pretrial motions, the Court
dismissed claims of 41 Pittsburgh firefighter plaintiffs. An
initial trial involving eight Pittsburgh firefighters has been
scheduled for March 2016. During March 2014, an action also was
brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania
on behalf of 61 firefighters. This case likewise involves various
defendants in addition to the Company. After the Company filed
pretrial motions, 32 Erie County firefighter plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed their claims.

On September 17, 2014, 20 lawsuits, involving a total of 193
Buffalo Fire Department firefighters, were filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Erie County. Several product
manufacturers, including the Company, have been named as
defendants in these cases. All of the cases filed in Erie County,
New York have been removed to federal court in the Western
District of New York. During February 2015, a lawsuit involving
one New York City firefighter plaintiff was filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County. Plaintiff named
the Company as well as several other parties as defendants. That
case has been transferred to federal court in the Northern
District of New York. The Company also is aware that a lawsuit
involving eight New York City firefighters was filed in New York
County, New York, on April 24, 2015. The Company has not yet been
served in that case.

During November and December 2015, 23 new cases involving a total
of 210 firefighters were filed in various counties in the New York
City area. During November 2015, the Company was also served with
a complaint filed in Union county, New Jersey state court,
involving 34 New Jersey firefighters. During January 2016, three
additional cases were filed in various New Jersey state courts.
These cases involve a total of 41 firefighters, most of whom
reside in New Jersey and worked at New Jersey Fire Departments.

From 2007 through 2009, firefighters also brought hearing loss
claims against the Company in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland and
Kings County, New York. All of those cases, however, were
dismissed prior to trial, including four cases in the Supreme
Court of Kings County, New York that were dismissed upon the
Company's motion in 2008. On appeal, the New York appellate court
affirmed the trial court's dismissal of these cases. Plaintiffs'
attorneys have threatened to file additional lawsuits. The Company
intends to vigorously defend all of these lawsuits, if filed.
The Company's ongoing negotiations with its insurer, CNA, over
insurance coverage on these claims have resulted in reimbursements
of a portion of the Company's defense costs. These reimbursements
are recorded as a reduction of corporate operating expenses. For
the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, the Company
recorded reimbursements from CNA of $0.3 million, $0.3 million and
$0.5 million, respectively, related to legal costs, respectively.


FENNY JAPANESE: "Lan" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Doun Fuh Lan, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fenny Japanese and Chinese
Restaurant Inc., Cai Fen Chen, Kevin Chen, John Doe and Jane Doe #
1-10 Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01727 (E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and minimum wages, unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
counsel fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Laws.

Fenny Japanese and Chinese Restaurant Inc. operates Hunan Dynasty
located at 2993 Hempstead Turnpike, Levittown, NY 11756 where
Plaintiff worked as a server.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, New York 11354
      Tel: 718.353.8588
      Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Suit Over Repossessed Cars Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the Company continues to defend a class action lawsuit in the
the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania.

First Commonwealth Financial Corporation and First Commonwealth
Bank were named defendants in an action commenced August 27, 2015
by eight named plaintiffs that is pending in the Court of Common
Pleas of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs allege
that the Bank repossessed motor vehicles, sold the vehicles and
sought to collect deficiency balances in a manner that did not
comply with the notice requirements of the Pennsylvania Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC), charged inappropriate costs and fees,
including storage costs for dates that a repossessed vehicle was
not in storage, and wrongly filed forms with the Department of
Motor Vehicles asserting that the Bank had complied with
applicable laws relating to the repossession of the vehicles.

The plaintiffs seek to pursue the action as a class action on
behalf of the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated
plaintiffs who had their automobiles repossessed and seek to
recover damages under the UCC and the Pennsylvania Fair Credit
Extension Uniformity Act. First Commonwealth and the Bank contest
the plaintiffs' allegations and intend to oppose class
certification.  The Bank has also asserted counterclaims for
breach of contract, set-off and recoupment against the plaintiffs,
individually, and as representatives of the putative class.

As set forth in the preceding paragraph, all current litigation
matters, including this action, are believed to be within the
range of reasonably possible losses for such matters in the
aggregate set forth above.

First Commonwealth Financial Corporation ("First Commonwealth,"
the "Company" or "we") is a financial holding company that is
headquartered in Indiana, Pennsylvania.


FORTIS INC: "Severance" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------
Harold Severance, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Joseph L. Welch, Albert Ernst, Christopher
H. Franklin, Edward G. Jepsen, David R. Lopez, Hazel R. O'Leary,
Thomas G. Stephens, G. Bennett Stewart III, Lee C. Stewart, Fortis
Inc., Fortisus Inc., and Element Acquisition Sub Inc., Defendants
and ITC Holdings Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-11293-AJT-DRG (E.D.
Mich., April 8, 2016) seeks to enjoin the consummation of the
proposed acquisition of ITC Holdings Corp. by Fortis, Inc., and
the rescinding of any resulting merger.  The suit also seeks
compensatory and rescissory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees,
expenses and experts' fees and such other and further relief
pursuant to Sec. 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934.

Fortis was to acquire all outstanding shares of ITC for the
equivalent of $11.3 billion in stock and cash. ITC shareholders
will receive 0.7520 shares of Fortis stock and $22.57 per share in
cash for each ITC share they own valued at $44.90 per share.
Plaintiffs claim to be shortchanged by this deal.

Fortis Inc. is a St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador based
international diversified electric utility holding company. It
operates in Canada, the United States, Central America, and the
Caribbean.

ITC is the largest independent electricity transmission company in
the United States. It is a Michigan corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 27175 Energy Way, Novi, Michigan
48377. Joseph L. Welch, Albert Ernst, Christopher H. Franklin,
Edward G. Jepsen, David R. Lopez, Hazel R. O'Leary, Thomas G.
Stephens, G. Bennett Stewart III and Lee C. Stewart are members of
the board of directors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Wernette
      WERNETTE HEILMAN PLLC
      24725 W. 12 Mile Road, Suite 110
      Southfield, MI 48034
      Tel: (248) 663-5170
      Email: mike@wernetteheilman.com

           - and -

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


FRESH MARKET: "Jantz" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------
Ronald Jantz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ray Berry, Richard Anicetti, Jeffrey
Naylor, Michael Tucci, Steven Tanger, Richard Noll, Bob Sasser,
Jane Thompson, Michael Casey, Robert Shearer and the Fresh Market,
Inc., Defendants., Case No. 1:16-CV-307 (M.D.N.C., April 11,
2016), seeks to prevent the merger from consummating, costs of
this action including attorneys' and experts' fees and such other
and further relief in violations of Sec. 14(e) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendant claims that the Fresh Market merger with Pomegranate
Holdings, Inc. did not undergo the proper process and that it is
an undervalued and onerous deal.

Fresh Market is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware with principal executive offices at
628 Green Valley Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27408. Ray
Berry, Richard Anicetti, Jeffrey Naylor, Michael Tucci, Steven
Tanger, Richard Noll, Bob Sasser, Jane Thompson, Michael Casey and
Robert Shearer are members of the Board of Directors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David G. Schiller, Esq.
      SCHILLER & SCHILLER, P.L.L.C.
      304 East Jones Street
      Raleigh, NC 27601
      Telephone: (919) 789-4677
      Facsimile: (919) 789-4469

           - and -

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (203) 992-4523
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171


FRESH MARKET: "Solak" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------
John Solak, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Fresh Market, Inc., Pomegranate
Holdings, Inc., Pomegranate Merger Sub, Inc., Apollo Global
Management, LLC, Apollo Management VIII, L.P., Ray Berry, Rick
Anicetti, Michael Casey, Jeffrey Naylor, Richard Noll, Bob Sasser,
Robert Shearer, Michael Tucci, Steven Tanger, Jane Thompson and
Brett Berry, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00249-UNA (D. Del.,
April 8, 2016), seeks enjoinment from consummating a merger,
compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
injunctive relief to attach, impound, or otherwise restrict the
defendants' assets to assure Plaintiff has an effective remedy,
and attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
for violations of Sec. 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Defendant claims that Fresh Market' merger with Pomegranate
Holdings, Inc. did not undergo the proper process and that it is
an undervalued and onerous deal.

Fresh Market is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware with principal executive offices at
628 Green Valley Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27408. Ray
Berry, Richard Anicetti, Jeffrey Naylor, Michael Tucci, Steven
Tanger, Richard Noll, Bob Sasser, Jane Thompson, Michael Casey and
Robert Shearer are members of the Board of Directors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
      COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
      The Brandywine Building
      1000 West Street, 10th Floor
      Wilmington, DE 19899
      Telephone: (302) 984-3889
      Facsimile: (302) 984-3939
      E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

           - and -

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              soddo@robbinsarroyo.com


GOPRO INC: Shareholder Suits Filed in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit was filed on January 13, 2016, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company and certain of the Company's officers. Similar complaints
were filed on January 21, 2016, February 4, 2016 and February 19,
2016. Each of the complaints purports to bring suit on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded
securities between July 21, 2015 and January 13, 2016 for the
first three complaints and between November 26, 2014 and January
13, 2016 for the last filed complaint.

"Each complaint purports to allege that defendants made false and
misleading statements about our business, operations and prospects
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, fees and costs," the Company said.

GoPro, Inc. makes cameras (capture devices) and mountable and
wearable accessories.


GOPRO INC: Faces Suit Over IPO in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit was filed on January 25, 2016, in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company,
certain of the Company's current and former directors and
executive officers and underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering.

"The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders
who purchased our stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with our IPO and
purports to allege claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages and other relief," the Company said.

"Due to inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot accurately
predict the ultimate outcome of these matters. We are unable at
this time to determine whether the outcome of the litigation would
have a material impact on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow."

GoPro, Inc. makes cameras (capture devices) and mountable and
wearable accessories.


GRUNDY PIZZA: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shelby Sanchez, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Grundy Pizza, Inc. d/b/a Papa Vito's Italian Restaurant, and
William Graham, Case No. 6:16-cv-00596-GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla., April
7, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Brevard County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Ryan Gunter, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Ste 1600, 20 N. Orange Ave
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
      E-mail: mgunter@forthepeople.com


GUPER PAINTING: Faces "Cardenas" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CARDENAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO: 2:16-cv-68 v. GUPER
PAINTING, LLC, Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-00068-J (N.D. Tex., April
8, 2016), seeks recovery of alleged unpaid overtime in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Guper Painting is a General contractor in Amarillo, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Collin Wynne, Esq.
     Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
     THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C.
     1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
     Amarillo, TX 79101
     Phone: (806) 331.1800
     Fax: (806) 398.9095
     E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com
             collin@youngfirm.com


HALYARD HEALTH: "Shahinian" Parties Engaged in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------
Halyard Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has an
indemnification obligation for, and has assumed the defense of,
the matter styled Shahinian, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation,
et al., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.), filed on October 29,
2014.

"In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative nationwide class
action asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative
misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment), negligent
misrepresentation, and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law in connection with our marketing and sale of
MicroCool surgical gowns," the Company said.

"On February 6, 2015, we moved to dismiss the complaint on
multiple grounds. On July 10, 2015, the Court issued an order on
the motion to dismiss, dismissing the negligent misrepresentation
claim but permitting the remaining claims to stand and proceed to
discovery.

"On December 11, 2015, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint that added additional plaintiffs in California, Texas
and Rhode Island, named Halyard Health, Inc. as an additional
defendant, and extend the timeframe for the lawsuit to include
products sold after the Spin-off through December 2015. The
parties are currently engaged in discovery.

"We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the matter."

Halyard Health, Inc. is a global company which seeks to advance
health and healthcare by preventing infection, eliminating pain
and speeding recovery.


HANAHAN, SC: Fails to Pay EMS Employees OT, "Regan" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Regan and Mason Underwood, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. City of Hanahan, Case No. 2:16-cv-
01077-RMG (D.S.C., April 7, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay Emergency Medical Services and
employees' overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

City of Hanahan is a political subdivision of the State of South
Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
      BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
      147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
      Charleston, SC  29412
      Telephone: (843) 579-7373
      Facsimile: (843) 614-6417
      E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com


HOME DEPOT: "Utne" Class Suit Removed to Calif. N. District
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled John Utne, on behalf of himself,
all others similarly situated v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No.
RG16806847, was removed from the Superior Court of the County of
Alameda to the U.S. District Court California Northern District
(Oakland). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-
01854-KAW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a retailer of home improvement and
construction products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas Alistair Segal, Esq.
      Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 888-7771
      Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
      E-mail: thomas@setarehlaw.com
              shaun@setarehlaw.com


HONEST COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Cleaning Products, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Aliano and Alan Klarik, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The Honest Company, Inc., Case No.
2:16-cv-02394-R-AJW (C.D. Cal. April 7, 2016), is brought on
behalf of all individuals who purchased Honest Company Laundry
Detergent, Honest Company Dish Soap, and Honest Company Multi-
Surface Cleaner, that were falsely marketed by the Defendants that
they do not contain sodium lauryl sulfate ("SLS"), a harsh
chemical found in many cleaning supply products. When in fact,
Honest Products are manufactured by using the chemical sodium
cocoa sulfate ("SCS"), SLS is a major component of SCS.

The Honest Company, Inc. owns and operate a consumer goods company
in Santa Monica, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
      Eliot F. Krieger, Esq.
      Charles T. Spagnola, P.C.
      SULLIVAN, KRIEGER, TRUONG,
      SPAGNOLA & KLAUSNER, LLP
      444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1700
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 597-7070
      E-mail: adam@sullivankrieger.com
              eliot@sullivankrieger.com
              charles@sullivankrieger.com

         - and -

      Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.
      Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 440-0020
      E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
              maebetty@attorneyzim.com


IMPERIAL DISTRIBUTORS: "Begin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Begin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Imperial Distributors, Inc., and
Herbert Daitch, Defendants, Case No. 16-1001 (Mass., April 8,
2016), seeks treble damages, interest, reasonable attorney's fees,
and costs for breach of contract and violations of the
Massachusetts Wage Act and Massachusetts Overtime Law.

Defendants operate a distribution and merchandising company in
Massachusetts, where Plaintiff worked as sales service
representatives. The Plaintiff claims that she was deprived the
full amount of her earned commissions and not paid for overtime.

Herbert Daitch is the President and Treasurer of Imperial
Distributors, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
      Joel E. Friedlander, Esq.
      Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
      Law Office of Nicholas F. Ortiz, PC
      99 High Street, Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 338-9400
      Email: rm@mass-legal.com


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement in Securities Case Has Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc.  said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Arizona District
Court has issued a final judgment and dismissal order granting
final approval of the settlement agreement and dismissing the
federal securities litigation with prejudice.

The Company said, "Between May 15 and May 19, 2014, two complaints
(captioned Larson v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-
01043-GMS) and (Li vs. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case No 14-cv-
01077-DGC) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona, or Arizona District Court, against us and certain of
our current officers. The complaints were brought as purported
class actions, on behalf of purchasers of our common stock. In
general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by making intentionally false and
misleading statements regarding our business and operations,
therefore artificially inflating the price of our common stock.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief."

On July 14, 2014, several purported shareholders filed motions to
consolidate the two cases, appoint a lead plaintiff, and appoint
lead counsel. On August 29, 2014, the Arizona District Court
issued an order consolidating the action, appointing Hongwei Li as
lead plaintiff, and appointing the lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs
complaint was filed on October 27, 2014.

"On December 11, 2014, we moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint," the Company said. "On March 19, 2015, the
parties participated in a mediation and the parties subsequently
agreed in principle, on April 14, 2015, to settle the action. On
April 20, 2015, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement with the
Court. On April 29, 2015, the Court ordered that the lawsuit be
dismissed within 60 days, vacated all pending hearings, and denied
all pending motions as moot."

On May 28, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement,
which provided the terms of a settlement agreement. On June 2,
2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement and the potential class members have been (or will be)
notified of the proposed settlement and the procedure by which
they can object to the settlement or request to be excluded from
the class. On December 7, 2015, the Court issued a final judgment
and dismissal order granting final approval of the settlement
agreement and dismissing the case with prejudice.

"Because we met our retainage amount under the applicable policy,
we believe that any potential obligations that relate to the
settlement in this matter are fully covered under our directors
and officers insurance policy. Accordingly, we did not accrue for
any contingencies in this matter into our operating results."

Insys Therapeutics is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical
company that develops and commercializes innovative supportive
care products.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: To Defend Against "Donato" Suit in Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc.  said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends
to defend against the class action lawsuit by Richard Di Donato.

The Company said, "On or about February 2, 2016, a complaint
(captioned Richard Di Donato v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case
2:16-cv-00302-NVW) was filed in the Arizona District Court,
against us and certain of our current and former officers. This
complaint was brought as a purported class action, on behalf of
purchasers of our common stock between March 3, 2015 and January
25, 2016. In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making intentionally false and
misleading statements regarding our business and operations,
therefore artificially inflating the price of our common stock.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
We intend to vigorously defend this claim."

Insys Therapeutics is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical
company that develops and commercializes innovative supportive
care products.


INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Defending 2 Class Actions in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Investment Technology Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in
connection with the announcement of the SEC investigation, two
putative class action lawsuits were filed with respect to the
Company and certain of its current and former executives and have
since been consolidated into a single action captioned In re
Investment Technology Group, Inc. Securities Litigation before the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
material misrepresentations or omitted to disclose material facts
concerning, among other subjects, the matters that were the
subject of the SEC settlement regarding AlterNet, and the SEC
investigation that led to the SEC settlement. The complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of damages under the federal securities
laws.


JB HUNT: Sued in N.J. Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Napier, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01955-JBS-JS
(D.N.J., April 8, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. operates a trucking and transportation
company based in the Northwest Arkansas city of Lowell.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
      1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 685-7420
      Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
      E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com


JP MORGAN: "Gebauer" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Michael Gebauer, Kim McDonald,
Jason Demery, and Joe Jordan, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A, Bank of
America N.A., Wells Fargo Bank N.A, Case No. 9:15-cv-00152, was
transferred from the District of Montana to the U.S. District
Court California Northern District (San Francisco). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-01830-CRB to the proceeding.

The Defendants own and operate banking companies in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Colette B. Davies, Esq.
      DAVIES LAW, PLLC
      1631 Zimmerman Trail, Suite 1
      Billings, MT 59102
      Telephone: (406) 839-9093
      E-mail: cdavies@davieslawmt.com

         - and -

      John C. Heenan, Esq.
      BISHOP AND HEENAN
      1631 Zimmerman Trail, Ste 1
      Billings, MT 59102
      Telephone: (406) 839-9091
      Facsimile: (406) 839-9092
      E-mail: john@bishopandheenan.com

         - and -

      Timothy M. Bechtold, Esq.
      BECHTOLD LAW FIRM
      PO Box 7051
      Missoula, MT 59807
      Telephone: tim@bechtoldlaw.net

The Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A is represented by:

      Jori Lydia Quinlan, Esq.
      Martin S. King, Esq.
      WORDEN THANE
      PO Box 4747
      Missoula, MT 59806-4747
      Telephone: (406) 721-3400
      Facsimile: (406) 721-6985
      E-mail: jquinlan@wordenthane.com
              mking@wordenthane.com

         - and -

      Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
      Stephen J. Newman, Esq.
      STROOCK AND STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
      2029 Century Park East
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086
      Telephone: (310) 556-5800
      Facsimile: (310) 556-5959
      E-mail: jstrickland@stroock.com
              snewman@stroock.com


JRN INC: "Jones" Labor Suit Transferred to M.D. Ga.
---------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Jones, Laquanda Jackson, Veronica Deloney, Samuel Jordan,
Angela Horace, Beternia Baker, Kimiya Carter and Marilyn Nelson,
Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current
and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. JRN, Inc., John R. Neal,
David G. Neal and Tyrone K. Neal, Case No. 1:15-cv-00108 was
transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia from M.D. Tenn. on April 8, 2016.

Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime compensation from JRN,
Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

JRN, Inc. is a Tennessee Corporation with its principal executive
office located at 209 West 7th Street, Columbia, Tennessee 38401.
It operates KFC and Taco Bell franchise restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      James Holt Jr., Esq.
      Paula Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 759-1745
      Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
             jholt@jsyc.com
             pjackson@jsyc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Benjamin H. Bodzy, Esq.
      Jesse Ford Harbison, Esq.
      Megan M. Sutton, Esq.
      BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
      211 Commerce Street, Suite 800
      Nashville, TN 37201
      Tel: (615) 726-5600
      Fax: (615) 744-5760
      Email: bbodzy@bakerdonelson.com
             jford@bakerdonelson.com
             msutton@bakerdonelson.com


KEANNE GROUP: "Metz" Labor Suit Transferred from W.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------
Kalven Metz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Keane Frac TX, LLC, Keane Frac ND, LLC,
Keane Frac GP, LLC, Keane Frac, LP and Keane Group, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-01570 (S.D. Tex., April 11, 2016),
was transferred from W.D. Pa.

Kalven Metz seeks recovery of overtime wages and other damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act. Defendants operate together an oilfield service company
offering a wide range of services to the oil and gas industry in
states such as Pennsylvania, West Virginia, North Dakota and Texas
where Metz worked as a field engineer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Tel: (412) 766-1455
      Fax: (412) 766-0300

           - and -

      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Michael A Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Tel: (713) 751-0025
      Fax: (713) 751-0030
      Email: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


LENDINGTREE INC: Established $3.2M Reserve in "Dijkstra" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
LendingTree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a reserve of $3.2
million has been established in the case, "Dijkstra" class action
lawsuit in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2015, of which some or all may be covered by
insurance.

Lijkel Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc. et
al., No. 5:11-cv-152-JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV).  In November
2008, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Circuit
Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry Carenbauer, HLC,
HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges that HLC engaged in
the unauthorized practice of law in West Virginia by permitting
persons who were neither admitted to the practice of law in West
Virginia nor under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to
the practice of law in West Virginia to close mortgage loans. The
plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory judgment, contempt,
injunctive relief, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation or fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit
and Protection Act ("CCPA"), violation of the West Virginia
Lender, Broker & Services Act, civil conspiracy, outrage and
negligence. The claims against all defendants other than Mr.
Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc. have been dismissed. The case
was removed to federal court in October 2011.

On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class
certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment,
contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class
included consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after
November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose
loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law
in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of
a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia.

In February 2014, the court granted and denied certain of each
party's motions for summary judgment. With respect to the Class
Claims, the court granted plaintiff's motions for summary judgment
with respect to declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and
violation of the CCPA. The court granted HLC's motion for summary
judgment with respect to contempt. In addition, the court denied
HLC's motion to decertify the class.

With respect to the claims applicable to the named plaintiff only
(the "Individual Claims"), HLC's motions for summary judgment were
granted with respect to conversion, breach of fiduciary duty,
intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and
outrage. HLC and the plaintiff settled the remaining Individual
Claims in June 2014.

In July 2014, the court awarded damages to plaintiffs in the
amount of $2.8 million (the "Class Damages Award"). HLC filed a
notice of appeal in August 2014 and in September 2014, plaintiffs
filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. In December 2014, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined that the
district court's order was not yet final, and accordingly, HLC's
appeal was dismissed.

In July 2015, the district court ordered that the Class Damages
Award be allocated such that two-thirds of the Class Damages Award
would be paid to the class members and one-third of the Class
Damages Award would be paid to the plaintiffs' attorneys. In
addition, the court ordered that HLC reimburse the class for
attorneys' fees by making an incremental payment of $389,500
attorneys' fee award be paid by HLC to the plaintiffs' attorneys.
The judge also awarded prejudgment interest to plaintiffs.

On July 30, 2015, the district court judge entered a final
judgment order in this matter. On August 27, 2015, HLC filed its
notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit with respect to the final judgment, the order granting
attorneys' fees, and the orders on class damages, the pretrial
conference, motions and class certifications.

In January 2015, the parties reached a verbal settlement agreement
with respect to such matters, subject to agreement of non-monetary
terms of settlement, execution of a mutually agreeable written
settlement agreement, approval of such settlement by the district
court judge and fulfillment of certain class notice and
administration requirements.

A reserve of $3.2 million has been established for this matter in
the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31,
2015, of which some or all may be covered by insurance.

LendingTree, Inc. operates an online loan marketplace for
consumers seeking loans and other credit-based offerings.


LOKEY OLDSMOBILE: "Dettloff" Suit Transferred to Calif. N.D.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Annette Dettloff, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Lokey Oldsmobile,
Inc. d/b/a Lokey Volkswagen, Bert Smith Oldsmobile, Inc. d/b/a
Bert Smith Volkswagen, Volkswagen Group of America Inc.,
Volkswagen A.G., Case No. 8:15-cv-02885, was transferred from the
Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court California
Northern District (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-01826-CRB to the proceeding.

The case alleges violation of the Clean Air Act.

Lokey Oldsmobile, Inc. offers sale of new and used automobiles and
their parts and services.

Bert Smith Oldsmobile, Inc. operates a used car dealership company
located in Saint Petersburg, Florida.

Volkswagen Group of America Inc. is the North American operational
headquarters, and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of automobile
companies of Germany.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry Martin Roth, Esq.
      Samantha Crawford Duke, Esq.
      Michael D. Begey, Esq.
      RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, PA
      300 S Orange Ave Ste 1400
      P.O. Box 1873
      Orlando, FL
      Telephone: (407) 872-7300
      Facsimile: (407) 841-2133
      E-mail: lroth@rumberger.com
              sduke@rumberger.com
              mbegey@rumberger.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Blair Mendes, Esq.
      Isaac R. Ruiz-Carus, Esq.
      James L. Wilkes II, Esq.
      Joanna M. Greber, Esq.
      WILKES & MCHUGH, PA
      Suite 800, 1 N Dale Mabry Hwy
      Tampa, FL 33609-2755
      Telephone: (813) 873-0026
      Facsimile: (813) 286-8820
      E-mail: bmendes@wilkesmchugh.com
              iruiz-carus@wilkesmchugh.com
              jwilkes@wilkesmchugh.com
              jgreber@wilkesmchugh.com

         - and -

      Marchelle Angelique Wiley, Esq.
      REISBERG LAW
      Suite 1210, 777 Brickell Avenue
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 371-9617
      Facsimile: (305) 371-9628
      E-mail: mwiley@Riesberglaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Morris" Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc.  said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the class
action lawsuit by Kevin Morris has been dismissed.

The Company said, "On or about August 18, 2015, Kevin Morris
("Morris") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit
Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in St. Clair County,
Illinois alleging that the Casa de Colour Collection by Dura-Wood
flooring (the "Morris Product"), a brand of solid wood flooring
sold by us, is defective due to warping, cupping and buckling.
Morris alleges that we have engaged in unfair business practices
and unfair competition by falsely representing the quality and
characteristics of the Morris Product and by concealing the Morris
Product's defective nature. In particular, Morris's allegations
include (i) common law fraud, (ii) breach of implied warranty,
(iii) breach of express warranty, (iv) breach of contract, (v)
breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, (vi) violation of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
(the "ICFA") and (vii) violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act (the "UDTPA"). Morris did not quantify any alleged
damages in his complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and
costs, Morris seeks (i) certification of the purposed class, (ii)
injunctive relief requiring us to replace and/or repair all Morris
Products installed in structures owned by the purported class,
(iii) an award of compensatory, consequential and statutory
damages, pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest, (iv) a
declaration that we must disgorge, for the benefit of the
purported class, all or part of our profits received from the sale
of the Morris Product and/or to make full restitution to Morris
and the purported class, (v) a judgment for actual damages for
injuries suffered by Morris and the purported class as a result of
our violation of the ICFA and (vi) a judgment awarding Morris and
the purported class reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in
accordance with the UDTPA.

"On September 25, 2015, we removed the action to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Subsequently, we filed a motion to dismiss. Morris failed to
respond to the motion and, as a result, the lawsuit was dismissed
without prejudice on November 10, 2015."


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Ross" Suit Over Chinese Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc.  said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Joseph
Ross and Linda Ross (collectively, "Ross") filed on or about
February 23, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit in the Second
Judicial District Court, State of Nevada, County of Washoe. Ross
seeks the certification of a class of individuals in the State of
Nevada who purchased certain hardwood flooring products produced
in China (the "Ross Products"). Ross alleges that the Ross
Products are defective due to the Ross Products being contaminated
with certain wood-boring insects.

In particular, Ross's allegations include (i) breach of warranty,
(ii) negligence, (iii) strict liability, (iv) negligent
misrepresentation, (v) willful misconduct, and (vi) unjust
enrichment. In the complaint, Ross seeks (i) general and special
damages according to proof in excess of fifty thousand dollars,
(ii) attorneys' fees and costs according to proof, (iii)
prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all sums awarded,
according to proof at the maximum legal rate, (iv) costs of the
lawsuit incurred, (v) restitution as authorized by law, (vi)
punitive damages as authorized by law, and (vii) specific
performance under our express warranties.

"We dispute Ross's claims and intend to defend the matter
vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary
stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for,
among other things, class certification and success on the merits,
we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss
that may result from this action," according to the Lumber
Liquidatiors.


MAGNUM OIL: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
Angel Rodriguez, individually and for all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00115 (S.D. Tex., April 8, 2016),
seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, post-judgment interest on all amounts awarded and
all such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Magnum Oil is a Delaware company headquartered in Houston where
Rodriguez worked as a field service supervisor. Magnum Oil is a
manufacturer of downhole completion products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Tel: (713) 751-0025
      Fax: (713) 751-0030
      Email: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
             adunlap@fibichlaw.com


MARS INCORPORATED: Faces "Godsonov" Suit Over Under-filled M&M's
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nikita Godsonov and John Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mars, Incorporated,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01745, E.D.N.Y, April 11, 2016), seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest on all
amounts awarded, restitution and all other forms of equitable
monetary relief, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs
resulting from negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment,
common law fraud and violation of the New York Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic
Act.

Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of under-filling their M&M's(R)
Mini products.

Mars, Incorporated is a corporation organized under the laws of
Virginia with its headquarters at 6885 Elm St., McLean, VA, 22101.
It manufactures and sells chocolate products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 1674: Supreme Court Rejects PNC Bank's Appeal
-------------------------------------------------
Chris Bruce, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reported that the U.S.
Supreme Court on Feb. 29 let stand a July 29, 2015 decision by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which upheld a
district court's order that certified a general class and five
nationwide subclasses of plaintiffs who claimed PNC Bank helped to
disguise a predatory lending scheme.

The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that between 2001 and 2003, on behalf of either individual
plaintiffs or proposed classes of plaintiffs, several separate
lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts against Community
Bank of Northern Virginia (CBNV), a PNC Bank predecessor, and
other defendants asserting claims arising from second mortgage
loans made to the plaintiffs. The state lawsuits were removed to
federal court and, with the lawsuits that had been filed in
federal court, were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a
multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under the caption
In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia Lending Practices
Litigation (No. 03-0425 (W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 1674).

In January 2008, the Pennsylvania district court issued an order
sending back to the General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division, for Wake County, North Carolina the claims of two
proposed class members, which have subsequently been dismissed.

In October 2011, the plaintiffs in the MDL proceeding filed a
joint consolidated amended class action complaint covering all of
the class action lawsuits pending in this proceeding. The amended
complaint names CBNV, another bank, and purchasers of loans
originated by CBNV and the other bank (including Residential
Funding Company, LLC (RFC)) as defendants. (In December 2013, the
Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding involving RFC was completed with
the company being liquidated and claims against the company being
resolved, including, through a settlement between the plaintiffs
and RFC approved in November 2013, the claims in these lawsuits.)

The principal allegations in the amended complaint are that a
group of persons and entities collectively characterized as the
"Shumway/Bapst Organization" referred prospective second
residential mortgage loan borrowers to CBNV and the other bank,
that CBNV and the other bank charged these borrowers improper
title and loan fees at loan closings, that the disclosures
provided to the borrowers at loan closings were inaccurate, and
that CBNV and the other bank paid some of the loan fees to the
Shumway/Bapst Organization as purported "kickbacks" for the
referrals. The amended complaint asserts claims for violations of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Truth in
Lending Act (TILA), as amended by the Home Ownership and Equity
Protection Act (HOEPA), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO).

The amended complaint seeks to certify a class of all borrowers
who obtained a second residential non-purchase money mortgage
loan, secured by their principal dwelling, from either CBNV or the
other defendant bank, the terms of which made the loan subject to
HOEPA. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified
damages (including treble damages under RICO and RESPA),
rescission of loans, declaratory and injunctive relief, interest,
and attorneys' fees.

In November 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. In June 2013, the court granted in part and
denied in part the motion, dismissing the claims of any plaintiff
whose loan did not originate or was not assigned to CBNV,
narrowing the scope of the RESPA claim, and dismissing several of
the named plaintiffs for lack of standing. The court also
dismissed the claims against the other lender defendant on
jurisdictional grounds. The limitation of the potential class to
CBNV borrowers reduces its size to approximately 26,500 from the
50,000 members alleged in the amended complaint.

Also in June 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which was granted in July 2013.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs on June 21, 2013, moved for
certification of a general class and of five subclasses.

The general class was defined as: "All persons nationwide who
obtained a second or subordinate, residential, federally related,
non purchase money, mortgage loan from CBNV that was secured by
residential real property used by the Class Members as their
principal dwelling, for the period May 1998-December 2002."

The five subclasses were defined as:

          Sub-Class 1: (RESPA [Affiliated Business Association]
Disclosure Sub-Class) (Plaintiffs: Philip and Jeannie Kossler) --
All persons nationwide who obtained a second or subordinate,
residential, federally related, non purchase money, mortgage loan
from CBNV that was secured by residential real property used by
the Class Members as their principal dwelling for the period May
1998-October 1998;

          Sub-Class 2: (RESPA Kickback Sub-Class) (Plaintiffs:
Brian and Carla Kessler; John and Rebecca Picard) -- All persons
nationwide who obtained a second or subordinate, residential,
federally related, non purchase money, mortgage loan from CBNV
that was secured by residential real property used by the Class
Members as their principal dwelling for the period October 1998-
November 1999;

          Sub-Class 3: (TILA/HOEPA Non-Equitable Tolling Sub-
Class) (Plaintiffs: Kathy and John Nixon; Flora Gaskin; and, Tammy
and David Wasem) -- All persons nationwide who obtained a second
or subordinate, residential, federally related, non purchase
money, mortgage loan from CBNV that was secured by residential
real property used by the Class Members as their principal
dwelling for the period May 1, 2001-May 1, 2002;

          Sub-Class 4: (TILA/HOEPA Equitable Tolling Sub-Class)
(Plaintiffs: All [named] plaintiffs other than the Nixons, Gaskins
and Wasems) -- All persons nationwide who obtained a second or
subordinate, residential, federally related, non purchase money,
mortgage loan from CBNV that was secured by residential real
property used by the Class Members as their principal dwelling for
the period May 1998-December 2002;

          Sub-Class 5: (RICO Sub-Class) (Plaintiffs: John and
Rebecca Picard; Brian and Carla Kessler) -- All persons nationwide
who obtained a second or subordinate, residential, federally
related, non purchase money, mortgage loan from CBNV that was
secured by residential real property used by the Class Members as
their principal dwelling for the period May 1998-November 1999.

In July 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed the grant of class certification by the Pennsylvania
district court.  A copy of the Third Circuit's decision is
available at http://is.gd/2sZLz3from Leagle.com.

PNC moved for a rehearing of the appeal, which was denied in
October 2015. In November 2015, PNC filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the
decision of the court of appeals, which remains pending.


MDL 1688: Pfizer Updates on Celebrex and Bextra Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, provided updates on class action lawsuits
related to Celebrex and Bextra.

Beginning in late 2004, several purported class actions were filed
in federal and state courts alleging that Pfizer and certain of
our current and former officers violated federal securities laws
by misrepresenting the safety of Celebrex and Bextra. In June
2005, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-
trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Pfizer
Inc. Securities, Derivative and "ERISA" Litigation MDL-1688) in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In
March 2012, the court in the Multi-District Litigation certified a
class consisting of all persons who purchased or acquired Pfizer
stock between October 31, 2000 and October 19, 2005.

In May 2014, the court in the Multi-District Litigation granted
Pfizer's motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' loss
causation and damages expert. We subsequently filed a motion for
summary judgment seeking dismissal of the litigation, and the
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to submit an amended report by
their expert. In July 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to submit an amended report, and granted our
motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims in
their entirety. In August 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the
District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

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


MDL 2036: PNC Appeal on Denial of Arbitration Motion Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that in the Overdraft Litigation, PNC's appeal of the denial of
its arbitration motion to the court of appeals is pending.

Beginning in October 2009, PNC Bank, National City Bank and RBC
Bank (USA) have been named in lawsuits brought as class actions
relating to the manner in which they charged overdraft fees on ATM
and debit transactions to customers and related matters. All but
two of these lawsuits, both pending against RBC Bank (USA), have
been settled. The following is a description of the remaining
pending lawsuits.

The pending lawsuits naming RBC Bank (USA), along with similar
lawsuits pending against other banks, have been consolidated for
pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (the MDL Court) under the caption In re
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation (MDL No. 2036, Case No.
1:09-MD-02036-JLK ). A consolidated amended complaint was filed in
December 2010 that consolidated all of the claims in these MDL
Court cases. The first case against RBC Bank (USA) pending in the
MDL Court (Dasher v. RBC Bank (10-cv-22190-JLK)) was filed in July
2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida. The other case against RBC Bank (USA) (Avery v. RBC Bank
(Case No. 10-cv-329)) was originally filed in North Carolina state
court in July 2010 and was removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina before being transferred to
the MDL Court. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in
November 2014.

These cases seek to certify multi-state classes of customers for
the common law claims described below (covering all states in
which RBC Bank (USA) had retail branch operations during the class
periods), and subclasses of RBC Bank (USA) customers with accounts
in North Carolina branches, with each subclass being asserted for
purposes of claims under those states' consumer protection
statutes. No class periods are stated in any of the complaints,
other than for the applicable statutes of limitations, which vary
by state and claim.

The customer agreements with the plaintiffs in these two cases
contain arbitration provisions. RBC Bank (USA)'s original motion
in Dasher to compel arbitration under these provisions was denied
by the MDL Court. This denial was appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. While this appeal was pending,
the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in AT&T Mobility v.
Concepcion, following which the court of appeals vacated the MDL
Court's denial of the arbitration motion and remanded to the MDL
Court for further consideration in light of the Concepcion
decision. RBC Bank (USA)'s motion to compel arbitration, now
covering both Dasher and Avery, was denied in January 2013.

PNC said, "We appealed the denial of the motion to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which, in February 2014,
affirmed the order of the district court denying arbitration. We
filed a motion asking the court of appeals to reconsider its
decision, which it denied in March 2014."

"In December 2014, we filed a motion to compel arbitration as to
the claims of the plaintiff in Dasher based on an arbitration
provision added to the PNC account agreement in 2013. In August
2015, the district court denied our motion. Later in August 2015,
we appealed the denial of our arbitration motion to the court of
appeals. The appeal is pending."

"In December 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In
February 2016, the district court denied our motion."

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the banks engaged
in unlawful practices in assessing overdraft fees arising from
electronic point-of-sale and ATM debits. The principal practice
challenged in these lawsuits is the banks' purportedly common
policy of posting debit transactions on a daily basis from highest
amount to lowest amount, thereby allegedly inflating the number of
overdraft fees assessed. Other practices challenged include the
failure to decline to honor debit card transactions where the
account has insufficient funds to cover the transactions.

The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unconscionability;
conversion; unjust enrichment; and violation of the consumer
protection statute of North Carolina. The plaintiffs seek, among
other things, restitution of overdraft fees paid, unspecified
actual and punitive damages (with actual damages, in some cases,
trebled under state law), pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees,
and declaratory relief finding the overdraft policies to be unfair
and unconscionable.


MDL 2332: Pfizer Updates on Lipitor Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, provided updates on antitrust actions
related to Lipitor.

Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to
Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against, among
others, Pfizer, certain affiliates of Pfizer, and, in most of the
actions, Ranbaxy, Inc. (Ranbaxy) and certain affiliates of
Ranbaxy. The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent
nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting of persons
or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of
the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from
March 2010 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly
unlawful conduct (the Class Period). The plaintiffs allege delay
in the launch of generic Lipitor, in violation of federal
antitrust laws and/or state antitrust, consumer protection and
various other laws, resulting from (i) the 2008 agreement pursuant
to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled certain patent litigation
involving Lipitor, and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a license to sell a
generic version of Lipitor in various markets beginning on varying
dates, and (ii) in certain of the actions, the procurement and/or
enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor. Each of the actions
seeks, among other things, treble damages on behalf of the
putative class for alleged price overcharges for Lipitor (or, in
certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during the Class Period.
In addition, individual actions have been filed against Pfizer,
Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among others, that assert
claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that are substantially
similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the
purported class actions described above. These various actions
have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-
District Litigation (MDL) (In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL-
2332) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In September 2013 and 2014, the District Court dismissed with
prejudice the claims by direct purchasers. In October and November
2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of
all other MDL plaintiffs. All plaintiffs have appealed the
District Court's orders dismissing their claims with prejudice to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In
addition, the direct purchaser class plaintiffs appealed the order
denying their motion to amend the judgment and for leave to amend
their complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

Also, in January 2013, the State of West Virginia filed an action
in West Virginia state court against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, among
others, that asserts claims and seeks relief on behalf of the
State of West Virginia and residents of that state that are
substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought
in the purported class actions.


MDL 2342: Pfizer Updates on Zoloft Personal Injury Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, provided updates on personal injury
lawsuits related to Zoloft.

A number of individual lawsuits and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have
been filed against us and/or our subsidiaries in various federal
and state courts alleging personal injury as a result of the
purported ingestion of Zoloft. Among other types of actions, the
Zoloft personal injury litigation includes actions alleging a
variety of birth defects as a result of the purported ingestion of
Zoloft by women during pregnancy. Plaintiffs in these birth-defect
actions seek compensatory and punitive damages and the
disgorgement of profits resulting from the sale of Zoloft. In
April 2012, the federal birth-defect cases were transferred for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation
(In re Zoloft Products Liability Litigation MDL-2342) in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. A number
of plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their actions.


MDL 2458: Pfizer Updates on Effexor Personal Injury Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, provided updates on personal injury
actions related to Effexor.

Pfizer said, "A number of individual lawsuits and multi-plaintiff
lawsuits have been filed against us and/or our subsidiaries in
various federal and state courts alleging personal injury as a
result of the purported ingestion of Effexor. Among other types of
actions, the Effexor personal injury litigation includes actions
alleging a variety of birth defects as a result of the purported
ingestion of Effexor by women during pregnancy. Plaintiffs in
these birth-defect actions seek compensatory and punitive damages.
In August 2013, the federal birth-defect cases were transferred
for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District
Litigation (In re Effexor (Venlafaxine Hydrochloride) Products
Liability Litigation MDL-2458) in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Almost all plaintiffs have
voluntarily dismissed their actions. The Multi-District
Litigation, as well as the coordinated state court proceedings in
California, have been administratively stayed."


MDL 2521: Trial to Begin 2017 in Lidoderm Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that trial is currently
scheduled to begin in 2017 in the case, In Re Lidoderm Antitrust
Litigation.

Endo said, "Multiple direct and indirect purchasers of Lidoderm(R)
have filed a number of cases against our subsidiary EPI and co-
defendants Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd., Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc.
(collectively, Teikoku) and Actavis plc (now Allergan plc) and a
number of its subsidiaries (collectively referred to herein as
Allergan, Actavis or Watson). Certain of these actions have been
asserted on behalf of classes of direct and indirect purchasers,
while others are individual cases brought by one or more alleged
direct or indirect purchasers."

"The complaints in these cases generally allege that EPI, Teikoku
and Actavis entered into an anticompetitive conspiracy to restrain
trade through the settlement of patent infringement litigation
concerning U.S. Patent No. 5,827,529 (the '529 patent) and other
patents. Some of the complaints also allege that Teikoku
wrongfully listed the '529 patent in the Orange Book as related to
Lidoderm(R), that EPI and Teikoku commenced sham patent litigation
against Actavis and that EPI abused the FDA citizen petition
process by filing a citizen petition and amendments solely to
interfere with generic companies' efforts to obtain FDA approval
of their versions of Lidoderm(R). The cases allege violations of
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2) and
various state antitrust and consumer protection statutes as well
as common law remedies in some states. These cases generally seek
damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

"The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, issued an order in April 2014, transferring
these cases as In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2521,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The cases are in the discovery phase of the litigation
in accordance with the pre-trial schedule. Trial is currently
scheduled to begin in 2017.

"Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and cases brought in
federal court will be transferred to the Northern District of
California as tag-along actions to In Re Lidoderm Antitrust
Litigation.

"Multiple direct and indirect purchasers of OPANA(R) ER have filed
cases against our subsidiaries EHSI and EPI, and other
pharmaceutical companies, including Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co.,
and Impax Laboratories Inc. (Impax), all of which have been
transferred and coordinated for pretrial proceedings in the
Northern District of Illinois by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation. Some of these cases have been filed on
behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers,
while others have been filed on behalf of individual retailers.
These cases generally allege that the agreement reached by EPI and
Impax to settle patent infringement litigation concerning multiple
patents pertaining to OPANA(R) ER and EPI's introduction of the
re-formulation of OPANA(R) ER violated antitrust laws. The
complaints allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2), various state antitrust and
consumer protection statutes, as well as state common law. These
cases generally seek damages, treble damages, disgorgement of
profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

"In February 2016, the court issued orders denying defendants'
motion to dismiss the claims of the direct purchasers and denied
in part and granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss the
claims of the indirect purchasers.

"We cannot predict whether or not additional cases similar to
those described above will be filed by other plaintiffs or the
timing or outcome of any such litigation."


MDL 2545: 935 Testosterone Cases v. Endo Pending as of Feb. 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as of February 19, 2016,
approximately 935 Testosterone cases are currently pending against
the Company; some of which may have been filed on behalf of
multiple plaintiffs, and including a class action complaint filed
in Canada.

The Company said, "We and certain of our subsidiaries, including
EPI and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Auxilium), along with
other pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants
in lawsuits alleging personal injury resulting from the use of
prescription medications containing testosterone, including
Fortesta(R) Gel, Delatestryl(R), Testim(R), TESTOPEL(R) and
Striant(R). Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal
injuries including pulmonary embolism, stroke, and other vascular
and/or cardiac injuries and seek compensatory and/or punitive
damages, where available."

"In June 2014, an MDL was formed to include claims involving all
testosterone replacement therapies filed against EPI, Auxilium,
and other manufacturers of such products, and certain transferable
cases pending in federal court were coordinated in the Northern
District of Illinois as part of MDL No. 2545.

"In addition to the federal cases filed against EPI and Auxilium
that have been transferred to the Northern District of Illinois as
tag-along actions to MDL No. 2545, litigation has also been filed
against EPI in the Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County and
in certain other state courts.

"Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and cases brought in
federal court will be transferred to the Northern District of
Illinois as tag-along actions to MDL No. 2545. However, we cannot
predict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whether
any such additional litigation will be brought against us. We
intend to contest the litigation vigorously and to explore all
options as appropriate in our best interest.

"In November 2015, the United Stated District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois entered an order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss claims involving certain
testosterone products that were approved pursuant to abbreviated
new drug applications, including TESTOPEL. Plaintiffs have filed a
motion for reconsideration and clarification of this order.
In November 2014, a civil class action complaint was filed in the
Northern District of Illinois against EPI, Auxilium, and various
other manufacturers of testosterone products on behalf of a
proposed class of health insurance companies and other third party
payers that had paid for certain testosterone products, alleging
that the marketing efforts of EPI, Auxilium, and other defendant
manufacturers with respect to certain testosterone products
constituted racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1962(c), and other civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act claims. Further, the complaint alleges that EPI,
Auxilium, and other defendant manufacturers violated various state
consumer protection laws through their marketing of certain
testosterone products.

In June 2015, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint.

"We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or the
ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and at this time
cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss for
this matter, if any, but we will explore all options as
appropriate in our best interest."


MDL 2566: Synovus Bank's Bid to Dismiss Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Synovus Bank's
motion to dismiss the TelexFree litigation remains pending before
the Court.

On October 22, 2014, several pending lawsuits were consolidated
into a multi-district putative class action case captioned In re:
TelexFree Securities Litigation, MDL Number 4:14-md2566-TSH,
United States District Court District of Massachusetts. Synovus
and Synovus Bank were named as defendants with numerous other
defendants in the purported class action lawsuit.

On December 23, 2014, the Honorable Timothy S. Hillman of the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
entered an order appointing Interim Lead Class Counsel and the
Plaintiffs' Interim Executive Committee and directing Plaintiffs'
Counsel to be responsible for, among other things, coordinating
and organizing plaintiffs in that action.

Interim Lead Class Counsel:

     BONSIGNORE, PLLC
     193 Plummer Hill Road
     Belmont, NH 03220
     Attn: Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
     Telephone: (781) 350-0000
     E-mail:rbonsignore@class-actions.us

Plaintiffs' Interim Executive Committee:

     LAW OFFICE OF FRANK L. DARDENO
     424 Broadway
     Somerville, MA 02145
     Attn: Ronald A. Dardeno, Esq.
     Telephone: (617) 666-2600
     Facsimile: (617) 666-2794
     E-mail:rdardeno@dardeno.com

          - and -

     BROWN RUDNICK LLP
     One Financial Center
     Boston, MA 02111
     Attn: William R. Baldiga, Esq.
     Telephone: (617) 856-8200
     Facsimile: (617) 856-8201
     E-mail:wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com

          - and -

     SHAHEEN & GORDON, P.A.
     140 Washington Street, 2nd Floor
     Dover, NH 03821
     Attn: D. Michael Noonan, Esq.
     Telephone: (603) 749-5000
     Facsimile: (603) 749-1838
     E-mail:mnoonan@shaheengordon.com

          - and -

     SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
     706 Sansome Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111-1730
     Attn: R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
     Telephone: (888) 787-8681
     Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
     E-mail: rick@saveri.com

          - and -

     KEMP, JONES & COULTHARD, LLP
     Wells Fargo Tower
     3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
     Seventeenth Floor
     Las Vegas, NV 89169
     Attn: William L. Coulthard, Esq.
     Telephone: (702) 385-6000
     Facsimile: (702) 385-6001
     E-mail: w.coulthard@kempjones.com

An Amended Complaint was filed on March 31, 2015 which
consolidated and amended the claims previously asserted. The
claims against Synovus were dismissed by Plaintiffs on April 10,
2015 so now, as to Synovus-related entities, only claims against
Synovus Bank remain pending.

TelexFree was a merchant customer of Base Commerce, LLC, an
independent sales organization/member service provider sponsored
by Synovus Bank. The purported class action lawsuit generally
alleges that TelexFree engaged in an improper multi-tier marketing
scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone services
and that the various defendants, including Synovus Bank, provided
financial services to TelexFree that allowed TelexFree to conduct
its business operations.

Synovus Bank filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on June 1,
2015, which remains pending before the Court.

Synovus Bank believes it has substantial defenses related to these
purported claims and intends to vigorously defend the claims
asserted. Synovus currently cannot reasonably estimate losses
attributable to this matter.

Synovus Financial Corp. is a financial services company and a
registered bank holding company headquartered in Columbus,
Georgia.


MELITTA UNITED STATES: Faces "Decerbo" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Melitta United
States of America Inc.

The case is captioned Jill Decerbo, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, and the general public v. Melitta
United States of America Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00850-EAK-EAJ
(M.D. Fla., April 11, 2016).

Melitta United States of America Inc. is a manufacturer of coffee,
coffee filters and high quality coffee makers,

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cullin Avram O'Brien
      CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
      6541 NE 21st Way
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
      Telephone: (561) 676-6370
      E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Admin. Issues Pending in Hi! Neighbor Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the courts in
Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia have all approved the
settlement in lawsuit by Hi! Neighbor Floor Covering Co., although
certain administrative issues remain.

In December 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a
Canadian Class action, Hi! Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited v.
Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et al., filed in the
Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada and Options
Consommateures v. Vitafoam, Inc. et.al., filed in the Superior
Court of Justice of Quebec, Montreal, Canada, both of which
alleged similar claims against the Company as raised in the U.S.
actions and sought unspecified damages and punitive damages.

On June 12, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle
all claims brought by the class of Canadian plaintiffs, as well as
a separate action pending in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia. The courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia have
all approved the settlement although certain administrative issues
remain.

The Company continues to deny all allegations of wrongdoing but
settled the case to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and
distraction of protracted litigation.


MOISHE'S MINI: "Soberanis" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonas Avila Soberanis, individually and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Moishe's Mini
Storage of Chicago d/b/a Mana Contemporary, Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-04184 (N.D. Ill., Eastern Division, April 9, 2016), seeks
statutory damages, enjoinment from further violations, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.

Soberanis worked in the construction of the building used by the
Defendants for their storage business. He claims not to have been
paid overtime premium for hours rendered in excess of 40.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Susan J. Best, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Tel: 312-878-1263
      Email: sbest@yourclg.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: To Defend Against St. Clair Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company intends to vigorously defend the shareholder class action
by City of St Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System.

The Company said, "On June 2, 2015, a shareholder class action
complaint captioned City of St Clair Shores Police and Fire
Retirement System v. Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc., 15 Civ.
61170. (S.D. Fla.) was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida against us and certain of our
executive officers asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended."

"On October 16, 2015, an amended class action complaint was filed
that adds (i) claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended and (ii) additional defendants,
comprising our former Chief Financial Officer, certain directors
and underwriters for our secondary public offering of our common
stock on March 26, 2015. The amended complaint alleges that the
offering materials contained materially false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the negative impact of
declining interest rates on our overall financial results and the
contrasting impact of declining interest rates on our servicing
business on the one hand and our originations business on the
other. The amended complaint also alleges that between May 8, 2014
and May 4, 2015, the Company and certain of the individual
defendants made materially false and misleading statements to
investors designed to create the perception of growth in our
originations business. The plaintiff seeks class certification for
purchasers of our common stock and unspecified damages and other
relief. We intend to vigorously defend the action."

Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation formed
in 2011, including wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively,
Nationstar or the Company), provides servicing, origination and
transaction based services principally to single-family residences
throughout the United States.


NESTLE USA: "McFarland" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Joy McFarland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nestle USA, Inc. and Nestle Prepared Foods
Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00100-JLH (E.D. Ark., April
11, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and all costs
connected and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Defendants operate a prepared foods manufacturing facility in
Jonesboro, Arkansas where Plaintiff worked as a prepared-food
manufacturing worker. She claims to have not been paid overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua West, Esq.
      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford, Ste. 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Phone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040


NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Defending Suits Related to Astoria Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
New York Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that following
the announcement on October 29, 2015 of the execution of the
Company's merger agreement with Astoria Financial, six lawsuits
challenging the proposed transaction were filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau. These actions
are captioned: (1) Sandra E. Weiss IRA v. Chrin, et al., Index No.
607132/2015 (filed November 4, 2015); (2) Raul v. Palleschi, et
al., Index No. 607238/2015 (filed November 6, 2015); (3) Lowinger
v. Redman, et al., Index No. 607268/2015 (filed November 9, 2015);
(4) Minzer v. Astoria Fin. Corp., et al., Index No. 607358/2015
(filed November 12, 2015); (5) MSS 12-09 Trust v. Palleschi, et
al., Index No. 607472/2015 (filed November 13, 2015); and (6)
Firemen's Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. Keegan, et al., Index No.
607612/2015 (filed November 23, 2015 (collectively, the "New York
Actions"). On January 15, 2016, the court consolidated the New
York Actions under the caption In re Astoria Financial Corporation
Shareholders Litigation, Index No. 607132/2015. In addition, a
seventh lawsuit was filed challenging the proposed transaction in
the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned O'Connell v. Astoria
Financial Corp., et al., Case No. 11928 (filed January 22, 2016)
(the "Delaware Action").

Each of the lawsuits challenging the proposed transaction is a
putative class action filed on behalf of the stockholders of
Astoria Financial and names as defendants Astoria Financial, its
directors, and the Company. The various complaints allege that the
directors of Astoria Financial breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with their approval of the merger agreement by, among
other things: agreeing to an allegedly unfair price for Astoria
Financial; approving the transaction notwithstanding alleged
conflicts of interest; agreeing to deal protection devices that
plaintiffs allege are unreasonable; and by failing to disclose
certain facts about the process that led to the merger and
financial analyses performed by Astoria Financial's financial
advisors. The complaints also allege that the Company aided and
abetted those alleged fiduciary breaches. The actions seek, among
other things, an order enjoining completion of the proposed
merger. Other potential plaintiffs may also file additional
lawsuits challenging the proposed transaction.

The outcome of the pending and any additional future litigation is
uncertain. If the cases are not resolved, these lawsuits could
prevent or delay completion of the merger and result in
substantial costs to the Company and Astoria Financial, including
any costs associated with the indemnification of directors and
officers. One of the conditions to the closing of the merger is
that no order, injunction, or decree issued by any court or agency
of competent jurisdiction or other legal restraint or prohibition
preventing the consummation of the merger shall be in effect. As
such, if plaintiffs are successful in obtaining an injunction
prohibiting the completion of the merger on the agreed-upon terms,
then such injunction may prevent the merger from being completed,
or from being completed within the expected timeframe. The defense
or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains unresolved at
the time the merger is completed may adversely affect the
Company's business, financial condition, results of operations,
and cash flows.

The Company believes that the factual allegations in the lawsuits
are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against these
allegations.

In addition to the lawsuits noted above, the Company is involved
in various other legal actions arising in the ordinary course of
its business. All such actions in the aggregate involve amounts
that are believed by management to be immaterial to the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


NOODLES & CO: Faces "Carter" Class Action in Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------
Noodles & Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 29, 2015, that Tammie Carter, a former
employee of the Company, filed on February 10, 2016, a purported
collective and class action lawsuit against the Company alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Wage
Order (the "Labor Laws") in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.

The Company said, "The plaintiff filed the case on her behalf and
on behalf of all assistant general managers employed by us during
the past three years whom we classified as exempt employees, and
she alleges that we violated the Labor Laws by not paying overtime
compensation to our assistant general managers. The plaintiff is
seeking, on behalf of herself and members of the putative class,
unpaid overtime compensation, damages (including liquidated and/or
punitive damages), a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and
attorneys' fees and costs."

"This case is at an early stage, and we are therefore unable to
make a reasonable estimate of the probable loss or range of
losses, if any, that might arise from this matter. We intend to
vigorously defend this action," the Company said

Noodles & Company is a growing, fast casual restaurant concept
offering lunch and dinner within the fast casual segment of the
restaurant industry.


ORTHOFIX INT'L: April 28 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orthofix International N.V. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a final hearing
is scheduled for April 28, 2016, to approve the settlement in a
securities class action complaint.

On August 14, 2013, a securities class action complaint against
the Company, currently styled Tejinder Singh v. Orthofix
International N.V., et al. (No.:1:13-cv-05696-JGK), was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York arising out of the then anticipated restatement of our prior
financial statements and the matters described above. Since the
date of original filing, the complaint has been amended.

The lead plaintiff's complaint, as amended, purports to bring
claims on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between March 2, 2010 and July 29, 2013. The complaint
asserts that the Company and four of its former executive
officers, Alan W. Milinazzo, Robert S. Vaters, Brian McCollum, and
Emily V. Buxton (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"),
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 ("Rule 10b-5") by making false or misleading
statements in or relating to the Company's financial statements.
The complaint further asserts that the Individual Defendants were
liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
for any violation by the Company of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act or Rule 10b-5. As relief, the complaint requests compensatory
damages on behalf of the proposed class and lead plaintiff's
attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 6, 2015, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss as to Mr. Milinazzo and denied it with respect to the
Company and the other Individual Defendants.

On October 22, 2015, following negotiations facilitated by an
independent mediator, the Company, the remaining Individual
Defendants and their insurers reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the class it
purports to represent, to settle and release all claims with
respect to this matter and to dismiss the action with prejudice
subject to final court approval. Under the terms of the agreement
in principle, the Company, through its insurers, would make a
payment to the plaintiff, and the class it purports to represent,
to resolve all claims related to the matter, including any claims
for plaintiff counsel's fees and expenses.  On December 7, 2015,
all parties to the action executed and filed with the Court a
proposed settlement agreement whose terms are consistent with the
above-described agreement in principle.  On December 18, 2015, the
Court entered a preliminary approval order which, among other
things, preliminarily approved the terms of the proposed
settlement agreement, subject to a final approval hearing
scheduled for April 28, 2016.

The Company has previously incurred and expensed fees and expenses
in connection with this matter up to and exceeding its insurance
policy deductible and its insurers have undertaken to cover the
full amount of the settlement payment, if the proposed settlement
is finally approved by the Court. The Company has accrued both the
amount of the settlement payment under the agreement in principle,
and a corresponding insurance receivable from its insurers, with
respect to these matters.

Orthofix is a diversified, global medical device company focused
on improving patients' lives by providing superior reconstructive
and regenerative orthopedic and spine solutions to physicians
worldwide.


PACIFIC MARITIME: Sued Over Gender and Racial Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Latanya Counter, Leona Counter-Young, Monesha Abrams, and Deborah
Greene, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pacific Maritime Association, et al., Case No.
BC615860 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 7, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act
(FEHA), specifically by failing to hire or promote African-
American Females to Walking Boss/Foremen.

Pacific Maritime Association is a non-profit organization based in
San Francisco, California which represents employers of the
shipping industry on the Pacific Coast.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey B. Landa, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE JEFFREY B LANDA
      1202 S. 24th Avenue
      Fargo, ND 58103
      Telephone: (612) 306-8542
      Facsimile: (561) 287-4472
      E-mail: JBLLawyer@gmail.com


PEARLAND CAPITAL: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chastity Stewart, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pearland Capital Group, LP d/b/a Hilton
Garden Inn Pearland, Case No. 4:16-cv-00948 (S.D. Tex., April 7,
2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pearland Capital Group, LP operates Hilton Garden Inn Pearland in
Pearland, Fort Bend County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andre D. Evans, Esq.
      ANDRE EVANS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
      Houston, TX 77054
      Telephone: (832) 941-1282
      Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
      E-mail: andre@attorneyandreevans.com


PELLA CORP: Faces "Cooks" Suit Over Defective Designer Windows
--------------------------------------------------------------
SYLVIA R. COOKS, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PELLA CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01090-DCN (W.D. La., February 19, 2016), was
filed on behalf of the Plaintiff and other consumers who own
structures containing Pella Architect and Designer series windows.

Pella Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells Pella Architect
series windows and doors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
     Irma L. Netting, Esq.
     LEMMON LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
     P.O. BOX 904
     Hahnville, LA 70057
     Phone: (985) 783-6789
     Fax: (985) 783-1333
     E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com
             irma@lemmonlawfirm.com


PFIZER INC: Updates on Effexor XR Antitrust Suits
-------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, said: "Beginning in May 2011, actions,
including purported class actions, were filed in various federal
courts against Wyeth and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of
Wyeth and certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which
is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. The plaintiffs in
each of the class actions seek to represent a class consisting of
all persons in the U.S. and its territories who directly
purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the
purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the
defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants'
allegedly unlawful conduct ceased.

The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of
generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation
of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the
antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain
states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and
improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange
Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a
litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer
with respect to Effexor XR.

Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the
individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the
purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor
XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since
June 14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement,
but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff
claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final
judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those
asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which
plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit. Motions to dismiss remain pending as to the end-
payer plaintiffs' remaining claims.


PNC FINANCIAL: Wins Favorable Judgment in "White" Case Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that in the Captive Mortgage Reinsurance Litigation, a court of
appeals in February 2016, issued a decision favorable to the
Company's position.

In December 2011, a lawsuit (White, et al. v. The PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 11-7928)) was filed
against PNC (as successor in interest to National City Corporation
and several of its subsidiaries) and several mortgage insurance
companies in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. This lawsuit, which was brought as a class action,
alleges that National City structured its program of reinsurance
of private mortgage insurance in such a way as to avoid a true
transfer of risk from the mortgage insurers to National City's
captive reinsurer.

The plaintiffs allege that the payments from the mortgage insurers
to the captive reinsurer constitute kickbacks, referral payments,
or unearned fee splits prohibited under the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA), as well as common law unjust enrichment.
The plaintiffs claim, among other things, that from the beginning
of 2004 until the end of 2010 National City's captive reinsurer
collected from the mortgage insurance company defendants at least
$219 million as its share of borrowers' private mortgage insurance
premiums and that its share of paid claims during this period was
approximately $12 million. The plaintiffs seek to certify a
nationwide class of all persons who obtained residential mortgage
loans originated, funded or originated through correspondent
lending by National City or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates
between January 1, 2004 and the present and, in connection with
these mortgage loans, purchased private mortgage insurance and
whose residential mortgage loans were included within National
City's captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements. Plaintiffs seek,
among other things, statutory damages under RESPA (which include
treble damages), restitution of reinsurance premiums collected,
disgorgement of profits, and attorneys' fees.

In August 2012, the district court directed the plaintiffs to file
an amended complaint, which the plaintiffs filed in September
2012. In November 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. The court dismissed, without prejudice, the amended
complaint in June 2013 on statute of limitations grounds. A second
amended complaint, in response to the court's dismissal order, was
filed in July 2013.

PNC said, "We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint, also in July 2013. In August 2014, the court denied the
motion to dismiss. We then filed an uncontested motion to stay all
proceedings pending the outcome of another matter then on appeal
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that
involves overlapping issues."

"In September 2014, the district court granted the stay. In
October 2014, the court of appeals decided that other matter,
holding that the RESPA claims in that case were barred by the
statute of limitations.

"We then filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of our
motion to dismiss in light of the court of appeals' decision. In
January 2015, the district court denied our motion. In March 2015,
the parties stipulated to, and the court ordered, a stay of all
proceedings pending the outcome of a new other matter currently on
appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that
also involves overlapping issues."


POPULAR INC: All Discovery Stayed in "Valle" Case
-------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that all discovery remain
stayed pending a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss in the case,
Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community Bank.

PCB has been named a defendant in a putative class action
complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community
Bank, filed in November 2012 in the New York State Supreme Court
(New York County). Plaintiffs, PCB customers, allege among other
things that PCB has engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and trade
practices in connection with the assessment of overdraft fees and
payment processing on consumer deposit accounts. The complaint
further alleges that PCB improperly disclosed its consumer
overdraft policies and, additionally, that the overdraft rates and
fees assessed by PCB violate New York's usury laws. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages, including punitive damages, interest,
disbursements, and attorneys' fees and costs.

PCB removed the case to federal court (SDNY) and plaintiffs
subsequently filed a motion to remand the action to state court,
which the Court granted on August 6, 2013. A motion to dismiss was
filed on September 9, 2013. On October 25, 2013, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint seeking to limit the putative class to New
York account holders. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint
was filed in February 2014.

In August 2014, the Court entered an order granting in part PCB's
motion to dismiss. The sole surviving claim relates to PCB's item
processing policy.

On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended complaint to correct certain deficiencies noted
in the court's decision and order. PCB subsequently filed a motion
in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and further
sought to compel arbitration.

In June 2015, this matter was reassigned to a new judge and on
July 22, 2015, such Court denied PCB's motion to compel
arbitration and granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the
complaint to replead certain claims based on item processing
reordering, misstatement of balance information and failure to
notify customers in advance of potential overdrafts. The Court did
not, however, allow plaintiffs to replead their claim for the
alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

On August 12, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. On August 24, 2015, PCB filed a Notice of Appeal as to
the order granting leave to file the second amended complaint and
on September 17, 2015, it filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On October 7, 2015, PCB renewed its motion to
compel arbitration. Both the motion to compel arbitration and the
motion to bifurcate discovery were subsequently denied.

At the January 21, 2016 hearing on BPNA's Motion to Dismiss,
however, the Court ordered that all discovery remain stayed
pending a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.

POPULAR INC: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Quiles" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in the case,
Neysha Quiles et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico et al., are
waiting for the approval of the settlement agreement in the case.

BPPR has been named a defendant in a putative class action
complaint captioned Neysha Quiles et al. v. Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico et al., filed in December 2013 in the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (USDC-PR).
Plaintiffs essentially allege that they and others, who have been
employed by the Defendants as "bank tellers" and other similarly
titled positions, have been paid only for scheduled work time,
rather than time actually worked. The complaint seeks to maintain
a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on
behalf of all individuals formerly or currently employed by BPPR
in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands as hourly paid, non-exempt,
bank tellers or other similarly titled positions at any time
during the past three years. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that BPPR violated FLSA by willfully failing to pay overtime
premiums. Similar claims were brought under Puerto Rico law.

On January 31, 2014, the Popular defendants filed an answer to the
complaint. On January 9, 2015, plaintiffs submitted a motion for
conditional class certification, which BPPR opposed. On February
18, 2015, the Court entered an order whereby it granted
plaintiffs' request for conditional certification of the FLSA
action.

Following the Court's order, plaintiffs sent out notices to all
purported class members with instructions for opting into the
class. Approximately sixty potential class members opted into the
class prior to the expiration of the opt-in period.

On June 25, 2015, the Court denied with prejudice plaintiffs'
motion for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. On October 20, 2015, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the referenced action for an
immaterial amount, subject to their reaching an agreement on the
payment of reasonable attorneys' fees. The parties have submitted
briefing on this subject, and the matter is now ripe for
adjudication.


POPULAR INC: Motions to Dismiss UBS Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the motions to dismiss
the case, UBS Financial Services Securities Litigation, remains
pending.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico and Popular Securities have been
named defendants in a putative class action complaint captioned
Nora Fernandez, et al. v. UBS, et al., filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) on May
5, 2014 on behalf of investors in 23 Puerto Rico closed-end
investment companies. UBS Financial Services Incorporated of
Puerto Rico, another named defendant, is the sponsor and co-
sponsor of all 23 funds, while BPPR was co-sponsor, together with
UBS, of nine (9) of those funds. Plaintiffs allege breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of contract against Popular Securities,
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against BPPR, and
similar claims against the UBS entities. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, including disgorgement of fees and attorneys'
fees.

On May 30, 2014, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their class
action in the SDNY and on that same date, they filed a virtually
identical complaint in the USDC-PR and requested that the case be
consolidated with the matter of In re: UBS Financial Services
Securities Litigation, a class action currently pending before the
USDC-PR in which neither BPPR nor Popular Securities are parties.

The UBS defendants filed an opposition to the consolidation
request and moved to transfer the case back to the SDNY on the
ground that the relevant agreements between the parties contain a
choice of forum clause, with New York as the selected forum. The
Popular defendants joined this opposition and motion.

By order dated January 30, 2015, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion to consolidate. By order dated March 30, 2015, the court
granted defendants' motion to transfer. On May 8, 2015, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint in the SDNY containing virtually
identical allegations with respect to Popular Securities and BPPR.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on June
18, 2015. Those motions remain pending to date.


POPULAR INC: RadioShack Submits Opposition to BPPR Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the RadioShack
defendants have submitted an opposition to the bar provisions of
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico's proposed settlement in a class
action lawsuit.

BPPR has been named a defendant in a putative class action
complaint titled In re 2014 RadioShack ERISA Litigation, filed in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The
complaint alleges that certain employees of RadioShack incurred
losses in their 401(k) plans because various fiduciaries elected
to retain RadioShack's company stock in the portfolio of potential
investment options. The complaint further asserts that once
RadioShack's financial situation began to deteriorate in 2011, the
fiduciaries of the RadioShack 401(k) Plan and the RadioShack
Puerto Rico 1165(e) Plan (collectively, "the Plans") should have
removed RadioShack company stock from the portfolio of potential
investment options.

Popular was a directed trustee, and therefore a fiduciary, of the
RadioShack Puerto Rico 1165(e) Plan ("P.R. Plan"). Even though the
PR Plan directed BPPR to retain RadioShack company stock within
the portfolio of investment options, the complaint alleges that a
trustee's duty of prudence requires it to disregard plan documents
or directives that it knows or reasonably should know would lead
to an imprudent result or would otherwise harm plan participants
or beneficiaries. It further alleges that BPPR breached its
fiduciary duties by (i) failing to take any meaningful steps to
protect plan participants from losses that it knew would occur;
(ii) failing to divest the PR Plan of company stock; and (iii)
participating in the decisions of another trustee (Wells Fargo) to
protect the Plans from inevitable losses.

On November 23, 2015, the parties attended a mediation session, as
a result of which the parties agreed to settle this matter for an
immaterial amount, with BPPR contributing approximately $45,000.

On February 22, 2016, the RadioShack defendants submitted an
opposition to the bar provisions of BPPR's proposed settlement
whereby they conditioned such settlement to BPPR's agreement to a
proportional methodology to any subsequent settlement. Under this
scenario, BPPR could remain potentially liable for an additional
proportional amount, should plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of
their claim and win on appeal.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces "Colbert" Suit Over Old Spice Deodorant
---------------------------------------------------------------
TARENCE COLBERT, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
d/b/a OLD SPICE, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case
1:16-cv-02636 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2016), seeks damages sustained
as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' alleged violations
of New York General Business Law, breach of warranty, negligence,
strict products liability, unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment and/or inducement in
connection with Defendants' marketing and sales of Old Spice
deodorant.

P&G is an American multinational consumer goods company
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. P&G products include cleaning
agents and personal care products, such as deodorants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Annie E. Causey, Esq.
     Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
     Salvatore C. Badala, Esq.
     NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
     1301 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Floor
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (212) 397-1000
     E-mail: hunter@napolilaw.com
             acausey@napolilaw.com
             sbadala@napolilaw.com

        - and -

     Brittany Weiner, Esq.
     IMBESI LAW P.C.
     450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
     New York, NY 10123
     Phone: (646) 380-9555
     E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com


QUESTAR CORPORATION: Sued over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Hessel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Questar Corporation, Ronald W. Jibson, Haris H.
Simmons, Laurence M. Downes, Teresa Beck, James T. McManus II,
Christopher A. Helms, Bruce A. Williamson, Rebecca Ranich,
Dominion Resources, Inc., and Diamond Beehive Corp., Case No.
2:16-cv-00281-JNP (D. Utah., April 7, 2016), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Questar Corporation is a natural gas-focused energy company with
three lines of business -- retail gas distribution; interstate gas
transportation and storage; and gas development and production.

Dominion Resources, Inc. is one of the nation's largest producers
and transporters of energy, with a portfolio of approximately
24,300 megawatts of generation, 12,200 miles of natural gas
transmission, gathering and storage pipeline, and 6,500 miles of
electric transmission lines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Scofield, Esq.
      PETER SCOFIELD
      A Professional Corporation
      7430 Creek Road, Suite 303
      Sandy, UT 84093-6160
      Telephone: (801) 322-2002
      Facsimile: (801) 912-0320
      E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com

         - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl.
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
      E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com

         - and -

      James R. Banko, Esq.
      Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 482-3182
      Facsimile: (302) 482-3612
      E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com
              dfarrell@faruqilaw.com


QUIKRETE CALIFORNIA: "Martinez" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Proper Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Martinez, individually and on behalf all other member of
the general public, Plaintiff, v. Quikrete California, Inc. and
John Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. BC616943, (Cal. Super.,
April 8, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, disgorgement of all funds,
counsel fees and costs for violation of the California Business
and Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Order.

Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of not paying overtime, failing to
provide meal and rest breaks, paying sub-minimum wages, failing to
pay final wages upon termination, failing to provide accurate pay
slips, failing to pay reporting time pay and failing to reimburse
business-related expenses.

Defendant is a manufacturer of packaged concrete and cement
products based in Atlanta, GA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      V. Andre Sherman, Esq.
      GIRARDI KEESE
      1126 Wilshire Blvd.
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Fax: (213) 481-1554
      Phone: (213) 977-0211


RAYONIER INC: Motions to Dismiss Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------
Rayonier Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint related to the earnings release
remain pending.

Following the Company's November 10, 2014 earnings release and
filing of the restated interim financial statements for the
quarterly periods ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014 (the
"November 2014 Announcement"), shareholders of the Company filed
five putative class actions against the Company and Paul G.
Boynton, Hans E. Vanden Noort, David L. Nunes, and H. Edwin Kiker
arising from circumstances described in the November 2014
Announcement, entitled respectively:

* Sating v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01395;
filed November 12, 2014 in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida;

* Keasler v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01398,
filed November 13, 2014 in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida;

* Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund v. Rayonier Inc. et
al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01403, filed November 13, 2014 in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida;

* Christie v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01429,
filed November 21, 2014 in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida; and

* Brown v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-08986,
initially filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and later transferred to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and
assigned as Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01474.

On January 9, 2015, the five securities actions were consolidated
into one putative class action entitled In re Rayonier Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01395-TJC-JBT, in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. Two shareholders, the Pension Trust
Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters'
Pension Trust Fund moved for appointment as lead plaintiff on
January 12, 2015, which was granted on February 25, 2015.

On April 7, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). In the Consolidated
Complaint, plaintiffs added allegations as to and added as a
defendant N. Lynn Wilson, a former officer of Rayonier. With the
filing of the Consolidated Complaint, David L. Nunes and H. Edwin
Kiker were dropped from the case as defendants. Defendants timely
filed Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on May 15,
2015. After oral argument on Defendants' motions on August 25,
2015, the Court dismissed the Consolidated Complaint without
prejudice, allowing plaintiffs leave to refile. Plaintiffs filed
the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") on September 25, 2015, which continued to assert
claims against the Company, as well as Ms. Wilson and Messrs.
Boynton and Vanden Noort.

Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint
on October 26, 2015, which are pending. At this preliminary stage,
the Company cannot determine whether there is a reasonable
likelihood a material loss has been incurred nor can the range of
any such loss be estimated.

Rayonier Inc. is a timberland real estate investment trust
("REIT") with assets located in some of the most productive
softwood timber growing regions in the U.S. and New Zealand.


RENASANT CORPORATION: Settlement of Stockholder Action Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Renasant Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a Court has approved the
Settlement Agreement in a stockholder class action lawsuit.

As previously disclosed in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November
9, 2015, on December 31, 2014, a putative stockholder class action
lawsuit, Stein v. Heritage Financial Group, Inc. et al., was filed
in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, Civil Division
(the "Court"), against Heritage Financial Group, Inc.
("Heritage"), the members of its board of directors, HeritageBank
of the South, the Company and Renasant Bank in connection with the
Company's acquisition of Heritage.

While the defendants believed these actions were without merit, in
order to avoid the expense of litigation, Heritage, HeritageBank
of the South, the Company and Renasant Bank entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement
("Settlement Agreement") with the plaintiff in which Heritage,
without admission of liability, agreed to make certain disclosures
related to the merger agreement in supplemental materials filed
with the SEC in a Form 8-K on May 18, 2015.

In November 2015, the Court approved the Settlement Agreement,
which included payment of attorney's fees and costs of $262,500.
This approval and payment concluded the litigation.

Renasant Corporation owns and operates Renasant Bank, a
Mississippi banking association with operations in Mississippi,
Tennessee, Alabama, Florida and Georgia, and Renasant Insurance,
Inc., a Mississippi corporation with operations in Mississippi.


ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Defending 5 Class Suits in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
1, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that is a
defendant in five purported class-action lawsuits in California
alleging violations of various California labor laws and one
purported class-action lawsuit in Illinois alleging violations of
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The plaintiffs in
each of these lawsuits seek to recover unspecified monetary
damages and other items.

"In addition, the California Division of Labor Standards and
Enforcement has brought administrative actions against us on
behalf of seven individuals alleging that we violated California
labor laws," the Company said. "Given the early stage of all of
the proceedings described in this paragraph, we are not able to
assess with certainty the outcome of these proceedings or the
amount or range of potential damages or future payments associated
with these proceedings at this time. We believe we have
meritorious defenses to these actions and intend to defend these
proceedings vigorously. However, any legal proceeding is subject
to inherent uncertainties, and we cannot assure that the expenses
associated with defending these actions or their resolution will
not have a material adverse effect on our business, operating
results, or financial condition."

Roadrunner is an asset-light transportation and logistics service
provider offering a comprehensive suite of global supply chain
solutions, including truckload logistics ("TL"), customized and
expedited less-than-truckload ("LTL"), intermodal solutions
(transporting a shipment by more than one mode, primarily via rail
and truck), freight consolidation, inventory management, expedited
services, air freight, international freight forwarding, customs
brokerage, and transportation management solutions.


RODS PRODUCTION: "Saenz" FLSA Suit Transferred to W.D. Okla.
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Saenz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Rod's Production Services LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 5:16-cv-00335-D (D.N.M., June 2, 2016), has been
transferred to the U.S. District Court of the Western District of
Oklahoma on April 8, 2016, and assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00525.

Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor
and as such paid him straight time for overtime hours worked.
Saenz seeks overtime recovery under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant provides oil and gas services to energy companies
nationwide where Defendant was employed as a welder.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel M. Faber, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL FABER
     4620C Jefferson Lane NE
     Albuquerque, NM 87109
     Tel: (505) 830-0405
     Fax: (505) 830-3641

           - and -

     Galvin B Kennedy, Esq.
     John Anthony Neuman, Esq.
     Udyogi Hangawatte, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES LLP
     711 W Alabama St
     Houston, TX 77006
     Tel: (713) 523-0001
     Fax: (713) 523-1116
     Email: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     Elizabeth D. Bowersox, Esq.
     Kristin M Simpsen, Esq.
     Philip R Bruce, Esq.
     Samuel R Fulkerson, Esq.
     Tony G Puckett, Esq.
     MCAFEE & TAFT-OKC
     211 N Robinson Ave., 10th Fl.
     Oklahoma City, OK 73102
     Tel: (405) 270-6019
     Fax: (405) 270-7219
     Email: elizabeth.bowersox@mcafeetaft.com

           - and -

     Stanley K. Kotovsky, Jr.
     TINNIN LAW FIRM
     500 Marquette N.W., Suite 1300
     Albuquerque, NM 87102
     Tel: (505) 768-1500
     Fax: (505) 768-1529


ROTSEN FURNITURE: "Perdomo" Sues for OT Pay, Damages
----------------------------------------------------
Jobli Perdomo, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. Rotsen Furniture LLC and Maria Rivero,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 40028438 (Fla. Cir., April 8,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and/or minimum wages, an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory
relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs resulting from
retaliation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 201, et seq. and Florida Statutes Sec. 440.205.

Plaintiff asserts he was not paid at the proper overtime rate for
hours worked in excess of forty per week. He also suffered a work-
related injury when he was using a sand blaster and while
replacing the sanding disk, the machine turned on and cut his
stomach. Defendant terminated Plaintiffs employment upon filing of
medical leave.

Defendant is a furniture shop in Miami Dade.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Tel: (305) 416-5000
      Fax: (305) 416-5005
      Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Reifer" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Reifer, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
01943-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., April 8, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a global trading and
investment company that functions as an independent American
subsidiary of the Korean conglomerate Samsung C&T Corporation, one
of the Samsung Group companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fred M. Zemel, Esq.
      THE ZEMEL LAW FIRM
      70 Clinton Avenue
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 622-5297
      E-mail: thezemellawfirm@optimum.net

SCANDRILL INC: Faces "Pineda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Pineda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Scandrill, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-0095 (S.D. Tex.,
April 7, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Scandrill, Inc. is in the business of providing land contract
drilling services to independent and major oil and gas exploration
companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com
              jbresler@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Appeal in Oregon State Lottery Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the appeal in a
class action against the Oregon State Lottery and other defendants
is still pending.

On December 31, 2014, a representative of a purported class of
persons alleged to have been financially harmed by relying on the
"auto hold" feature of various manufacturers' video lottery
terminals played in Oregon, filed suit in the Circuit Court of
Multnomah County, Oregon, against the Oregon State Lottery and
various manufacturers, including WMS Gaming Inc. The suit alleges
that the auto hold feature of video poker games is perceived by
players as providing the best possible playing strategy that will
maximize the odds of the player winning, when such auto hold
feature does not maximize the players' odds of winning. The
plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $134.0 million in monetary
damages. WMS Gaming Inc. and the other defendants filed motions to
dismiss in February 2015.

In April 2015, the court granted the Oregon State Lottery's motion
to dismiss, stating the plaintiff had not satisfied the Oregon
Tort Claims Act. As a result of the dismissal, the court indicated
that all claims against WMS Gaming Inc. are moot. In June 2015,
plaintiffs filed an appeal on the matter.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in the
lawsuit," the Company said.

Scientific Games Corporation is a developer of technology-based
products and services and associated content for the worldwide
gaming, lottery and interactive gaming industries.


SELECT COMFORT: To Defend Against "Azimpour" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Select Comfort Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is defending
against the class action by Saeid Azimpour.

On December 4, 2015, Saeid Azimpour, a consumer, filed a purported
class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Minnesota alleging
he was fraudulently induced to purchase a down alternative pillow
at a Sleep Number store based on signage that indicated that the
pillow was 50% off. Plaintiff alleges that the price he paid for
the pillow was not truly 50% off the price at which Sleep Number
previously sold the pillow. Plaintiff asserts 10 causes of action
including consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, deceptive
trade practices under Minnesota law, violation of the Minnesota
false advertising law, unjust enrichment, violation of the
California unfair competition law, violation of the California
false advertising law and violation of the California remedies
act. Plaintiff seeks to represent all individuals who "purchased
one or more items from the Company advertised or priced at a
discount from the original retail price at any time between
December 1, 2011 and present." Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief,
damages, disgorgement and attorneys' fees.

"We believe the claims asserted in this lawsuit are without merit
and we intend to vigorously defend this case," the Company said.

Select Comfort Corporation offers consumers high-quality,
innovative and individualized sleep solutions and services, which
include a complete line of SLEEP NUMBER(R) beds and bedding
accessories.


SNYDER'S-LANCE: To Pay $2.9M to Resolve IBO Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has agreed
to pay $2.9 million to fully resolve the IBO litigation.

In January 2013, plaintiffs comprised of IBOs filed a putative
class action against our distribution subsidiary, S-L Distribution
Company, Inc., in the Suffolk Superior Court of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. The lawsuit was transferred to the United States
District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit seeks
statewide class certification on behalf of a class comprised of
IBOs in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs allege that they were
misclassified as independent contractors and should be considered
employees. The plaintiffs are seeking reimbursement of their out-
of-pocket business expenses.

"We believe we have strong defenses to all the claims that have
been asserted against us," the Company said.

On December 22, 2015, the parties to this litigation reached a
tentative settlement on a class wide basis.

"We do not admit any fault or liability in this matter; however,
in an effort to resolve these claims, we have agreed to pay $2.9
million to fully resolve the litigation. This amount has been
accrued as reflected in other payables and accrued liabilities in
the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The settlement is subject to
final court approval. It is anticipated that the settlement will
fund and be distributed to the class members in the first half of
2016."

Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, is a national
snack food company with category-leading brands, an expansive
Branded product portfolio, complementary manufacturing
capabilities and a national distribution network.


SWISSPORT SA: "Ground Re-fuelers" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fedner Charles Asemy, Jean D. Christian, Christopher Diaz,
Fumilayo C. Fadipe, Dieuverson Fanfan, Jermaine Finley, Eric
Gamarra, Timothy Green, Bergelin Jean Louis, Juany Jean Louis,
Fred Joseph, Lesley Joseph, Vilnes Jusma, Antoine Leonard, Jean G.
Louis, John Darrel, Leeking Madoo, Jules Mekenly, Francisco
Morales, Carlos Neira, Omar Phillips, Marc H. Pierre, Roberson
Pierre, Duperval Rene, Tvaughn Rigby, Evens Sael, Jovanny F.
Sanquintin Checo, Yvener Sido, Jonathan Silva, Jr., Junior Spencer
and Rodrigue Sylvestre others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Swissport SA, LLC f/k/a Servisair LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-21272-MGC
(S.D.Fla., April 8, 2016), seeks recovery of money damages for
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Swissport provides ground, cargo and passenger services at the
Miami International Airport where Plaintiffs worked as non-exempt
hourly aircraft re-fuelers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher F. Zacarias
     LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS, P.A.
     5757 Blue Lagoon Dr, Suite 230
     Miami, FL 33126
     Telephone: 305-403-2000
     Facsimile: 305-459-3964
     E-Mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com


TD BANK: "Macias" Sues Over Short-Changing Coin Counting Machine
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CARLOS MACIAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TD BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-21298-UU (S.D. Fla., April 11, 2016), seeks attorneys'
fees and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such
other relief resulting from unjust enrichment, and in violation of
Florida's Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices Act and in breach of
implied-in-fact contract.

Macias was allegedly short-changed when using the TD Bank's coin
counting machine.

TD Bank, N.A. is a national association, federally chartered
pursuant to the National Bank Act, with principal place of
business in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael E. Criden, Esq.
      Kevin B. Love, Esq.
      Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
      CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
      7301 SW 57th Court, Ste. 515
      South Miami, FL 33143
      Tel: 305.357.9000
      Fax: 305.357.9050
      Email: mcriden@cridenlove.com
             klove@cridenlove.com
             lgrossman@cridenlove.com

           - and -

      Alexander Angueira, Esq.
      ALEXANDER ANGUEIRA, P.L.L.C.
      7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
      South Miami, Florida 33143
      Tel: 305.357.9031
      Fax: 305.357.9050
      Email: alex@angueiralaw.com


THIRD AVENUE: "Wagner" Sues Over Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------
Avi Wagner, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated and derivatively on behalf of Third Avenue Trust,
Plaintiff, v. Third Avenue Management, LLC, Martin J. Whitman,
David M. Barse, William E. Chapman, II, Lucinda Franks, Edward J.
Kaier, Eric Rakowski, Patrick Reinkemeyer, Martin Shubik, Charles
C. Walden, Vincent J. Dugan, W. James Hall, Joseph J. Reardon, and
Michael Buono, Defendants and Third Avenue Trust, Nominal
Defendant, Case No. 12184 (Del. Ch., April 8, 2016), files for
breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract concerning
Defendants' failure to manage their Fund in accordance with stated
investment policy and applicable laws and regulations.

Defendant is a private investment manager based in New York, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel E. Friedlander, Esq.
      Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq.
      Christopher P. Quinn, Esq.
      FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS PA
      222 Delaware Ave Ste 1400
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 573-3500
      Email: jfriedlander@friedlandergorris.com

           - and -

      Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
      Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq.
      J. Brandon Walker, Esq.
      David J. Stone, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 308-5858

           - and -

      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 201-9150


TRI-BOROUGH HOME: "Hall" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
SHERRIE HALL and YOLANDA ROBERSON, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tri-Borough
Home Care Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01732-FB-SMG
(E.D.N.Y., April 11, 2016), seeks back wages for overtime work
due, penalties for violations of its record keeping requirements
under N.Y. Labor Laws, and liquidated damages under the Wage Theft
Prevention Act and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit eeks recovery of overtime wages for hours rendered in
excess of 40 hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Sec. 216(b).

Tri-Borough Home Care provides home health care services to
homebound patients throughout New York City where Plaintiffs
worked as home health aides. They claim to have rendered overtime
but was not compensated and worked through their break periods
without compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Lipsky, Esq.
     Rachel Schulman, Esq.
     BRONSON LIPSKY LLP
     630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
     New York, New York 10017-6705
     Phone: 212.392.4772
     Email: dl@bronsonlipsky.com
            rs@bronsonlipsky.com


ULTA SALON: "Hearn" Sues Over Shortchanged Refunds
--------------------------------------------------
Cassandra R. Hearn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. Ulta
Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 16CV0868
LAB JLB (S.D. Cal., April 11, 2016), seeks actual damages, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, such other and further relief
and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from breach of contract.

Plaintiff alleges that Ulta systematically shortchanges customers
who return products by refusing to refund to customers a sum equal
to the tax reimbursement paid by customers, rather than the full
amount actually paid.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Debra L. Hurst, Esq.
      Kyle Van Dyke, Esq.
      Julie Corbo Ridley, Esq.
      HURST & HURST
      701 B Street, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 236-0016
      Facsimile: (619) 236-8569
      Email: dhurst@hurst-hurst.com
             kvandyke@hurst-hurst.com
             julie@hurst-hurst.com


UNIQUE EYEWEAR: Faces "Mitchell" Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Latasha Mitchell, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Unique Eyewear, Inc. and Jerry Yaeger, in
is individual and professional capacity, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-02661 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum
wages and overtime pay, liquidated damages, statutory damages,
compensatory damages, permanent injunction, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, attorney's fees, costs and further expenses
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Unique Eyewear, Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York. It owns and
operates an eyewear store located at 19 W 34th St #1218, New York,
NY 10001 where Mitchell worked as an optical assistant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ariadne Anna Panagopoulou Alexandrou
      PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
      3510 Broadway, Suite 204
      Astoria, NY 11106
      Tel: (718) 777-0400
      Email: ari@pnlawyers.com

           - and -

      Joseph D. Nohavicka, Esq.
      Mavromihalis Pardalis & Nohavicka, LLP
      3403 Broadway
      Astoria, NY 10006
      Tel: (718) 777-0400
      Fax: (718) 777-0599
      Email: jnfirm@aol.com


US FLOORS: Sued Over Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Eder, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. US Floors, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00836-CEH-MAP
(M.D. Fla., April 7, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

US Floors, Inc. is a producer of sustainable, eco-friendly floors
including cork, bamboo, and FSC(R)-Certified hardwood, and LVT
floors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
              lcabassa@wfclaw.com

         - and -

      Felipe B. Fulgencio, Esq.
      FULGENCIO LAW
      Suite 101, 205 N Armenia Ave
      Tampa, FL 33609
      Telephone: (813) 463-0123
      Facsimile: (813) 251-4017
      E-mail: felipe@fulgenciolaw.com


WATTS WATER: Has $6.5M Remaining Liability in Class Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in the case,
Trabakoolas et al., v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et al., the
remaining liability of $6.5 million as of December 31, 2015 will
be paid in equal annual installments over the next three years.

On March 8, 2012, Watts Water Technologies, Inc., Watts Regulator
Co., and Watts Plumbing Technologies Co., Ltd., among other
companies, were named as defendants in a putative nationwide class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California seeking to recover damages and other relief
based on the alleged failure of toilet connectors.

The Company said, "On December 12, 2013, we reached an agreement
in principle that became final on September 4, 2014, to settle all
claims. The total settlement amount was $23.0 million, of which we
were responsible for $14.0 million after insurance proceeds of
$9.0 million. The litigation is now terminated."

"During the fourth quarter of 2013, we recorded a liability of
$22.6 million related to the Trabakoolas matter, of which $12.7
million was included in current liabilities and $9.9 million in
other noncurrent liabilities. In addition, a $9.0 million
receivable was recorded in current assets related to insurance
proceeds due under a separate settlement agreement. The liability
was reduced by $13.8 million for payments related to notice and
claims administration, plaintiff attorneys' fees and partial
funding of the settlement amount made during the year ended
December 31, 2014. The $9.0 million receivable for insurance
proceeds was received as of September 28, 2014. The liability was
reduced by $2.3 million for the annual funding installment during
the year ended December 31, 2015. The remaining liability of $6.5
million as of December 31, 2015 will be paid in equal annual
installments over the next three years."


WAYFAIR INC: Still Defends "Dingee" Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Wayfair Inc. continues to defend the "Dingee" class action, the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015.

On September 2, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed
against us in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Dingee v. Wayfair Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06941)
by an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals (collectively, the "Dingee
Plaintiffs"), under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
related to a drop in stock price that had followed a report issued
by Citron Research.

On September 3, a second putative class action complaint was
filed, asserting nearly identical claims (Jenkins v. Wayfair Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06985). On November 2, 2015, the
plaintiff in the Dingee action moved to consolidate the two
lawsuits, and to designate himself as lead plaintiff in the class
action and his attorney as lead counsel for the class. On November
3, plaintiff in the Jenkins action voluntarily dismissed his
complaint. As a result, only the Dingee action remains pending.

On November 13, 2015, the court appointed Dingee as lead
plaintiff. On January 11, 2016, Dingee filed an amended complaint
along with a second named plaintiff, Michael Lamp. The Dingee
Plaintiff's complaint seeks class certification, damages in an
unspecified amount, and attorney's fees and costs.

"We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously," the Company said.

Wayfair Inc is an American e-commerce company that sells
furniture.


WAYFAIR INC: Faces "Carson" Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------
Wayfair Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a putative class action
complaint was filed on February 2, 2016, against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Carson, et al., v. Wayfair Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00716) by two
individuals on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals (collectively, the "Carson
Plaintiffs").

"The complaint alleges that Wayfair engaged in a deceptive
marketing campaign in which we advertised certain "original" or
"regular" retail prices, which the Carson Plaintiffs allege were
false. The Carson Plaintiffs' complaint seeks injunctive relief,
attorney's fees, punitive damages and damages. We intend to defend
the lawsuit vigorously," the Company said.

Wayfair Inc is an American e-commerce company that sells
furniture.


WINDSOR WINDOW: "Koty" Warrant Suit Transferred to E.D. Wis.
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric L. Koty and Stacy L. Koty, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Windsor Window Company
and Woodgrain Millwork, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00434-
LA was transferred to the Eastern District of Wisconsin from the
Northern District of Illinois on April 11, 2016.

Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants sold windows that allowed
water and moisture to penetrate through the cladding of the window
and wood preservative, resulting in premature wood rot, leaking,
and other collateral damage to the windows and homes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC
      1 S Broad St., Ste. 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Tel: (215) 238-1700

           - and -

      Michael W. Duffy, Esq.
      TRESSLER LLP
      Sears Tower
      233 S Wacker Dr. 22nd Fl
      Chicago, IL 60606-6308
      Tel: (312) 627-4000

           - and -

      Panagiotis V. Albanis, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN PA
      12800 University Dr. Ste. 600
      PO Box 9504
      Ft. Meyers, FL 33906
      Tel: (239) 433-6605
      Fax: (239) 433-6836

           - and -

      Edward Eshoo, Jr., Esq.
      CHILDRESS DUFFY LTD
      500 N Dearborn St. Ste. 1200
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Tel: (312) 494-0200
      Fax: (312) 494-0202



                            *********

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  * * *