CAR_Public/160509.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 9, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 92



                            Headlines


21ST CENTURY ONCOLOGY: Says Insurance Coverage May Not Be Enough
AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Held in March and April
ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: Jacob McKinney Seeks Class Certification
ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Still Defends Pension Fund Suit
AMARILLO, TX: Residents Sue Over Municipal Fines Policies

AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Ferreras" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
ANS ENTERPRISE: Faces "An" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages, OT
APPLE INC: ITunes Contract Invalid, Class Suit Argues
ASHFORD INC: To Defend Against Suit Over Remington Deal
AT&T MOBILITY: Internet Throttling Case Goes to Arbitration

AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal
BANCORP INC: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Complaint Still Pending
BERNARD LUSKIN: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Still Denied
BFC FINANCIAL: Final Settlement Hearing Set for 2016 Q2
BISTRO MARKETPALCE: "Villa" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay

BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Azar & Alfrange Suit in Oregon
BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL: Norfolk Retirement Sys. Dropped Complaint
BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL: Chester County Retirement Sys. Suit Ongoing
BLUE SHIELD: Fails to Provide Basic Coverage, Suit Claims
BNP PARIBAS: "Kashef" Files Suit Suit Over Services for Sudan

BOEING CO: 9th Cir. Sends Water Pollution Case to State Court
BURLINGTON STORES: $29.4 Million Settlement Still Pending
CARDTRONICS USA: "McRay" Suit Over Violation of On-Screen Notice
CARMIKE CINEMAS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
CARNIVAL CORP: Cuban Exiles Drop Discrimination Lawsuit

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Responds to Oil Leaseholders' Class Action
CHINA COMMERCIAL: Enters Into Securities Class Action Settlement
CHINA XD PLASTICS: 3rd Amended Securities Complaint Dismissed
CITIBANK NA: Cynthia Davis Seeks Certification of Two Classes
COHEN & SLAMOWITZ: Plaintiff's Sanction Bid Denied

COMMONWEALTH BANK: Disgruntled Bankwest Borrowers File Suit
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Warranty Claim Central Issue of Class Action
CORMEDIX INC: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss Held
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Settles Debt Collection Class Action
CRST VAN: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Fisher" Suit

DL POOL SERVICE: Compagnone Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
DOLLAR TREE: 4,300 Plaintiffs Remain in 2011 Class Action
DOLLAR TREE: Reached Settlement of 2 Cases by Manager
DOLLAR TREE: Distribution Employee Case Removed to Federal Court
DOWN TO LUNCH: Faces Class Action Over Spam Promo Texts

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: "Palmer" Suit Settlement Is Unfair, Court Says
EUROCHOC AMERICAS: Class Certification Bid in "Glen" Suit Denied
EVERI HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Bid in "Hardy" Suit Pending
FBR & CO: MLV Defending Securities Action v. Miller Energy
FEDEX CORPORATION: July 15 Fairness Hearing Set in Fla. Case

FIRST ACCEPTANCE: $3.2 Million Settlement Approved and Paid
FLUIDMASTER INC: Court Allows Sealing of "Sullivan" Suit Filings
FORD MOTOR: Must Defend Against Steering Defects Class Suit
FOX INDUSTRIES: Class Certification Bid in "Banasiak" Granted
FRONTIER LEAGUE: "Henn" Suit Seeks Payment of Wages and Overtime

GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of Nevada Suit Under Appeal
GOOGLE INC: NY Appeals Court Rejects On2 Merger Case Settlement
GULF COAST: Faces "Francois" Suit Over Failure to Pay Min. Wages
HANNIBAL, MO: Files Motion to Change Class Action Venue
HC2 HOLDINGS: No Discovery Yet in Wage and Hour Cases

HEFFLER RADETICH: Class Cert. Bid in "Oetting" Case Granted
HESKA CORP: To Defend Against "Fauley" Action in N.D. Ill.
HIGHER ONE: Plaintiffs Balked at Bid to Dismiss Securities Action
HIGHER ONE: Mediation Held in "Hall" Class Action
HILTON GRAND: Bid to Substitute Deceased Plaintiff's Claims Nixed

HONDA MOTOR: Electrical Insulation Attracts Rodents, Suit Says
HONORHEALTH: Exposed Patients to HIV Risk, Suit Claims
HORTONWORKS INC: Faces "Monachelli" Class Action in California
IDT ENERGY: "Ferrare" Class Action Remains Stayed
IDT ENERGY: Parties in "McLaughlin" Engaged in Limited Discovery

IDT ENERGY: Parties in "Aks" Suit Engaged in Discovery
INLAND REAL ESTATE: MOU Reached in Merger Suit
ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Compromise Pending in ICL Dead Sea Class Suit
ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Motion to Certify Claim Underway
ISRAEL CHEMICALS: June 15 Hearing in Haifa Bay Pollution Case

ITT EDUCATIONAL: New York Securities Settlement Approved
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Indiana Settlement Waiting for Final Approval
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Still Defends Gallien Litigation in Calif.
J. C. PENNEY: To Defend "Marcus" and Johnson" Securities Actions
J. C. PENNEY: To Defend ERISA Action by Ramirez and Ihle

J. C. PENNEY: Still Defends Employment Class Suits
J. C. PENNEY: Still Defends Pricing Class Action Litigation
JAKKS PACIFIC: Still No Decision on Motion to Dismiss
KENNETH COLE: Dismissal of Shareholder Suit Upheld
KEYSTONE MERCY: Pa. Court Tosses Data Breach Class Action

LADENBURG THALMANN: Motions to Dismiss Suits v. ARCP Pending
LADENBURG THALMANN: Defending Against Class Suit v. Miller Energy
LADENBURG THALMANN: Defending Suit v. Plains All American
LAKELAND BANCORP: Stipulation of Settlement Awaits Court Approval
MAERSK DRILLING: Faces "Rak" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Faces Class Action in New York
MANHATTAN, NY: Faces Class Action Over Closed Primaries
MANNKIND CORP: To Defend Against AFREZZA Suit in Calif.
MANNKIND CORP: TO Defend Against AFREZZA Case in Israel
MAZZONE MANAGEMENT: "Olvera" Suit Seek Wages and Overtime Pay

MENARD'S: Settles Workers' Labor Violations Case with NLRB
MERCK & CO: Judge Certifies Sex Discrimination Class Action
MIDLAND CREDIT: Class Certification in "Pierre" Suit Continued
MOTOR CITY TOWING: "Glover" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
MOTRICITY INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Mosco" Suit

MULTI-FINELINE ELECTRONIX: Faces "Lehn" Securities Class Action
MURRAY GOULBURN: Comfortable with Processes Despite Legal Action
NEIMAN MARCUS: Updates on Employment and Consumer Class Actions
NEIMAN MARCUS: Appeal in "Rubenstein" Action Remains Pending
NEIMAN MARCUS: Defending Against "Zaslav" Class Suit

NEIMAN MARCUS: Faces "Attia" Class Action in Calif. State Court
NEIMAN MARCUS: Updates on Cyber-Attack Class Suits
NESTLE PURINA: Pet Owner Unhappy with Class Action Settlement
NEW JERSEY: Parents Launch Class Action Over Lead in School Water
NEW YORK TIMES: CEO Faces Hiring Discrimination Class Action

NOBILIS HEALTH: Defending Against "Schott" Class Action
NOBILIS HEALTH: "Capelli" Statement of Claim Filed in Ontario
NORTHERN TRUST: Bids in "Teufel" Suit Withdrawn, Deal Entered
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Delaware Class Suit
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Securities Case in Md.

NORTHWESTERN REGIONAL: Former Residents to Receive Compensation
ORBITAL CORPORATION: Stockholder Litigation Dismissed
OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: To Defend Against "Nallagonda" Suit in Md.
PEABODY ENERGY: Continues to Defend "Lynn" Class Action
PRESTIGE CLEANERS: "Perez" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay

PROSTEAM CARPET: Faces "McBride" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
QUAKER OATS: Oats Sprayed with Weed Killer Glyphosate, Suit Says
QUAKER OATS: Faces "Cooper" Suit for False Advertisement
QUAKER OATS: Faces "Daly" Suit Over False Advertisement
RC BIGELOW: Judge Tosses Food Misbranding Class Action

RECKITT BENCKISER: Faces $1.3MM in Penalties Over Nurofen Claims
REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: 2nd Amended Waterford Complaint Nixed
RELIANCE TRUST: "Matthews" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
REX ENERGY: Says Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
RFS HOLDING: Amended Complaint for 62 Trusts

RING ENERGY: Has Settlement Over Plaintiff Attorney's Fees
RUBY TUESDAY: Faces "Jacob" Securities Class Action
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Lanier Trust Case Remains Pending
SOLAZYME INC: Motion to Dismiss to be Heard in May 2016
STERICYCLE INC: To Contest Motion for Class Certification

STERICYCLE INC: Paid $13MM for Valid Claims in Junk Fax Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Refuses to Certify "Burnell" Classes
SWISHER HYGIENE: Status Hearing Held in "Berger" Suit
SWISHER HYGIENE: Amended Complaint in "Raul" Suit Dismissed
TOYO DENSO: Fixed Price of Window Switches, Vancouver Suit Says

TURNER OIL & GAS: "Stanley" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Illegally Spammed Phones in Austin, Suit Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Must Defend Against Sexual Assault Claims
UNITED STATES: Census Bureau Settles Background Checks Suit
VAALCO ENERGY: Bid for Fees and Costs Ongoing in "Gusinsky" Suit

VENTURA, CA: Mentally Ill Inmates Sue Over Jail Conditions
VIVA LIFE: Faces "Stacks" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VIVINT SOLAR: $1.7-Mil. Settlement Reached in Technicians' Suit
VIVINT SOLAR: "Hyatt" Plaintiff Appeals Case Dismissal
VIVINT SOLAR: New Complaint Filed in SunEdison Merger Action

VIVINT SOLAR: Arbitration Ruling Under Appeal
VOLKSWAGEN AG: CEO Apologizes to Obama Over Emissions Scandal
WENDY'S CO: Creditors Files Data Breach Class Action
ZAFGEN INC: Has Yet to Respond to Massachusetts Suit

* For-Profit Colleges Use Arbitration Clauses to Avert Suits
* NJ Warranty Law Class Actions to Impact Terms of Service
* Trade Groups Mull Legal Action Over New Retirement Rule
* Voltage Pictures Files Reverse Class Action v. Movie Pirates




                            *********


21ST CENTURY ONCOLOGY: Says Insurance Coverage May Not Be Enough
----------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Oncology Holdings, Inc., in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016,
that in connection with the data breach previously disclosed in
the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on
March 4, 2016, the Company received notice that class action
complaints have been filed against the Company. The complaints
allege, among other things, that the Company failed to take the
necessary security precautions to protect patient information and
prevent the data breach.

"Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot
predict the ultimate resolution of these matters or estimate the
amounts of, or ranges of, potential loss, if any, with respect to
these proceedings," the Company said.

The Company has insurance coverage and contingency plans for
certain potential liabilities relating to the data breach.
Nevertheless, the coverage may be insufficient to satisfy all
claims and liabilities related thereto and the Company will be
responsible for deductibles and any other expenses that may be
incurred in excess of insurance coverage.


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Held in March and April
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that oral argument on the
motion to strike the second amended complaint in a class action
lawsuit was held on March 9, 2016 and continued to April 7, 2016.

"In January 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against us and certain of our former executive officers in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
alleging certain misstatements and omissions related to the
marketing of JUXTAPID and our financial performance in violation
of the federal securities laws.

"On March 11, 2015, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel. On April 1, 2015, the Court entered an order
permitting and setting a schedule for co-lead plaintiffs to file
an amended complaint within 60 days, and for defendants to file
responsive pleadings, co-lead plaintiffs to file any opposition,
and defendants to file reply briefs.

"Accordingly, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
June 1, 2015. The amended complaint filed against us and certain
of our former executive officers alleges that defendants made
certain misstatements and omissions during the first three
quarters of 2014 related to our revenue projections for JUXTAPID
sales for 2014, as well as data underlying those projections, in
violation of the federal securities laws. We filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim on July
31, 2015.

"On August 21, 2015, co-lead plaintiffs filed a putative second
amended complaint, which alleges that the defendants made certain
misstatements and omissions from April 2013 through October 2014
related to the marketing of JUXTAPID and our financial
projections, as well as data underlying those projections.

"On September 4, 2015, we moved to strike the second amended
complaint for the co-lead plaintiffs' failure to seek leave of
court to file a second amended pleading, and briefing is complete
with respect to the motion to strike.  Oral argument on the motion
to strike was held on March 9, 2016 and continued to April 7,
2016."

Aegerion is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the
development and commercialization of innovative therapies for
patients with debilitating rare diseases.


ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: Jacob McKinney Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JACOB MCKINNEY, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ALDOUS &
ASSOCIATES, PLLC, AND 731 WATER STREET, LLC, d/b/a GOLD'S GYM
MILWAUKEE, Case No. 16-cv-539 (E.D. Wisc.), moves the Court to
certify the class described in the complaint, and further requests
that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to
grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendants) relief from the Local
Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs
and supporting material to be filed with the motion.

According to the Motion, Damasco and decisions like it imposed
significant burdens on the Court and on the Plaintiff's Counsel.
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).  To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative
class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the
Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a
certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to
stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could
commence.

The Plaintiff contends that he is obligated to move for class
certification to protect the interests of the putative class.

As this Motion to Certify is a placeholder motion as described in
Damasco, the Plaintiff contends that the parties and the Court
should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the
resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to
certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BLo8qkqb

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
     John D. Blythin, Esq.
     Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
     ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
     3620 East Layton Avenue
     Cudahy, WI 53110
     Tel: (414) 482-8000
     Fax: (414) 482-8001
     E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
             jblythin@ademilaw.com
             meldridge@ademilaw.com


ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Still Defends Pension Fund Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Altisource
Portfolio intends to continue to vigorously defend a lawsuit by
the West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund.

On September 8, 2014, the West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension
Fund filed a putative securities class action suit against
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. and certain of its current or
former officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 with regard to
disclosures concerning pricing and transactions with related
parties that allegedly inflated Altisource Portfolio Solutions
S.A. share prices. The Court subsequently appointed the Pension
Fund for the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades
District Council 35 and the Annuity Fund for the International
Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 35 as Lead
Plaintiffs.

On January 30, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint which added Ocwen Financial Corporation as a defendant,
and seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a
class action on behalf of purchasers of Altisource Portfolio
Solutions S.A. securities between April 25, 2013 and December 21,
2014 and an unspecified amount of damages. Altisource Portfolio
Solutions S.A. moved to dismiss the suit on March 23, 2015.

On September 4, 2015, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss, finding that the Lead Plaintiffs' amended complaint
failed to state a claim as to any of the defendants, but
permitting the Lead Plaintiffs to file another amended complaint.
Lead Plaintiffs subsequently filed second and third amended
complaints with substantially similar claims and theories.
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. moved to dismiss the third
amended complaint on October 22, 2015.

On December 22, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing with
prejudice all claims against Ocwen Financial Corporation and
certain claims against Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. and the
officer and director defendants, but denying the motion to dismiss
as to other claims. Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. intends to
continue to vigorously defend this suit.

Altisource(R) is a premier marketplace and transaction solutions
provider for the real estate, mortgage and consumer debt
industries. Altisource's proprietary business processes, vendor
and electronic payment management software and behavioral science-
based analytics improve outcomes for marketplace participants.


AMARILLO, TX: Residents Sue Over Municipal Fines Policies
---------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Davis, writing for amarillo.com, reports that the number of
residents suing the city for what they claim are unconstitutional
municipal fines policies has grown to six as the lawyers seek
class action status that could potentially include 5 to 6 thousand
plaintiffs.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs have stated an interest in resolving
the case before it potentially expands its scope dramatically.

"There is no reason the city of Amarillo can't improve its policy,
save taxpayer money and settle this case," said attorney Jeff
Blackburn, who is representing the six plaintiffs along with
attorney Chris Hoffman.  "We are very interested in settling this
because that is the reason we filed it in the first place: to fix
the system."

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in January, claims that the
city's policy prioritizes the collection of fines and fees over
the Constitutional rights of citizens by jailing those that cannot
afford to pay municipal fines for Class C misdemeanors. The suit
states that the court did not make an effort to determine whether
the defendants were indigent, or at poverty level.  Instead, they
were offered the choice of paying the fine or spending time in
jail.

"None of the misdemeanors and offenses that these people are
charged with in the beginning carried any jail time," Mr. Hoffman
said.  "When they walk in, the only thing that can be levied
against them is a fine and a fee.  But it's when they don't pay
these things that jail becomes the primary method that Amarillo
and the city try to deal with it.  The law says you must consider
whether they are indigent, conduct an investigation into that and
make a decision as to whether they can find another way to
discharge their services"

Mr. Hoffman said that one of his recently added clients,
Janet Cato, 49, was booked into Randall County jail in March of
2016 for $5,271 in outstanding fees stemming from 18 dog-related
tickets, such as leash laws or barking, in 2013.  Ms. Cato is an
Army veteran, mother of three, former Pantex payroll clerk and
Texas Department of Criminal Justice correctional officer.  She
had recently filed for disability for scoliosis and rheumatoid
arthritis and could not pay her fines.

The court complaint states that Cato requested community service
to pay off the fine or to serve her jail time on weekends.  The
judge told her that "In this court, there are two options: you can
pay it or lay it."  Ms. Cato spent 52 consecutive days in jail.

"It could have been any of the judges, but the city has refused to
give some of our client's criminal files.  It's one of those
things that I think most municipalities will turn over without an
argument," Mr. Hoffman said.  "(Cato) was there by herself and the
court has taken the position that they have no requirement to
appoint (a lawyer) because it's a civil fine.  This becomes a
question of access to justice and the Sixth Amendment right to a
lawyer."

In Texas, there are two lawsuits on this issue winding their way
through courts, one in Amarillo and one in Austin.

Since 2003, Texas has had a law requiring counties of over 50,000
residents and cities with over 100,000 residents to improve
municipal collections programs.  In order to do that, the Office
of Court Administration worked with jurisdictions to set up
payment plans for defendants.

Recently, the Department of Justice sent out a letter clarifying
their position to judges, lawmakers, prosecutors and defense
attorneys.  The DOJ urged courts to "review court rules and
procedures within your jurisdiction to ensure that they comply
with due process, equal protection, and sound public policy."
Sound public policy was requiring courts investigate whether the
individual can pay the fines, consider alternatives, and provide
meaningful notice of nonpayment when enforcing fines.  The DOJ
announced grants for states and courts to come into compliance
with these rules.

Nathan Hecht, chief justice of Texas, and Scott Griffith, the
director of research and court services with Texas' OCA were both
on the DOJ's national task force looking at these issues.

"They are playing key roles in the national effort as well.  Texas
plans on applying for that funding from the DOJ," said
David Slayton, administrative director for the state's Office of
Court Administration and executive director of the state's
Judicial Council.  "It will give judges more options than they
have right now for developing tools to better determine indigence,
partial indigence and expanding alternatives to monetary payment."

Mr. Slayton said that the OCA and Judicial Council are working
through a "full scale revision to the rules" for courts to
determine indigence and offer alternatives, such as community
service, before collections.

"To the degree that the rules change, we would be auditing (cities
and counties) based on the new requirements," Mr. Slayton said.
"We would be checking if every defendant has the ability to pay
and if the program failed the audit, they have 180 days to get
back within compliance of the audit."

Amarillo and Potter and Randall counties has never been audited by
the OCA, but Mr. Slayton said they expect to get around to the
area within the next year.

"If they fail to be within compliance they lose a significant
ability to retain court revenue," Mr. Slayton said.  "They
currently get 10 percent of court fees . . . for most
jurisdictions of any size, that is a significant amount of
revenue.  There is significant incentive to comply.  We have had
several that fail their first audit, but we have never had a
program fail a subsequent audit."

Mr. Slayton said that the new revisions and recommendations will
be sent to the Judicial Council on June 3.

The current deadline for a determination on the class action
status of the lawsuit against Amarillo is Wednesday, Mar. 4, but
additional filings for dismissal could push this date back.

City spokeswoman Sonja Gross declined to comment, saying the city
does not discuss pending cases.

Mayor Paul Harpole said that he could not comment, but that the
city council gets a review of legal issues every couple of months.

Messrs. Blackburn and Hoffman have offered what they see to be an
olive branch before the case potentially expands in size as a
class action lawsuit and in scope, along with state legal
revisions.

"What we're ultimately interested in is changing the way this
court system works and changing the policy of Amarillo," Mr.
Blackburn said.  "We filed for class action certification and as
this case continues on, it will become much more time consuming
and expensive for everybody involved.  There are lots of reasons
to fix this problem now, and no reasons to keep delaying what will
be inevitable change.  We are willing to discuss how to do so at a
minimum of expense for the city, right now."


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Ferreras" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Ferreras and Edwin Gonzalez, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. American Airlines,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02427-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., April 29,
2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay wages
and overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

Defendant American Airlines provides domestic and international
air passenger and freight transportation services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chester R. Ostrowski, Esq.
     Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
     Brett Gallaway, Esq.
     MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
     260 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 448-1100
     E-mail: costrowski@mclaughlinstern.com


ANS ENTERPRISE: Faces "An" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages, OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tae Hui An, Plaintiff v. Ans Enterprise, Inc., Steven Kim and
Angie Kim, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00812, (E.D. Va., May 1,
2016), seeks payments of wages and overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 each workweek pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the District of Columbia Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

The Complaint states that Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee
within the meaning of District of Columbia Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

Ans Enterprise, Inc. is engaged in the business of wine and beer
retail sale.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Hyunkweon Ryu, Esq.
     RYU & RYU, PLC
     301 Maple Ave West, Suite 620
     Vienna, VA 22180
     Tel: (703) 319-0001
     E-mail: michaelryu@ryulawgroup.com


APPLE INC: ITunes Contract Invalid, Class Suit Argues
-----------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Apple forces iTunes users to agree to terms of service that
exempt it from liability and violate consumer protection laws, a
class action in claims in San Jose Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Thomas Silkowski sued Apple on April 28, claiming
the iTunes agreement to which every user must consent violates a
New Jersey law on deceptive contracts.

The iTunes terms of service state in part: "In no case shall
Apple, its directors, officers, employees, affiliates, agents,
contractors or licensors be liable for any direct, indirect,
incidental, punitive, special, or consequential damages arising
from your use of any of the iTunes service or for any other claim
related in any way to your use of the iTunes service."

That contract is forbidden by New Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer
Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA), which prohibits
agreements that violate "any clearly established legal right of a
consumer or responsibility of a seller," Silkowski says.

The law allows consumers to collect $100 in damages or civil
penalties from anyone who violates the consumer protection.

The iTunes contract also states: "Some jurisdictions do not allow
the limitation of liability for personal injury... so this
limitation may not apply to you."

Silkowski says the contract still runs afoul of the law because it
fails to state that Apple's claim for liability exemption does not
apply in New Jersey.

"Because these provisions fail to state whether they are
inapplicable, void or unenforceable in New Jersey, the Terms and
Conditions violate the TCCWNA," the complaint states.

Silkowski seeks class certification, declaratory judgment, an
injunction to remove the contract language and at least $100 in
damages for each class member.

He is represented by Todd Carpenter -- tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
-- with Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter in San Diego.

Apple did not immediately respond to a phone call seeking comment
April 29.


ASHFORD INC: To Defend Against Suit Over Remington Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Ashford Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend against a lawsuit challenging the transaction with
Remington Lodging and Hospitality LLC.

The Company on September 17, 2015, entered into an agreement to
acquire all of the general partner interest and 80% of the limited
partner interests of Remington Lodging for total consideration of
$331.7 million, with an estimated fair value of $330.7 million.

On December 11, 2015, a purported stockholder class action and
derivative complaint challenging the Transactions was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and styled Campbell v.
Bennett et al., Case No. 11796. The complaint names as defendants
each of the members of the Company's board of directors, Archie
Bennett, Jr., Mark A. Sharkey, MJB Investments GP, LLC and
Remington Holdings GP, as well as the Company as a nominal
defendant. The complaint alleges that the members of the Company's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders in connection with the Transactions and
that Monty Bennett, Archie Bennett, Jr., Mark A. Sharkey, MJB
Investments GP, LLC and Remington Holdings GP aided and abetted
the purported breaches of fiduciary duty.

In support of these claims, the complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Company's board of directors engaged in an unfair
process with Remington Lodging and the Bennetts and as a result
the Company overpaid for the 80% limited partnership and 100%
general partnership interests in Remington Lodging. The complaint
also alleges that the proxy statement filed with the SEC contains
certain materially false and/or misleading statements. The action
seeks injunctive relief, including enjoining the special meeting
of stockholders and any vote on the contribution or the stock
issuances or rescinding the Transactions if they are consummated,
or, in the alternative, an award of damages, as well as
unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to
any other relief the court may deem proper.

"The outcome of this matter cannot be predicted with any
certainty. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the
consummation of the Transactions, and an adverse judgment granting
permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely prohibit
consummation of the Transactions. The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint but intend to defend the claims raised
in this lawsuit," the Company said.

Ashford is a Delaware corporation, incorporated in April 2014,
that provides asset management and advisory services to other
entities, primarily within the hospitality industry.


AT&T MOBILITY: Internet Throttling Case Goes to Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco ordered private arbitration
of class action claims that AT&T does not adequately disclose
throttling of mobile customers with unlimited data plans.

Lead plaintiff Marcus A. Roberts sued AT&T Mobility in 2015,
accusing it of a "deceptive and unfair trade practice of marketing
its wireless service plans as being 'unlimited,' when in fact
those plans are subject to a number of limiting conditions [in
particular, throttling] that either are not disclosed or
inadequately disclosed to consumers."

Throttling is the intentional slowing of customers' speed data
once they reach certain data use thresholds.

AT&T sought to compel arbitration, and U.S. District Judge Edward
Chen granted the motion on April 27, and stayed the case pending
arbitration proceedings.

Chen rejected Roberts' argument that arbitration would violate the
class's First Amendment rights.

"As a starting point, the court finds no merit to plaintiffs'
assertion that the mere fact of judicial enforcement automatically
establishes state action," Chen wrote, since "plaintiffs have
pointed to no authority holding that judicial enforcement,
particularly of an arbitration award, constitutes state action."

Chen rejected on similar grounds the argument that judicial
interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provided the
requisite state action to prevent an arbitration order.

He rejected the argument that court-ordered arbitration would
interpret the FAA as applying to contracts of adhesion and would
therefore violate the consumers' constitutional rights.

"But this asserted constitutional injury is predicated on the
contract being one of adhesion -- i.e., where the consumer did not
knowingly and/or voluntarily agree to arbitration and forfeits
access to the courts," Chen wrote.

"Thus, the source of the alleged constitutional deprivation when a
consumer is involved is not the judicial interpretation of the
FAA; rather, the source is AT&T's private conduct in purportedly
forcing arbitration on an unwitting consumer."

However, "a court giving effect to a private contract does not
constitutionalize the contract."
The plaintiffs "have not established the requisite degree of
government coercion or encouragement sufficient under existing
case law to establish state action," the judge added.

"Because under the current state of law, there is no state action
in the instant case, plaintiffs lack a viable First Amendment
challenge to the arbitration agreements," Chen concluded.

AT&T attorney Donald Falk -- dfalk@mayerbrown.com -- with Mayer
Brown in Palo Alto, declined comment.

Plaintiffs' attorney Alexander Schmidt -- schmidt@whafh.com --
with Wolf Haldenstein in New York City, did not immediately
respond to an email requesting comment May 2, afternoon.

The case captioned, MARCUS A. ROBERTS, et al., Plaintiffs, V. AT&T
MOBILITY LLC, Defendant, Case No.15-cv-03418-EMC (N.D. Cal.).


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------
Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the lead plaintiffs have
appealed a court decision dismissing their second amended
complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit.

The Company said, "Two class action lawsuits have been filed
against us and certain of our former officers and members of our
board of directors, (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William
Slichenmyer and Ronald DePinho), in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, one captioned Paul
Sanders v. Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-
JLT, filed on May 9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine
Krause v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-
JLT, filed on May 31, 2013."

"On December 4, 2013, the District Court consolidated the
complaints as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, and an amended complaint
was filed on February 3, 2014. The amended complaint purported to
be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased our common
stock between January 3, 2012 and May 1, 2013. The amended
complaint generally alleged that we and certain of our present and
former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for our TIVO-1
study in an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug
would receive approval from the FDA. The lawsuit seeks unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs.  The
consolidated amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice on
March 20, 2015, and the lead plaintiffs then filed a second
amended complaint bringing similar allegations.

"We moved to dismiss again, and after a second round of briefing
and oral argument, the court ruled in our favor and dismissed the
second amended complaint with prejudice on November 18, 2015.  The
lead plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

"We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to continue to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, there is no
assurance that we will be successful in our defense or that
insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or
judgment or the litigation costs of the action. Moreover, we are
unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss at this time."

Aveo is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to advancing a broad
portfolio of targeted therapeutics for oncology and other areas of
unmet medical need.


BANCORP INC: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Complaint Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that

On July 17, 2014, a class action securities complaint captioned
Fletcher v. The Bancorp Inc., et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware.   A
consolidated version of that class action complaint was filed
before the same court on January 23, 2015 on behalf of Lead
Plaintiffs Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System under the caption of In re The
Bancorp Inc. Securities Litigation.

On October 26, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint against Bancorp, Betsy Z. Cohen, Paul Frenkiel, Frank M.
Mastrangelo and Jeremy Kuiper, which alleges that during a class
period beginning January 26, 2011 through June 26, 2015, the
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that (i) Bancorp had wrongfully extended
and modified problem loans and under-reserved for loan losses due
to adverse loans, (ii) Bancorp's operations and credit practices
were in violation of the BSA, and (iii) as a result, Bancorp's
financial statements, press releases and public statements were
materially false and misleading during the relevant period.   The
amended consolidated complaint further alleges that, as a result,
the price of Bancorp's common stock was artificially inflated and
fell once the defendants' misstatements and omissions were
revealed, causing damage to the plaintiffs and the other members
of the class.   The complaint asks for an unspecified amount of
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint on November 23, 2015.  Oral argument on the defendants'
motion was held on January 29, 2016.  This litigation is in its
preliminary stages.

"We have been advised by our counsel in the matter that reasonably
possible losses cannot be estimated.  We believe that the
complaint is without merit and we intend to continue to defend
vigorously," the Company said.


BERNARD LUSKIN: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Still Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald entered an order in the
lawsuit captioned Deshay David Ford v. Chancellor Bernard Luskin,
et al., Case No. CV-16-01109-MWF (RAOx) (C.D. Cal.), denying the
Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification.

On March 29, 2016, the Court denied Mr. Ford's Motion for Class
Certification because it satisfied none of the requirements of
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  On April 26,
2016, Mr. Ford renewed his Motion for Class Certification,
attempting to cure prior deficiencies.

While the Motion must be denied for several reasons, the most
significant impediment to class certification is the fact that Mr.
Ford, as a pro se litigant, cannot and may not represent a class
of those allegedly similarly situated, Judge Fitzgerald said,
citing Rule 23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
which requires that class representative be able to "fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=r8TLssqn


BFC FINANCIAL: Final Settlement Hearing Set for 2016 Q2
-------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the settlement agreement
in the case, In re: New Jersey Tax Sales Certificates Antitrust
Litigation v. BBX Capital Corporation f/k/a BankAtlantic Bancorp,
Inc., Fidelity Tax, LLC, Gary I. Branse, Michael Deluca and BB&T
Corporation, and multiple other individuals and entities who
purchased New Jersey tax certificates between 1998 to February
2009, Case No.12-CV-01893-MAS-TJB, United States District Court,
District of New Jersey (Trenton), has been preliminarily approved
by the court and the final approval hearing is currently scheduled
for the second quarter of 2016.

On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in an
existing purported class action filed in Federal District Court in
New Jersey adding BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a wholly
owned subsidiary of CAM, among others as defendants.  The class
action complaint was brought on behalf of a class defined as "all
persons who owned real property in the State of New Jersey and who
had a Tax Certificate issued with respect to their property that
was purchased by a Defendant during the Class Period at a public
auction in the State of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%."

Plaintiffs alleged that beginning in January 1998 and at least
through February 2009, the Defendants were part of a statewide
conspiracy to manipulate interest rates associated with tax
certificates sold at public auction from at least January 1, 1998,
through February 28, 2009. During this period, Fidelity Tax was a
subsidiary of BankAtlantic.  Fidelity Tax was contributed to CAM
in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic in the BB&T
Transaction.

BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion to Dismiss in March
2013 and on October 23, 2013, the Court granted the Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice as to
certain claims, but without prejudice as to plaintiffs' main
antitrust claim.  Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint on January 6, 2014.  While BBX Capital believed the
claims to be without merit, BBX Capital reached an agreement to
settle the action, subject to court approval.  The settlement has
been preliminarily approved by the court and the final approval
hearing is currently scheduled for the second quarter of 2016.


BISTRO MARKETPALCE: "Villa" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Tapia Villa, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Marketplace 41, Inc. (d/b/a Bistro
Marketplace), Scott Shin and Tony Choi, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-03200 (S.D. N.Y., April 29, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own, operate and/or control a Deli/restaurant located
at 125 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10168 under the name of
Bistro Marketplace.

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
     Fax: (212) 317-1620
     E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Azar & Alfrange Suit in Oregon
----------------------------------------------------------
Blount International, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2016, that
Elia Azar and Dean Alfrange, purported stockholders of the Company
(the "Oregon Plaintiffs"), filed on March 21, 2016, a putative
class action complaint against the Company, the members of the
Company's Board of Directors (the "Board"), American Securities
LLC, P2 Capital Partners, LLC, Parent and Merger Sub in the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland
Division (the "Oregon Court"). This case is captioned Azar, et al.
v. Blount Int'l, Inc., et al., No. 3:16-cv-00483.

The complaint alleges that (1) the Company and the members of the
Board violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder by filing the Definitive Proxy Statement, which the
Oregon Plaintiffs allege fails to disclose and/or misrepresents
material information, (2) the members of the Board violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as control persons of the
Company in respect of the filing of such allegedly materially
deficient Definitive Proxy Statement, and (3) Mr. Joshua L.
Collins, the chairman of the Board and the chief executive officer
of the Company, Mr. David A. Willmott, the president and chief
operating officer of the Company and a member of the Board,
American Securities LLC, P2 Capital Partners, LLC, Parent and
Merger Sub aided and abetted such alleged violations of the
federal securities laws.

The Oregon Plaintiffs have asked the Oregon Court to, among other
things, (i) preliminarily and permanently enjoin the defendants
from proceeding with the proposed Merger until defendants remedy
the alleged violations of the federal securities laws, and (ii) in
the event the proposed Merger is consummated, rescind the proposed
Merger or grant rescissory damages.

The Company and its directors believe these claims are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend this action. The Company
cannot predict the outcome of or estimate the possible loss or
range of loss from this matter.

                           *     *     *

In its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 15, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2015, the Company disclosed that Azar on February 9, 2016,
sent a letter to the Board alleging, among other things, that
members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the negotiation and approval of the Merger Agreement and that
the preliminary proxy statement fails to disclose and/or
misrepresents material information. The Azar Letter demands that
the Board remedy those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, which
were described in more detail in an attached draft putative class
action complaint.

Blount International, Inc. is a global industrial company. The
Company designs, manufactures, and markets equipment, replacement
and component parts, and accessories for professionals and
consumers in select end-markets under the Company's proprietary
brand names.


BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL: Norfolk Retirement Sys. Dropped Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blount International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Norfolk County
Retirement System on March 2, 2016, filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of its class action complaint without prejudice to the
Norfolk Plaintiff or its putative class, which was so ordered by
the Delaware Court on the same day.

Norfolk County Retirement System, a purported stockholder of the
Company (the "Norfolk Plaintiff"), filed on February 10, 2016, a
putative class action complaint against the Company, the members
of the Board (including Mr. Collins and Mr. Willmott both in their
capacities as officers of the Company and as members of the
Board), American Securities LLC, P2 Capital Partners, LLC, Parent,
Merger Sub, P2 Capital Master Fund I, L.P. and Goldman Sachs in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware
Court"). This case was captioned Norfolk County Retirement Sys. v.
Joshua L. Collins, et al., No. 11980-VCG (the "Norfolk Action").

The complaint alleged that (1) the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty in connection with
their negotiation and approval of the Merger Agreement, (2) the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duty of disclosure
by filing a preliminary proxy statement that fails to disclose
and/or misrepresents material information and (3) P2 Capital
Partners, LLC, P2 Capital Master Fund I, L.P. and Goldman Sachs
aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The Norfolk Plaintiff asked the Delaware Court to, among other
things, (i) preliminarily and permanently enjoin the defendants
from proceeding with the proposed Merger on the current terms, and
(ii) in the event that the proposed Merger is consummated, rescind
the proposed Merger or grant rescissory damages.

On March 2, 2016, the Norfolk Plaintiff filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal of the Norfolk Action without prejudice to the
Norfolk Plaintiff or its putative class, which was so ordered by
the Delaware Court on the same day.

Blount International, Inc. is a global industrial company. The
Company designs, manufactures, and markets equipment, replacement
and component parts, and accessories for professionals and
consumers in select end-markets under the Company's proprietary
brand names.


BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL: Chester County Retirement Sys. Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blount International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Chester County
Retirement System, a purported stockholder of the Company (the
"Chester Plaintiff"), filed on March 4, 2016, a putative class
action complaint against the Company, the members of the Board
(including Mr. Collins and Mr. Willmott both in their capacities
as officers of the Company and as members of the Board), American
Securities LLC, P2 Capital Partners, LLC, Parent, Merger Sub, P2
Capital Master Fund I, L.P. and Goldman Sachs in the Delaware
Court.

This case is captioned Chester County Retirement Sys. v. Joshua L.
Collins, et al., No. 12072. The complaint alleges that (1) the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of care and
loyalty in connection with their negotiation and approval of the
Merger Agreement, (2) the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duty of disclosure by filing a preliminary proxy
statement that fails to disclose and/or misrepresents material
information and (3) P2 Capital Partners, LLC, P2 Capital Master
Fund I, L.P. and Goldman Sachs aided and abetted such alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.

The Chester Plaintiff has asked the Delaware Court to, among other
things, (i) preliminarily and permanently enjoin the defendants
from proceeding with the proposed Merger on the current terms, and
(ii) in the event that the proposed Merger is consummated, rescind
the proposed Merger or grant rescissory damages.

Blount International, Inc. is a global industrial company. The
Company designs, manufactures, and markets equipment, replacement
and component parts, and accessories for professionals and
consumers in select end-markets under the Company's proprietary
brand names.


BLUE SHIELD: Fails to Provide Basic Coverage, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Blue Shield of California gouged state employees for "basic health
insurance that essentially provides no coverage," a class action
claims in Sacramento Superior Court.

Lead plaintiff Theris Coats says that CalPERS employees who retire
at 65 are automatically moved out of Blue Shield and into
Medicare.

But if a worker retires before 65 due to disability, and qualifies
for Medicare, Blue Shield continues collecting premiums "even
though the [Blue Shield] policy expressly excludes coverage for
health care that is also covered by Medicare."

CalPERS, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, is
the largest state pension fund in the nation, managing pension and
health benefits for more than 1.6 million public employees,
retirees and their families.

Coats, who seeks to represent a class of more than 1,000, was
diagnosed with cancer and had to retire in 2004. Before he did,
CalPERS advisers told him he would qualify for disability
retirement benefits.

Coats received "basic" health insurance through Blue Shield
immediately upon retiring, and also applied for Social Security
disability. He was accepted into Medicare in 2006 and began
receiving Medicare benefits in 2007.

"Under the Blue Shield policies, any CalPERS member who becomes
enrolled in Medicare no longer qualifies for basic coverage.
Instead the CalPERS member must transition to a much cheaper
CalPERS Medicare health plan," the lawsuit states.

"CalPERS and Blue Shield have in place policies and procedures to
ensure that CalPERS members who reach age 65 are promptly
transitioned out of private insurance and into a CalPERS Medicare
plan. When this happens, the premiums paid by the CalPERS member
for health coverage are dramatically reduced since virtually all
of their health care is now covered by Medicare."

Coats says he had no idea of the coverage exclusion and unaware
that he had to switch his coverage to a Medicare plan. In fact, he
says, CalPERS continued deducting monthly premiums from his
pension check for the basic Blue Shield plan, and "Blue Shield
accepted the premiums even though under its EOC [evidence of
coverage] and contract with CalPERS, it was not required to pay
any medical bills for plaintiffs health care. At all times,
CalPERS and Blue Shield knew or should have known that plaintiff
was a Medicare recipient and should not have been paying premiums
to Blue Shield for a basic plan."

Coats says Blue Shield collected the excess premiums from him for
9 years, and refused and continues to refuse to refund the
unearned premiums.

"While CalPERS and Blue Shield have a robust process for notifying
and transitioning Medicare eligible CalPERS members out of basic
health plans when the member turns 65, it has no similar process
for transitioning younger members who become Medicare eligible due
to a disability or some other reason," the lawsuit states.

"Plaintiff and the class have been paying excess premiums for
basic health insurance that essentially provides no coverage,"
Coats added.
Blue Shield of California serves 4 million members and 65,000
physicians in the Golden State.

A Blue Shield representative on May 4 said the insurer had not yet
been served with the lawsuit.

Coats' attorney Stuart Talley said Medicare supplemental plans are
"dramatically less expensive" than Blue Shield's basic plan.

"Since the plaintiff had been enrolled in Medicare for many years,
Blue Shield and CalPERS should have transitioned him out of their
basic health care plan into a Medicare supplement plan," Talley
said in an interview.

"CalPERS and Blue Shield go to great lengths to inform people of
this situation when they turn 65. However, they have no similar
notice procedures in place if you qualify for Medicare due to a
disability."

Coats seeks class certification, restitution of unearned premiums,
and damages for unfair competition.  His attorneys Talley --
stuart@kctlegal.com -- and William Kershaw -- bill@kctlegal.com --
are with Kershaw, Cook & Talley, of Sacramento.


BNP PARIBAS: "Kashef" Files Suit Suit Over Services for Sudan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Osman Kashef, et al., Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all
those similarly situated v. BNP Paribas S.A., BNP Paribas North
America, Inc. and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03228
(S.D. N.Y., April 29, 2016), is brought against the Defendants'
for giving Sudan access to the U.S. financial system.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants provided banking
products and services without which Sudan could not have purchased
weapons, paid militia and committed human rights abuses on such a
massive scale.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kathryn Lee Crawford, Esq.
     BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
     2049 Century Park East, Suite 3550
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: 310-500-4600
     Fax: 310-500-4602
     E-mail: lboyd@bhfs.com


BOEING CO: 9th Cir. Sends Water Pollution Case to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Washington courts should decide a class action against Boeing
involving decades of water pollution and unsatisfactory
remediation, the Ninth Circuit ruled May 5.

Jocelyn Allen is the lead plaintiff in the case, alongside 107
people who live near a plant in Auburn, Washington, that Boeing
used from the 1960s to the 1990s to manufacture aircraft parts.

Boeing agreed to perform a cleanup a few years after the state
began regulating hazardous materials in 1987. Though it retained
the firm Landau Associates for the job, the class contends that
both companies failed to remediate the problem over the next 10
years or to warn neighboring property owners about the toxins.

Allen filed her 2013 class action against Boeing and Landau in
King County Superior Court, but Boeing requested that the case be
removed to federal court under CAFA, short for the Class Action
Fairness Act.

Landau is a Washington-based company, potentially satisfying the
local-controversy exception to CAFA, but Boeing claimed that
Landau had been fraudulently joined as a defendant.

May 5 marks the Ninth Circuit's second ruling on the case, having
ordered the lower court last year to weigh in on CAFA's single-
event exception.

Chief U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez concluded on remand
that this exception does apply, thus making state court the proper
venue, and the appellate panel in Seattle affirmed May 5.

Elizabeth Donaldson, an attorney for the class with co-counsel
David Bigelow, said the Ninth Circuit got it right," Donaldson
said.

"This case involves a local controversy and belongs in state
court," Dondaldson said in an interview.

Toxins that leaked from Boeing's facility continue to spread
underground, and the full impact that pollution might have on the
health of nearby property owners and residents remains unknown,
Donaldson added.

A representative for Boeing did not immediately return a phone
call seeking comment.

Boeing had argued the class fell short of meeting two requirements
of the local-controversy exception that allows class actions to be
handled in state court.

It said the plaintiffs failed to show they were seeking
"significant relief" from Landau, the local defendant, or that
Landau's conduct forms a "significant basis" for their claims.

The Ninth Circuit panel disagreed.

"The fact that Boeing created the pollution does not in itself
make insignificant claims that Landau failed to investigate and
remediate the spreading pollution for more than a decade," Circuit
Judge Consuelo Callahan wrote for a three-judge panel.

While the Auburn residents may not know how much Boeing or Landau
is to blame for the sprawling toxins, their allegations against
Landau adequately satisfy the requirements of the local-
controversy exception, the court found.

"As the district court noted, this action 'involves a potential
class action with a truly local focus that particularly affects a
local area of the State of Washington to the exclusion of all
others,'" Callahan wrote. "Indeed, this appears to be the precise
type of case for which the local controversy exception was
intended."

The case captioned, ALLEN V. BOEING CO, No. 16-35175 (9th Cir.).


BURLINGTON STORES: $29.4 Million Settlement Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the $29.4 million
settlement reached in a class action lawsuit remains subject to
final Court approval.

In the matter of Burlington Coat Factory Song Beverly Cases which
is currently pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, Complex Division, County of Orange (Case No. JCCP No.
4681), plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, alleges that the Company is in violation of the Song
Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, California Civil Code section
1747.08, for collecting personal information from customers in
connection with the use of credit cards by such customers to pay
for merchandise at the Company's stores.  At trial held in January
2015, the Superior Court held that the Company was in violation of
California law.

In October 2015, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
providing for a maximum settlement payment of $29.4 million
(including attorneys' fees and claims administration fees).  On
November 6, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval for the
settlement and authorized the parties to provide a notice to class
members about the settlement.

Because of the claims-made aspect of the settlement, it is likely
that a significant portion of the total settlement amount will go
unclaimed and remain the property of the Company, thereby causing
it to pay less than $29.4 million under the settlement.

This settlement, if it is approved by the Court, will result in
the dismissal of all Song-Beverly claims that arose through
January 28, 2015 (except for those class members who opt out of
the settlement).   If this settlement is rejected by the Court,
the parties will likely return to the litigation of both lawsuits,
and, in such event, the Company cannot predict the outcome of
these matters, and cannot predict whether or not the outcome will
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition or results of operations.

Burlington Stores is a nationally recognized retailer of high-
quality, branded apparel at everyday low prices.


CARDTRONICS USA: "McRay" Suit Over Violation of On-Screen Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Clinton McRay and Mary Loren Caviness, Plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cardtronics USA, Inc. and Prosperity Bank, Defendants, Case No.
5:16-cv-00129-DCR (E.D. Ky., April 29, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for their' failure to display the required on-
screen notice at ATMs, which has resulted in frequent and
persistent non-compliance with the European Free Trade
Association.

Cardtronics USA, Inc. is a non-bank ATM operator.

Prosperity Bank is a banking institution.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Tanner Watkins, Esq.
     Daniel J. O'Gara, Esq.
     DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
     101 S. Fifth St., Suite 2500
     Louisville, KY 40202
     Tel: (502) 540-2300
     Fax: (502) 585-2207
     E-mail: tanner.watkins@dinsmore.com


CARMIKE CINEMAS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on April 28
disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit on April 25, 2016,
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia,
Columbus Division (the "Court") on behalf of the shareholders of
Carmike Cinemas, Inc. ("Carmike Cinemas") against its Board of
Directors, AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. ("AMCand Congress
Merger Subsidiary, Inc. for, among other things, violations of
sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

Carmike Cinemas Is Accused of Disseminating a False and Misleading
Proxy Statement

The action arises out of a March 3, 2016 press release announcing
that Carmike Cinemas had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with AMC pursuant to which AMC would acquire Carmike
Cinemas for $30 per share in cash, for total consideration of $1.1
billion (the "Proposed Acquisition").  The complaint seeks
injunctive relief on behalf of the named plaintiff and all other
similarly situated Carmike Cinema shareholders (the "Class").  The
named plaintiff is represented by Robbins Arroyo LLP.

The complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder
approval of the Proposed Acquisition, the defendants filed a
materially false and misleading Preliminary Proxy Statement with
the SEC in violation of the Exchange Act.  The omitted and/or
misrepresented information is believed to be material to Carmike
Cinema shareholders' ability to make an informed decision whether
to approve the Proposed Acquisition.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Carmike Cinema stock on, or
prior to, the March 3, 2016 announcement of the Proposed
Acquisition, and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than sixty days from April 28, 2016.  If you
wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact attorney
Darnell R. Donahue of Robbins Arroyo LLP at 800-350-6003, via the
shareholder information form on our website, or by e-mail at
info@robbinsarroyo.com

Any member of the Class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent Class member.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- concentrates
in the area of shareholder rights litigation, representing
individual and institutional investors in securities class action
lawsuits and shareholder derivative actions.


CARNIVAL CORP: Cuban Exiles Drop Discrimination Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two Cuban exiles have dropped
their federal discrimination lawsuit against Carnival Corp. after
the cruise line reached an agreement with the communist-run island
to permit Cuban-born passengers to make the voyage.

Attorney Tucker Ronzetti said on April 28 that the lawsuit's goal
was to ensure anyone could make the trip.  Before the agreement,
Carnival would not sell tickets for the cruise to Cuban-born
people because Cuba would not allow them to arrive by sea.

Cuba's reversal cleared the way for anyone to book the cruise on
Carnival's Fathom brand.  The 704-passenger Adonia departs Miami
for the first such cruise in 50 years to Havana and two other
cities.  Carnival says the ship will cruise to Cuba every other
week.

The previous Carnival policy sparked protests by Cuban-Americans
and criticism from politicians.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Responds to Oil Leaseholders' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Betancourt, writing for The Duncan Banner, reports that
Chesapeake lawyers state a class action lawsuit filed in Stephens
County is a waste of judicial resources and should join similar
petitions filed in federal court.

McAfee & Taft attorneys representing Chesapeake Energy corporation
filed documents at the Stephens County Courthouse April 22 for a
stay of a class action lawsuit brought against the oil titan
seeking restitution for oil lease holders victimized during a
conspiracy to rig bids and depress prices for oil and natural gas
leaseholds in the Anadarko Basin.

"This is a copycat lawsuit," stated court documents.  "The
petition mirrors 11 nearly identical lawsuits that were recently
consolidated in (an Oklahoma federal court).  To avoid a
duplication of effort, waste of judicial resources and the risk of
conflicting pretrial ruling outcomes -- the court should stay this
case."

The only two differences between the suit filed by the Sill Law
Group, an Edmond law firm, and federal cases, according to the
documents, is this case represents Oklahoma residents only and the
class period extends to April 2013 while the federal suits until
2012.

The Anadarko Basin, according to topographical maps, extends
through 108 counties in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas and Colorado.

Jim Sill, a senior partner of the Sill Law group, said during a
previous interview, his firm filed other cases at the federal
level and this one on a state level for specific reasons.

"In our view, Oklahoma antitrust laws allow for recovery based
upon acts of a single conspirator, while cases filed under federal
law must generally identify and prove additional conspirators," he
said.  "In some instances, state courts are able to move more
quickly than federal, which in turn may allow plaintiffs in a
state class action to resolve their cases sooner than those in a
federal court action."

The lawsuit stems from a March 1 Department of Justice (DOJ) grand
jury indictment of deceased co-founder of Chesapeake Aubrey
McClendon who allegedly engaged in conduct that was described in
the indictment as "a combination and conspiracy to suppress and
eliminate competition by rigging bids from certain leaseholds
interests and producing properties," which had the effect of
"keeping prices down for those leaseholds interests."

SandRidge and Chesapeake, the petition states, were competitors
for the acquisition of leases in the basin described as one of the
deepest and most prolific hydrocarbon fields in the U.S.

"The 2011 U.S. Geological Survey estimated the Anadarko Basin
Region to have 495 million barrels of oil, 27.5 trillion cubic
feet of natural gas and 410 million barrels of natural gas
liquids," according to the petition.  "Rather than competing
fairly for leases and producing properties and paying prices set
by market forces, defendants engaged in a conspiracy to reduce the
prices they paid plaintiffs and members of the class."

These practices, according to the petition, allowed Chesapeake to
amass 2.4 million net acres and SandRidge more than 1.5 million
net acres in the region, affecting the overall market.

Mr. McClendon was killed in a car accident and the indictment was
dismissed according to the documents filed by McAffe and Taft.

If the stay is not granted, Chesapeake lawyers asked for a 10 day
extension to file a response.


CHINA COMMERCIAL: Enters Into Securities Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that China Commercial Credit entered into
settlement securities class action litigation captioned in re
china commercial credit inc. Securities litigation

The stipulation resolves claims asserted against company and
certain officers and directors in securities class action

The stipulation provides a settlement payment by company of
$225,000 in cash and issuance of 750,000 shares of its common
stock.


CHINA XD PLASTICS: 3rd Amended Securities Complaint Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George B. Daniels granted Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in the captioned case In re
CHINA XD PLASTICS COMPANY LIMITED Securities Litigation. This
Document Relates to: All Actions, No. 14-cv-05308 (GBD),
(S.D.N.Y.)

In his Opinion and Order dated March 23, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/KFtQL8from Leagle.com, Judge Daniels granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss. The gravamen of the CAC is that
Defendants made material misrepresentations by overstating their
2012 and 2013 financial position in filings with the SEC, as
evidenced by what the CAC contends were lesser but more accurate
financial numbers filed with the Chinese State Administration for
Industry and Commerce (SAIC). Because the Plaintiffs have failed
to plausibly plead facts supporting their conclusion that China
XD's SEC filings were overstated based solely upon a comparison to
its SAIC filings, Defendants' motion is granted.

Terry Frishkorn and James Wang were named Lead Plaintiffs in the
case and brought a consolidated class action (CAC) on behalf of a
class consisting of persons who purchased the common stock of
China XD Plastics Co. Ltd. stock between March 25, 2014 and July
10, 2014.

Plaintiffs were given 30 days, by letter application with an
attached proposed amended complaint, for leave to amend if
amendment would not be futile.

China XD Plastics Company Limited said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company and certain of its officers and directors have been named
as defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  These actions, which allege violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the United States securities
laws, were filed on July 15, 2014 and July 16, 2014 and are
captioned Yang v. Han, et al., No. 14-cv-5308 (GBD) and Tompkins
v. China XD Plastics Company Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-5359 (GBD),
respectively.

On November 21, 2014, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs.  On February 17, 2015, the lead
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on behalf
of a class of all persons other than the defendants who purchased
the common stock of China XD Plastics Company Limited between
March 25, 2014 and July 10, 2014, inclusive.

Specifically, the lead plaintiffs allege that the Company and two
of its officers made false or misleading statements and/or omitted
material facts in the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2013 and the Company's Form 10-Q for the first
quarter ended March 31, 2014. They also assert that the individual
defendants are liable because they allegedly controlled the
Company during the time the allegedly false and misleading
statements and omissions were made.  The lead plaintiffs seek
damages in unspecified amounts.

On April 3, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint. The Court heard oral argument on the
motion on October 22, 2015.

China XD Plastics Company Limited is one of the leading specialty
chemical companies engaged in the research, development,
manufacture and sale of modified plastics primarily for automotive
applications in China and to a lesser extent, in Dubai, United
Arab Emirates ("UAE").

Francis Paul McConville, Esq. Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- and Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq. --
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com of Pomerantz LLP serve as counsel for
Plaintiff Shawn M. Tompkins.

Phillip C. Kim, Esq. -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- of The Rosen Law
Firm P.A. serves as counsel for the Movant The FW Group.


CITIBANK NA: Cynthia Davis Seeks Certification of Two Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled CYNTHIA K. DAVIS v. CITIBANK,
N.A., Case No. 4:14-cv-01129-CDP (E.D. Mo.), seeks class
certification, and seeks to represent a class of persons
wrongfully charged a subordination fee by Citibank, N.A., for
their Home Equity Lines of Credit when they refinanced their
underlying mortgage.

The Plaintiff proposes to certify two classes defined as:

   (1) Unjust Enrichment Class -- All persons in the United
       States who paid Citi or its predecessors a fee from
       April 25, 2009 through the present to subordinate Citi's
       HELOC where Citi's HELOC did not state a fee would be
       charged to subordinate Citi's lien; and

   (2) MMPA Class -- All persons in the United States who paid
       Citi or its predecessors a fee from April 25, 2009 through
       the present to subordinate Citi's HELOC secured by
       Missouri property where Citi's HELOC did not state a fee
       would be charged to subordinate Citi's lien.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IAE368yj

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin L. Daesch, Esq.
          Jesse B. Rochman, Esq.
          ONDER, SHELTON, O'LEARY & PETERSON, LLC
          110 E. Lockwood
          St. Louis, MO 63119
          Telephone: (314) 963-9000
          Facsimile: (314) 963-1700
          E-mail: daesch@onderlaw.com
                  rochman@onderlaw.com


COHEN & SLAMOWITZ: Plaintiff's Sanction Bid Denied
--------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio denied the Plaintiff's motion
to sanction Defendant for its failure to provide discovery in
accordance with this court's Decision and Order filed October 8,
2014, in the captioned case MICHAEL HALLMARK, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, and Plaintiff, v. COHEN &
SLAMOWITZ, LLP, MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Defendants, No. 11-CV-
842W(F), (W.D.N.Y.)

The October order directed C&S to produce 13 items of information
requested by Plaintiff to enable Plaintiff to determine C&S's net
worth.

Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692, et seq. (FDCPA), Plaintiff alleged that the firm, in
seeking to collect debts owed by Plaintiff and the class,
attempted to, and in many cases did collect, court filing fees
before the fees were incurred or awarded by the court. As relevant
to Plaintiff's motion, C&S claimed its net worth was less than
$1,000, an assertion made relevant to this case as under the
FDCPA, damages in a class action are limited to the lesser of one
percent of a Defendant's net worth or $500,000. 15 U.S.C. Section
1692k(a)(2)(B).  In general, Plaintiff asserts C&S's responses,
which were served on Plaintiff as C&S's Supplemental Responses to
Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for
Production of Documents on December 23, 2014, are evasive,
implausible, deficient, and otherwise unresponsive.

In her Decision and Order dated March 23, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/a8xUDIfrom Leagle.com, Judge Foschio denied
Plaintiff's motion to sanction the Defendant. At the threshold,
the court finds no merit in Defendant's contention, Defendant's
Memorandum (Dkt. 268) at 8-10, that Plaintiff failed to comply
with Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a) and Local R. Civ. P. 7(d)(4) which require
that parties in a discovery dispute meet and confer prior to
filing a motion to compel.

Brian L. Bromberg, Esq. and Jonathan R. Miller, Esq. of Bromberg
Law Office, P.C.  Kenneth R. Hiller, Esq., and Seth Andrews, Esq.
of Law Offices of Kenneth Hiller, PPLC serve as counsel for
Plaintiff Michael Hallmark

Andrew Christopher Sayles, Esq. -- asayles@connellfoley.com --
Joseph L. Linares, Esq. -- jlinares@connellfoley.com -- and Steven
A. Kroll, Esq. -- skroll@connellfoley.com -- of Connell Foley LLP
serve as counsel for Defendant Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Disgruntled Bankwest Borrowers File Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Banking Day reports that Commonwealth Bank will have to fend off a
class action from disgruntled former business borrowers of
Bankwest, a process that will oblige the bank to continue to
engage with a contested history over its management of this entity
since 2008.

The lawyer running the case is Trevor Hall, of Parramatta legal
firm Hall Partners.

Damages claimed by the plaintiffs from Commonwealth Bank, if
accepted by a judge and appeal courts, may stretch beyond hundreds
of millions of dollars.


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Warranty Claim Central Issue of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Banking Day reports that the details and interpretation of the
"warranty claim", or in other words the much discussed "claw back"
mechanism struck between Commonwealth Bank and UK bank HBOS over
the sale by the latter of Bankwest to CBA, is the centerpiece of
the class action now initiated by aggrieved Bankwest business
borrowers.

The statement of claim filed with the Supreme Court of New South
Wales in connection with the Bankwest class action on April 28 may
be a more considered presentation of analysis first prepared for
the inquiry by the same law firm nine months ago for the
Parliamentary Joint Committee.


CORMEDIX INC: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss Held
-----------------------------------------------------
Cormedix Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that oral argument on the
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit was scheduled for May 2,
2016.

On July 7, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, captioned Li v. Cormedix Inc., et al., Case 3:15-cv-05264.
On September 4, 2015, two individuals, Shahm Martini and Paul
Chretien (the "Martini Group"), filed a Motion to Appoint Lead
Plaintiff. On that same date, another individual, Elaine Wood,
filed a competing Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff.  On September
18, 2015, the Martini Group withdrew its motion.  Thereafter, on
September 22, 2015, the Court appointed Elaine Wood as Lead
Plaintiff and, on October 2, 2015, appointed the Rosen Law Firm as
Lead Counsel.

On December 1, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
asserting claims that the Company and Steven Lefkowitz, Randy
Milby and Harry O'Grady (the "Cormedix Defendants") violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Amended
Complaint also names as defendants several unrelated entities that
allegedly were paid stock promoters.  Lead Plaintiff alleges
generally that the Cormedix Defendants made materially false or
misleading statements and omissions concerning, among other
things, the competitive landscape for the Company's Neutrolin
product and the alleged use of stock promoters.  The Amended
Complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs.

On February 1, 2016, the Cormedix Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss all claims asserted against them in the Amended Complaint
on the grounds, among others, that the Amended Complaint fails to
adequately allege: (1) material misstatements or omissions; (2)
scienter by any of the Cormedix Defendants; or (3) loss causation.

The parties were in the process of briefing that motion and oral
argument was scheduled for May 2, 2016.

The Company believes that it has substantial legal and factual
defenses to the claims in the class action and intends to continue
vigorously defending the case.

Cormedix in-licenses, develops and commercializes prophylactic and
therapeutic products for the prevention and treatment of
infectious and inflammatory diseases.


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Settles Debt Collection Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Paul Kiel, writing for ProPublica, reports that two years ago, the
president of Credit Management Services, a collection agency in
Grand Island, Nebraska, presented a struggling local family with
the keys to a used 2007 Mercury Grand Marquis.  To commemorate the
donation, the company held a ceremony that concluded outside its
offices, where the couple and their two young girls could try out
their new car.

The family's story was dire: their eight-year-old daughter's
failing kidney had led to multiple surgeries and a deluge of
medical bills, according to an article in the local newspaper.

But CMS played another role in the family's life, one the article
didn't mention.  The company had previously sued the couple eight
times over unpaid medical bills and garnished both of their wages.
As recently as two weeks earlier, CMS had seized $156, a quarter
of the girl's father's paycheck.

Shortly after the ceremony, CMS released the family from further
garnishment, court records show.  But just four months later, the
company filed a motion to start up again.  The couple, who did not
respond to attempts by ProPublica to contact them, has since
declared bankruptcy.

In almost any other state, such a barrage of lawsuits against a
family in desperate financial straits would be remarkable.  Not in
Nebraska.  There, debt collectors frequently sue over medical
debts as small as $60 and a simple missed doctor's bill can
quickly land you in court.

Filing suit is one of the most aggressive ways to collect debt,
but no one tracks how frequently it happens or to whom.  An
examination of Nebraska's courts, however, shows that where
debtors live can have an enormous, and unexpected, impact on the
quantity and types of lawsuits.

Nebraska's flood of suits isn't merely a reflection of residents'
inability to pay their bills.  About 79,000 debt collection
lawsuits were filed in Nebraska courts in 2013 alone, according to
a ProPublica analysis.  In New Mexico, a state with a population,
like Nebraska's, of around two million, about 30,000 suits were
filed.  Yet by virtually any measure, households in Nebraska are
significantly better off than those in New Mexico: Income is
higher.  Poverty is lower. And fewer families fall behind on their
bills.

The reason for the difference is simple.  Suing someone in
Nebraska is cheaper and easier.

The cost to file a lawsuit in Nebraska is $45.  In New Mexico,
where suits are filed at about one-third the rate as in Nebraska,
the fee for smaller debts starts at $77.

Nebraska lawmakers, of course, didn't set out to turn the
Cornhusker State into the Lawsuit State.  Instead, it appears no
one understood the consequences of having cheap court fees: Suing
became an irresistible bargain for debt collectors.  It's a deal
collectors have fought to keep, opposing even the slightest
increase.

For debtors, unaffordable debts turn into unaffordable
garnishments, destroying already tight budgets and sending them
into a loop.  "It's just been a vicious cycle," said
Tanya Glasgow, a single mother in Lincoln, Nebraska who's been
sued several times.  "It's been horrible."

"I resent the stereotype that these are not hard-working people"
said Katherine Owen, managing attorney in Legal Aid of Nebraska's
Omaha office.  "Truly the majority of them simply cannot afford
it.  That's it."

Lawsuits over medical debts are, of course, filed in other states,
usually by hospitals.  What makes Nebraska unusual is that almost
all the suits are brought by locally owned collection agencies
that pursue debts on behalf of medical providers. Although
ProPublica found collection agencies filing suits in large numbers
in other states, particularly Indiana and Washington, none could
match the sheer volume in Nebraska.

It's a difference that came as a surprise to researchers, consumer
advocates, and collection professionals both in and outside of
Nebraska.

"There's very little information, period" on the number of
collection lawsuits in different states, said April Kuehnhoff, an
attorney with the National Consumer Law Center.  Policymakers in
Nebraska and other states should pay attention, she said. "Being
sued on a debt has very serious negative consequences for
consumers."

In a statement, the Nebraska Collectors Association said
collection agencies file suits as "a last resort," after attempts
by the original provider and the agency to resolve the debt have
failed.  "Cooperatively working with the consumer is always the
preferred approach to the collection process," it said.

Credit Management Services' offices are housed in a squat, brick
building that's conveniently located just a block away from the
county courthouse in Grand Island, a city of about 51,000 in
central Nebraska.

Local businessman Michael Morledge has owned the company since
1995.  His son serves as president and his daughter as vice
president of customer relations.  CMS, with about 200 employees,
boasts of having "the industry's highest recovery rates" on its
website and counts two-thirds of Nebraska hospitals among its
clients.  In addition to other medical clients like doctor's
offices and clinics, CMS also handles non-medical debts such as
overdrawn bank accounts, utility bills and payday loans.

Like other collection agencies in the state, CMS employs
collectors to persuade debtors to make voluntary payments.  And
like those other agencies, CMS routinely sues those who don't. But
it's here that CMS sets itself apart.

In 2013, CMS filed almost 30,000 lawsuits in Nebraska, more than
the rest of the collection agencies in Nebraska combined.  That
would be a staggering number of suits in any state.  In
New Jersey, with a population nearly five times larger, only one
company, the nation's largest debt buyer, filed more than 30,000
lawsuits that year.

To file those suits -- about 120 per working day -- CMS has its
own staff of six attorneys.  The complaints are prepped by support
staff and then presented to the attorneys for review, CMS's
general counsel Tessa Hermanson said in a 2012 deposition from a
class action lawsuit against the company.

Debtors aren't sued unless "the individual has a means to pay,"
she said.  But when pressed about how CMS determines this,
Ms. Hermanson, who supervises the company's lawyers, said she
didn't know if it was done by "one person or a department."

A review of CMS's lawsuits shows the company is routinely
aggressive even when it's obvious the debtor is poor.  In one
case, CMS emptied a debtor's bank account 11 times over the course
of two years, even though in all but three instances the debtor
had under $100.  One garnishment netted the company $6.50.

Competition for clients can encourage this sort of approach, said
Judge Craig McDermott, former counsel at a CMS rival and current
presiding judge of the Douglas County Court in Omaha.  Companies
may sue even when it's apparent the debtor can't pay just to prove
to the original creditor that they are making an effort:
"Otherwise they'll go to another agency down the street," he told
ProPublica in a 2014 interview.

CMS's frequent use of the courts has brought millions back to the
company, which retains a percentage of what it collects, and its
clients.  From 2008 through 2014, CMS seized at least $88 million
from Nebraskans' wages and bank accounts, according to court data
analyzed by ProPublica.

In a brief response to a list of questions from ProPublica, CMS
wrote that it "plays an active and important role in assisting
creditors in Nebraska with recovering money owed for goods and
services" and that it "strives to comply with all applicable laws
and regulations" and only files suit after other collection
attempts fail.  The company declined to discuss any individual
debtor case.

Earlier this year, state Sen. Adam Morfeld introduced a bill in
the Nebraska legislature that seemed too benign for anyone to
oppose: It proposed raising the fee for filing a lawsuit by $1.
The extra money would go to civil legal aid organizations to
provide more services to low-income residents.

But, to Sen. Morfeld's surprise, his bill quickly encountered
stiff resistance.  Tim Keigher, CMS's lobbyist in the state
capital, made it clear the company would fight the bill every step
of the way, said Sen. Morfeld, a Democrat.  Mr. Keigher did not
respond to requests for comment.

At a February judicial committee hearing, CMS's Hermanson appeared
on behalf of the Nebraska Collectors Association to oppose the
bill. Raising the cost of filing suit in county courts from $45 to
$46, she said, would create a "burden" on the businesses that hire
collection agencies. Collection agencies ask, "is it worth it to
pay X amount to recover a small, you know, medical debt of $200?"
she said. A higher filing fee may cause them to decide "it's just
not worth it," she said.

The gathered senators were skeptical.  After Ms. Hermanson
testified that collection agencies filed thousands of suits each
month, one senator volunteered that maybe increasing the filing
fee "would be better" if it meant fewer suits.

Sen. Matt Williams, a Republican and former president of the
American Bankers Association, asked Ms. Hermanson, "So your
testimony is that a one dollar increase in this fee that your
client is going to pay, not you, would stop you from filing claims
for $200, $300 medical bills?"

Ms. Hermanson, perhaps betraying an industry fear that opening the
door to a dollar would ease the way for further hikes, said
"There's always a need for increased funds and at some point it
becomes less practical to continue to pay for those fees."

"So you would weigh that one dollar against the ability to provide
legal services for the poor people of Nebraska?" asked Williams.

"No, certainly not," she replied.

"But that's what your testimony is."

"My testimony is that the legal services fund, we're not disputing
that it's needed," said Ms. Hermanson, "just that maybe there's a
better way to do it than increasing the court cost."

Ultimately, CMS's efforts to halt the bill were unsuccessful.  On
a 40-0 vote, the bill passed the legislature and was quickly
signed by the governor.  But Mr. Morfeld said, "It's really been
eye-opening. I think we have a broader problem."

ProPublica's review of court data across several states suggests a
relationship between court costs and the number of collection
suits filed.

In 2013, Cook County, Illinois, which contains Chicago and has a
population of over 5 million, had about the same number of
collection suits as Nebraska with its population of fewer than 2
million.  That year, it cost $172 in Cook County to file suit for
the sort of small amounts that predominate in Nebraska, where the
fee was $45.

Not surprisingly, lawsuits over debts of a few hundred dollars are
extremely rare in Cook County.  The typical collection suit in
2013 sought around $3,000, according to ProPublica's analysis.

In fact, suits for a few hundred dollars are generally rare. Debt
buyers, for instance, usually don't file suits for debts smaller
than $1,000 due to the costs involved in suing, said Jan Stieger,
executive director of the industry's trade group, DBA
International.  Debt buyers, which primarily purchase defaulted
credit card accounts, file more collection suits nationwide than
any other type of company.

Some states, like Missouri and New Jersey, have filing fees
comparable to Nebraska's.  But even there the rate of suits, when
adjusted for the population, was still substantially lower.

Ms. Kuehnoff of the National Consumer Law Center said the volume
of suits in a state is also a reflection of how easy it is to sue.
Nebraska has a number of collector-friendly policies, such as
looser standards for serving debtors with a lawsuit.  Tougher
standards -- such as requiring collectors to serve defendants
personally with a suit or provide more documentation of debts --
can decrease the number of suits and make the process fairer to
consumers, she said.

In February, a federal judge deemed CMS's practices unfair, siding
with the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against the company.
CMS, ruled U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon, had deceived
consumers with its collection suits by wrongly claiming interest
and attorney fees -- charges that CMS adds to debts and keeps for
itself.  CMS agreed to settle the class action, but the
settlement's details remain under seal.

In his ruling, Judge Bataillon wrote that the extra charges were
just one part of a process that can be bewildering for defendants,
who are very rarely represented by an attorney.

"Without any special knowledge of the law, a layperson could not
figure out, on the face of the collection complaint, what the
claim was for or to whom he or she was indebted," he wrote.

To get a sense of who is affected by collection suits in Nebraska,
ProPublica reviewed 100 randomly selected cases where a collection
agency had garnished the debtor's pay or bank account. Most of the
debtors were lower-income: more than half earned below a rate of
$30,000 a year.

"I have to work two jobs just to try to make ends meet," said
Robin Kerr, 55, of Norfolk, a city of about 24,000 in northeastern
Nebraska.  Ms. Kerr has been sued four times, three times by CMS,
and in each case, the agency sought to seize a chunk of her wages
at Burger King.

Most of the suits we reviewed sought less than $700, and 40 sought
less than $500.  Four of the suits, all filed by CMS, were for
under $100.  In one case, a $66 chiropractic bill transformed into
a $275 court judgment after court costs, attorney fees, and
interest were tacked on.

The vast majority of suits were over unpaid medical bills: the
providers ranged from rural hospitals to the largest in the state,
from specialists to family doctors.  Debts from multiple providers
were often combined in the same suit, even bundled with non-
medical bills.

The suits sometimes came quickly, in some cases only three months
after the provider sent the patient a bill.  That speed is in
contrast to recent national reforms meant to protect consumers
from being penalized for medical billing errors.  Last year, the
three main credit reporting agencies announced a new 180-day
waiting period from the time a medical account is created until it
can appear on a patient's credit report as in collections.

But in Nebraska, said legal aid attorneys, once an account is sent
to a collection agency, the patient has little hope of sorting out
a billing issue.  Instead, collection agencies often give them the
option of paying in full or facing a lawsuit, they said.

Tanya Glasgow, 39, has had health problems for years, at one point
requiring surgery to remove her gall bladder and recently
suffering from epileptic seizures.  Making matters worse, she's
gone for stretches without health insurance, which she's struggled
to afford. She has two teenagers at home and a third child in
college and works the graveyard shift at a nursing home for $18.50
an hour.

Ms. Glasgow's tried various strategies for dealing with her
medical debt, which she estimates at about $20,000, but any plan
can suddenly fall apart.  "I'm paying on three of them and then
the fourth one sues me," she said.  She's been sued five times,
four by CMS.

The worst blow came last fall.  CMS had filed its third suit, a
bundle of radiology and emergency room bills, for over $1,000.  A
week after obtaining a judgment, CMS moved to garnish her pay. But
the same day, CMS also filed to seize funds from her bank account.

The action froze Ms. Glasgow's account and secured the entirety of
what she owed under the judgment, $1,315.  But because it took
several weeks for CMS to actually receive that money through the
court, CMS allowed the garnishment of her wages to continue.

Ms. Glasgow said she struggled for two weeks to put food on the
table.  But when her paycheck arrived, it was short $226, because
CMS had taken money she no longer owed.  CMS garnished her next
paycheck, too, before the case was finally closed.

Ms. Glasgow said she had to call both the court and CMS to get her
money returned, and then CMS took more than a month to do so.

The experience convinced Glasgow it was time to pursue something
she'd put off considering: bankruptcy.

It's a step that wouldn't be necessary if she lived in a state
where lawsuits over medical debt weren't so common, she said.

"The amount of stress this has brought into my life has been
almost unbearable."


CRST VAN: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Fisher" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Virginia A. Phillips entered an order in the lawsuit
titled Steve Fisher v. CRST Van Expedited Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-
00878-VAP-SP (C.D. Cal.):

   * denying the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment;

   * granting the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the
     Pleadings; and

   * denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiff filed the present case, bringing claims
individually, and on behalf of a class of:

     "Defendant's Contract Student Drivers within the State of
      California who suffered an interference and/or interruption
      in obtaining or maintaining a subsequent employment
      relationship as a result of a communication from Defendant
      to their employer or prospective employer regarding their
      alleged contractual status or training debt from May 5,
      2011 to present."

The Plaintiff brought claims for (1) Violation of California Labor
Code for the Defendant's alleged attempt to prevent a former
employee from obtaining new employment; (2) interference with
prospective economic advantage; and (3) unfair competition under
California Business and Professions Code.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pi7ErUJa


DL POOL SERVICE: Compagnone Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled BRITTANY COMPAGNONE, on behalf
of herself and those similarly situated v. DL POOL SERVICE, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:15-CV-00647-UA-MRM
(M.D. Fla.), asks the Court for conditional certification of the
collective action and permitting under supervision, notice to all
similarly situated employees, who were employed by the Defendant
over the last three years and who were subjected to the
Defendant's alleged illegal pay practice of failing to pay full
and proper overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of
40 in a workweek.

Ms. Compagnone was a service technician, who received a salary and
is authorized by the FLSA to sue in her own name on behalf of
herself and other employees similarly situated.  She asserts that
she has brought this action on behalf of all current and former
similarly situated service technicians, who worked overtime hours
for the Defendant within the last three years and who did not
receive full and proper payment of "time and one-half" wages for
all overtime hours worked.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fp9oSvVh

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          Post Office Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3341
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


DOLLAR TREE: 4,300 Plaintiffs Remain in 2011 Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that approximately 4,300
plaintiffs remain in a class action lawsuit filed in 2011 by an
assistant store manager.

In 2011, an assistant store manager and an hourly associate filed
a collective action against the Company alleging they were forced
to work off the clock in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and state law.

A federal judge in Virginia ruled that all claims made on behalf
of assistant store managers under both the FLSA and state law
should be dismissed. The court, however, certified an opt-in
collective action under the FLSA on behalf of hourly sales
associates. Approximately 4,300 plaintiffs remain in the case. The
court is currently reviewing and considering a revised settlement
agreement. The proposed settlement amount has been accrued.


DOLLAR TREE: Reached Settlement of 2 Cases by Manager
-----------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the Company has reached
an agreement to settle two class action lawsuits filed by an
assistant store manger.

In 2013, a former assistant store manager on behalf of himself and
others alleged to be similarly aggrieved filed a representative
Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claim under California law
currently pending in federal court in California. The suit alleges
that the Company failed to provide uninterrupted meal periods and
rest breaks; failed to pay minimum, regular and overtime wages;
failed to maintain accurate time records and wage statements; and
failed to pay wages due upon termination of employment.

In May 2014, the same assistant store manager filed a putative
class action in a California state court for essentially the same
conduct alleged in the federal court PAGA case.

The parties have reached an agreement to settle the two cases and
the proposed settlement amount has been accrued. The two courts
must approve the terms of the settlement for it to be binding and
final.


DOLLAR TREE: Distribution Employee Case Removed to Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the Company has removed a
lawsuit by a distribution center employee to federal court.

In April 2015, a distribution center employee filed a class action
in California state court with allegations concerning wages, meal
and rest breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely
termination pay. Additionally, the employee seeks to certify a
nation-wide class of non-exempt distribution employees for
improper calculation of overtime compensation. The Company removed
this lawsuit to Federal Court.


DOWN TO LUNCH: Faces Class Action Over Spam Promo Texts
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the
owners and developers of the hot new social networking app Down To
Lunch have been hit with a class action lawsuit, alleging they
illegally used text messages to "spam-vite" potentially thousands
of people to download the app.

On April 22, attorney Ari J. Scharg, of the firm of Edelson PC, of
Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court on behalf of
plaintiff Matthew Warciak and a putative class of other plaintiffs
against San Francisco-based Nikil Inc., which the complaint said
developed and marketed the Down to Lunch smartphone app.

The app, launched in 2015, has through the early months of 2016
steadily increased in popularity among both iPhone and Android
smartphone users, according to reports published in such
publications as The New York Times and Digital Trends.

The app works by helping friends -- particularly, high school and
college students -- suggest activities to other friends.  When
they agree on an activity, such as "lunch," "chill," or "study,"
among others, those wishing to participate click the button
labeled "I'm Down."

The app's simplicity and appeal helped fuel its rise to the tops
of the charts of apps downloaded by iOS users.

However, Mr. Warciak's lawsuit alleged Down To Lunch's rapid rise
was also powered by improper marketing techniques using potential
users' mobile phones.

According to the complaint, Nikil used DTL app users' contact
lists to generate lists of numbers to which to send marketing text
messages for the DTL app.

The lawsuit alleged Nikil "programmed the application to
automatically send text messages" that used app users' names to
make it appear a friend had "personally invited" those receiving
the text messages to download Down To Lunch "so you can both hang
out together," in a technique the complaint said is known as
"spam-viting."

"By accessing data from a user's contact list, Nikil was able to
personalize the text message to include the recipient's name as
well as the names of five other users (that the recipient may
know) that purportedly signed up for the Down To Lunch mobile
application," the complaint said.

The text messages also included a link that could directly take
those receiving the text messages to the Down To Lunch website or
directing iPhone users to the DTL download in the Apple App Store.

The complaint said the app doesn't allow those using the app whose
phone contact information is allegedly used to send the text
messages to "modify, review or alter the content of the
promotional text message.  Instead, Nikil alone has the full
control over the content of the messages, the timing of its
transmission and the number from which it is sent.  Moreover, the
Down To Lunch mobile app does not inform or warn the app user that
an invitee will be sent a text message, nor does it obtain (or
require) an invitee's consent prior to sending a text message."

The complaint alleged all text messages were sent by this
automated system without obtaining consent from those who received
the texts, which the complaint alleged violated federal
telecommunications laws.  They also alleged the purported actions
violated Illinois consumer fraud laws.

The complaint asked the court to order the app's developers and
owners to "disgorge any ill-gotten funds acquired as a result of
its unlawful telephone calling practices," and pay statutory
damages, of as much as $1,500 per text message sent.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: "Palmer" Suit Settlement Is Unfair, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Paul G. Byron entered an order refusing to approve a
class settlement in the lawsuit entitled RAY PALMER, JR., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DYNAMIC
RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC and CASCADE CAPITAL, LLC, Case No. 6:15-
cv-59-Orl-40KRS (M.D. Fla.).

The Court finds that the parties' proposed settlement is unfair,
inadequate, unreasonable, and not worthy of preliminary approval.
Should the parties wish to continue settlement negotiations, Judge
Byron says that they will need to (1) increase the total amount to
be awarded to the class to more fairly reflect Plaintiff's
likelihood of success, (2) restructure the settlement to more
fairly account for Cascade's exposure, (3) reconsider the amount
of the incentive award granted to the Plaintiff, and (4) determine
whether additional discovery is needed to fairly appraise this
lawsuit.

Accordingly, Judge Byron denied the parties' Joint Motion for
Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement.
The parties have 30 days from the date of this Order to file a
renewed joint motion for class certification and preliminary
approval of settlement, if appropriate.  Alternatively, the
Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this Order to file a motion
for class certification.

The Plaintiff initiated this putative class action against the
Defendants to vindicate his rights and the rights of other
similarly situated consumers under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.  The Plaintiff alleges that he and the putative
class members incurred and subsequently defaulted on credit card
obligations owed to Bank of America, and Dynamic was subsequently
contracted to collect on the debts.

The settlement include these terms:

   * Dynamic will pay $12,000 to the class as statutory damages
     under the FDCPA, which will be distributed evenly among the
     1,181 class members for a pro rata award of $10.16 per class
     member;

   * Dynamic will pay Plaintiff $2,000 in recognition for his
     service as class representative and $1,000 in statutory
     damages as permitted by the FDCPA, for a total award to
     Plaintiff of $3,000, which shall be paid separately from the
     class settlement fund;

   * Plaintiff will be deemed the prevailing party and Dynamic
     will pay Plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees and costs;
     and

   * Dynamic will pay the costs of class notice, distribution,
     and administration.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WpIQ1Qcd


EUROCHOC AMERICAS: Class Certification Bid in "Glen" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 4, 2016, in the case entitled
Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc. v. Eurochoc Americas Corporation, et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-04929 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable John J. Tharp Jr.

The minute entry states that:

   -- the Plaintiff's class certification motion is denied
      without prejudice;

   -- the Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue class
      certification motion is denied as moot;

   -- the Plaintiff may refile a class certification motion at
      any point it is prepared to brief and proceed to ruling on
      the motion.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=P3bxhkC7


EVERI HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Bid in "Hardy" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Everi Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the court has not ruled
on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case,
Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC, et al., which is a
civil action filed against Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC (an entity
that does not exist), Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., and
Freedom Trail Ventures, Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Lowndes
County, Alabama.

On June 3, 2010, Everi Games Holding and other manufacturers were
added as defendants. The plaintiffs, who claim to have been
patrons of White Hall, allege that Everi Games Holding
participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama state
law by supplying to White Hall purportedly unlawful electronic
bingo machines played by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs seek
recovery of the monies lost on all electronic bingo games played
by the plaintiffs in the six months prior to the filing of the
complaint under Ala. Code, Sec 8-1-150(A). The plaintiffs
requested that the court certify the action as a class action.

On July 2, 2010, the defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern
Division. The court has not ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. The Company continues to vigorously defend
this matter. Given the inherent uncertainties in this litigation,
however, the Company is unable to make any prediction as to the
ultimate outcome.

Everi provides video and mechanical reel gaming content and
technology solutions, integrated gaming payments solutions and
compliance and efficiency software.


FBR & CO: MLV Defending Securities Action v. Miller Energy
----------------------------------------------------------
FBR & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that MLV & Co. LLC ("MLV"), in November
2015 was named a defendant in two putative class action lawsuits
alleging substantially identical claims against the officers and
directors and underwriters of Miller Energy Resources, Inc.
("Miller").

The lawsuits, styled Goldberg v. Miller et al., and Gaynor v.
Miller et al., are currently pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and allege claims
under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act against nine
underwriters for alleged material misrepresentations and omissions
in the registration statement and prospectuses issued in
connection with 6 offerings (February 13, 2013; May 8, 2013; June
28, 2013; September 26, 2013; October 17, 2013 (as to MLV only)
and August 21, 2014) with an alleged aggregate offering price of
approximately $151 million. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory damages and reimbursement of certain costs and
expenses. Although MLV is contractually entitled to be indemnified
by Miller in connection with this lawsuit, Miller filed for
bankruptcy in October 2015 and this likely will decrease or
eliminate the value of the indemnity that MLV receives from
Miller.

The plaintiffs are currently seeking to remand to Tennessee state
court; defendants are vigorously opposing the remand.


FEDEX CORPORATION: July 15 Fairness Hearing Set in Fla. Case
------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has set a
fairness hearing for July 15, 2016, on the settlement of the
Florida lawsuit.

FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits
(including 25 that have been certified as class actions),
individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative
proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators should
be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases. On December
13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order addressing all
outstanding motions for summary judgment on the status of the
owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs. employee). In
sum, the court ruled on our summary judgment motions and entered
judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 20 of the 28
multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified as class
actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases were
contractors as a matter of the law of 20 states. The plaintiffs
filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases. The Seventh
Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in January 2012 and,
in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not make a determination
with respect to the correctness of the district court's decision
and, instead, certified two questions to the Kansas Supreme Court
related to the classification of the plaintiffs as independent
contractors under the Kansas Wage Payment Act. The other 19 cases
that are before the Seventh Circuit were stayed.

On October 3, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that a 20
factor right to control test applies to claims under the Kansas
Wage Payment Act and concluded that under that test, the class
members were employees, not independent contractors. The case was
subsequently transferred back to the Seventh Circuit, where both
parties made filings requesting the action necessary to complete
the resolution of the appeals. The parties also made
recommendations to the court regarding next steps for the other 19
cases that are before the Seventh Circuit. FedEx Ground requested
that each of those cases be separately briefed given the potential
differences in the applicable state law from that in Kansas. On
July 8, 2015, the Seventh Circuit issued an order and opinion
confirming the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court, concluding
that the class members are employees, not independent contractors.
Additionally, the Seventh Circuit referred the other 19 cases to a
representative of the court for purposes of setting a case
management conference to address briefing and argument for those
cases.

The Company said, "During the second quarter of 2015, we
established an accrual for the estimated probable loss in the
Kansas case. In the second quarter of 2016 the Kansas case
settled, and we increased the accrual to the amount of the
settlement. The settlement will require court approval."

"During the third quarter of 2016, we reached agreements in
principle to settle all of the 19 cases on appeal in the
multidistrict independent contractor litigation. All of these
settlements require court approval. We recognized a liability for
the expected loss (net of recognized insurance recovery) related
to these cases and certain other pending independent-contractor-
related proceedings of $204 million.

"The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight
certified class actions back to the district courts where they
were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not
completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Three
of these matters settled for immaterial amounts and have received
court approval.

"The cases in Arkansas and Florida settled in the second quarter
of 2016, and we established an accrual in each of these cases for
the amount of the settlement. The settlements are subject to court
approval.

"On January 13, 2016, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement of the Florida case and set a fairness hearing for July
15, 2016.

"On January 29, 2016, the parties filed their motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement in the Arkansas case.

"Two cases in Oregon and one in California were appealed to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the court reversed the
district court decisions and held that the plaintiffs in
California and Oregon were employees as a matter of law and
remanded the cases to their respective district courts for further
proceedings. In the first quarter of 2015, we recognized an
accrual for the then-estimated probable loss in those cases.

"In June 2015, the parties in the California case reached an
agreement to settle the matter for $228 million, and in the fourth
quarter of 2015 we increased the accrual to that amount. The court
has scheduled a final approval hearing regarding the settlement
for April 7, 2016.

"The two cases in Oregon were consolidated with a non-
multidistrict litigation independent contractor case in Oregon.
The three cases collectively settled in the second quarter of
2016, and we increased the accrual in these cases to the amount of
the settlement. The settlement is subject to court approval.


FIRST ACCEPTANCE: $3.2 Million Settlement Approved and Paid
-----------------------------------------------------------
First Acceptance Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the $3.2 million
settlement in a collective action lawsuit by former employees has
been approved by the court and paid in December 2015.

In January 2014, one current and three former employees filed a
collective action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The suit Lykins, et
al. v. First Acceptance Corporation, et al., alleged the Company
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying its
insurance agents as exempt employees. Plaintiffs sought unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, overtime, attorneys' fees and costs.
Thompson v. First Acceptance Corporation, et al., was later filed
by eight individuals who presented opt-in consent forms after the
notice period of the first case. These plaintiffs were also
seeking unpaid overtime.

The Company answered both plaintiffs' complaints and denied all of
the allegations contained therein. In April 2014, the class of
agents from both cases was conditionally certified and a notice
regarding the cases was sent to all potential class members. A
total of 235 individuals chose to participate in the cases during
the opt-in period. The Company disagreed with the allegations in
these lawsuits and believed that it was able to present a vigorous
defense.

Since any such litigation would likely have has a lengthy duration
and required the Company to incur significant legal expense, in
August 2015, the Company and the plaintiffs entered into a
stipulation of settlement providing for the release and dismissal
of all asserted claims in exchange for an aggregate payment $3.2
million by the Company that was approved by the court and paid in
December 2015.


FLUIDMASTER INC: Court Allows Sealing of "Sullivan" Suit Filings
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 4, 2016, in the case titled
Pat Sullivan, et al. v. Fluidmaster, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05696
(N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable
Robert M. Dow Jr.

The minute entry states that:

   * the Plaintiffs' motion to file under seal memorandum and
     exhibits to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
     is granted;

   * the Class Action Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
     is taken under advisement, briefing schedule in place; and

   * notice of motion dated May 5, 2016, is stricken and no
     appearances are necessary on that date.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dTTBaVGJ


FORD MOTOR: Must Defend Against Steering Defects Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in San Jose, Calif. on May 3 refused to dismiss a
class action against Ford Motor Company that claims the automaker
concealed defects with its steering system.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said Ford failed to show the claims
put forward by the plaintiffs are not subject to state and federal
warranty laws, while their argument that the plaintiffs did not
file their warranty claims in a timely manner also fell short.

In the lawsuit originally filed in June 2014, lead plaintiff
William Phillips claims he bought a Ford Fusion in 2012 and
immediately encountered problems with the power steering. After
repeated complaints to the company, Ford informed him repairs
would cost $2,000 until the company finally relented and replaced
the power steering as part of a recall performed in 2015.

"Philips states that he reviewed Ford's promotional materials and
other information and that he would not have purchased his 2011
Ford Fusion had Ford disclosed the Electronic Power-Assisted
Steering system defects and failures," Koh wrote in recapping the
class action.

Other plaintiffs lodged similar complaints to Ford relating to
steering problems with the vehicles, and similar to Phillips had
trouble with getting the company to perform repairs correcting the
defects, Koh said.

Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that Ford Focus vehicles built
between 2010 and 2014 and Ford Fusion vehicles built between 2012
and 2014 are equipped with a defective Electronic Assist Powering
Steering system.

Instead of the traditional power steering pump, Ford used a motor
controlled by an electronic system resembling a computer equipped
with sensors. The plaintiffs claim the system was subject to
routine failures, endangering the drivers who rely on the steering
systems by increasing the risk they would lose control of the
cars.

Additionally, they point to an investigation performed by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2012 that
relates to the Ford Explorer. Ford produced internal documents
which the plaintiffs claim show the company knew about the defects
in its steering system but chose to conceal it.

The plaintiffs also say that a large number of customers lodged
complaints specifically relating to the steering component of the
Ford Focus and the Ford Fusion, including two complaints to the
NHTSA where drivers were injured in crashes caused by a sudden
failure in the power steering system.  Ford attempted to have the
class action dismissed on technical grounds, claiming the
plaintiffs forfeited claims in their second amended complaint and
did not lodge warranty complaints during the necessary time
period.

Koh found Ford's arguments insufficient and allowed the suit to
proceed.  Specifically, Koh noted that the Ninth Circuit has
already ruled against Ford in a similar defects case by finding
that warranty claims brought over the same latent defects in Ford
Focuses filed after the one-year duration period should be allowed
to advance because the defects existed when the vehicles were
sold, regardless of when customers discovered them.

While the plaintiffs may not be able to provide sufficient
evidence at trial that the defects were present when they
purchased the vehicles, Koh said that on a motion to dismiss she
has to take the plaintiffs' claims of latent defects as true.

Koh also declined to dismiss one of the plaintiffs, whose claims
involve a vehicle purchased outside the four-year statute of
limitations. She noted that California law allows the statute of
limitations for warranty cases to be tolled in cases of fraudulent
concealment -- a claim she has so far refused to dismiss -- and
said the plaintiffs have so far done enough to show that Ford knew
about the defects and hid them from consumers.

The case captioned, WILLIAM PHILIPS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-02989-LHK (N.D. Cal.).


FOX INDUSTRIES: Class Certification Bid in "Banasiak" Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
A New York state court judge granted Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the captioned case MARCIN BANASIAK and ANDRZEJ
BANASIAK, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by FOX INDUSTRIES, LTD.
and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by FOX
INDUSTRIES, LTD. Plaintiffs, v. FOX INDUSTRIES, LTD., and/or any
other entities affiliated with or controlled by FOX INDUSTRIES,
LTD., and ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Docket No.
150233/2015 (N.Y. Sup.)

Plaintiffs Marcin Banasiak and Andrzej Banasiak, construction
workers formerly employed by Defendant Fox Industries, Ltd. (Fox),
commenced this action to recover wages and supplemental benefits
allegedly due to them and a putative class of Fox's former and
current employees, for construction-related work performed on
various public works projects for Fox. The complaint asserts three
causes of action: (1) the first against Fox for breach of the
public works contracts in failing to pay Plaintiffs prevailing
wages; (2) the second against Arch Insurance Company (Arch) and
various (as yet unnamed) bonding companies for payment of wages
and supplemental benefits under certain labor and material payment
bonds issued to Fox; and (3) the third against Arch and the
bonding companies for payment of wages and supplemental benefits
under the aforesaid bonds pursuant to Labor Law Section 220-g.
Plaintiffs move for class certification.

In his Decision and Order dated March 23, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/i9RM0Sfrom Leagle.com, Judge Engoron granted
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  Plaintiffs have met
their burden of establishing entitlement to class certification in
that they have demonstrated numerosity, commonality, typicality,
adequacy of representation, and superiority. Plaintiffs have also
satisfied the elements required for class certification.


FRONTIER LEAGUE: "Henn" Suit Seeks Payment of Wages and Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Casey S. Henn and Alex R. Kaminsky, Plaintiffs, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated v. The Frontier League,
an incorporated association doing business as Frontier
Professional Baseball, Inc., Bill Lee, Florence Freedom
Professional Baseball, Blue Dog Baseball LLC, Washington Frontier
League Baseball LLC, Joliet Community Baseball and Entertainment
LLC and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-1039
(N.D. Ohio, April 29, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Ohio Minimum Wage Fair Standards Act.

The Frontier League, d/b/a Frontier Professional Baseball, Inc. is
a corporation compromised of twelve Frontier League baseball clubs
(franchises).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan D. Durket, Esq.
     1300 F Deagleway Drive
     Fairborn, OH 45324
     Tel: (937) 985-8787
     Fax: (937) 972-0456
     E-mail: jonathandurket@durketLegal.com


GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of Nevada Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Galectin Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiff in a class
action lawsuit has filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the
dismissal order and final judgment.

Between July 30, 2014, and August 6, 2014, three putative class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada (the "Nevada District Court") against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
stock between January 6, 2014 and July 28, 2014. The complaints
allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements in
certain press releases and other public statements in violation of
the federal securities laws and seek class certification,
unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The
Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims.

On August 22, 2014, the Nevada District Court entered an order
consolidating the three cases, relieving the defendants of any
obligation to respond to the complaints currently on file, and
providing that defendants may respond to a consolidated amended
complaint after it is filed by a lead plaintiff(s) to be appointed
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

On January 5, 2015, the Nevada District Court granted Defendants'
motion to transfer the consolidated putative securities class
action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

On March 24, 2015, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff
("Plaintiff'). Plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (the "Complaint") on May 8, 2015. The Complaint asserts
claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between October
25, 2013 and July 28, 2014. The Complaint alleges that the Company
and certain of its officers and directors (the "Class Action
Individual Defendants") violated Section 1 O(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5
through allegedly false or misleading statements in certain SEC
filings, press releases and other public statements. The Complaint
further alleges that the Class Action Individual Defendants and
one of the Company's shareholders face liability for the alleged
Section 1 O(b) and Rule 10b-5 violations pursuant to Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act. The Complaint seeks class certification,
unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Company disputes the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss
the Complaint on June 26, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the Court
dismissed the putative class action with prejudice and entered a
final judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff has filed a
notice of appeal seeking review of the dismissal order and final
judgment.

Galectin is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company engaged in
drug research and development to create new therapies for fibrotic
disease and cancer.


GOOGLE INC: NY Appeals Court Rejects On2 Merger Case Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
New York's top appeals court refused May 5 to sign onto a
settlement that would have left out-of-state class members out of
a resolution ending protests to Google's $107 million acquisition
of On2 Technologies five years ago.

The tech companies announced their merger on Aug. 4, 2009, and
some nine days later, On2 shareholders told judges in Queens and
Delaware that the company sold out too cheaply to Google.

On2 developed the video compression and related technologies that
became the core of Google's WebM video file format.

In a class-action lawsuit, lead plaintiff Michael Jiannaras
accused On2 and its directors of misleading shareholders that they
would receive 60 cents worth of Google common stock for each On2
share.

The parties settled Jiannaras' case and others into an overarching
deal, which drew more than 200 shareholder objections.

A state supreme court judge and a divided panel of an intermediate
appellate court stopped the deal from going forward until the
companies let out-of-state class members opt out.

On May 5, all seven judges of New York's Court of Appeals agreed
the proposed settlement was unfair.

"We hold that because the proposed settlement in this instance
would deprive out-of-state class members of a cognizable property
interest, the courts below properly refused to approve the
settlement," Judge Eugene Pigott, Jr. wrote for the panel in a
seven-page opinion.

Martin Karlinsky, who represents the settlement's objectors, said
in an email that his clients are "gratified that the Court of
Appeals has recognized that they have a due process right to opt
out of the class."

"They (and we) are considering our options," he added.

An attorney for the appellants, who sought to maintain the
settlement, did not respond to an email request for comment.


GULF COAST: Faces "Francois" Suit Over Failure to Pay Min. Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Estime Francois, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Gulf Coast Transportation, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 8:16-cv-01061-SCB-TBM (M.D. Fla., April 29, 2016), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wage and
misclassifying its taxicab drivers as independent contractors
rather than employees under Florida Labor Standards Act and
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Defendant Gulf Coast Transportation, Inc. is a Florida corporation
headquartered in Tampa, Florida. Gulf Coast is in the business of
providing taxicab services to the general public in and around
Hillsborough County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
     WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
     1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Tel: 813-224-0431; 813-379-2565
     Fax: 813-229-8712
     Email: twells@wfclaw.com


HANNIBAL, MO: Files Motion to Change Class Action Venue
-------------------------------------------------------
Hannibal Courier-Post reports that the City of Hannibal and the
Hannibal Board of Public Works have filed a motion for a change of
venue in a class-action lawsuit leveled against the two entities.

The motion was filed in the 10th judicial circuit on April 26.

If approved, action in the lawsuit -- which alleges the BPW failed
to provide potable water to customers, exposing them to "probable
human carcinogens" -- would take place outside of Marion County.

The six-count lawsuit, filed by four Hannibal residents, seeks
unspecified damages from consumption of water exceeding federal
mandates for disinfection byproducts over a four-year period from
September 2011 to September 2015.

Dating back to September 2011, the water provided by the BPW
exceeded the federally-mandated threshold for total
trihalomethanes (TTHMs), a specific disinfection byproduct
including chloroform and bromoform.  According to court documents,
the maximum contaminant level for TTHMs is 80 parts per billion.

According to the lawsuit document, BPW water contained contaminant
levels as high as 126 parts per billion in 2012 and 157 parts per
billion in 2014.  The most recent violation occurred in September
2015, a month before the new disinfection methods went live.

The lawsuit does not have any actual health claims, although court
documents claim consumption of the water in Hannibal might have
any of variety of detrimental health effects.

Plaintiffs Oliver "O.C." Latta, Vickie Brooks, Crystal Stephens
and Christine Stolte have been vocal opponents to the addition of
chloramines, beginning in October 2015, as a disinfection method
in Hannibal's water system.  The lawsuit does not deal with
chloramines.

The City of Hannibal and BPW have remained mostly quiet about the
lawsuit.


HC2 HOLDINGS: No Discovery Yet in Wage and Hour Cases
-----------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that no discovery schedule or
trial date has been set in the Schuff Steel wage and hour cases.

On July 9, 2015, a putative class action wage and hour lawsuit was
filed against Schuff Steel Company ("SSC"), a subsidiary of
Schuff, and Schuff International (collectively "Schuff") in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court [BC587322], captioned Dylan
Leonard, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public v. Schuff Steel Company and Schuff International,
Inc. The complaint makes generic allegations of numerous
violations of California wage and hour laws and claims that Schuff
failed to pay for overtime; failed to pay for meal and rest
breaks; violated the minimum wage; failed to timely pay business
expenses, wages and final wages; failed to keep requisite payroll
records; and had non-compliant wage statements.

On August 11, 2015, another putative class action wage and hour
lawsuit was filed against SSC in San Joaquin County Superior Court
[39-2015-0032-8373-CU-OE-STK], captioned Pablo Dominguez, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Schuff Steel
Company. The Complaint alleges non-compliant wage statements and
demands penalties pursuant to California Labor Code.

On October 11, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in the
Dominguez claim pursuing only the statutory claim based on the
non-compliant wage statement.

By Order dated December 17, 2015, the matters were designated as
the Schuff Steel Wage and Hour Cases and assigned a coordination
trial judge. No discovery schedule or trial date has been set.

The Company believes that the allegations and claims set forth in
the Complaints are without merit and intends to defend them
vigorously.

HC2 is a diversified holding company that seeks opportunities to
acquire and grow businesses that can generate long-term
sustainable free cash flow and attractive returns in order to
maximize value for all stakeholders.


HEFFLER RADETICH: Class Cert. Bid in "Oetting" Case Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jan E. Dubois granted the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the captioned case JAMES OETTING,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. HEFFLER, RADETICH & SAITTA, LLP, EDWARD J.
SINCAVAGE, EDWARD J. RADETICH, JR., and MICHAEL T. BANCROFT,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 11-4757, (E.D. Pa.).

This case involves claims asserted by Plaintiff James Oetting on
behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated
individuals who received payments from a settlement fund in a
long-running multidistrict litigation in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.  Plaintiff
seeks damages from Defendants, Heffler, Radetich, & Saitta, LLP,
the settlement claims administrator appointed in that case, and
three partners of that firm, for harm suffered by the class due to
fraudulent claims made on the settlement fund by a former Heffler
employee that were authorized by Defendants. Plaintiff asserts
claims for negligence, accountant malpractice, breach of fiduciary
duty, and fraud.

In his Order dated March 23, 2016 available at http://is.gd/0O9ERx
from Leagle.com, Judge Dubois exercised its discretion in amending
the class definition. The class is defined as "All individuals and
entities who are or were members of one of the NationsBank classes
in In re BankAmerica Securities Litigation, Multidistrict
Litigation Number 1264, in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, who (1) filed valid claims for
distribution(s) from the NationsBank settlement fund, (2) received
payment on their claims from the NationsBank settlement fund, and
(3) are eligible for any additional distributions from the
NationsBank settlement fund."

The Court said there is no conflict of interest between James
Oetting and the absent class members, despite David Oetting's
prior involvement in the MDL litigation. First, the Court noted
that David Oetting is no longer a party to this case. James
Oetting testified that, while he might consult with his brother
for advice on how to proceed, he would have the final decision on
the conduct of the litigation and any settlement.

Frank H. Tomlinson, Esq. of Tomlinson Law LLC and John K. Weston,
Esq. -- jweston@sackslaw.com -- of Sacks Weston Diamond LLC serve
as counsel for Plaintiff James Oetting

Patricia M. Hamill, Esq. -- phamill@conradobrien.com -- and
Timothy Mulligan Stengel, sq. -- tstengel@conradobrien.com -- of
Conrad O'Brien serve as counsel for Defendant Heffler, Radetich &
Saitta, LLP


HESKA CORP: To Defend Against "Fauley" Action in N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------
Heska Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend vigorously against the class action complaint by Shaun
Fauley.

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

Heska sells advanced veterinary diagnostic and other specialty
veterinary products.


HIGHER ONE: Plaintiffs Balked at Bid to Dismiss Securities Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Higher One Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs in a
securities class action lawsuit have opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss.

On May 27, 2014, a putative class action captioned Brian Perez v.
Higher One Holdings, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-755-AWT, was filed by HOH
shareholder Brian Perez in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut. On December 17, 2014, Mr. Perez was
appointed lead plaintiff. On January 20, 2015, Mr. Perez filed an
amended complaint. HOH former shareholder Robert Lee was added as
a named plaintiff in the amended complaint. HOH and certain
employees and board members have been named as defendants.

Mr. Perez and Mr. Lee generally allege that HOH and the other
named defendants made certain misrepresentations in public filings
and other public statements in violation of the federal securities
laws and seek an unspecified amount of damages. Mr. Perez and Mr.
Lee seek to represent a class of any person who purchased HOH
securities between August 7, 2012 and August 6, 2014.

All defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint.  In response,
Plaintiffs have filed an opposition brief opposing dismissal. HOH
intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. HOH
is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and
therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a
range of possible loss.

Higher One is provider of technology-based payment processing and
refund disbursement services to higher education institutions and
their students.


HIGHER ONE: Mediation Held in "Hall" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Higher One Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a private mediation took
place in March in the labor class action.

On December 28, 2015, Patricia Hall, formerly an employee of
Higher One Machines, Inc. filed a class action captioned Patricia
Hall, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Higher One Machines, Inc., Higher One, Inc., and Higher One
Holdings, Inc., No. 5:15-cv-00670-F, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Ms. Hall
generally alleges that Higher One, Inc., and the other named
defendants, willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act and breached her employment
contract for failing to compensate her for her daily breaks and
the time it took her to log-on to and sign-off from various
databases and systems that she needed to access to perform the
functions of her employment.

Ms. Hall seeks to represent a nationwide class and a North
Carolina class of current and former hourly home-based customer
care agents who worked for Higher One, Inc. at any time from 2012
through 2015. Ms. Hall served Higher One, Inc. and the other named
defendants with her complaint, but a response has not been filed
at this time.

Since the filing of the action, the parties have consented to
submit the matter to private mediation, which was scheduled to
take place on March 31, 2016 in Raleigh NC.

"We are currently assessing Ms. Hall's claims are unable to
predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore it cannot
determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible
loss," the Company said.

Higher One is provider of technology-based payment processing and
refund disbursement services to higher education institutions and
their students.


HILTON GRAND: Bid to Substitute Deceased Plaintiff's Claims Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Jacobs, Esq. -- mjacobs@mrllp.com -- of Michelman & Robinson,
LLP, in an article for JDSupra Business Advisor, reports that a
recent, seemingly innocuous decision out of the Western District
of New York sheds new light on a compelling constitutional
argument against high-dollar class action lawsuits brought under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  In Hannabury v.
Hilton Grand Vacation Co., LLC, No. 14-cv-6126, 2016 WL 1181789
(W.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2016), the Court held that a named plaintiff's
TCPA claims did not survive his death.  While the decision
appears, on its face, limited to a narrow issue, it may in fact
have far-reaching significance.  In its reasoning, the Court held
that the TCPA's damages provision is "disproportional" to actual
damages suffered.  This would suggest that, when the
disproportionate remedy is aggregated exponentially in the context
of a class action lawsuit, the TCPA's statutory damages provision
violates the U.S. Constitution -- a finding that should have
significant ramifications for ongoing and future TCPA litigation.

In the Hannabury case, Plaintiff filed a putative class action
against Hilton for placing calls to his cell phone in an attempt
to sell timeshare properties, even though he alleged that his
phone number was listed on the national Do Not Call Registry.
Prior to filing a motion for class certification, Hannabury died.
His counsel then moved to substitute Plaintiff's estate as the
named plaintiff.  The District Court ultimately denied the
substitution, finding that Plaintiff's claims under the TCPA did
not survive his death.

"Disproportional to the Harm Suffered"

The Court held that because the case had been filed in federal
court, survivorship was a question of federal common law and thus
"the test for survivorship turns on whether the statutory claims
at issue are primarily penal or remedial in nature" (penal claims
extinguish at the party's death). 2016 WL 1181789, at *3.  To
determine whether a claim is penal or remedial in nature, courts
look to three factors: whether (i) the purpose of the claim is to
redress individual or public wrongs; (ii) the recovery is an
individual or public recovery; and (iii) the recovery is
disproportionate to the harm suffered.

In general, courts are split as to whether the TCPA is penal or
remedial. However, the Hannabury Court ultimately found that the
law was penal (holding that 2 of the 3 prongs of the test weigh in
favor of this determination).  With regard to the first prong, the
Court found that the purpose of the TCPA is to redress wrongs to
the public as opposed to individual plaintiffs.  As for the second
prong of the test, the Court noted that the benefit of a damage
award clearly flows to the individual plaintiff, rather than the
public.  Therefore, the second factor suggests that TCPA claims
are remedial.

The third prong of the test proved decisive in this case.  The
Court found that "[t]he reality is that the TCPA's damages
provision is specifically designed to be disproportional to the
harm suffered; such disproportion both deters the violative
conduct and 'encourage[s] victims to bring suit to redress
violations.'" citing Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Lou Fusz
Auto. Network, Inc., 300 F. Supp. 2d 888, 893-94 (E.D. Mo. 2004)
aff'd, 401 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2005).  Accordingly, the third
factor suggests that Plaintiff's claims are penal.  The Court
therefore concluded that "based on a weighing of these three
factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff's TCPA claims are penal in
nature."  The important concession by the Court in finding
"disproportionality," in conjunction with similar federal court
decisions, gives rise to an argument for defendant companies
facing TCPA class action lawsuits -- namely, that the aggregation
of the minimum $500 to $1,500 fine on a class-wide basis is
unconstitutional.

California Federal Courts Open Door for TCPA "Excessive Fines"
Defense

In an analogous situation, California Federal Courts have
previously questioned the constitutionality of aggregating a
minimum statutory fine on a class wide basis in connection with
the $5,000/per violation penalty under Penal Code Section 632
(using similar reasoning).  The court noted in Cohorst v. BRE
Properties, Inc. (S.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2011, 3:10-CV-2666-JM-BGS)
2011 WL 7061923 report and recommendation adopted as modified,
(S.D. Cal., Jan. 18, 2012, 10CV2666 JM BGS) 2012 WL 153754) that
it perceived class action treatment of Penal Code Section 632 to
constitute an unconstitutionally excessive and disproportionate
penalty under the U.S. and California Constitutions.  The Cohorst
Court, in examining the fairness of a proposed class action
settlement, offered a very instructive explanation as to how the
$5,000 penalty per call set forth in Penal Code Section 637.2,
when applied in a class action scenario, constitutes an "excessive
fine" and lacks the requisite proportionality to the harm caused
to satisfy due process under the Constitution.

The Cohorst Court's comments provide a logical framework for a
defense to TCPA claims based on these analogous issues:

"Statutory damages, such as those provided for by Section 637.2,
can be unconstitutional in application under either the California
or U.S. Constitution if they constitute "excessive fines" or are
imposed without due process of law. See People ex rel. Lockyer v.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 37 Cal. 4th 707, 36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 814,
124 P.3d 408, 420-21 (Cal. 2005).  As explained by one appellate
court, combining a minimum statutory damages scheme with the class
action mechanism "may expand the potential statutory damages so
far beyond the actual damages suffered that the statutory damages
come to resemble punitive damages -- yet ones that are awarded as
a matter of strict liability, rather than for the egregious
conduct typically necessary to support a punitive damages award."
Parker v. Time Warner Entm't. Co., 331 F.3d 13, 22 (2d Cir. 2003)
[*41] (acknowledging the "legitimate concern that the potential
for a devastatingly large damages award, out of all reasonable
proportion to the actual harm suffered by members of the plaintiff
class, may raise due process issues").  The emergence of the
disproportionality argument as elucidated by the Hannabury Court,
would seem to be consistent with Congress' intent when it enacted
the TCPA in the first place.  The Legislature never intended such
disproportionality to be aggregated into a long, drawn out complex
class action scenario.  The TCPA was always intended for small
claims, not unconstitutionally excessive and disproportionate
class action claims; in fact, the Legislature's intent behind the
TCPA was to enable quick expeditious resolution of claims. See
Murphey v. Lanier, 997 F.Supp. 1348 (S.D.Cal.1998).  The
legislative history of the TCPA supports the conclusion that
Congress intended the TCPA to provide a cost-efficient remedy for
unsolicited facsimiles: private actions under the TCPA should "be
treated as small claims best resolved in state courts designed to
handle them, so long as the states allow such actions." Id. From
Murphey: "In creating a private cause of action for the receipt of
unsolicited facsimiles, Congress sought to create a speedy,
effective, and inexpensive remedy.  Implying federal jurisdiction
over such suits would increase their cost and complexity, the very
situation that [the legislative history] demonstrate[s] Congress
intended to prevent."  Murphey, 997 F.Supp. at 1352.

The Hannabury Court's finding that the TCPA's damages provision is
"disproportional" to actual harm suffered, when read in context
with federal courts' legitimate concerns over blessing
devastatingly large and unreasonable damage awards and Congress'
intent that TCPA claims be dealt with in the small claims context
to create a speedy, effective, and inexpensive remedy, gives rise
to a new constitutional due process argument that may be used by
defendants facing class action TCPA claims.  In a litigious world
where plaintiffs and consumer class action attorneys often become
enamored with the possibility of large monetary recoveries,
companies defending TCPA claims should not overlook the most
fundamental due process document of all, the U.S. Constitution.


HONDA MOTOR: Electrical Insulation Attracts Rodents, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the 2015 Honda Civic's soy-
based electrical insulation attracts rodents that eat it, a class
action claims in Santa Rosa, Calif. Sonoma County Court.


HONORHEALTH: Exposed Patients to HIV Risk, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a Phoenix hospital never should have hired a needle-using, drug-
abusing surgical technician who may have exposed dozens of
patients to HIV and hepatitis, a patient claims in Phoenix a class
action.

Lead plaintiff Amy Amari sued HonorHealth and HonorHealth John C.
Lincoln Medical Center on May 3 in Maricopa County Court.

A federal grand just in Colorado charged surgical technician Rocky
Allen with tampering with a consumer product and obtaining a
controlled substance by deceit. Allen worked for John C. Lincoln
HonorHealth from July 28, 2014 through Oct. 6, 2014, when he was
fired for testing positive for a controlled substance.

Allen had a previous employment history that indicated a problem
with drug abuse, Amari class says.

In 2011, he was "court-martialed by the United States Navy and
pleaded guilty to making a false official statement, wrongfully
possessing approximately 30 vials of fentanyl, wrongly possessing
a syringe containing fentanyl, stealing fentanyl, and stealing a
syringe containing fentanyl," according to the complaint.

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy said these records would
have been available to the hospital for review had it requested
them during a background check, the complaint states.

Allen was fired by three other hospitals before he was hired at
John C. Lincoln, the class claims. He was fired from two --
including Banner Thunderbird Medical Center in Glendale, Ariz. --
for stealing fentanyl syringes and testing positive for a
controlled substance, and fired from another after he was caught
switching a fentanyl syringe with a saline-filled syringe.

The charges against Allen came after he was fired from Swedish
Medical Center in Denver for switching a fentanyl syringe with a
saline-filled syringe. A class action filed against that hospital
in March claims Allen may have exposed as many as 3,000 patients
to blood-borne diseases.

Allen's medical records were introduced as evidence in the
criminal case, but were sealed except for a reference to "a blood-
borne pathogen, indicating that there is evidence that Allen is a
carrier of a communicable disease or diseases," according to the
new lawsuit.

Amari says she received a letter from John C. Lincoln on Feb. 29,
notifying her "that she had possibly been exposed to bloodborne
pathogens during her surgical procedure and should immediately
have her blood tested for HIV and hepatitis B and C."
She says the hospital owes a duty to its patients to hire
employees who can be "entrusted with care of patients." Instead it
"put him into the surgery department, which allowed him access to
drugs that he chose to use for his own enjoyment, ignoring the
risk that by using them in the manner he did, the plaintiff and
the other class members could contract disease."

John C. Lincoln said in a February statement that it had
identified 97 patients who had Allen as a surgical technician.

"It is important to note that the situation at our facility is
different than the one in Colorado, and at this time, we have no
indication there was harm to patients," the statement said.

Banner Thunderbird Medical Center faces a similar lawsuit, filed
in March by five patients and their spouses.

Amari seeks class certification, restitution and damages for
negligent hiring.  She is represented by Mark Samson --
msamson@kellerrohrback.com -- with Keller Rohrback.


HORTONWORKS INC: Faces "Monachelli" Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hortonworks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company, Robert G.
Bearden and Scott J. Davidson were sued on February 29, 2016, in a
putative class action lawsuit, captioned William Monachelli v.
Hortonworks, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00980, filed in the
United Stated District Court for the Northern District of
California by a purported stockholder of the Company, in
connection with the Company's January 15, 2016 announcement of a
follow-on offering. The Monachelli lawsuit alleges that the
Company and Messrs. Bearden and Davidson violated federal
securities laws by misrepresenting and/or omitting information
pertaining to the Company's capital requirements. The lawsuit
seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Hortonworks(R) customers use the Company's enterprise-scale
"Connected Data Platforms" to build transformational data
applications fueled by actionable intelligence from information
that flows over a network, such as the internet or corporate
networks, or Data in Motion, and information that is stored in
digital form in a file system, database or other storage medium,
or Data at Rest.


IDT ENERGY: "Ferrare" Class Action Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action lawsut by
Anthony Ferrare against IDT Energy, Inc. remains pending but has
been stayed.

On March 13, 2014, named plaintiff, Anthony Ferrare, commenced a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The
complaint was served on IDT Energy on July 16, 2014. The named
plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and other former and
current electric customers of IDT Energy in Pennsylvania with
variable rate plans, whom he contends were injured as a result of
IDT Energy's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices.

On August 7, 2014, IDT Energy removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On
October 20, 2014, IDT Energy moved to stay or, alternatively,
dismiss the complaint, as amended, by the named plaintiff.

On November 10, 2014, the named plaintiff opposed IDT Energy's
motion to dismiss and IDT Energy filed a reply memorandum of law
in further support of its motion to dismiss. On June 10, 2015, the
Court granted IDT Energy's motion to stay and denied its motion to
dismiss without prejudice.

IDT Energy believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.


IDT ENERGY: Parties in "McLaughlin" Engaged in Limited Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in the class
action by Louis McLaughlin have engaged in limited discovery.

On July 2, 2014, named plaintiff, Louis McLaughlin, filed a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
contending that he and other class members were injured as a
result of IDT Energy's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing
practices. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself
and two subclasses: all IDT Energy customers who were charged a
variable rate for their energy from July 2, 2008, and all IDT
Energy customers who participated in IDT Energy's rebate program
from July 2, 2008.

On December 19, 2014, IDT Energy filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On December 9, 2015, the Court denied IDT Energy's
motion to dismiss without prejudice so as to allow McLaughlin to
file an amended complaint.

On January 22, 2016, the named plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on behalf of himself and all IDT Energy customers in New
York State against IDT Energy, Inc., Genie Retail Energy, Genie
Energy International Corporation, and Genie Energy Ltd.

Subsequently, on February 22, 2016, IDT Energy moved to dismiss
the amended complaint. The named plaintiff's opposition papers to
the motion to dismiss were due on March 18, 2016 and IDT Energy's
reply was due on April 11, 2016.

In the meantime, the parties are engaged in limited discovery. IDT
Energy believes that the claims in the amended complaint are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.


IDT ENERGY: Parties in "Aks" Suit Engaged in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in the class
action by Kimberly Aks are engaged in limited discovery.

On July 15, 2014, named plaintiff, Kimberly Aks, commenced a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in New
Jersey Superior Court, Essex County, contending that she and other
class members were injured as a result of IDT Energy's alleged
unlawful sales and marketing practices. The named plaintiff filed
the suit on behalf of herself and all other New Jersey residents
who were IDT Energy customers at any time between July 11, 2008
and the present.

On November 6, 2014, the Court denied IDT Energy's motion to
dismiss the complaint.

"The parties are currently engaged in discovery. IDT Energy
believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend the action," the Company said.


INLAND REAL ESTATE: MOU Reached in Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------
Inland Real Estate Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a memorandum of
understanding has been reached regarding the settlement of
litigation relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement"), dated as of December 14, 2015, by and among
Inland Real Estate Corporation, a Maryland corporation (the
"Company"), DRA Growth and Income Fund VIII, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company ("Parent"), DRA Growth and Income Fund
VIII (A), LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (together with
Parent, the "Parent Parties"), and Midwest Retail Acquisition
Corp., a Maryland corporation and an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of the Parent Parties ("Merger Sub"). The Merger
Agreement provides for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the
Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving as a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Parent Parties.

On February 18, 2016, the Company, its board of directors, Parent
Parties and Merger Sub are named as defendants in three putative
class actions in Maryland state court, in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City challenging the Merger and the other transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement. The putative class actions
were captioned: Mattos v. Inland Real Estate Corp., et al.;
Perrone v. Inland Real Estate Corp., et al.; and Rosen v. Inland
Real Estate Corp., et al. (the "Actions"). DRA Advisors, LLC, an
affiliate of the Parent Parties, was also a named defendant in
Perrone v. Inland Real Estate Corp., et al.

On February 5, 2016 the parties filed a stipulation to consolidate
the three pending shareholder complaints and any additional
related complaints received in the future.

On February 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed a consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The allegations
in the Amended Complaint raise putative class claims against the
Company, members of the Board, the Parent Parties and Merger Sub.
In particular, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Merger
Consideration was insufficient, the Merger Agreement contained
unreasonable deal protection devices, including, for example, use
of a "no-solicitation" provision, and that the Company issued
inadequate proxy disclosures in relation to the Merger. The
Amended Complaint generally alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by
members of the Board in connection with the Merger Agreement.
Further, the Amended Complaint alleges that some or all of the
Company, the Parent Parties and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty.

On March 16, 2016, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs providing for the
settlement of the Actions. While the Company and Parent Parties
believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under
applicable laws, in order to avoid the burden and expense of
further litigation, the Company and Parent Parties have agreed,
pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make certain supplemental
disclosures related to the proposed Merger.

The MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to the Company's stockholders. In the event that
the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will
be scheduled at which the Circuit Court for Baltimore City will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it
will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of the Company
challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger and any disclosure
made in connection therewith, including in the Definitive Proxy
Statement, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to
stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement.

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses to be paid by the Company or its successor. The
settlement is also contingent upon, among other things, the Merger
becoming effective under Maryland law. There can be no assurance
that the Circuit Court for Baltimore City will approve the
settlement contemplated by the MOU. In the event that the
settlement is not approved and such conditions are not satisfied,
the defendants will continue to vigorously defend against the
allegations in the Actions.


ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Compromise Pending in ICL Dead Sea Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Chemicals Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the proceedings in the
ICL Dead Sea Class Action are continuing with respect to approval
of the compromise arrangement by the court.

In 2014, ICL Dead Sea Works Ltd. received a petition submitted to
the District Court in Israel in respect of a purported class
action against its subsidiary, ICL Dead Sea. According to the
petition, the plaintiff is a farmer who has bought and currently
buys potash in Israel, which is produced by ICL Dead Sea, for
fertilization purposes and seeks to represent a group of class
members that would include all purchasers of potash or products
containing potash since 2006, when potash prices were deregulated,
through the date of the action.

The plaintiff alleges that ICL Dead Sea charged an excessive price
for potash, contrary to the Israeli business practices laws, and
seeks damages in the amount of approximately NIS 96.4 million
(approximately $24.7 million).

In February 2016, the parties submitted a request to the court for
approval of a compromise arrangement, the results of which are not
expected to be significant with respect to the financial
statements.

As at the date of the Annual Report, the proceedings are
continuing with respect to approval of the compromise arrangement
by the court. In the Company's estimation, the chances that
approval of the compromise arrangement will be confirmed exceed
the chances it will be rejected. The Company has a sufficient
provision in the financial statements.


ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Motion to Certify Claim Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Israel Chemicals Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court decision on the
request to certify the claim as a class action in the Securities
Law Proceedings had not yet been rendered.

The Company said, "On August 29, 2013, a motion to certify a class
action against the Company, Israel Corporation, Potashcorp
Cooperative Agricultural Society Ltd., the members of our Board of
Directors and our CEO, was filed in the District Court in Tel-
Aviv, on the grounds of misleading information, deception and non-
disclosure of material information in our reports, allegedly in
violation of the provisions of the Israeli Securities Law and the
general laws. The aggregate amount of the damage claimed is $0.7
billion (NIS 2.75 billion) or $0.84 billion (NIS 3.28 billion).
(The amount of the claim depends on the share price used to
calculate the claimed damages).

"In November 2014, a hearing was held on the motion to certify the
claim as a class action. During 2015, proceedings took place to
advance a compromise agreement that were later discontinued by the
parties.

"As at the date of this Annual Report, a court decision on the
request had not yet been rendered. In the Company's opinion, based
on the position of its legal advisors, the chances that the claims
against it will be rejected exceed the chances that they will be
accepted. Accordingly, no provision was included in the financial
statements."


ISRAEL CHEMICALS: June 15 Hearing in Haifa Bay Pollution Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Chemicals Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a preliminary hearing
has been scheduled for June 15, 2016, in the case related to air
pollution in Haifa Bay certification of a claim as a class action.

On June 7, 2015, a request was filed for its certification of a
claim as a class action, in the District Court in Tel Aviv-Jaffa,
against eleven defendants, including a subsidiary, Fertilizers and
Chemical Ltd (ICL Haifa), in respect of claims relating to air
pollution in Haifa Bay and for the harm allegedly caused from it,
to the residents of the Haifa Bay area. The amount of the claim is
about NIS 14.4 billion (about $3.8 billion). A preliminary hearing
was scheduled for June 15, 2016.

The Company is studying the request. In light of the complexity of
the process and the early stage of the proceeding, as well as the
fact that opinions have not yet been received from the various
experts, it is difficult to predict the outcome of the proceeding.
Nonetheless, in the Company's estimation, based on the initial
factual data provided to it and the relevant court decisions, the
chances that the plaintiffs' contentions will be rejected exceed
the chances that they will be accepted.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: New York Securities Settlement Approved
--------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the court has
granted final approval of the New York Settlement and entered an
order dismissing the New York Securities Litigation with
prejudice.

The Company said, "On March 11, 2013, a complaint in a securities
class action lawsuit was filed against us, one of our current
executive officers and one of our former executive officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
under the following caption: William Koetsch, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational
Services, Inc., et al. (the "Koetsch Litigation")."

"On April 17, 2013, a complaint in a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against us, one of our current executive
officers and one of our former executive officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York under
the following caption: Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT
Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "MLAF Litigation").

"On July 25, 2013, the court consolidated the Koetsch Litigation
and MLAF Litigation under the following caption: In re ITT
Educational Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "New York
Securities Litigation"), and named the Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
Retirement Fund as the lead plaintiffs.

"On October 7, 2013, an amended complaint was filed in the New
York Securities Litigation, and on January 15, 2014, a second
amended complaint was filed in the New York Securities Litigation.
The second amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by:

      * our failure to properly account for the 2007 RSA, CUSO RSA
and PEAKS Program;

      * employing devices, schemes and artifices to defraud;

      * making untrue statements of material facts, or omitting
material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading;

      * making the above statements intentionally or with reckless
disregard for the truth;

      * engaging in acts, practices, and a course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit upon lead plaintiffs and others
similarly situated in connection with their purchases of our
common stock;

      * deceiving the investing public, including lead plaintiffs
and the purported class, regarding, among other things, our
artificially inflated statements of financial strength and
understated liabilities; and

      * causing our common stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices and causing the plaintiff and other putative class members
to purchase our common stock at inflated prices.

"The putative class period in this action is from April 24, 2008
through February 25, 2013. The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award
of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, and such
equitable/injunctive and other relief as the court deems
appropriate.

"On July 22, 2014, the district court denied most of our motion to
dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim
for which relief can be granted. On August 5, 2014, we filed our
answer to the second amended complaint denying all of the
plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification on March 27, 2015.

"On June 16, 2015, to facilitate the parties' efforts to resolve
this action by mediation, the court entered a stipulation and
order providing for a three-month stay of all proceedings. On
September 14, 2015, the court extended the stay by an additional
two months.

"Following a mediation which began in the third quarter of 2015,
the parties came to an agreement in principle to settle the New
York Securities Litigation. On November 2, 2015, the parties in
the New York Securities Litigation entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "New York Settlement") to resolve the
action in its entirety. Under the terms of the New York
Settlement, we and/or our insurers would make a payment of $16,962
in exchange for the release of claims against the defendants and
other released parties, by the plaintiffs and all settlement class
members, and for the dismissal of the action with prejudice.

"On November 2, 2015, the plaintiffs in the New York Securities
Litigation filed the New York Settlement and related exhibits with
the court and moved, among other things, for the court to
preliminarily approve the New York Settlement, to approve the
contents and procedures for notice to potential settlement class
members, to certify the New York Securities Litigation as a class
action for settlement purposes only, and to schedule a hearing for
the court to consider final approval of the New York Settlement.

"On November 23, 2015, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the New York Settlement and scheduled a hearing for
March 8, 2016 to consider final approval of the New York
Settlement. Prior to the March 8, 2016 hearing, potential
settlement class members (all persons and entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired our common stock between April 24, 2008 and
February 25, 2013, both dates inclusive (with limited exclusions))
had an opportunity to exclude themselves from participating in the
New York Settlement or to raise objections with the court
regarding the New York Settlement or any part thereof.

"On March 8, 2016, the court granted final approval of the New
York Settlement and entered an order dismissing the New York
Securities Litigation with prejudice.

"The New York Settlement contains no admission of liability, and
all of the defendants in the New York Securities Litigation have
expressly denied, and continue to deny, all allegations of
wrongdoing or improper conduct. Our insurance carriers funded a
combined $25,000 collectively towards the settlement payments for
the New York Settlement and the Indiana Settlement. In the event
that the approved New York Settlement does not become effective as
a result of an appeal or otherwise, all of the defendants intend
to continue to defend themselves vigorously against the
allegations made in the second amended complaint."


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Indiana Settlement Waiting for Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Indiana
Settlement remains pending final court approval.

The Company said, "On September 30, 2014, a complaint in a
securities class action lawsuit was filed against us, one of our
current executive officers and one of our former executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana under the following caption: David Banes, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Kevin M.
Modany, et al. (the "Banes Litigation").

"On October 3, 2014, October 9, 2014 and November 25, 2014, three
similar complaints were filed against us, one of our current
executive officers and one of our former executive officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
under the following captions: Babulal Tarapara, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational
Services, Inc. et al. (the "Tarapara Litigation"), Kumud Jindal,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Kevin Modany, et al. (the "Jindal Litigation") and Kristopher
Hennen, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. et al. (the "Hennen
Litigation").

"On November 17, 2014, the Tarapara Litigation and the Jindal
Litigation were consolidated into the Banes Litigation. On January
21, 2015, the Hennen Litigation was consolidated into that
consolidated action (the "Indiana Securities Litigation"). On
December 1, 2014, motions were filed in the Indiana Securities
Litigation for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

"On March 16, 2015, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. Subsequently, the caption for the Indiana Securities
Litigation was changed to the following: In re ITT Educational
Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (Indiana).

"On May 26, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in the Indiana
Securities Litigation. The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
knowingly or recklessly making false and/or misleading statements
and failing to disclose material adverse facts about our business,
operations, prospects and financial results. Plaintiffs assert
that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of
business and that alleged misstatements and/or omissions by the
defendants caused members of the putative class to purchase our
securities at artificially inflated prices. The amended complaint
includes allegations relating to:

     * the performance of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program;

     * our guarantee obligations under the PEAKS Program and the
CUSO Program;

     * our accounting treatment of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO
Program;

     * consolidation of the PEAKS Trust in our consolidated
financial statements;

     * the impact of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program on our
liquidity and overall financial condition;

     * our compliance with Department of Education financial
responsibility standards; and

     * our internal controls over financial reporting.

"The putative class period in the Indiana Securities Litigation is
from February 26, 2013 through May 12, 2015. The plaintiffs in the
Indiana Securities Litigation seek, among other things, the
designation of the action as a proper class action, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages against all defendants, interest,
costs, expenses, counsel fees and expert fees, and such other
relief as the court deems proper. On July 14, 2015, to facilitate
the parties' efforts to resolve this action by mediation, the
court granted a joint motion for a stay of proceedings until
October 13, 2015. On October 13, 2015, the court extended the stay
to October 27, 2015. On October 27, 2015, the court further
extended the stay. On November 3, 2015, due to the filing of the
Indiana Settlement, the stay was lifted.

"Following a mediation that began in the third quarter of 2015,
the parties came to an agreement in principle to settle the
Indiana Securities Litigation.

"On November 2, 2015, the parties in the Indiana Securities
Litigation entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
(the "Indiana Settlement") to resolve the action in its entirety.
Under the terms of the Indiana Settlement, we and/or our insurers
would make a payment of $12,538 in exchange for the release of
claims against the defendants and other released parties, by the
plaintiffs and all settlement class members, and for the dismissal
of the action with prejudice.

"On November 2, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Indiana Securities
Litigation filed the Indiana Settlement and related exhibits with
the court and moved, among other things, for the court to
preliminarily approve the Indiana Settlement, to approve the
contents and procedures for notice to potential settlement class
members, to certify the Indiana Securities Litigation as a class
action for settlement purposes only, and to schedule a hearing for
the court to consider final approval of the Indiana Settlement.

"On November 4, 2015, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the Indiana Settlement and scheduled a hearing for March
10, 2016 to consider final approval of the Indiana Settlement.
Prior to the March 10, 2016 hearing, potential settlement class
members (all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired our common stock, purchased or otherwise acquired call
options on our common stock, or wrote put options on our common
stock, between February 26, 2013 and May 12, 2015, both dates
inclusive (with limited exclusions)) had an opportunity to exclude
themselves from participating in the Indiana Settlement or to
raise objections with the court regarding the Indiana Settlement
or any part thereof.

"On March 10, 2016, the court entered an order finding that the
Indiana Settlement is fair and reasonable and was entered into in
good faith, and the court stated that a separate order regarding
the Indiana Settlement would follow.

"The Indiana Settlement contains no admission of liability, and
all of the defendants in the Indiana Securities Litigation have
expressly denied, and continue to deny, all allegations of
wrongdoing or improper conduct. Our insurance carriers funded a
combined $25,000 collectively towards the settlement payments for
the Indiana Settlement and the New York Settlement. In the event
that the Indiana Settlement does not receive final approval by the
court or otherwise does not become effective as a result of an
appeal or otherwise, all of the defendants intend to continue to
defend themselves vigorously against the allegations made in the
amended complaint."


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Still Defends Gallien Litigation in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend against the Gallien litigation in California.

The Company said, "On December 17, 2013, a complaint was filed
against us in a purported class action in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles under the
following caption: La Sondra Gallien, an individual, James
Rayonez, an individual, Giovanni Chilin, an individual, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Gallien Litigation").
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2014.
The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that under
California law, we:

     * failed to pay wages owed;

     * failed to pay overtime compensation;

     * failed to provide meal and rest periods;

     * failed to provide itemized employee wage statements;

     * engaged in unlawful business practices; and

     * are liable for civil penalties under the California Private
Attorney General Act.

The purported class includes recruiting representatives employed
by us during the period of December 17, 2009 through December 17,
2013. The amended complaint seeks:

     * compensatory damages, including lost wages and other
losses;

     * general damages;

     * pay for missed meal and rest periods;

     * restitution;

     * liquidated damages;

     * statutory penalties;

     * interest;

     * attorneys' fees, cost and expenses;

     * civil and statutory penalties;

     * injunctive relief; and

     * such other and further relief as the court may deem
equitable and appropriate.

"Following a mediation that began in the third quarter of 2015,
the parties came to an agreement in principle to settle the
Gallien Litigation on a class-wide basis for $400.

"On October 28, 2015, the parties executed a Stipulation of Class
Action Settlement (the "Gallien Settlement") to document the terms
and conditions of the settlement. In connection with the Gallien
Settlement and subject to court approval, the settlement is based
on claims made with a specific reversion of funds paid back to us,
depending on the number of claims made by settlement class members
for individual settlement payments.

"Under the terms specified in the Gallien Settlement, 55% of a net
settlement amount of approximately $204 must be paid to settlement
class members in the form of individual settlement payments. In
the event the settlement is not approved by the court or otherwise
does not become effective, we intend to continue to defend
ourselves vigorously against the allegations made in the amended
complaint."


J. C. PENNEY: To Defend "Marcus" and Johnson" Securities Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend the "Marcus" and "Johnson" securities class
action lawsuits.

The Company said, "The Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth
H. Hannah are parties to the Marcus consolidated purported class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Texas, Tyler Division. The Marcus consolidated complaint is
purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired our common
stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September 26,
2013, and alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff claims that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the
Company's financial condition and business prospects that caused
our common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.  The
consolidated complaint seeks class certification, unspecified
compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable costs and
expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper."

"Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
which was denied by the court on September 29, 2015. Defendants
filed an answer to the consolidated complaint on November 12,
2015. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on January
25, 2016.

"Also, on August 26, 2014, plaintiff Nathan Johnson filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company, Myron E.
Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit is purportedly
brought on behalf of persons who acquired our securities other
than common stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through
September 26, 2013, generally mirrors the allegations contained in
the Marcus lawsuit discussed above, and seeks similar relief.

"On June 8, 2015, plaintiff in the Marcus lawsuit amended the
consolidated complaint to include the members of the purported
class in the Johnson lawsuit, and on June 10, 2015, the Johnson
lawsuit was consolidated into the Marcus lawsuit.

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to
vigorously defend them. While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final
resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity
or capital resources."


J. C. PENNEY: To Defend ERISA Action by Ramirez and Ihle
--------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend the ERISA class action lawsuit by Roberto
Ramirez and Thomas Ihle.

JCP and certain present and former members of JCP's Board of
Directors have been sued in a purported class action complaint by
plaintiffs Roberto Ramirez and Thomas Ihle, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, which was filed on July
8, 2014 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas,
Tyler Division. The suit alleges that the defendants violated
Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
by breaching fiduciary duties relating to the J. C. Penney
Corporation, Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan
(the Plan). The class period is alleged to be between November 1,
2011 and September 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that they and
others who invested in or held Company stock in the Plan during
this period were injured because defendants allegedly made false
and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's
financial condition and business prospects that caused the
Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.
The complaint seeks class certification, declaratory relief, a
constructive trust, reimbursement of alleged losses to the Plan,
actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was
granted in part and denied in part by the court on September 29,
2015. Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on November 6,
2015.

"We believe the lawsuit is without merit and we intend to
vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe that the final
resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect
on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or
capital resources," the Company said.


J. C. PENNEY: Still Defends Employment Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the Company continues to
defend the employment class action litigation.

JCP is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Tschudy
v. JCPenney Corporation filed on April 15, 2011 in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of California. The lawsuit
alleges that JCP violated the California Labor Code in connection
with the alleged forfeiture of accrued and vested vacation time
under its "My Time Off" policy. The class consists of all JCP
employees who worked in California from April 5, 2007 to the
present.

Plaintiffs amended the complaint to assert additional claims under
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act on behalf of all JCP
employees who worked in Illinois from January 1, 2004 to the
present. After the court granted JCP's motion to transfer the
Illinois claims, those claims are now pending in a separate action
in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois,
entitled Garcia v. JCPenney Corporation.

The lawsuits seek compensatory damages, penalties, interest,
disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney's
fees and costs. Plaintiffs in both lawsuits filed motions, which
the Company opposed, to certify these actions on behalf of all
employees in California and Illinois based on the specific claims
at issue.

On December 17, 2014, the California court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. Pursuant to a motion by the
Company, the California court decertified the class on December 9,
2015.

On February 12, 2016, Plaintiff and the Company each filed motions
for partial summary judgment with the California court. The
Illinois court denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for
class certification pending the filing of an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in the Illinois lawsuit
on April 14, 2015 and the Company has answered.  On July 2, 2015,
the Illinois plaintiffs renewed their motion for class
certification, which the Company has opposed.

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to
continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. While no assurance
can be given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, we
believe that the final resolution of these actions will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said.


J. C. PENNEY: Still Defends Pricing Class Action Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the Company continues to
defend the Pricing Class Action lawsuits.

JCP is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Spann v.
J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. filed on February 8, 2012 in the
U.S. District Court, Central District of California. The lawsuit
alleges that JCP violated California's Unfair Competition Law and
related state statutes in connection with its advertising of sale
prices for private label apparel and accessories. The lawsuit
seeks restitution, damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees
and costs.

On May 18, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's request for
certification of a class consisting of all people who, between
November 5, 2010 and January 31, 2012, made purchases in
California of JCP private or exclusive label apparel or
accessories advertised at a discount of at least 30% off the
stated original or regular price (excluding those who only
received such discount by using coupon(s)), and who have not
received a refund or credit for their purchases.

"The parties have reached a settlement agreement, subject to court
approval, and in accordance with the term of the settlement, we
have established a $50 million reserve to settle class members'
claims."


JAKKS PACIFIC: Still No Decision on Motion to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------
Jakks Pacific, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's motion to
dismiss a Third Amended Complaint in a class action lawsuit has
been taken on submission and a decision has not been issued.

On July 25, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California captioned Melot v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No.
CV13-05388 (JAK) against Stephen G. Berman, Joel M. Bennett
(collectively the "Individual Defendants"), and the Company
(collectively, "Defendants"). On July 30, 2013, a second purported
class action lawsuit was filed containing similar allegations
against Defendants captioned Dylewicz v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et
al., Case No. CV13-5487 (OON). The two cases (collectively, the
"Class Action") were consolidated on December 2, 2013 under Case
No. CV13-05388 JAK (SSx) and lead plaintiff and lead counsel
appointed.

On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "First Amended Complaint") against Defendants which
alleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false
and/or misleading statements concerning Company financial
projections and performance as part of its public filings and
earnings calls from July 17, 2012 through July 17, 2013.
Specifically, the First Amended Complaint alleged that the
Company's forward looking statements, guidance and other public
statements were false and misleading for allegedly failing to
disclose (i) certain alleged internal forecasts, (ii) the
Company's alleged quarterly practice of laying off and rehiring
workers, (iii) the Company's alleged entry into license agreements
with guaranteed minimums the Company allegedly knew it was unable
to meet; and (iv) allegedly poor performance of the Monsuno and
Winx lines of products after their launch. The First Amended
Complaint also alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by Messrs. Berman and Bennett. The First Amended Complaint
sought compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed amount as
well as attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint
on February 17, 2014, and the motion was granted, with leave to
replead.

A Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was filed on July 8, 2014 and
it set forth similar allegations to those in the First Amended
Complaint about discrepancies between internal projections and
public forecasts and the other allegations except that the claim
with respect to guaranteed minimums that the Company allegedly
knew it was unable to meet was eliminated.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and that motion was
granted with leave to replead. A Third Amended Complaint ("TAC")
was filed on March 23, 2015 with similar allegations. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the TAC and that motion was argued on
July 22, 2015; after argument it was taken on submission and a
decision has not been issued.

"We believe that the claims in the Class Action are without merit,
and we intend to defend vigorously against them. However, because
the Class Action is in a preliminary stage, we cannot assure you
as to its outcome, or that an adverse decision in such action
would not have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations," the Company said.

Jakks Pacific is a multi-line, multi-brand toy company that
designs, produces, markets and distributes toys and related
products, pet toys, consumables and related products, electronics
and related products, kids indoor and outdoor furniture, and other
consumer products.


KENNETH COLE: Dismissal of Shareholder Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the New York Court of
Appeals affirmed dismissal May 5 of a shareholder class action
challenging the going-private merger of Kenneth Cole Productions.

The appellate case is, Erie County Employees Retirement System,
Appellant, v. Michael J. Blitzer, et al., Respondents, Marlin
Equities VII, LLC, Defendant.

The trial court case is, In the Matter of Kenneth Cole
Productions, Inc., Shareholder Litigation.


KEYSTONE MERCY: Pa. Court Tosses Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the Pennsylvania Superior Court has once again thwarted a proposed
class action lawsuit against two health plans over the loss of a
flash drive with nearly 300,000 patients' data, in part relying on
a ruling that came down between the plaintiffs' first and second
attempts to certify the class.

When a prior Superior Court panel ruled on the case of Baum v.
Keystone Mercy Health Plan, it remanded the case back to the
Philadelphia trial court after determining the lower court
mistakenly found the plaintiffs had to show reliance on the health
plans' privacy promises to prove a claim for deceptive practices
under the Uniform Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
The Superior Court said only the UTPCPL's fraud provisions
required proof of reliance, not the deceptive practices provision.
It asked the trial court to review the plaintiff's motion to
certify the class on that claim, the merits of which the trial
court hadn't previously tackled.

The Philadelphia trial court ultimately ruled against plaintiff
Avrum Baum's class certification motion on remand, finding he
couldn't show his daughter's data that was lost included
personally identifiable information.  The court also found Baum
didn't have standing to bring a private cause of action under the
UTPCPL because he did not purchase his daughter's insurance
policy, but rather it was paid for through Medicaid.

But before the Philadelphia trial court issued that ruling, a
panel of the Superior Court had ruled in 2015 in the case of Kern
v. Lehigh Valley Hospital.  In that case, the court rejected the
concept that it espoused in the first Baum decision, finding
instead that justifiable reliance is required on claims of
deceptive practices under the UTPCPL.

In its April 26 opinion in Baum, Judge Correale F. Stevens
reiterated that the first Baum court ruled the trial court
appropriately dismissed the UTPCPL fraudulent practices claim.

"In light of Kern, and upon review of the trial court's additional
findings of fact and conclusions of law on remand, we further find
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying [Baum's]
motion to certify the class to the extent it alleged deceptive
conduct under the UTPCPL's catchall provision," Stevens said.

Under Kern, Judge Stevens said, Baum had to demonstrate that he
and all the prospective class members justifiably relied on the
health plans' alleged violations of the UTPCPL and that they
suffered an ascertainable loss as a result.  Having to demonstrate
reliance is an individual inquiry that makes class certification
impractical, the court found.
Even though the trial court had improperly found Baum met the
commonality requirement given its then working assumption that
reliance didn't have to be proved, Judge Stevens noted that the
lower court properly used its discretion in denying class
certification under other factors, such as numerosity and
typicality, adequacy of representation and the fair and efficient
method of adjudication.

According to the opinion, Baum's special-needs daughter had health
insurance through Keystone Mercy Health Plan, which was paid for
by the state through a Medicaid program.

In 2010, one of the health plan's employees copied data from the
plan's computer system onto an unencrypted flash drive that was
later misplaced and never found.  The flash drive had private
health information that was protected by the plans' own practices,
the federal Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health
Information rule and the Pennsylvania Privacy of Consumer Health
Information law, according to the opinion.

The flash drive contained, variously, names, addresses, zip codes,
dates of birth, Social Security numbers, member identification
numbers and clinical information such as medications, lab results
and health screening information, Stevens said.  The drive
contained partial Social Security numbers for 801 people and full
Social Security numbers for seven people.  The remaining more than
283,000 people whose information was on the drive had some form of
the other types of information listed.  The health plans offered
credit monitoring to the 808 people whose Social Security numbers
were compromised, Stevens said.

In Baum's case, his daughter's member identification number and
health screening information were on the flash drive.

On remand, the trial court had determined Baum couldn't
appropriately represent those class members who did have
personally identifiable information.

"Stressing [the plans] had pledged to protect any information it
possessed that would allow someone to identify and learn about an
insured's health and the record herein revealed that any
information contained on the flash drive would not identify
[Baum's] daughter, the trial court determined [Baum] could not
claim to represent those class members who did lose such data, and
therefore, may have been subjected to a deception," Judge Stevens
said.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Motions to Dismiss Suits v. ARCP Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
15, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that
defendants' motion to dismiss an amended complaint in the class
action lawsuit against American Realty Capital Partners are
currently pending.

In December 2014 and January 2015, two purported class action
suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against American Realty Capital Partners,
Inc. ("ARCP"), certain affiliated entities and individuals, ARCP's
auditing firm, and the underwriters of ARCP's May 2014 $1,656,000
common stock offering ("May 2014 Offering") and three prior note
offerings. The complaints have been consolidated. Ladenburg was
named as a defendant as one of 17 underwriters of the May 2014
Offering and as one of eight underwriters of ARCP's July 2013
offering of $300,000 in convertible notes. The complaints allege,
among other things, that the offering materials were misleading
based on financial reporting of expenses, improperly-calculated
AFFO (adjusted funds from operations), and false and misleading
Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, including statements as to ARCP's
internal controls, and that the underwriters are liable for
violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other
relief.

In December 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Motions to dismiss that complaint are currently pending. The
Company believes the claims against Ladenburg are without merit
and, if they are not dismissed, intends to vigorously defend
against them.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. is a diversified
financial services company engaged in independent brokerage and
advisory services, investment banking, equity research,
institutional sales and trading, asset management services,
wholesale life insurance brokerage and trust services through its
principal subsidiaries, Securities America, Inc. (collectively
with related companies, "Securities America"), Triad Advisors,
Inc. ("Triad"), Securities Service Network, Inc. ("SSN"),
Investacorp, Inc. (collectively with related companies,
"Investacorp"), KMS Financial Services, Inc. ("KMS"), Ladenburg
Thalmann & Co. Inc. ("Ladenburg"), Ladenburg Thalmann Asset
Management Inc. ("LTAM"), Highland Capital Brokerage, Inc.
("Highland"), and Premier Trust, Inc. ("Premier Trust").


LADENBURG THALMANN: Defending Against Class Suit v. Miller Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
15, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company is vigorously defending against two class action
complaints against officers and directors of Miller Energy
Resources, Inc.

In November 2015, two purported class action complaints were filed
in state court in Tennessee against officers and directors of
Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller"), as well as Miller's
auditors and nine firms that underwrote six securities offerings
in 2013 and 2014, and raised approximately $151,000. Ladenburg was
one of the underwriters of two of the offerings.  The complaints
allege, among other things, that the offering materials were
misleading based on the purportedly overstated valuation of
certain assets, and that the underwriters are liable for
violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other
relief. After the defendants removed the complaints to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, the
plaintiffs filed motions to remand, which are currently pending.

The Company believes the claims against Ladenburg are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. is a diversified
financial services company engaged in independent brokerage and
advisory services, investment banking, equity research,
institutional sales and trading, asset management services,
wholesale life insurance brokerage and trust services through its
principal subsidiaries, Securities America, Inc. (collectively
with related companies, "Securities America"), Triad Advisors,
Inc. ("Triad"), Securities Service Network, Inc. ("SSN"),
Investacorp, Inc. (collectively with related companies,
"Investacorp"), KMS Financial Services, Inc. ("KMS"), Ladenburg
Thalmann & Co. Inc. ("Ladenburg"), Ladenburg Thalmann Asset
Management Inc. ("LTAM"), Highland Capital Brokerage, Inc.
("Highland"), and Premier Trust, Inc. ("Premier Trust").


LADENBURG THALMANN: Defending Suit v. Plains All American
---------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
15, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company intends to vigorously defend against an amended class
action complaint against Plains All American Pipeline and their
officers and directors.

In January 2016, an amended complaint was filed in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas against Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. and related entities as well as their
officers and directors.  The amended complaint added Ladenburg and
other underwriters of securities offerings in 2013 and 2014 that
in the aggregate raised approximately $2,900,000 as defendants to
the purported class action. Ladenburg was one of the underwriters
of the October 2013 initial public offering.  The complaints
allege, among other things, that the offering materials were
misleading based on representations concerning the maintenance and
integrity of the issuer's pipelines, and that the underwriters are
liable for violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs
seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as
other relief.

The Company believes the claims against Ladenburg are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. is a diversified
financial services company engaged in independent brokerage and
advisory services, investment banking, equity research,
institutional sales and trading, asset management services,
wholesale life insurance brokerage and trust services through its
principal subsidiaries, Securities America, Inc. (collectively
with related companies, "Securities America"), Triad Advisors,
Inc. ("Triad"), Securities Service Network, Inc. ("SSN"),
Investacorp, Inc. (collectively with related companies,
"Investacorp"), KMS Financial Services, Inc. ("KMS"), Ladenburg
Thalmann & Co. Inc. ("Ladenburg"), Ladenburg Thalmann Asset
Management Inc. ("LTAM"), Highland Capital Brokerage, Inc.
("Highland"), and Premier Trust, Inc. ("Premier Trust").


LAKELAND BANCORP: Stipulation of Settlement Awaits Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lakeland Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that certain former
shareholders of Pascack Bancorp, Inc. brought a purported class
action (the "Action") in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen
County, in connection with the merger of Pascack Bancorp with and
into the Company, and the merger of Pascack Community Bank with
and into Lakeland Bank. The complaint alleged that the Company had
aided and abetted the individual defendants (former board members
of Pascack Bancorp) in their alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.
The parties reached an agreement-in-principle concerning the
proposed settlement of the Action on December 1 and December 2,
2015. The mergers were consummated on January 7, 2016. The parties
have agreed to a stipulation of settlement which is pending court
approval.

Lakeland Bancorp, Inc. is a bank holding company headquartered in
Oak Ridge, New Jersey.


MAERSK DRILLING: Faces "Rak" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Pak, Plaintiff, others similarly situated v. Maersk Drilling
USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01171 (S.D. Tex., April 29,
2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a Texas Corporation engaged in the business of
offshore drilling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
     ROSS LAW GROUP
     1104 San Antonio Street
     Austin, Texas 78701
     Tel: (512) 474-7677
     Fax: (512) 474-5306
     Email: Charles@rosslawgroup.com


MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Faces Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------
magicJack VocalTec Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a purported class action
lawsuit was filed on March 11, 2016, against the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer, Gerald Vento ("Mr. Vento"), and its Chief
Financial Officer, Jose Gordo ("Mr. Gordo"), in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Vento and Gordo
made false and misleading statements regarding the financial
performance and guidance during the alleged class period of
November 12, 2013 to March 12, 2014. The complaint alleges that
the Company and Messrs. Vento and Gordo violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable/injunctive relief or such
other relief as the court deems proper. Because the case is at a
preliminary stage, the Company cannot estimate the likelihood of
liability or the amount of potential damages. The Company believes
the lawsuit to be without merit and the Company intends to
vigorously defend itself against it.

magicJack VocalTec Ltd. and its Subsidiaries (the "Company") is a
cloud communications leader that is the inventor of the magicJack
devices and other magicJack products and services.


MANHATTAN, NY: Faces Class Action Over Closed Primaries
-------------------------------------------------------
Julia Marsh, writing for The New York Post, reports that Donald
Trump's kids -- and millions of other New Yorkers -- should have
gotten the chance to vote in the presidential primary but were
blocked because of an unconstitutional system, a new lawsuit
charges.

Manhattan lawyer Mark Warren Moody has filed a class-action
lawsuit against the state and city Board of Elections to overturn
the closed-primary system, saying no one should be shut out.

Mr. Moody said he unexpectedly found himself in the same boat as
Ivanka and Eric Trump when he discovered he missed the October
2015 deadline to switch from being an independent to, in his case,
a Democrat.

"The Trump children and I, together with millions of other New
Yorkers, were disfranchised" by not being allowed to vote, he says
in the Manhattan court documents.

A hearing on the issue was set for April 29 in Manhattan Supreme
Court.

City and state election officials did not return messages for
comment.


MANNKIND CORP: To Defend Against AFREZZA Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
Mannkind Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that several complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of certain purchasers of its common stock. The
complaints include claims asserted under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and have been pled as putative shareholder
class actions. In general, the complaints allege that the Company
and certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the prospects for AFREZZA, thereby
artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The
plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and other relief.

The Company expects the complaints to be transferred to a single
court and consolidated for all purposes, following which the court
would be expected to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and
to order the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated complaint. The
Company will vigorously defend against the claims advanced.


MANNKIND CORP: TO Defend Against AFREZZA Case in Israel
-------------------------------------------------------
Mannkind Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that following the receipt by
the Company of the notice of termination from Sanofi regarding the
Sanofi License Agreement and the subsequent decline of the price
of its common stock, two motions were submitted to the District
Court at Tel Aviv (Economic Department) for the certification of a
class action against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors. In general, the complaints allege that the Company and
certain of its officers and directors violated Israeli and US
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the prospects for AFREZZA, thereby
artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The
plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages. The Company will
vigorously defend against these claims.


MAZZONE MANAGEMENT: "Olvera" Suit Seek Wages and Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julio A. Olvera, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Mazzone Management Group LTD., Mazzone
Management Inc., Tala Bistro LLC, 677 Prime LLC, Prime at Saratoga
National, LLC, Aperitivo Bistro LLC, Angelo Mazzone and Matthew
Mazzone, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00502-BKS-DJS (N.D. N.Y.,
April 29, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Mazzone conducted the operations of Mazzone Catering at numerous
on-premises and off-premises locations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Keith M. Fleischman, Esq.
     Joshua D. Glatter, Esq.
     Ananda N. Chaudhuri, Esq.
     FLEISCHMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
     565 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: 212-880-9567
     Fax: 917-591-5245
     E-mail: achaudhuri@fleischmanlawfirm.com
             keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Joseph T. Moen, Esq.
     Law Offices of Joseph T. Moen
     45 Prospect Street
     Cambridge, MA 02139
     Tel: 617-575-9240


MENARD'S: Settles Workers' Labor Violations Case with NLRB
----------------------------------------------------------
Whav.net reports that at least 45,000 workers have won class-
action lawsuit rights in a National Labor Relations Board case
against Menard's.

The midwest-based home improvement supply store chain owned by
Wisconsin anti-union billionaire John Menard is settling the case
with the NLRB rather than trying to fight the charges that his
company is violating labor law.

OPEIU Local 153 attorney Seth Goldstein filed the charges along
with attorney Marissa McDermott.

"John Menard, arch-critic of Obama, has now endorsed the position
of the National Labor Relations Act.  I think that the employers
are going to fear the Menard's settlement because now a major
company has acknowledged that class action waivers violate the
National Labor Relations Act."

Mr. Goldstein and attorney Marissa McDermott brought the labor law
violations case against Menard's.

"I don't know of any company that's agreed to withdraw waivers on
class actions from their mandatory arbitration agreements in a
settlement with the National Labor Relations Board."

Menard's had illegally imposed arbitration agreements on workers
as a condition of employment.  The agreements forced workers to
give up class-action lawsuits and complaints to the NLRB in return
for an arbitration system imposed by the company.

"I don't know of any company that's agreed to withdraw waivers on
class actions from their mandatory arbitration agreements in a
settlement with the National Labor Relations Board."

This settlement means Menard's will no longer use these mandatory
arbitration agreements to prevent workers from filing class
actions.  And must inform its workers that the agreements violate
labor law.

"We were able to achieve something that I don't believe has been
achieved against any other company thus far.  Menard's was
compelled to enter into a agreement with the National Labor
Relations Board and will withdraw class action waivers from all
45,000 or more mandatory personal arbitration agreements."

Forcing Menard's to abandon the arbitration requirement is a major
victory for workers that goes well beyond just Menard's. Goldstein
says 43 percent of employers use these imposed arbitration
agreements as conditions of employment.  Co-counsel Marissa
McDermott says the imposed arbitrations was the major illegality
in this case.

"That is really what we see as being the major illegality here is
that we don't know how many people have signed these agreements .
. . so they never bothered to call a lawyer.  They never bothered
to file a claim.  They never bothered to pursue their rights
because they didn't think they had any."


MERCK & CO: Judge Certifies Sex Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The women in Smith et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., 3:13-cv-02970
(D.N.J.), a $250 million gender bias class action, scored another
victory on April 28, when Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S.
District Court in New Jersey conditionally certified a class of
current and former female sales representatives challenging
discrimination at the pharmaceutical giant.  The ruling paves the
way for thousands of women across the country to join the lawsuit.

Judge Shipp's ruling concluded that "[t]he information submitted
by Plaintiffs shows that the sales representatives had similar
responsibilities; that named plaintiffs were paid less than some
allegedly similarly situated males; and that compensation
decisions, although based in part on input from some direct
managers, were finalized by a central, common office."  The Court
also cited statistical evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs, which
demonstrated that female sales representatives earned on average
1.4% less per year than male sales representatives in the same
roles.  Based on this evidence, the Court concluded that the
lawsuit should go forward as a collective action.

According to David Sanford -- dsanford@sanfordheisler.com --
Chairman of Sanford Heisler, LLP and co-lead counsel for the
Plaintiffs --- "The Court's message was clear: Many women at Merck
may have suffered discrimination in pay. In the ongoing fight for
pay equity, this is an important step forward."

"We are very pleased with the Court's decision," said
Deborah Marcuse -- DMARCUSE@FDPKLAW.COM -- of Feinstein Doyle
Payne & Kravec, LLC, co-lead counsel for the Plaintiffs.  "The
Court's decision means that thousands of Merck sales
representatives across the country will have an opportunity to
participate in this lawsuit and challenge Merck's discriminatory
policies.  This decision sends a strong message to female Merck
sales representatives everywhere that they are not alone."

Equal pay for women has been an increasingly important issue, from
corporate boardrooms to the media to the presidential campaign
trail.  "The Court's decision is part of a national movement
towards equal pay for women," said Senior Litigation Counsel
Russell Kornblith -- rkornblith@sanfordheisler.com -- at Sanford
Heisler, a member of the plaintiffs' legal team.  "Sanford Heisler
is proud to be a leader in the fight for gender pay equity in the
courts," he added.  The firm is also currently litigating pay
equity cases against Forest Laboratories and consulting giant
KPMG, among others.

In addition to challenging unequal, centralized pay decisions in
their suit against Merck & Co., Inc., the Plaintiffs also allege
that Merck systematically discriminates against female sales
representatives, and pregnant women in particular, in promotions
and other terms and conditions of employment.  The Plaintiffs plan
to seek class certification of their systemic gender
discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in
the coming months.

Plaintiffs and the class are represented by David Sanford,
Andrew Melzer, Russell Kornblith, and David Tracey of Sanford
Heisler, LLP and by Deborah Marcuse of Feinstein Doyle Payne &
Kravec, LLC.  Mr. Sanford and Ms. Marcuse are also co-lead counsel
in the firms' gender discrimination class action against Forest
Laboratories, currently being litigated in the Southern District
of New York. Conditional certification in that case was granted in
August 2015.

                   About Sanford Heisler LLP

Sanford Heisler, LLP -- http://www.sanfordheisler.com-- is a
national public interest class-action litigation law firm, which
has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, San Francisco, and San
Diego.  Sanford Heisler is committed to protecting the rights of
individuals in employment discrimination, wage and hour, qui tam,
and other civil rights matters.  The firm has extensive experience
in complex class action litigation, having successfully
represented thousands of individuals in major class action cases
in the United States.  The firm also represents select individual
clients such as executives, lawyers in employment disputes, and
whistleblowers.  The firm has recovered over $1 billion for its
clients.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Class Certification in "Pierre" Suit Continued
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 4, 2016, in the case entitled
Renetrice R. Pierre v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-02895 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber.

The minute entry states that:

   -- a status hearing was held on May 4, 2016;

   -- the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is entered
      and continued generally; and

   -- a status hearing is set for June 7, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eytBd3ot


MOTOR CITY TOWING: "Glover" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Karlos Glover, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Hassan Beydoun, Mike Beydoun, Tashine
Beydoun, Abraham Beydoun and Motor City Towing Service, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-11558-BAF-APP (E.D. Mich., April 29,
2016), seeks payment of overtime for work performed in excess of
40 hours pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Motor City Towing is a Michigan corporation engaged in
towing truck services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Megan A. Bonanni, Esq.
     PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, P.C.
     117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
     Royal Oak, MI 48067
     Tel: (248) 398-9800
     E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com

         - and -

     Jennifer Lossia McManus, Esq.
     FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C.
     25892 Woodward Ave
     Royal Oak, MI 48067
     Tel: (248) 542-6300
     E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com


MOTRICITY INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Mosco" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated securities class action captioned CLIFF MOSCO;
et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, LOBEL FAMILY, Movant-Appellant.,
And JOE CALLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MOTRICITY INC; et al., Defendants-
Appellees, v. LOBEL FAMILY, Movant-Appellant, No. 13-36029 (9th
Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed
two Rule 12(b)(6) orders dismissing the Second and Third Amended
Complaints filed by Cliff Mosco, Rich Hardy and Evan S. Lobel
against Motricity, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors,
and the banks who underwrote its Initial Public Offering on June
17, 2010.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's May 3, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/Ukl0ySfrom Leagle.com.

Voltari Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that oral arguments were
scheduled for April 8, 2016, on the appeal in the securities class
action.

"We previously announced that Joe Callan filed a putative
securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court,
Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Motricity
between June 18, 2010 and August 9, 2011 or in Motricity's initial
public offering.

"Motricity, which was our predecessor registrant, is now our
wholly-owned subsidiary and has changed its name to Voltari
Operating Corp. The defendants in the case were Motricity, certain
of our current and former directors and officers, including Ryan
K. Wuerch, James R. Smith, Jr., Allyn P. Hebner, James N. Ryan,
Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C. Gary, Brett Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge
CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian V. Turner; and the underwriters in
Motricity's initial public offering, including J.P. Morgan
Securities, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Deutsche Bank Securities
Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation, Robert W. Baird & Co
Incorporated, Needham & Company, LLC and Pacific Crest Securities
LLC.

"The complaint alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by all
defendants and under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by
Motricity and those of our former and current officers who are
named as defendants. The complaint sought, inter alia, damages,
including interest and plaintiff's costs and rescission.

"A second putative securities class action complaint was filed by
Mark Couch in October 2011 in the same court, also related to
alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act,
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

"On November 7, 2011, the class actions were consolidated, and
lead plaintiffs were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act. On December 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint which added a claim under Section 12 of the
Securities Act to its allegations of violations of the securities
laws and extended the putative class period from August 9, 2011 to
November 14, 2011. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
May 11, 2012 and a second amended complaint on July 11, 2012.

"On August 1, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint, which was granted on January 17, 2013. A third
amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2013.

"On May 30, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint, which was granted by the Court on October 1, 2013. On
October 31, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

"On April 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opening appellate
brief and on July 24, 2014 we filed our answering brief. Oral
arguments on the appeal have been scheduled for April 8, 2016."


MULTI-FINELINE ELECTRONIX: Faces "Lehn" Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Lehn, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Multi-Fineline Electronix, Inc., Philippe
Lemaitre, Reza Meshgin, Linda Y.C. Lim, PH.D., James M. McCluney,
Donald K. Schwanz, Roy Chee Keong Tan, Sam Yau, Suzhou Dongshan
Precision Manufacturing Co., LTD. and Dragon Electronix Merger Sub
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-000805 (C.D. Cal., April 29,
2016), is brought on behalf of all public shareholders of MFlex
Inc, to enjoin the proposed transaction in which Suzhou  will
acquire each outstanding share of MFlex common stock through a
flawed process and inadequate consideration.

Multi-Fineline Electronix, Inc. (MFlex) is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the People's Republic of China.
Parent develops; manufactures and sells precision metal plate and
cast metal.

Defendant Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     Lance Greene, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Tel: (877) 534-2590
     Fax: (310) 247-0160
     Email: esmith@brodsky-smith.com

          - and -

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Tel: (212) 363-7500
     Fax: 212-363-7171


MURRAY GOULBURN: Comfortable with Processes Despite Legal Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that Murray Goulburn is
comfortable with its actions despite the prospect of a possible
shareholder class action over a big profit downgrade by
Australia's biggest dairy producer.

Law firm Slater and Gordon says it and litigation funder IMF
Bentham are weighing legal action after Murray Goulburn downgraded
its full-year profit guidance for the current financial year to
between $39 million and $42 million.

That was down from Murray Goulburn's February forecast of $63
million and well under its prospectus forecast of $86 million
ahead of its stock market debut last year.

Slater and Gordon and IMF are investigating whether Murray
Goulburn misled investors but Murray Goulburn says it has met its
obligations.

IMF and Slater and Gordon are also investigating whether Murray
Goulburn failed in its continuous disclosure obligations by not
announcing the latest downgrade prior to April 27.

Lastly, they are considering whether unitholders in Murray
Goulburn's listed entity, MG Unit Trust, can recover any
consequent losses.

In the wake of the downgrade, MG Unit Trust shares plunged more
than 40 per cent.

"We are very comfortable with our processes and do not consider
that we have any issues with our continuous disclosure," a Murray
Goulburn spokesperson said on April 29.

Murray Goulburn blamed the latest downgrade on weak growth in
demand for adult milk powder in China, the rising Australian
dollar, and a downward revaluation of stocks of milk products
expected to be sold in fiscal 2017.

The dairy co-operative said the February downgrade resulted from
weak dairy commodity prices.

On April 27, Murray Goulburn announced that managing director Gary
Helou and chief financial officer Brad Hingle would be stepping
down from their positions.

Slater and Gordon senior class action lawyer Tim Finney said the
law firm's initial investigations had identified inconsistencies
between Murray Goulburn's statements to the market regarding its
forecast profits in fiscal 2016, and the factors that would affect
its performance.

Mr. Finney said the scale of the April 27 downgrade could not be
explained by the reasons so far provided by Murray Goulburn.

"We are investigating whether the true cause of Murray Goulburn's
downgrade was an aggressively optimistic profit forecast built
into its product disclosure statement that the company was simply
never going to achieve," Mr. Finney said.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Updates on Employment and Consumer Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended January 30, 2016, provided updates on
various employment and consumer class actions against the Company.

On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed against the Company, Newton Holding,
LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus LLC in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated.

On July 12, 2010, all defendants except for the Company were
dismissed without prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was
dismissed by Ms. Monjazeb and refiled in the Superior Court of
California for San Francisco County. This complaint, along with a
similar class action lawsuit originally filed by Bernadette
Tanguilig in 2007, sought monetary and injunctive relief and
alleged that the Company has engaged in various violations of the
California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, including
without limitation, by (i) asking employees to work "off the
clock," (ii) failing to provide meal and rest breaks to its
employees, (iii) improperly calculating deductions on paychecks
delivered to its employees and (iv) failing to provide a chair or
allow employees to sit during shifts. The Monjazeb and Tanguilig
class actions were deemed "related" cases and were then brought
before the same trial court judge.

On October 24, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to
compel Ms. Monjazeb and Juan Carlos Pinela (a co-plaintiff in the
Tanguilig case) to arbitrate their individual claims in accordance
with the Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing
their ability to pursue a class action in court. However, the
court's order compelling arbitration did not apply to Ms.
Tanguilig because she is not bound by the Mandatory Arbitration
Agreement.  Further, the court determined that Ms. Tanguilig could
not be a class representative of employees who are subject to the
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative
class action to those associates who were employed between
December 2003 and July 15, 2007 (the effective date of our
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement).

Following the court's order, Ms. Monjazeb and Mr. Pinela filed
demands for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association
("AAA") seeking to arbitrate not only their individual claims, but
also class claims, which the Company asserted violated the class
action waiver in the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement. This led to
further proceedings in the trial court, a stay of the
arbitrations, and a decision by the trial court, on its own
motion, to reconsider its order compelling arbitration.

The trial court ultimately decided to vacate its order compelling
arbitration due to a recent California appellate court decision.
Following this ruling, the Company timely filed two separate
appeals, one with respect to Mr. Pinela and one with respect to
Ms. Monjazeb, with the California Court of Appeal, asserting that
the trial court did not have jurisdiction to change its earlier
determination of the enforceability of the arbitration agreement.

The Company said, "On June 29, 2015, after briefing and oral
argument, the California Court of Appeal issued its order
affirming the trial court's denial of our motion to compel
arbitration and awarding Mr. Pinela his costs of appeal."

"On July 13, 2015, we filed our petition for rehearing with the
California Court of Appeal, which was denied on July 29, 2015. On
August 10, 2015, we filed our petition for review with the
California Supreme Court, and Mr. Pinela filed his answer on
August 31, 2015.

"On September 16, 2015, the California Supreme Court denied our
petition for review. On October 6, 2015, the case was transferred
back to the trial court. On November 16, 2015, Mr. Pinela filed a
motion to stay the proceedings in the trial court until after the
appellate court resolves Ms. Tanguilig's appeal.

"On December 10, 2015, the hearing on Mr. Pinela's motion to stay
and a case management conference were held, and the trial court
judge issued an order granting the motion and issuing a stay,
which currently remains in effect. The appeal with respect to Ms.
Monjazeb was dismissed since final approval of the class action
settlement had been granted.

With respect to Ms. Tanguilig's case, the trial court decided to
set certain of her civil penalty claims for trial on April 1,
2014. In these claims, Ms. Tanguilig sought civil penalties under
the Private Attorneys General Act based on the Company's alleged
failure to provide employees with meal periods and rest breaks in
compliance with California law.

On December 10, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all of
Ms. Tanguilig's claims, including the civil penalty claims, based
on her failure to bring her claims to trial within five years as
required by California law.

After several hearings, on February 28, 2014, the court dismissed
all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims in the case and vacated the April 1,
2014 trial date. The court awarded the Company its costs of suit
in connection with the defense of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, but
denied its request of an attorneys' fees award from Ms. Tanguilig.

Ms. Tanguilig filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal of all
her claims, as well as a second notice of appeal from the award of
costs, both of which are pending before the California Court of
Appeal. Should the California Court of Appeal reverse the trial
court's dismissal of all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, the litigation
will resume, and Ms. Tanguilig will seek class certification of
the claims asserted in her Third Amended Complaint. If this
occurs, the scope of her class claims will likely be reduced by
the class action settlement and release in the Monjazeb case;
however, that settlement does not cover claims asserted by Ms.
Tanguilig for alleged Labor Code violations from approximately
December 19, 2003 to August 20, 2006 (the beginning of the
settlement class period in the Monjazeb case). Briefing on the
appeals is complete, and a judicial panel has been assigned. The
parties have requested oral argument, but no date has been set.

In Ms. Monjazeb's class action, a settlement was reached at a
mediation held on January 25, 2014, and the court granted final
approval of the settlement after the final approval hearing held
on September 18, 2014. Notwithstanding the settlement of the
Monjazeb class action, Ms. Tanguilig filed a motion on January 26,
2015 seeking to recover catalyst attorneys' fees from the Company.
A hearing was held on February 24, 2015, and the court issued an
order on February 25, 2015 allowing Ms. Tanguilig to proceed with
her motion to recover catalyst attorneys' fees related to the
Monjazeb settlement.

On April 8, 2015, Ms. Tanguilig filed her motion for catalyst
attorneys' fees. A hearing on the motion was held on July 23, 2015
and the motion was denied by the court on July 28, 2015.

"Based upon the settlement agreement with respect to Ms.
Monjazeb's class action claims, we recorded our currently
estimable liabilities with respect to both Ms. Monjazeb's and Ms.
Tanguilig's employment class actions litigation claims in fiscal
year 2014, which amount was not material to our financial
condition or results of operations. With respect to the Monjazeb
matter, the settlement funds have been paid by the Company and
have been disbursed by the claims administrator in accordance with
the settlement.

"We will continue to evaluate the Tanguilig matter, and our
recorded reserve for such matter, based on subsequent events, new
information and future circumstances."

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury omni-channel retailer
conducting store and online operations principally under the
Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, Last Call and MyTheresa brand
names.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Appeal in "Rubenstein" Action Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC, said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended January 30, 2016, that an appeal in the
class action lawsuit by Linda Rubenstein is pending.

On August 7, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against The Neiman Marcus Group LLC in Los Angeles County Superior
Court by a customer, Linda Rubenstein, in connection with the
Company's Last Call stores in California. Ms. Rubenstein alleges
that the Company has violated various California consumer
protection statutes by implementing a marketing and pricing
strategy that suggests that clothing sold at Last Call stores in
California was originally offered for sale at full-line Neiman
Marcus stores when allegedly, it was not, and is allegedly of
inferior quality to clothing sold at the full-line stores. Ms.
Rubenstein also alleges that the Company lacks adequate
information to support its comparative pricing labels.

The Company said, "On September 12, 2014, we removed the case to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On
October 17, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which the court granted on December 12, 2014. In its order
dismissing the complaint, the court granted Ms. Rubenstein leave
to file an amended complaint. Ms. Rubenstein filed her first
amended complaint on December 22, 2014."

"On January 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint, which the court granted on March 2, 2015. In
its order dismissing the first amended complaint, the court
granted Ms. Rubenstein leave to file a second amended complaint,
which she filed on March 17, 2015.

"On April 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint. On May 12, 2015, the court granted our motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety, without
leave to amend, and on June 9, 2015, Ms. Rubenstein filed a notice
to appeal the court's ruling. The appeal is pending, and the
current scheduling order provides for briefing to be completed in
April 2016."

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury omni-channel retailer
conducting store and online operations principally under the
Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, Last Call and MyTheresa brand
names.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Defending Against "Zaslav" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC, said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended January 30, 2016, that the Company is
vigorously defending the class action lawsuit field by Marney
Zaslav.

On February 2, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Bergdorf Goodman, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of New York, by Marney Zaslav. Ms. Zaslav
seeks monetary relief and alleges that she and other similarly
situated individuals were misclassified as interns exempt from
minimum wage requirements instead of as employees and, therefore,
were not provided with proper compensation under the New York
Labor Law.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury omni-channel retailer
conducting store and online operations principally under the
Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, Last Call and MyTheresa brand
names.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Faces "Attia" Class Action in Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC, said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended January 30, 2016, that a putative class
action first amended complaint was filed on February 11, 2016,
against The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. in the Superior Court of
California, Orange County, by Holly Attia and seven other named
plaintiffs. They allege claims for failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse
business expenses, failure to timely pay wages due at termination
and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements.
Plaintiffs also allege derivative claims for restitution under
California unfair competition law and a representative claim for
penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General
Act ("PAGA"). Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all nonexempt
employees of the Company in California since December 31, 2011.
Plaintiffs seek damages for the alleged Labor Code violations as
well as restitution, statutory penalties under PAGA, and
attorneys' fees, interest and costs of suit. The Company is
vigorously defending this matter.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury omni-channel retailer
conducting store and online operations principally under the
Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, Last Call and MyTheresa brand
names.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Updates on Cyber-Attack Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended January 30, 2016, provided updates on class
action lawsuits related to a 2013 cyber-attack.

The Company said, "Three class actions relating to a cyber-attack
on our computer systems in 2013 (the "Cyber-Attack") were filed in
January 2014 and later voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs
between February and April 2014. The plaintiffs had alleged
negligence and other claims in connection with their purchases by
payment cards and sought monetary and injunctive relief. Melissa
Frank v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
January 13, 2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on
April 15, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a
complaint."

"Donna Clark v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on January 27,
2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on March 11,
2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint.

"Christina Wong v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on January 29, 2014, but was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff on February 10, 2014, without prejudice to her right to
re-file a complaint. Three additional putative class actions
relating to the Cyber-Attack were filed in March and April 2014,
also alleging negligence and other claims in connection with
plaintiffs' purchases by payment cards.

"Two of the cases, Katerina Chau v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD Inc.,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on March 14, 2014, and Michael Shields v. The Neiman
Marcus Group, LLC, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on April 1, 2014, were voluntarily
dismissed, with prejudice as to Chau and without prejudice as to
Shields. The third case, Hilary Remijas v. The Neiman Marcus
Group, LLC, was filed on March 12, 2014 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.

"On June 2, 2014, an amended complaint in the Remijas case was
filed, which added three plaintiffs (Debbie Farnoush and Joanne
Kao, California residents; and Melissa Frank, a New York resident)
and asserted claims for negligence, implied contract, unjust
enrichment, violation of various consumer protection statutes,
invasion of privacy and violation of state data breach laws. The
Company moved to dismiss the Remijas amended complaint on July 2,
2014.

"On September 16, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the Remijas case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked
standing due to their failure to demonstrate an actionable injury.
On September 25, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the district court's
order dismissing the case to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Oral argument was held on January 23, 2015. On July 20, 2015, the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's
ruling and remanded the case to the district court for further
proceedings.

"On August 3, 2015, we filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On
September 17, 2015, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied
our petition for rehearing. The district court held a status
conference on October 29, 2015 and set a supplemental briefing
schedule on the remaining portion of our previously filed motion
to dismiss that had not been addressed by the court, and scheduled
a status hearing for December 15, 2015. The parties completed
supplemental briefing on December 21, 2015.

"On January 13, 2016, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss. Our responsive pleading is due on April 11, 2016.

"Andrew McClease v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on
December 30, 2014, alleging negligence and other claims in
connection with Mr. McClease's purchase by payment card. On March
9, 2015, the McClease case was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice by stipulation of the parties."


NESTLE PURINA: Pet Owner Unhappy with Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lechelle Yates, writing for WFMY, reports that Brian Reitter with
the North Carolina Consumers Council says people should not expect
much monetarily from class action lawsuits.  It's more the
principle.

"She was not an animal to anybody.  I just felt cheated from what
they've done. "

Wilma Gregory and her dog, Autumn, were part of class action
lawsuit against a dog food company.  Class action lawsuits exists
because sometimes it's easier for a group of people to band
together to take a company to court -- not many of us have the
money to take on a big company.  But Wilma wasn't happy with the
results.

"She was special.  She was just special," says Wilma.

Sweet-faced Autumn has been gone for almost three years.

"You sit in the chair, she's laying the chair. You go to bed,
she'd go to bed.  She was right there with you just like a
youngin," says Wilma.

Wilma Gregory's purebred Shih Tzu started getting sick in May
2011, about the time Wilma started feeding her jerky treats

The vet treated Autumn for hearing loss, skin twitching, anorexia,
pain, bronchitis, cystisis, lethargy, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease and finally a stroke.

But Wilma didn't make the connection to the treats until Nestle
Purina and Waggin' Train recalled them.  That's when Wilma
discovered the New York State Department of Agriculture identified
six unapproved antibiotic drugs in some of the Nestle jerky pet
treats manufactured in China.

And pet owners reported 5800 dog illnesses and 1000 dog deaths to
the FDA.  The agency "believes" but hasn't pinpoint the treats as
the cause.  Wilma's vet couldn't say the treats killed Autumn
either.  But Wilma has no doubts.

"I felt bad for a long time because I was purchasing them for her.
And I was poisoning her and didn't know it."

Nestle Purina settled a class action lawsuit against it for $6.5
million.  Because Wilma had bought treats, she could submit a
claim.  She did for her $3700 vet bill, but . . . .

"Purina sent me a check for $27.11. I sent them everything they
asked for.  They just didn't act like they cared," says Wilma.

"At the same time, it's also a way to kind for -- lack of a better
phrase -- to stick it to the man.  It's a good way for the
individual to accomplish something against a large entity or
company," says Mr. Reitter.

But what Wilma really wants from the company, money can't buy.
It's for what she says a Purina customer service rep said over the
phone.

"They told me she's just a dog.  I would like an apology for
saying she's just a dog."

The website for the settlement does have a whole complicated
formula for how it determined the amount people got back.  But it
didn't seem like much rhyme or reason -- online people reported
they didn't submit any documents and they got $300.  The site does
not provide any information about how to appeal your settlement
amount.


NEW JERSEY: Parents Launch Class Action Over Lead in School Water
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
on the same day that Gov. Chris Christie ordered mandatory lead
testing for all New Jersey schools, the parents of four students
filed a class-action lawsuit in Trenton, N.J. against state
officials, claiming they knowingly exposed Newark school children
to dangerous lead levels since 2011.

The lawsuit, filed May 2 in New Jersey Federal Court, claims
school officials "haphazardly and secretively" installed water
filters at certain schools to filter lead from drinking water but
failed to consistently change the filters every six months,
thereby potentially exposing students to toxic lead levels.

For example, as of March of this year, several filters at school
water fountains had not been changed more than five years after
they had expired, according to the lawsuit.

"Changing a filter takes less than five minutes," and state
officials "deliberately ensured that a five-minute task completed
twice a year to prevent the poisoning of our children and teachers
was not done," the complaint states. "The result was that
thousands of our children were poisoned with lead."

Not only were the water fountains at risk, but food prepared in
Newark school cafeterias also relied on the potentially poisoned
water, the parents claim.

The plaintiffs -- Veronica Branch, Gwendolyn Booker, and Anthony
Brown -- filed the lawsuit on behalf of their children. Among the
defendants are the current and former superintendents of Newark's
school district, the executive managing director of operations for
Newark schools, and all 10 members of New Jersey's board of
education.

Gov. Christie, himself a named defendant in the suit, ordered that
$10 million be allocated for lead testing after months of furor
over toxic lead levels that were found in public water in Flint,
Mich.

"People need information so that they can feel safe," Christie
said at a May 2 news conference.

However, earlier this year Christie questioned the idea of
"testing every faucet" in the districts, saying it might be too
costly. Many of Newark's old pipes are lead-lined, which is likely
the cause of the problem.

After the discovery in March of dangerous lead levels in Newark
public schools, state officials offered voluntary blood testing
for students.

But May 2 lawsuit claims Christie and other state officials made
it purposely difficult for parents to have their children tested
for lead poisoning.

"[R]ather than have testing at the affected school, the defendants
set up test sites at locations far from the affected schools in
order to make it as inconvenient as possible to have our children
tested for lead," the lawsuit alleges.

Lead consumption by children at any level is considered unsafe,
and lead poisoning can lead to cognitive issues, gastrointestinal
problems, and other health concerns.

In March, testing by the state's Department of Environmental
Protection revealed that 30 of Newark's 67 schools had dangerous
levels of lead in the drinking water. The water was shut off at
those schools, and soon after eight more schools were found to
have dangerous lead levels, according to local news reports.

Lead in drinking water has been an issue elsewhere in the state,
particularly in formerly industrial areas. Students in Camden
school districts have been drinking bottled water since 2002 due
to the prohibitive cost of replacing lead piping in the aging
schools.

The state attorney general's office declined to comment on the
lawsuit.

A spokeswoman for the Newark school district said "the health and
safety of our students and staff is our highest priority."

The class-action lawsuit seeks monetary damages, as well as the
establishment of a medical monitor to oversee water operations at
Newark schools.


NEW YORK TIMES: CEO Faces Hiring Discrimination Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rupert Neate, writing for The New York Times, reports that
Mark Thompson, the chief executive of the New York Times and
former director-general of the BBC, is facing a multimillion-
dollar class action lawsuit alleging that he introduced a culture
of "deplorable discrimination" based on age, race and gender at
the newspaper.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of two black female employees in
their sixties in New York on April 28, claims that under
Thompson's leadership the US paper of record has "become an
environment rife with discrimination".

The class action lawsuit, seen by the Guardian, alleges that the
Times, which promotes its liberal and inclusive social values,
preferentially favors its "ideal staffer (young, white,
unencumbered with a family)" at the expense of older female and
black employees.

"Unbeknownst to the world at large, not only does the Times have
an ideal customer (young, white, wealthy), but also an ideal
staffer (young, white, unencumbered with a family) to draw that
purported ideal customer," the lawsuit, which the women's lawyer
said could be extended to up to 50 similar alleged victims,
states.  "In furtherance of these discriminatory goals, the Times
has created a workplace rife with disparities."

Eileen Murphy, the Times' head of communications, said: "This
lawsuit contains a series of recycled, scurrilous and unjustified
attacks on both Mark Thompson and Meredith Levien.  It also
completely distorts the realities of the work environment at the
New York Times.  We strongly disagree with any claim that The
Times, Mr. Thompson or Ms. Levien have discriminated against any
individual or group of employees.  The suit is entirely without
merit and we intend to fight it vigorously in court."

The lawsuit, filed at the US district court of southern New York,
claims that since Mr. Thompson became CEO of the Times in 2012,
after eight years as director-general of the BBC, the paper's
advertising staff has been "systematically becoming increasingly
younger and whiter".

It is claimed that Mr. Thompson, who was in charge of the BBC
during a series of scandals over the way the broadcaster treats
older women including newsreader Moira Stewart, Countryfile's
Miriam O'Reilly and Strictly Come Dancing's Arlene Phillips,
"brought his misogynistic and ageist attitudes across the Atlantic
to New York City".

Following an age-discrimination employment tribunal brought, and
won, by O'Reilly in 2011, Mr. Thompson admitted that were was "an
underlying problem, that -- whatever the individual success
stories -- there are manifestly too few older women broadcasting
on the BBC, especially in iconic roles and on iconic topical
programs".  He said the BBC had a duty to "develop and cherish"
the "many outstanding women broadcasters" and ensure that they
know "age will not be a bar to their future employment" at the
broadcaster.

Mr. Thompson is said to have hired Meredith Levien, the company's
chief revenue office and a co-defendant, to "carry out his vision
of the ideal workforce".  The lawsuit claims that under Thompson,
who was paid $8.7m (GBP6m) last year, and Ms. Levien, who was paid
$1.8m (GBP1.2m), "age, sex and race discrimination became the
modus operandi at the Times".

In speeches to staff, Ms. Levien is said to have made it clear
that she wanted a workforce with "fresh faces" populated by
"people who look like the people we are selling to".  She is
alleged to have told staff that "this isn't what our sales team
should look like".  The advertising staff, many of whom are older,
black and female, said Ms. Levien's comments were "shockingly rife
with racially charged innuendos".

On its website the NYT says it is "committed to an inclusive and
diverse workforce that reflects the audience, readers and
advertisers we serve" and has "a staff as wide as it is deep,
broad in perspective, backgrounds and experiences" so as to
"capture the multitude of voices of America and the world, with
true fidelity".

The claimants, Ernestine Grant, 62, and Marjorie Walker, 61, who
work in the Times' advertising department, dispute this.  They
claim that the company's advertising directors, who had previously
been a mix of races and ages, have become "increasingly younger
and whiter".

"Older advertising directors of color found themselves pushed out
through buyouts, or outright terminated, but those vacancies were
rapidly filled with younger, white individuals," the lawsuit said.

They claim they were repeatedly passed over for promotion by
younger white employees despite their greater experience.  They
also claims that "younger white individuals" at the same level as
them are paid far more than they are.  In addition, they claim
they were "denied the opportunities to earn as much as [their]
younger white peers because of her race and/or gender".

Younger white employees in advertising were also allegedly given
"summer Fridays", afternoons off in the summer, while the perk was
not offered to older employees of color.

Douglas Wigdor -- dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com -- a partner at Wigdor LLP
who is representing the claimants, said: "It is astonishing that a
news organization that regularly promotes liberal social
viewpoints could have a double standard when it comes to blatantly
discriminating and retaliating against its own hard working and
dedicated employees."

The lawsuit claims that the Times' "gender inequality is so
endemic" that Jill Abramson, the paper's first female editor, was
"unable to turn around the troubling realities of the newsroom"
and was fired after she complained that she was paid less than her
male peers and predecessors.  She was replaced by Dean Baquet, the
paper's first African American editor.  Ms. Abramson is now a
regular contributor to the Guardian.

A 2014 survey by the Women's Media Center researchers found that
the Times had the least female bylines, proportionally, of the
nation's 10 largest newspapers.  The study found that 69% of
stories were written by men and 75% of opinion writers being male.


NOBILIS HEALTH: Defending Against "Schott" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Nobilis Health Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that after the Company
announced it would be restating its 2014 annual financial
statements and 2015 first and second quarter interim financial
statements, one complaint, Schott v. Nobilis Health Corp. et al,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against the Company, its former chief executive
officer and its current chief financial officer.

The Company said, "The complaint seeks class action status on
behalf of our shareholders and alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out
of the restatement and seeks undisclosed damages. The defendants
intend to vigorously defend against these claims and filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to plead
particularized facts supporting a strong inference of scienter on
the part of the individual defendants."

"In response, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 7,
2016. The deadline to move to seek to be appointed lead plaintiff
is March 21, 2016. At this early stage, we are not yet able to
determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this
matter."


NOBILIS HEALTH: "Capelli" Statement of Claim Filed in Ontario
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nobilis Health Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a statement of claim
(complaint), Vince Capelli v Nobilis Health Corp. et. al, was
filed on January 8, 2016 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
under court file number CV-16-544173 naming Nobilis Health Corp.,
certain current and former officers and the Company's former
auditors as defendants. The statement of claim seeks to advance
claims on behalf of the plaintiff and on behalf of a class
comprised of certain of our shareholders related to, among other
things, alleged certain violations of the Ontario Securities Act
and seeks damages in the amount of C$80 million plus interest.

"The defendants intend to vigorously defend against these claims.
At this early stage, we are not yet able to determine the
likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter," the Company
said.


NORTHERN TRUST: Bids in "Teufel" Suit Withdrawn, Deal Entered
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John W. Darrah ruled that the pending motions in the
lawsuit captioned James P. Teufel v. Northern Trust Company, Case
No. 1:14-cv-07214 (N.D. Ill.), are withdrawn and a stipulation is
entered.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Gw5d25qV


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Delaware Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends
to continue to vigorously defend a shareholder case filed in
Delaware Court of Chancery.

On June 19, 2015, two of the purported shareholders filed a
complaint purportedly suing on behalf of a class of similarly
situated shareholders and derivatively on behalf of the Company in
the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The lawsuit names Cognate
BioServices, Inc., Toucan Partners, Toucan Capital Fund III, our
CEO Linda Powers and the Company's Board of Directors as
defendants, and names the Company as a "nominal defendant" with
respect to the derivative claims.  The complaint generally objects
to certain transactions between the Company and Cognate and the
Toucan entities, in which Cognate and the Toucan entities provided
services and financing to the Company, or agreed to conversion of
debts owed to them by the Company into equity.  The complaint
seeks unspecified monetary relief for the Company and the
plaintiffs, and various forms of equitable relief, including
disgorgement of allegedly improper benefits, rescission of the
challenged transactions, and an order forbidding similar
transactions in the future.

On September 1, 2015, the Company and other named defendants filed
motions to dismiss.  In response, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on November 6, 2015.

The Company and the other named defendants filed motions to
dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint on January 19, 2016. The
Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the case.


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Securities Case in Md.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends
to continue to vigorously defend a securities class action
litigation in Maryland.

On August 26, 2015, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.  The lawsuit names the Company and Ms.
Powers as defendants.

On December 14, 2015, the court appointed two lead plaintiffs. The
Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 12, 2016,
purportedly on behalf of all of those who purchased common stock
in NW Bio between January 13, 2014 and August 21, 2015. The
amended complaint generally claims that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making misleading statements and/or omissions on a variety
of subjects, including the status and results of the Company's
DCVax trials.  The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs.


NORTHWESTERN REGIONAL: Former Residents to Receive Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
tbnewswatch.com reports that former residents of 12 Ontario
institutions for people with developmental disabilities have won a
$36-million class-action settlement against the province.

And one of those institutions was located here in Thunder Bay.

The Northwestern Regional Centre operated from 1974 until 1994 at
the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital.

At that time, it was known as the Mental Retardation Unit, and
housed up to 300 people.

The Superior Court of Justice has approved a tentative settlement
to compensate people who suffered harm while living at the 12
facilities.

The law firm handling the class action suit says the residents
were emotionally, physically and psychologically traumatized by
their experiences.

It's unclear how many people could sign on for the settlement.

Former residents have up to four months to ask for a copy of their
personal files from the Ministry of Community and Social Services,
and will be informed on how to apply for compensation.


ORBITAL CORPORATION: Stockholder Litigation Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Orbital ATK, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the case In Re Orbital
Corporation Stockholder Litigation has been dismissed.

The Company said, "Putative class action and derivative lawsuits
challenging the merger of Orbital and our company were filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in May 2014, naming
Orbital, our company and Orbital's directors.  On November 14,
2014, the lawsuits were consolidated by the court under the
caption In Re Orbital Corporation Stockholder Litigation (the
"Consolidated Lawsuit").  The plaintiffs alleged, among other
things, that the directors of Orbital breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Merger, and alleged that we aided
and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty."

"On January 16, 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of this matter.
Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, we and Orbital made additional
information available to Orbital's stockholders in connection with
the Merger vote.  On February 2, 2016, the case was dismissed.

Orbital ATK, Inc. is an aerospace and defense systems company and
supplier of related products to the U.S. Government, allied
nations, prime contractors and other customers.


OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: To Defend Against "Nallagonda" Suit in Md.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend a class action by Kiran Kumar Nallagonda.

On November 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland by a
single plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, against the Company and three current or
former executive officers of the Company.  The action, captioned
Kiran Kumar Nallagonda v. Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case
1:15-cv-03562 (the "Nallagonda Action"), alleges, among other
things, that the defendants made materially false or misleading
statements and material omissions in the Company's SEC filings in
violation of the federal securities laws.  The plaintiff seeks
certification as a class action, unspecified damages and
reimbursement of attorneys' fees.

On March 2, 2016, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court for Howard County in the State of Maryland (Case
No. 13C16106811) by a single plaintiff, derivatively and on behalf
of the Company, against individual members of the Company's board
of directors and certain executive officers. This action,
captioned Kevin Connelley v. Lode Debrabandere et al., alleges
that each of the individual directors and officers named as
defendants (i) violated their fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders; (ii) abused their ability to control and influence
the Company; (iii) engaged in gross mismanagement of the assets
and business of the Company; and (iv) was unjustly enriched at the
expense of, and to the detriment of, the Company.  The alleged
claims generally relate to the matters that are the subject of the
Nallagonda Action.  The plaintiff seeks, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages, reimbursement of attorneys' fees and
shareholder votes on amendments to the Company's Articles of
Incorporation and Bylaws with respect to various corporate
governance policies.


PEABODY ENERGY: Continues to Defend "Lynn" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy Corporation continues to defend the class action
lawsuit by Lori J. Lynn, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

On June 11, 2015, a former Peabody Investments Corp. (PIC)
employee filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of
three of the Company's or its subsidiaries' 401(k) retirement
plans and certain participants and beneficiaries of the plans. The
lawsuit, which was brought against the Company, Peabody Holding
Company, LLC (PHC), PIC and a number of the Company's and PIC's
current and former executives and employees, alleges breach of
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA) relating to the offering of the Peabody Energy
Stock Fund as an investment option in the 401(k) retirement plans.

On September 8, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
which, among other things, named a new plaintiff and named all of
the current members and two former members of the board as
defendants. The class period (December 2012 to present) remains
unchanged. On November 9, 2015, the defendants filed a motion
seeking dismissal of all claims.

On January 14, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
leave to file a second amended complaint, which seeks to name the
boards of directors of PIC and PHC as defendants and include new
allegations against the Company related to the Company's
disclosure to investors of risks associated with climate change
and related legislation and regulations.

The Company agreed not to oppose the plaintiff's motion on the
condition that the plaintiffs dismiss the Company's independent
directors from the lawsuit. The defendants dispute the allegations
of the lawsuit and plan to vigorously defend their positions.

Based on current information the Company believes these claims are
likely to be finalized without a material adverse effect of its
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.


PRESTIGE CLEANERS: "Perez" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Perez and Sergio Garcia Beltran, Plaintiffs, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. 355 Straus Cleaners,
Inc. (d/b/a Prestige Cleaners) and Woo Chul Lee, Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-03196 (S.D. N.Y., April 29, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Prestige Cleaners is a full service Dry Cleaner owned by Woo Chul
Lee, located at 1161 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10028.

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
     Fax: (212) 317-1620
     E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


PROSTEAM CARPET: Faces "McBride" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey McBride, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Prosteam Carpet Care LLC, Gina E. Krohn and
James F. Krohn, II, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00610 (E.D. Mo.,
April 29, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Missouri Minimum Wage Law.

Prosteam Carpet Care LLC offers cleaning services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Russell C. Riggan, Esq.
     RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC
     132 West Washington Avenue, Suite 100
     Kirkwood, MO 63122
     Tel: 314-835-9100
     Fax: 314-735-1054
     E-mail: russ@rigganlawfirm.com
             smoore@rigganlawfirm.com


QUAKER OATS: Oats Sprayed with Weed Killer Glyphosate, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Quaker Oaks deceptively
touts its oatmeal as 100 percent natural, despite using oats that
have been sprayed with the weed killer glyphosate, a consumer
claims in Brooklyn, N.Y. a federal class action.


QUAKER OATS: Faces "Cooper" Suit for False Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------
Danielle S. Cooper, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. The Quaker Oats Company, Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-02364-LB (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2016), alleges that the
Defendant's oatmeal products are "100%" Natural" and eco-friendly,
yet they contain the chemical glyphosate, a potent and unnatural
biocide.

Quaker Oats Company manufacturers and/or causes the manufacture of
oat-based food products, and markets and distributes the products
spanning several categories such as hot and ready-to-eat cereals,
rice, pasta, dairy and other branded products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael F. Ram, Esq.
     RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
     101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (415) 433-4949
     Fax: (415) 433-7311
     E-mail: mram@rocklandlawcal.com

         - and -

     Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
     Erika L. Nusser, Esq.
     TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP
     936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
     Seattle, WA 98103
     Tel: (206) 816-6603
     Fax: (206) 319-5450
     E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
             enusser@terrellmarshall.com

          - and -

     Kim E. Richman, Esq.
     THE RICHMAN LAW GROUP
     801 Prospect Street
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Tel: (718) 705-4579
     Fax: (718) 228-8522
     E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com

          - and -

     John W. Barrett, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
     209 Capitol Street
     Charleston, WV 25301
     Tel: (304) 345-6555
     Fax: (304) 342-1110
     E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com


QUAKER OATS: Faces "Daly" Suit Over False Advertisement
-------------------------------------------------------
Lewis Daly, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. The Quaker Oats Company, Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-02155 (E.D. N.Y., April 29, 2016), alleges that the
Defendant's oatmeal products are "100%" Natural" and eco-friendly
yet they contain the chemical glyphosate, a potent and unnatural
biocide.

Quaker Oats Company manufacturers and/or causes the manufacture of
oat-based food products, and markets and distributes the products
spanning several categories such as hot and ready-to-eat cereals,
rice, pasta, dairy and other branded products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kim E. Richman, Esq.
     THE RICHMAN LAW GROUP
     801 Prospect Street
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Tel: (718) 705-4579
     Fax: (718) 228-8522
     E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com

          - and -

     John W. Barrett, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
     209 Capitol Street
     Charleston, WV 25301
     Tel: (304) 345-6555
     Fax: (304) 342-1110
     E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com

          - and -

     Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
     Erika L. Nusser, Esq.
     TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP
     936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
     Seattle, WA 98103
     Tel: (206) 816-6603
     Fax: (206) 319-5450
     E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
             enusser@terrellmarshall.com


RC BIGELOW: Judge Tosses Food Misbranding Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Molly Smolen, Esq. -- msmolen@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster
LLP, in an article for JDSupra Busines Advisor, reports that
Northern District of California Judge William Orrick recently
denied class certification in two food misbranding class actions
challenging antioxidant claims for Bigelow green and black teas.
Khasin v. R.C Bigelow Inc., Case No. 12-cv-02204-WHO (N.D. Cal.
March 29, 2016) (green tea) and Victor v. R.C Bigelow Inc., Case
No. 13-cv-02976-WHO (N.D. Cal. March 29, 2016) (black tea).
Consistent with many courts in this District, Judge Orrick
rejected plaintiffs' damages model and found that they failed to
establish an entitlement to injunctive relief.

No Viable Damages Model.  Plaintiffs offered three damages models
to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class: (1) restitution; (2) statutory
damages[1]; and (3) a nominal alternative.  The court rejected all
three models.  The court first found that plaintiffs' restitution
calculation was not viable because, rather than relying on the
Ninth Circuit's accepted "price premium" method, plaintiffs sought
a full refund.  Judge Orrick noted that the "full refund" model
has been repeatedly rejected, and that he had previously rejected
it in the actions.  Judge Orrick declined to change his position.

The court then found that plaintiff in Khasin had not established
an entitlement to statutory damages under the CLRA.  The court
noted that, while the statutory language sets a minimum damages
award, Khasin had not proven any actual damages, thus fatally
undermining his statutory damages claim.

Finally, the court noted that plaintiffs failed to cite a single
case establishing that nominal damages were available under their
asserted causes of action.

No Standing for Injunctive Relief.  Next, the court addressed
plaintiffs' attempt to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class.
The court noted that plaintiffs needed to establish a threat of
particularized harm before prospective injunctive relief could be
granted.  Both plaintiffs failed to do so.

The court rejected plaintiffs' bare assertion that they would
consider purchasing Bigelow's green or black tea products again in
the future if they were assured that allegedly misleading verbiage
was removed from product labels.  Judge Orrick found this
assertion too speculative and hypothetical to support standing for
injunctive relief.

Judge Orrick then stated that even if plaintiffs did intend to
purchase Bigelow tea in the future, plaintiffs failed to establish
a likelihood that they would again suffer the same alleged harm
based on those purchases. While plaintiffs may have been misled by
deceptive labeling in the past, because they are now better
informed, they cannot be "duped" again, and accordingly cannot
establish standing for injunctive relief.

Takeaway.  Judge Orrick's decisions demonstrate that misbranding
plaintiffs face an uphill battle in presenting a viable damages
model and are likely to be rejected if they present a model other
than "price premium."  In addition, courts within the Northern
District are taking an increasingly narrow view of standing to
seek injunctive relief under Article III and the UCL.  Thus, it
may not be enough for a plaintiff to allege that he or she plans
to buy a product again.  Courts now question whether a plaintiff
can ever be duped by a product once he or she knows the "truth"
about the labels.


RECKITT BENCKISER: Faces $1.3MM in Penalties Over Nurofen Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Gelineau, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
an Australian court ordered a British consumer goods company on
April 29 to pay 1.7 million Australian dollars ($1.3 million) in
penalties after ruling that the company misled consumers about the
effectiveness of a popular painkiller.

The Federal Court ruled in December that British consumer goods
company Reckitt Benckiser deceived Australians by selling Nurofen
painkillers that were marketed to relieve specific ailments, such
as back pain and period pain, when all of the products contained
an identical amount of the same active ingredient, ibuprofen
lysine.  The court ordered the company to remove the products from
Australian stores.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which launched
the court action, had asked the court to impose a AU$6 million
penalty on the company, arguing consumers had been tricked into
unnecessarily paying more for the drugs.  The consumer watchdog
said the price of the specific pain products was nearly double
that of Nurofen's standard ibuprofen painkiller and other general
pain relief products sold by competitors.

In issuing the fine on April 29, Justice James Edelman
acknowledged the company's actions may have had a negative
financial effect on consumers, but said the products had not
caused anyone physical harm.

Reckitt Benckiser has since changed the packaging for its specific
pain line to indicate the drugs are also effective for general
pain relief.

In a statement, Nurofen said the company had not meant to mislead
the public.

"However, we recognize that we could have done more to assist our
consumers in navigating the Nurofen Specific Pain Range," the
company said.  "That is, to show that each of the products in the
range is equally effective for the other pains indicated on the
Nurofen Specific Pain Range packaging."


REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: 2nd Amended Waterford Complaint Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System v.
Regional Management Corp., No. 14 CV 3876-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), District
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted motions to dismiss the second
amended complaint but gave the plaintiffs leave to revise their
complaint.

The Plaintiffs group the Defendants in the Second Amended
Complaint as:

     -- Palladium Equity Partners III, L.P. and Palladium Equity
Partners III, LLC are referred to jointly as Palladium;

     -- Parallel 2005 Equity Fund, LP and Parallel 2005 Equity
Partners, LP are referred to jointly as Parallel;

     -- Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Thomas F. Fortin, Chief
Operating Officer (COO) C. Glynn Quattlebaum, Chief Financial
Officer (CFO) Donald E. Thomas, Chairman of the Board of Directors
David Perez, Director Roel C. Campos, Director Richard T.
Dell'Aquila, Director Richard A. Godley, Director Jared L.
Johnson, Director and later Chairman of the Board Alvaro G. de
Molina, Director Carlos Palomares, and Director Erik A. Scott are
referred to as the Individual Defendants;

     -- Fortin, Quattlebaum, and Thomas are referred to as the
Officer Defendants; and

     -- Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc. (Keefe), BMO Capital Markets
Corp. (BMO), JMP Securities LLC (JMP), and FBR Capital Markets &
Co. (FBR), five firms that were involved in underwriting secondary
public offerings of RM's stock, are referred to as the Underwriter
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs were given until April 21 to file a revised
complaint.

A copy of the Court's March 30, 2016 Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/o3SoFFfrom Leagle.com.

FBR & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that FBR Capital Markets & Co. ("FBRCM")
continues to defend against the putative class action lawsuit,
Waterford Township Police & Fire, Retirement System, vs. Regional
Management Corp. et al., which is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The amended complaint, filed on November 24, 2014 (the "Amended
Complaint"), names FBRCM as a co-managing underwriter of offerings
in September 2013 and December 2013.  Plaintiffs allege that the
Registration Statement and Prospectus used in connection with
these offerings were negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading.
The Amended Complaint asserts claims against all the underwriters
under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act.  Regional
Management has agreed to indemnify all the underwriters, including
FBRCM, pursuant to the operative underwriting agreement. In
response to the defendants' motions to dismiss, filed on January
23, 2015, the putative class plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), which shall serve as
the operative complaint.  The underwriter defendants have moved to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and the briefing was
completed in July 2015.

Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System, Lead
Plaintiff, represented by Avital Orly Malina, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Joseph Frank Russello -- jrusello@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Mary Katherine Blasy --
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Samuel
Howard Rudman -- srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

Stephens Inc., Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., BMO Capital Markets
Corp., JMP Securities LLC., FBR Capital Markets & Co., et al. are
represented by Joseph Gerard Tully -- joe.tully@alston.com --
Alston & Bird, LLP & Jessica Perry Corley --
jessica.corley@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP.


RELIANCE TRUST: "Matthews" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Altavia Matthews, Plaintiff, on behalf of The Bradford Hammacher
Group, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and on behalf of a class
of all other persons similarly situated v. Reliance Trust Company,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04773 (N.D. Ill., April 29, 2016), is
brought by Plaintiff to enjoin acts and practices that violate the
provisions of ERISA, to require Reliance to make good to the ESOP
losses resulting, and to restore to the ESOP any profits and fees
made and received by Reliance.

The Complaint says that on December 31, 2013, just 92 days after
the ESOP bought Bradford, the ESOP's investment in Bradford common
stock was worth $43,410,000.00, or just $72.35 per share
-- a difference in value of approximately $56.5 million or about
56%.

Defendant Reliance Trust Company is a trust company chartered in
Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
     Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
     Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
     1054 31st Street, NW
     Washington, DC 20007
     Tel: (202) 463-2101
     Fax: (202) 463-2103
     E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
             rjenny@baileyglasser.com

          - and -

     Robert A. Izard, Esq.
     Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
     IZARD NOBEL LLP
     29 South Main Street, Suite 305
     West Hartford, CT 06107
     Tel: (860) 493-6292
     Fax: (860) 493-6290
     E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com
             mkindall@izardnobel.com


REX ENERGY: Says Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Rex Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the appeal in a class
action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company said, "In October 2011, we were named as defendants in
a proposed class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania (the "Cardinale case"). The
named plaintiffs are two individuals who have sued on behalf of
themselves and all persons who are alleged to be similarly
situated.

"The complaint in the Cardinale case generally asserts that a
binding contract to lease oil and gas interests was formed between
the Company and each proposed class member when representatives of
Western Land Services, Inc. ("Western"), a leasing agent that we
engaged, presented a form of proposed oil and gas lease and an
order for payment to each person in 2008, and each person signed
the proposed oil and gas lease form and order for payment and
delivered the documents to representatives of Western. We rejected
these leases and never signed them on behalf of the Company. The
plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring the rights of the parties
with respect to those proposed leases, as well as damages and
other relief as may be established by plaintiffs at trial,
together with interest, costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. We
filed affirmative defenses and preliminary objections to the
plaintiff's claims, and the parties each made various responsive
filings throughout the first quarter of 2012.

"In May 2012, the trial court dismissed the Cardinale case with
prejudice on the grounds that there was no contract formed between
us and the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal
during the second half of 2012. In May 2013, the Superior Court
reversed the decision of the Common Pleas Court and remanded the
case for further proceedings."

"In July 2012, while the Cardinale case was in the midst of the
appeals process, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Cardinale case
filed two additional lawsuits against us in the Court of Common
Pleas of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania: one a proposed class
action lawsuit with a different named plaintiff (the "Billotte
case") and another on behalf of a group of individually named
plaintiffs (the "Meeker case").

"The complaint for the Billotte case contained the same claims as
those set forth in the Cardinale case. The Meeker case is not a
class action, but the claims are similar to those in Cardinale and
the plaintiffs would be included in a class under Cardinale and
Billotte if one were certified. These two additional lawsuits were
filed for procedural reasons in light of the dismissal of the
Cardinale case and the pendency of the appeal.

"Proceedings in both the Billotte and Meeker cases were stayed
pending the outcome of the appeal in the Cardinale case. When the
Cardinale case was remanded, we agreed to consolidate the Billotte
and Cardinale cases; the cases have proceeded as Cardinale. The
Meeker case remains stayed, and has not been consolidated.

"In June 2015, the trial court conducted a hearing on plaintiff's
motion for certification of a class in the Cardinale case.  In
July 2015, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  Plaintiffs served notice of their appeal of that
decision in August 2015 and filed the appeal in September 2015.

"We continue to vigorously defend against each of these claims. At
this time we are unable to express an opinion with respect to the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or provide an estimate of
potential losses, if any."

Rex Energy is an independent oil, NGL and natural gas company
operating in the Appalachian and Illinois Basins.


RFS HOLDING: Amended Complaint for 62 Trusts
--------------------------------------------
RFS Holding, L.L.C. said in a Form 10-D Asset-Backed Issuer
Distribution Report Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, that plaintiffs have filed
an amended complaint as to 62 of the 64 indenture trusts included
in the original U.S. District Court complaint.

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by
Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a
derivative action against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
("DBNTC") and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") in
New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the
benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for
alleged violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (the
"TIA"), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and
negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA's alleged failure to perform
their duties as trustees for the trusts. Plaintiffs subsequently
dismissed their state court complaint and filed a derivative and
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of and for the benefit of 564
private-label residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS")
trusts, which substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in
the state court action. The complaint alleges that the trusts at
issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4
billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money
damages in a sum certain.

DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19,
2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural
grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by pooling and
servicing agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction.
The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the
motion to dismiss as to the 64 trusts formed under indentures for
which it retained jurisdiction.  Instead, the court ordered
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint as to those indenture
trusts.

On February 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as to
62 of the 64 indenture trusts included in the original U.S.
District Court complaint.

DBNTC and DBTCA will have an opportunity to file new defensive
motions with respect to this amended complaint. It is anticipated
that plaintiffs will, in the near future, file a new state court
complaint as to some or all of the 500 trusts governed by pooling
and servicing agreements which were dismissed from the U.S.
District Court action.


RING ENERGY: Has Settlement Over Plaintiff Attorney's Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Ring Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Plaintiff in a class
action lawsuit and the Company have entered into a settlement
agreement for an insignificant amount in connection with the
attorney's fees.

On July 10, 2015, a purported stockholder (the "Plaintiff") of the
Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the District
Court of Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of herself and Ring
stockholders against the Company, the members of our Board of
Directors, and SunTrust Bank (the "Lawsuit"). The complaint is
captioned Rosalyn Newman, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ring Energy, Inc., et al.
Defendants, under Case No. A-15-721253-C, in the District Court of
Clark County, Nevada, Dept. IV.

The Lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the members of our
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties, and that
SunTrust Bank aided and abetted such breaches, in connection with
our Credit Agreement as a result of certain provisions that gave
SunTrust Bank the right to accelerate the debt in the event of a
change in control, among other things. The complaint sought, among
other things, declaratory relief, as well as an award of costs and
disbursements of the Lawsuit, including attorney's fees, experts'
fees, costs and expenses.  The Credit Agreement has been amended
to eliminate and modify such provisions.

On October 27, 2015, the Court granted Ring's Motion to Dismiss
the Lawsuit. As of December 31, 2015, Plaintiff was seeking
recovery of its attorney's fees associated with the Lawsuit.

Subsequent to December 31, 2015, Plaintiff and Ring entered into a
settlement agreement for an insignificant amount in connection
with the attorney's fees.

Ring Energy is a Midland-based exploration and production company
that is engaged in oil and natural gas acquisition, exploration,
development and production activities.


RUBY TUESDAY: Faces "Jacob" Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Alessandro Jacob, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., James J. Buettgen
and Jill M. Golder, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03214 (S.D. N.Y.,
April 29, 2016), seeks to recover compensable damages for
Defendants' materially false and misleading statements.

The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of all
purchasers of the Ruby Tuesday securities from July 24, 2015
through April 7, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The financial statements contained false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations and prospects.
Specifically, the statements failed to disclose that: (1) fiscal
year 2016 guidance was unobtainable and unrealistic; (2)
promotional activity by its peers was adversely impacting Ruby
Tuesday's performance; (3) the continuing decline in casual dining
customers and traffic adversely impacted Ruby Tuesday's
performance; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about Ruby Tuesday's business, operations and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Defendant Ruby Tuesday is incorporated in Georgia with its
principal executive offices located in 150 West Church Avenue,
Maryville, Tennessee 37801. The Company operates restaurants in
this district. Ruby Tuesday securities trade on the New York Stock
Exchange ("NYSE") under the ticker symbol "RT" Ruby Tuesday owns,
operates and franchises a casual dining restaurant chain that
operations in the United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
             pkim@rosenlegal.com


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Lanier Trust Case Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Mississippian Trust I continues to defend the case by
the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, the Trust said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
16, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that

On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust,
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust, SandRidge
and certain current and former executive officers of SandRidge,
among other defendants (the "Securities Litigation"). The
complaint asserts a variety of federal securities claims on behalf
of a putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of the Trust
in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April
7, 2011, and (b) purchasers of common units of SandRidge
Mississippian Trust II in or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 17, 2012.  The claims are based on
allegations that SandRidge and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, among other defendants, including the
Trust, are responsible for making false and misleading statements,
and omitting material information, concerning a variety of
subjects, including oil and gas reserves. The plaintiffs seek
class certification, an order rescinding the Trust's initial
public offering and an unspecified amount of damages, plus
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the Trust may incur
expenses in defending the litigation, and any such expenses may
increase the Trust's administrative expenses significantly. The
Trust will estimate and financially provide for potential losses
that may arise out of litigation to the extent that such losses
are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment
will be required in making any such estimates and any final
liabilities of the Trust may ultimately be materially different
than any estimates. The Trust is currently unable to assess the
probability of loss or estimate a range of any potential loss the
Trust may incur in connection with the Securities Litigation, and
has not established any reserves relating to the Securities
Litigation.  The Trust may withhold estimated amounts from future
distributions to cover future costs associated with the litigation
if determined necessary. The Trust has not yet fully analyzed any
rights it may have to indemnities that may be applicable or any
claims it may make in connection with the Securities Litigation.


SOLAZYME INC: Motion to Dismiss to be Heard in May 2016
-------------------------------------------------------
Solazyme, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's motion to
dismiss a securities class action litigation is expected to be
heard in May 2016.

In June 2015, a securities class action complaint entitled Norfolk
County Retirement System v. Solazyme, Inc. et al. was filed
against the Company, its CEO, Jonathan Wolfson, its CFO/COO, Tyler
Painter, certain of its current and former directors, and the
underwriters of its March 2014 equity and debt offerings, Goldman,
Sachs & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1934, as well as
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class that would comprise all individuals who acquired the
Company's securities (i) between February 27, 2014 and November 5,
2014 and (ii) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's public
equity and debt offerings in March 2014. The complaint alleges
that investors were misled by statements made during that period
about the construction progress, development, and production
capacity associated with the production facility located in Brazil
owned by the Company's joint venture, Solazyme Bunge Produtos
Renovaveis Ltda.

In October 2015, the lead plaintiff was selected in action and an
amended complaint was filed on December 15, 2015.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the action on February 12,
2016 and it expects to be heard in May 2016. The Company believes
the complaint lacks merit, and intends to defend itself
vigorously.

Solazyme is a food, nutrition and specialty ingredients company
that harnesses the power of algae, the origin of all plants.


STERICYCLE INC: To Contest Motion for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
contest a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint and a Motion for
Class Certification in a multi-district litigation.

The Company said, "we were served on March 12, 2013 with a class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and
on behalf of all other "similarly situated" customers of ours. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that we imposed
unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our
customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The
complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action
and the award to class members of appropriate damages and
injunctive relief."

"The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of
a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under
the New York False Claims Act which arose out of the Qui Tam
Action.

"Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint,
we were served with class action complaints filed in federal court
in California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi and Utah and in
state court in California. These complaints asserted claims and
allegations substantially similar to those made in the
Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to
be follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of New
York.

On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted our Motion to Transfer these related actions to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for
centralized pretrial proceedings (the "MDL Action"). On December
10, 2013, we filed our answer to the Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint in the MDL Action, generally denying the
allegations therein.

"On January 29, 2016, the plaintiffs' attorneys filed a Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint and a Motion for Class
Certification in the MDL Action. The Motion requests that the
court certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of certain of our
small quantity customers who received rate increases. We intend to
strongly contest the Motion.

"We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of
our customer contracts and that these complaints are without
merit. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves against
each of these lawsuits."

"We have not accrued any amounts in respect of these class action
lawsuits, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or
the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are
unable to make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by its
nature uncertain and unpredictable, (ii) we do not know whether
the court will certify any class of plaintiffs or, if any class is
certified, how the class would be defined, and (iii) in our
judgment, there are no comparable proceedings against other
defendants that might provide guidance in making estimates."


STERICYCLE INC: Paid $13MM for Valid Claims in Junk Fax Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has paid a
total of $13.0 million in respect of valid claims submitted by
class members within the claims period in a Junk Fax lawsuit.

The Company said, "On May 20, 2015, we entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve all claims made against us and certain of our
subsidiaries in Sawyer v. Stericycle, et al., Case No. 2015 CH
07190 (the "TCPA Action"), a class action complaint filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the "Court"). The TCPA
Action was the successor lawsuit to the class action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Case 1:14-cv-02070) that we have previously disclosed
and that was dismissed pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation
of dismissal. The TCPA Action alleged that from 2010 to 2014 we
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended
by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, by sending facsimile
advertisements to plaintiffs or putative class members that either
were unsolicited and/or did not contain a valid opt-out notice."

"We have denied all liability for the claims made in the TCPA
Action but have agreed to settle to avoid the expense, burden and
inherent risk and uncertainty of litigation."

"Under the terms of the settlement agreement entered into with the
two class representatives, we agreed to make available a fund of
$45.0 million (the "Settlement Fund") to pay class members who
submit a valid claim form within a 90-day period, to pay an
incentive award to each of the class representatives, to pay
attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' attorneys, and to pay
fees and costs of a third-party settlement administrator (the
"TCPA Settlement"). The plaintiffs' attorneys sought attorneys'
fees of one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus out-of-pocket
expenses, to be paid from the Settlement Fund. As part of the TCPA
Settlement, we did not admit to any of the allegations in the TCPA
Action and are completely released from any claims related to
faxes sent by us or on our behalf from March 25, 2010 through
April 30, 2015. On August 27, 2015, the TCPA Action was dismissed
with prejudice.

"Based on the claims filed in connection with the TCPA Settlement,
we recorded a pre-tax charge of $28.2 million during 2015 which is
included in SG&A expenses on our Consolidated Statement of Income.
We made payments totaling $15.2 million in respect of the
incentive awards to each of the class representatives and the
attorneys' fees and expenses of plaintiffs' attorneys during
August 2015. In December 2015, we paid a total of $13.0 million in
respect of valid claims submitted by class members within the
claims period."

Stericycle is a business-to-business services provider with a
focus on regulated and compliance solutions for healthcare,
retail, and commercial businesses.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Refuses to Certify "Burnell" Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Virginia A. Phillips entered an order denying class
certification in the lawsuit styled John Burnell, et al. v. Swift
Transportation Co of Arizona, LLC, Case No. 5:10-cv-00809-VAP-OP
(C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs are California residents, who worked for Swift as
drivers during all relevant time periods.  The Plaintiffs allege
that Swift had a policy of violating a number of California Labor
Code provisions, including the requirement to pay minimum wages
for all hours worked and the requirement to provide meal and rest
breaks.

The Court opined that the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the
commonality requirement as to the Minimum Wage Class and the Meal
and Rest Period Class.  Judge Phillips added, among other things,
that the Plaintiffs did not submit any class-wide evidence to
support their theory that Swift uniformly imposed unrealistic
scheduling requirements because whether a driver's schedule
permitted a break depends on facts unique to each driver and each
trip.

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


SWISHER HYGIENE: Status Hearing Held in "Berger" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Swisher Hygiene Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a status hearing was
held in February in the class action lawsuit by Paul Berger.

On September 8, 2015, a lawsuit seeking to be certified as a class
action (Paul Berger v. Swisher Hygiene Inc., et al., Case No. 2015
CH 13325 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Co.)) was filed in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division by
Paul Berger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, against Swisher Hygiene Inc., the members of Swisher
Hygiene Inc.'s board of directors, individually, and Ecolab in
connection with the Sale Transaction. The plaintiff has alleged
that (i) faced with an ongoing investigation by the Securities and
Exchange Commission and the USAO, the individual defendants
embarked upon a self-interested scheme to sell off Swisher
International, Inc.'s assets and to liquidate Swisher Hygiene
Inc., (ii) the individual defendants, through an alleged
insufficient process, caused Swisher Hygiene Inc. to agree to sell
substantially all of its assets for insufficient consideration,
(iii) each member of Swisher Hygiene Inc's. Board of Directors is
interested in the Sale Transaction and the plan of dissolution,
and (iv) the proxy statement was materially misleading and/or
incomplete. The causes of action set forth in the complaint are
(i) a claim for breaches of the fiduciary duties of good faith,
loyalty, fair dealing and due care, (ii) a claim for failure to
disclose, and (iii) a claim against Ecolab for aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the
consummation of the Sale Transaction unless and until defendants
provide all material facts in the proxy statement, and the
plaintiff also seeks compensatory and/or rescissory damages as
allowed by law for the plaintiff.

On October 6, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Illinois action given that a substantially similar action, Raul,
was pending in North Carolina.  On December 15, 2015, the parties
agreed to hold defendants' motion to dismiss in abeyance until the
court in the Raul action ruled on the pending motions to dismiss
in that case.  A status hearing was scheduled for February 26,
2016.  The Company believes the claims alleged by the plaintiff
are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend against
them.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Amended Complaint in "Raul" Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Swisher Hygiene Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the amended complaint
filed in the Malka Raul class action lawsuit has been dismissed.

On September 11, 2015, a derivative and putative class action
(Malka Raul v. Swisher Hygiene Inc. et al., Case No. 15-CVS-16703
(Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina)) was filed in
the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina by Malka Raul.  The action was brought
derivatively on behalf of Swisher Hygiene Inc., and individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Swisher
Hygiene Inc., the members of Swisher Hygiene, Inc's board of
directors, individually, and Ecolab in connection with the Sale
Transaction.

The plaintiff has alleged that (i) the sale of Swisher
International, Inc. to Ecolab contemplated by the purchase
agreement is unfair and inequitable to the Swisher Hygiene Inc's
stockholders and constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of
the directors in the sale of Swisher International, Inc. (ii)
defendants have exacerbated their breaches of fiduciary duty by
agreeing to lock up the Sale Transaction with deal protection
devices that preclude other bidders from making a successful
competing offer for Swisher International, Inc. and preclude
stockholders from voting against the Sale Transaction, (iii) the
Sale Transaction will divest the Swisher Hygiene Inc's
stockholders of their ownership interest in Swisher International,
Inc. for inadequate consideration; (iv) each of the defendants
violated and continues to violate applicable law by directly
breaching and/or aiding and abetting the defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith
and fair dealings, (v) the Sale Transaction is the product of a
flawed process that was designed to sell Swisher International,
Inc. to Ecolab on terms detrimental to plaintiff and the other
Swisher Hygiene Inc's stockholders, (vi) the proxy statement fails
to provide Swisher Hygiene Inc's stockholders with material
information and/or provides them with materially misleading
information and (vii) the proxy statement fails to provide Swisher
Hygiene Inc.'s stockholders with all material information
concerning the financial analysis of Cassel Salpeter & Co., LLC.

The causes of action set forth in the complaint are (i) a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants,
(ii) a claim for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty
against Ecolab, (iii) a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary
duties against the individual defendants, and (iv) a derivative
claim for unjust enrichment against the individual defendants.

The plaintiff primarily sought to (i) enjoin defendants from
consummating the Sale Transaction unless and until the individual
defendants adopt and implement a fair procedure or process to sell
Swisher International, Inc., (ii) direct the individual defendants
to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction which
is in the best interests of Swisher Hygiene Inc. and its
stockholders and (iii) rescind, to the extent already implemented,
the purchase agreement or any of the terms thereof. The plaintiff
also seeks costs and disbursements, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts fees, and such other equitable and/or
injunctive relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On November 5, 2015, defendants in the Raul case filed motions to
dismiss, and on November 23, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion to
dismiss as moot and a motion for an award of attorney's fees.
Oral arguments of the plaintiff's and defendants' motions occurred
on January 12, 2016.  In supplemental briefing plaintiff advised
the Court that it intended to withdraw its motion to dismiss and
amend its complaint to include "newly discovered information."

On January 28, 2016, the Court granted Ecolab's motion to dismiss
and plaintiff's permission to file an amended complaint, preserved
defendants' motions to dismiss for future consideration and
deferred consideration of plaintiff's motion for award of
attorneys' fees.

On February 11, 2016, the plaintiff in the Raul case filed her
amended complaint bringing the action derivatively on behalf of
Swisher Hygiene Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly, against the members of Swisher Hygiene Inc.'s board of
directors and Swisher Hygiene Inc.  The plaintiff alleged a claim
for declaratory relief against the individual defendants, a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants,
and derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust
enrichment, abuse of control, and waste relating to the Sale
Transaction and the Plan of Dissolution.

On February 24, 2016, following a review of the amended complaint,
defense counsel advised plaintiff's counsel of certain factual and
legal errors contained in the amended complaint, and further
advised of defendants' intention to seek reimbursement for
expenses, including attorneys' fees, if the amended complaint was
not withdrawn.  On February 29, 2016, defendant filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal and, on March 3, 2016, the amended complaint
was dismissed with prejudice as to the plaintiff, with each side
bearing its own costs and expenses.


TOYO DENSO: Fixed Price of Window Switches, Vancouver Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Toyo Denso, Omron Automotive
Electronics, et al. conspired to fix the prices of automobile
power window switches from 2003 to 2013, a class action claims in
Vancouver, B.C. British Columbia Supreme Court.


TURNER OIL & GAS: "Stanley" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stanley and Mary Elliott, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Turner Oil & Gas
Properties, Inc, Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-386 (S.D. Ohio, April
29, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

Defendant owns and operates a land brokerage service with Ohio
operations coordinated from a brick and mortar office located in
Marietta, Ohio situated in Washington County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew A. Schwartz, Esq.
     230 Durand St
     Pickerington, OH 43147
     Tel: 614-949-9749
     Fax: 614-321-3964
     E-mail: MSchwartzLaw@Gmail.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Illegally Spammed Phones in Austin, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Uber illegally spammed
thousands of cellphones in Austin to ask people to oppose the
city's efforts to make Uber drivers submit to background checks, a
class action claims in Austin, Texas Federal Court.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Must Defend Against Sexual Assault Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Uber can't escape a lawsuit brought by two women who say they
were sexually assaulted by Uber drivers in Boston and South
Carolina, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled May 4.

Two Jane Does sued Uber in October 2015, claiming the ride-hail
service inadequately screened drivers and promoted a false
marketing campaign touting itself as one of the safest ways to get
home after a night of drinking.  One of the women says a driver in
South Carolina drove her in the wrong direction away from her
home, asked her to perform oral sex as "payment" for her ride and
then "viciously raped" her in August 2015.  The other plaintiff
says a 38-year-old Uber driver in Boston dropped off her friends,
drove her 15 minutes off-route from her destination and then
forcibly kissed and groped her in February 2015.

At a hearing in April, an Uber attorney said the ride-hail company
shouldn't be held liable because the alleged sexual assaults "had
nothing to do" with the job being performed by drivers.

In a May 4 ruling, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston rejected that
argument.  The judge cited several rulings including the 1991
California Supreme Court decision Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles,
which held the city liable for a police officer who followed a
woman home after a traffic stop and raped her.

"Like a police officer who rapes a detained woman, an employee who
throws a hammer at a fellow worker in a fit of irritation, or an
asylum officer who abuses his role to confer female immigrants and
molest them, sexual assault by an Uber driver may be incidental to
the operation of its business," Illston wrote in her 19-page
ruling.

Uber had also argued that because its drivers are independent
contractors, not employees, it can't be held liable as an
employer.

However, Illston called that claim questionable, citing her
colleague U.S. Judge Edward Chen's decision in the employment
class action O'Connor v. Uber which found that drivers presented
adequate facts to support the existence of an employer-employee
relationship.

Uber also sought to dismiss claims that it orchestrated a false
marketing campaign regarding the safety of its rides.

The judge refused to dismiss that allegation, saying it was
reasonable to believe both women relied on Uber's statements about
ride safety when they chose to accept rides from the drivers.

Because the two women presented a plausible claim for fraud, the
judge also refused to dismiss a claim for damages which the
plaintiffs may seek if they succeed on their fraud claims.

However, because the driver who assaulted one of the plaintiffs in
South Carolina had no criminal record, the judge dismissed that
claim for negligent hiring and supervision. The driver had only
been in the country for three years, and Uber could not have known
the driver was unfit as an employee, Illston said.

The other driver who allegedly assaulted one plaintiff in Boston
had an assault conviction from 2003, but Uber's background checks
only go back seven years.

Although Uber characterized that conviction as a "12-year-old
disorderly persons offense that could have been expunged," the
judge found the driver's criminal history still gave Uber
knowledge of an incident that could have disqualified him as a
driver. Therefore, the judge refused to dismiss that claim for
negligent hiring.

Ultimately, the judge denied all of Uber's motions to dismiss
claims in the lawsuit except for the negligent hiring claim for
the alleged incident in South Carolina, which was dismissed
without prejudice.

Uber spokesman Matt Kallman declined to comment.

The case captioned, JANE DOE 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-04670-SI (N.D.
Cal.).


UNITED STATES: Census Bureau Settles Background Checks Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roy Maurer, writing for The Society for Human Resource Management,
reports that the U.S. Census Bureau agreed to settle a lawsuit
claiming that the agency discriminated against black and Hispanic
job applicants with arrest records when it conducted criminal
background checks during the hiring blitz for temporary workers
leading up to the 2010 census.

In addition to paying $15 million to settle the suit, the Census
Bureau is also required to hire industrial organizational
psychologists to design new criteria for criminal background
checks for the 2020 census to limit disparate impact on job
applicants.  Of the settlement money, $5 million will be used to
notify class members of the lawsuit about upcoming jobs for the
2020 census and to help fix errors in their criminal records,
while the remaining $10 million will pay attorney's fees,
litigation costs and expenses.

The Census Bureau admitted to no liability under the proposed
settlement.

"The big takeaway for employers is that if even the U.S.
government can get sued for the unfair use of criminal records,
then private employers need to take this issue very seriously,"
said Les Rosen, an attorney and the CEO of Employment Screening
Resources, a background screening firm based in the San Francisco
area.  "This should also be a wake-up call for employers to
carefully differentiate between an arrest that did not result in a
conviction, and an actual criminal conviction where there has been
a factual finding about the underlying behavior."

Background of the Case

The Census Bureau sought to fill more than 1 million temporary
positions nationwide to conduct the 2010 census.  The hiring
process required a criminal background check, where applicants'
biographical information was run through the FBI database.  If an
arrest record popped up, the Census sent a letter to the applicant
asking him or her to provide "official court documentation on any
and all arrest(s) and/or conviction(s)" within 30 days.  Those
applicants who disputed that they had an arrest record were
advised to submit a set of fingerprints.

The plaintiffs sued in 2010, alleging that those procedures
violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because they
"are neither job-related nor consistent with business necessity,
and disproportionately preclude African-Americans and Latinos"
because those groups "have higher arrest and conviction rates than
Caucasians."

The suit stated that the hiring requirements caused approximately
700,000 job applicants with an arrest record of almost any kind to
be excluded from being hired for Census jobs.  The suit also
stated the Census Bureau background checks excluded people "with
old and minor convictions" which were irrelevant to the job.

An estimated 30 percent of working-age Americans have some type of
criminal record, according to figures from the Department of
Justice.

"To end the cycle of mass incarceration, we must eliminate
discriminatory and unfair barriers to re-entry faced by people
with criminal histories," said Kristen Clarke, president and
executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law.  "This important settlement helps send a strong message
to other employers that no job seeker should be automatically
excluded from consideration for a job solely because of a criminal
record."

Individualized Assessment

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),
employers may violate Title VII if their policies have a
disproportionate adverse impact based on race, national origin or
other protected categories, and if employers cannot demonstrate
the business necessity of such policies.

"Even if an employer makes a reasonable judgment that a criminal
record should exclude a particular individual, the EEOC is clear
that each applicant should have a meaningful opportunity to be
assessed individually on the basis of who they are, and not just
be lumped into the broad category of being a criminal offender,"
Rosen said.

The 2012 EEOC guidance on the use of criminal history in hiring
calls for a process of individualized assessment, where rejected
candidates can make their case to demonstrate facts about the
offense or about their lives that shows they should be given a
second chance.

Rosen said employers should consider, among other things:

Is there a conviction, which means there is factual underpinning
proving the behavior, or is it just an arrest, which is
essentially just a police officer's opinion? "Trying to use an
arrest only can be difficult and a number of states have laws that
prohibit that," he said.

What is the nature and gravity of the crime (taking into account
factors such as the elements of the crime and whether it's a
felony or a misdemeanor)?

What is the nature of the job (taking into account such things as
the essential functions of the job, the job description and the
degree of risk in the job)?

How old is the offense, meaning is the "look back" period
rationally related to the offense?

He said that ultimately, "employers need to be mindful of a need
to demonstrate that the behavior underlying a criminal matter is
demonstrably job-related or creates such a high risk that the
employer has a business necessity not to hire the person."  Cases
in which criminal records turn up in background checks, especially
if they are for minor convictions, are old or are irrelevant to
the job, need to be handled with extreme caution, he added.


VAALCO ENERGY: Bid for Fees and Costs Ongoing in "Gusinsky" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
VAALCO Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Chancery Court of
the State of Delaware held that the Company's charter and bylaw
provisions that allowed for director removal "for cause only" are
invalid as a matter of Delaware law. The proceeding is still
pending as to the plaintiffs' request to recover their attorneys'
fees and costs.

On December 7, 2015, Plaintiff Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust
filed a stockholder class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware (the "Court") against the Company and all
of its directors alleging that certain provisions of the Company's
Restated Charter and Second Amended and Restated Bylaws that
restricted the removal of its directors to removal for cause only
(the "director removal provisions") were invalid as a matter of
Delaware law. Plaintiff George Shapiro also filed a similar
stockholder class action lawsuit in the Court on December 7, 2015.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs agreed to the consolidation of their
cases (the "Consolidated Case").

After a hearing on the Consolidated Case on December 21, 2015,
Vice Chancellor Laster issued an opinion in In re VAALCO Energy,
Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11775-VCL holding
that, in the absence of a classified board or cumulative voting,
the director removal provisions conflicted with Section 141(k) of
the Delaware General Corporation Law and are therefore invalid. No
appeal to the ruling has been made and the Company has no plans
for such action.

Lastly, while the central issue stated in the preceding paragraph
in regard to the Consolidated Case has been resolved, the
plaintiffs still maintain a pending request in the Court to
recover their attorneys' fees and costs associated with the
Consolidated Case.


VENTURA, CA: Mentally Ill Inmates Sue Over Jail Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Ventura County lets mentally ill people languish in jail without
treatment for so long they often serve more time than they would
by pleading guilty, prisoners claim in Los Angeles a
constitutional class action.

"This has been a problem for years," the two lead plaintiffs'
attorney Brian Vogel told Courthouse News.

Vogel said mentally ill inmates suffer increased risk of suicide,
get beat up by other inmates, punished by guards, and often cannot
get medication, much less treatment for their illnesses.  They
also lose pretrial custody credits, which doubles their time
compared to other inmates, he said. In addition, Patton State
Hospital, where most mentally ill inmates are sent, has a long
wait list.

Mentally ill inmates are called "ISTs" -- incompetent to stand
trial.

"Bad things happen to IST people while they sit and wait in jail
without treatment, Vogel said. "It's sad and unnecessary. The
people who suffer most are the people who most need treatment."
He dismissed Patton's claim of funding shortages as no excuse for
an "unfair" system.

"I think any excuses are inadequate to justify the abuse of
mentally ill inmates like my clients," Vogel said.

California law requires that incompetent defendants get treatment
before trial. Many such defendants cannot post bail and stay in
jail until transfer to a state hospital.  Since the evaluation and
placement process can stretch on for months, many incapacitated
detainees spend more time in jail than if they had pleaded guilty,
the federal complaint states.

Plaintiffs M.S. and O.M., suing through guardians, say Ventura
County jails are not equipped to give incapacitated detainees the
psychiatric treatment needed to stabilize them, and cannot force
them to take their psychotropic medications except in emergencies.
As a result, incapacitated inmates are often clearly psychotic,
disruptive and unpredictable. Jails punish them with prolonged
isolation and denying them contact with loved ones, which
exacerbates their illness.

"Plaintiffs have languished in the jail for weeks and months to
the detriment of their overall mental health, waiting to receive
court-ordered competency restoration services that defendants are
statutorily required to provide," the complaint states.

M.S. was arrested in late August 2015 on suspicion of felony
burglary. After a forensic psychologist found him incompetent to
stand trial, he was referred for restorative treatment and
admitted to Patton in late April 2016 -- 150 days after he was
found incompetent.

While in jail his mental state deteriorated and he broke several
rules as a result. For example, he took off his plastic armband
because he believed the devil had changed it into metal and threw
feces on the wall after he ran out of toilet paper and the guards
refused to bring more. The jail took away visits and put him in
isolation as punishment.

O.M. was arrested in April 2014 for felony attempted robbery, was
found incompetent to stand trial and transferred to Patton.
Despite the recommended three-year commitment time, criminal
proceedings resumed a year later.  His attorney requested another
mental health evaluation. Though two doctors found him still
incompetent and recommended transfer back to Patton, he is still
in jail.

O.M. also says he was disciplined for breaking jail rules as a
result of his mental illness. He hoarded pills he refused to take
and fought with another inmate because he hears voices, which
makes him agitated. He too was punished with isolation and loss of
visits.

The complaint lists almost a dozen other detainees and putative
class members with similar experiences.  Part of the problem is
that the Department of State Hospitals refuses to accept a new
detainee until another one is released, known as the "one in, one
out rule." Though a small number of detainees are returned for
trial each May 5, there are often no transfers because no
detainees were returned, the complaint states.

State records show that many of the roughly 15 IST inmates in
Ventura County have been waiting for at least 30 days for transfer
to a state hospital; one woman has been waiting six months. These
delays have been the norm for several years and have more than 100
people, according to the complaint.

Defendants include Ventura County, its Sheriff's Office, the
California Forensic Medical Group, MHM Services of California, the
director of the California Department of State Hospitals and the
director or Patton State Hospital.

Department of State Hospitals spokesman Ralph Monta┬žo said the
agency does not comment on pending litigation.

None of the other defendants immediately returned emailed requests
for comment May 5.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, declaratory judgment, an
injunction and damages violations civil rights, speedy trial, due
process, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Attorney Vogel's office is in Ventura.


VIVA LIFE: Faces "Stacks" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Stacks, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals v. Viva Life, LLC d/b/a Sona MedSpa
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01179 (S.D. Tex., April 29,
2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Viva Life, LLC d/b/a Sona MedSpa, LLC is headquartered
in North Carolina, with a principal address located at 5955
Carnegie Boulevard, Suite 300, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28209.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Viva Life, LLC also does
business as, or with, Skin Aesthetics, LLC. Skin Aesthetics, LLC
is also headquartered in North Carolina at 10710 Sikes Place,
Suite 120, Charlotte, North Carolina 28277; however, its principal
office is located at 1201 Lake Woodlands Drive, Suite 4008, The
Woodlands, TX 77380.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
     Brittany B. Skemp, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
     4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55427
     Tel: (612) 256-3200
     Fax: (612) 338-4878
     E-mail: lukas@nka.com
             bbachmanskemp@nka.com


VIVINT SOLAR: $1.7-Mil. Settlement Reached in Technicians' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a $1.7 million
settlement agreement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
filed by former installation technicians.

The Company said, "In September 2014, two of our former
installation technicians, on behalf of themselves and a purported
class, filed a complaint for damages, injunctive relief and
restitution in the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of San Diego against us and unnamed John Doe
defendants. The complaint alleges certain violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code based on, among other things, alleged improper classification
of installer technicians, installer helpers, electrician
technicians and electrician helpers, failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and failure to provide wages on termination."

"In December 2014, the original plaintiffs and three additional
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with essentially the same
allegations. On November 5, 2015, the parties agreed to
preliminary terms of a settlement of all claims related to
allegations in the complaint in return for our payment of $1.7
million to be paid out to the purported class members. The
settlement agreement must be approved by the Court, after notice
to the purported class. A $1.7 million reserve was recorded
related to this proceeding in our consolidated financial
statements."

Vivint Solar primarily offers distributed solar energy --
electricity generated by a solar energy system installed at or
near customers' locations -- to residential customers based on 20-
year contracts at prices below their current utility rates.


VIVINT SOLAR: "Hyatt" Plaintiff Appeals Case Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiff in the
"Hyatt" class action lawsuit has filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Company said, "In November and December 2014, two putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against us, our directors,
certain of our officers and the underwriters of our initial public
offering of common stock alleging violation of securities laws and
seeking unspecified damages. In January 2015, the Court ordered
these cases to be consolidated into the earlier filed case, Hyatt
v. Vivint Solar, Inc. et al., 14-cv-9283 (KBF)."

"The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in February
2015. On May 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
and on December 10, 2015, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

"On January 5, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

"We are unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could
result were there to be an adverse final decision. If an
unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case, it is possible
that the impact could be material to our results of operations in
the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and
estimable."

Vivint Solar primarily offers distributed solar energy --
electricity generated by a solar energy system installed at or
near customers' locations -- to residential customers based on 20-
year contracts at prices below their current utility rates.


VIVINT SOLAR: New Complaint Filed in SunEdison Merger Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs in the
class action lawsuit related to the SunEdison Inc. transaction
have filed a new complaint in the Delaware Chancery Court.

The Company said, "On July 31, 2015, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery State of Delaware
against our directors, SunEdison Inc., or SunEdison, and TerraForm
Power, or TerraForm, alleging that the proposed acquisition by
SunEdison is unfair to our stockholders. On August 7, 2015, a
second putative class action lawsuit was filed in the same court
alleging similar claims, and including 313, Acquisition, LLC as a
named defendant. Both complaints seek injunctive relief and
unspecified damages."

"On or about September 10, 2015, two purported class action
lawsuits were also filed in Utah's Fourth District State Court, or
the Utah Actions, alleging similar claims to the complaints
previously filed in the Delaware Chancery Court.

"On September 22, 2015, we, through counsel notified plaintiff's
counsel in the Utah Actions that pursuant to our Articles of
Incorporation, any such derivative action was subject to exclusive
jurisdiction in the Delaware Chancery Court, and accordingly, the
Utah Actions should be dismissed.

"After a December 2015 amendment to the proposed acquisition, a
new complaint was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court on January
11, 2016. The new complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty
against our directors, certain officers, and SunEdison, and seeks
damages on behalf of a putative class.

"In view of our indemnification obligation to our directors, we
are unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result
were there to be an adverse final decision. If an unfavorable
outcome were to occur in these cases, it is possible that the
impact could be material to our results of operations in the
period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and
estimable."

Vivint Solar primarily offers distributed solar energy --
electricity generated by a solar energy system installed at or
near customers' locations -- to residential customers based on 20-
year contracts at prices below their current utility rates.


VIVINT SOLAR: Arbitration Ruling Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiff in the
Kern County class action lawsuit has filed a Notice of Appeal from
the court order granting the Company's motion to compel
arbitration.

The Company said, "On September 9, 2015, two of our customers, on
behalf of themselves and a purported class, named us in a putative
class action, Case No. BCV-15-100925(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
County), alleging violation of California Business and
Professional Code Section 17200 and requesting relief pursuant to
Section 1689 of the California Civil Code. The complaint seeks:
(1) rescission of their power purchase agreements along with
restitution to the plaintiffs individually and (2) declaratory and
injunctive relief."

"On October 16, 2015, we moved to compel arbitration of the
plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the provisions set forth in the
power purchase agreements, which the Court granted and dismissed
the class claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed the
Court's order. We are not able to estimate the amount or range of
potential loss, if any, at this time."

Vivint Solar primarily offers distributed solar energy --
electricity generated by a solar energy system installed at or
near customers' locations -- to residential customers based on 20-
year contracts at prices below their current utility rates.



VOLKSWAGEN AG: CEO Apologizes to Obama Over Emissions Scandal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Ewing, writing for the New York Times, reports that the chief
executive of Volkswagen said on April 28 that he personally
apologized to President Obama for cheating on vehicle emissions
tests, speaking up for its work force as the German carmaker
negotiates penalties with United States officials.

Volkswagen is in talks with American authorities about the fines
it must pay for programming engines to cheat on emissions tests.
The company said on April 28 that it had set aside 7 billion
euros, or $7.9 billion, for legal costs worldwide, even though in
theory it faces fines of $18 billion in the United States alone,
plus compensation to owners.

Matthias Mueller, the chief executive of Volkswagen, had what he
described as a two-minute conversation with Mr. Obama during the
president's visit to Hanover, not far from Volkswagen headquarters
in Wolfsburg.  The encounter took place at a dinner hosted by
Chancellor Angela Merkel for Mr. Obama and representatives of
German industry.

"I used the opportunity to personally apologize to him for our
behavior," Mr. Mueller said during a news conference in Wolfsburg
on April 28.  "I thanked him for the constructive cooperation with
his officials.  Of course I also expressed the hope that I will be
able to continue to fulfill my responsibility to 600,000 employees
and their families as well as suppliers and dealers."

Mr. Mueller's mention of Volkswagen workers and their families may
have reflected concern that the punishment the company faces could
harm those who had nothing to do with any wrongdoing. Lawyers in
the case expect the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Justice Department to demand penalties that are painful for
Volkswagen, but not so severe that they destroy the company.

Thousands of jobs in the United States depend on Volkswagen. The
company has a factory in Chattanooga, Tenn., that is preparing to
produce a new version of the Tiguan compact S.U.V., as well as an
extensive dealer network in the country.

Mr. Mueller said on April 28 that Mr. Obama appeared receptive to
his remarks.  The Volkswagen chief said he felt encouraged about a
solution that would ensure the company a future in the United
States.

The White House declined to comment on Mr. Mueller's account of
the event.

The German carmaker said that it had set aside EUR16.2 billion to
cover costs related to its admission that it had programmed diesel
vehicles to evade clean air regulations.  On April 28, it said
that within that figure was EUR7 billion for legal costs, which
includes proceedings in other countries, like France or South
Korea.

Most of the rest of the EUR16.2 billion will be used to repair
diesel vehicles that are polluting more than allowed, or to buy
back ones that cannot be fixed.

The EUR7 billion figure disclosed indicates that the company is
confident that its legal costs in the United States will be much
lower than the maximum.

Volkswagen has admitted manipulating software in 11 million cars
worldwide, including about 600,000 in the United States, so that
emissions equipment operated at full capacity only when the
vehicles were being tested.  At other times, the cars polluted
much more than allowed.

The EUR7 billion would also cover compensation to the owners of
Volkswagen vehicles who have filed class-action lawsuits.

On April 28, Volkswagen also provided details on the loss it
reported.  The company said it had lost EUR1.5 billion worldwide
during the year, compared with a profit of EUR11 billion in 2014.
Volkswagen A.G., a subset of Volkswagen Group that includes core
operations such as the Volkswagen brand but that excludes the Audi
unit as well as some foreign holdings, reported a loss of EUR5.5
billion.

Though Audi has belonged to Volkswagen since the 1960s, it
continues to have a small number of outside shareholders and holds
its own annual meeting.

Volkswagen, which owns brands including Porsche and Skoda as well
as manufacturers of trucks and commercial vehicles, sold 10
million vehicles in 2015, down from 10.2 million in 2014.  Sales
rose 5.4 percent to EUR213 billion.

Company executives said they still saw the United States as a
growth market for Volkswagen, despite the enormous damage to the
carmaker's image.

"We do see a lot of potential, though of course not in the short
term," Herbert Diess, the executive in charge of Volkswagen brand
cars, said during the news conference.  "We are starting from
zero."


WENDY'S CO: Creditors Files Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that a Pennsylvania
credit union seeking to represent financial institutions
nationwide has sued Wendy's Co, alleging the hamburger chain's
inadequate security let hackers steal customers' credit and debit
card information for weeks undetected.

Filed on April 25 by First Choice Credit Union, the lawsuit said
hackers made hundreds of thousands of fraudulent purchases on
credit and debit cards issued by various financial institutions
after breaching Wendy's computer systems late last year.


ZAFGEN INC: Has Yet to Respond to Massachusetts Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Zafgen, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a purported stockholder
of the Company filed on October 21, 2015, a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, against the Company and Thomas E. Hughes, captioned
Aviad Bessler v. Zafgen, Inc. and Thomas E. Hughes, No. 1:15-cv-
13618. An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2016. The
amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
the Company's clinical trials for its drug beloranib. The lawsuit
seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages in
connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price
between June 19, 2014 and October 16, 2015, as a result of those
allegedly false and misleading statements, as well as punitive
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Company has not
yet filed a responsive pleading.

Zafgen isa biopharmaceutical company dedicated to significantly
improving the health and well-being of patients affected by
obesity and complex metabolic disorders.


* For-Profit Colleges Use Arbitration Clauses to Avert Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, writing for The Washington Post, reports
that there are all sorts of financial aid, housing and medical
forms that most college students can expect to fill out before
starting classes, but for the most part only those attending for-
profit schools are confronted with a piece of paper that seeks to
curb their rights.  Enrollment contracts have become a popular way
for career schools to protect their financial interest by tucking
in clauses that bar students from filing class-action lawsuits or
otherwise taking their grievances to the courts.

These so-called mandatory arbitration clauses routinely appear in
the fine print of auto loans and credit cards, but a new study
from the Century Foundation examines why they have no place in
higher education.

"These clauses let companies engage in questionable activity, feel
more comfortable with aggressive recruiting," said
Robert Shireman, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and co-
author of the report.  "Most students when they're signing up for
college are assuming this is their ticket to a great future. They
are not considering the possibility that what the college has been
telling them is exaggerated or untrue."

Mr. Shireman and his colleague, Tariq Habash, got a hold of
enrollment contracts from 271 schools and found four types of
restrictive clauses -- forced arbitration, go-it-alone, gag and
internal process requirements -- meant to prevent students from
banding together or airing their grievances outside the confines
of the school.  Traditional nonprofit colleges rarely use these
clauses, which have become a standard feature in many contracts
drawn up by for-profit institutions receiving federal financial
aid dollars, like Kaplan University or Devry University, the
report said.

Few students are aware these restrictions exist until problems
arise and they try to seek redress. Of the four types of clauses,
forced arbitration has received the most attention because of the
pernicious way it favors companies.  Critics have decried
arbitration as a secretive process that lets companies dictate the
terms of negotiations.  Arbitrators rely on a company's repeat
business, making them more inclined to rule in the company's
favor, the report said.

Companies, however, argue that they can lower the cost of
delivering education by avoiding high-priced litigation.  The goal
of arbitration is to reduce time and costs for both sides, said
Steve Gunderson, president of the Association of Private Sector
Colleges and Universities, a group representing for-profit
colleges.

"There should be ways to resolve issues that protect students with
legitimate concerns in ways that enable them to have their cases
heard -- whether by arbitration, mediation or other means,"
Gunderson said  in an email.  "If we are serious about protecting
students, we should not make class action suits that enrich trial
lawyers the default option."

Messrs. Shireman and Habash contend that the inherent conflict of
interest in arbitration agreements have turned them into a shield
that invites abuse by businesses, rather than an efficient means
of resolving disputes.  And government regulators are inclined to
agree.

A recent study from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found
that the agreements often lead to poor outcomes for consumers.
Arbitrators in the cases the bureau examined rarely ruled in favor
of consumers, and even when they did, arbitrators awarded paltry
sums.

The Department of Education is also taking a closer look at
mandatory arbitration clauses, considering an all-out ban or
limiting their use in enrollment contracts.  The issue surfaced in
March during negotiations to revise borrower defense to repayment,
the process by which students can have their federal loans
discharged.

Advocacy groups petitioned the agency to make it easier for
students who feel they've been wronged to hold colleges
accountable.  If students had an easier time suing schools, they
would be less likely to turn to the government for relief, saving
taxpayers from picking up the tab for the misdeeds of private
companies.

At the time, Under Secretary Ted Mitchell said, "The department is
working to ensure that no college can dodge accountability by
burying 'gotchas' in fine print that blocks students from seeking
the redress they're due."

With negotiators failing to reach an agreement, it is now up to
the department to write the rules, which may put an end to
arbitration clauses in education contracts once and for all.

"These colleges that are using forced arbitration are targeting
federal financial aid money, and therefore it is appropriate for
the Department of Education to respond by banning these kinds of
provisions," Mr. Shireman said.


* NJ Warranty Law Class Actions to Impact Terms of Service
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. -- jjacobson@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley
Drye & Warren LLP, writing for Ad Law Success, reports that if new
class action lawsuits in New Jersey are right, merely including
Terms of Service, and potentially many other disclaimers, violates
New Jersey state law, and subjects you to a penalty of $100 per
sale.

Do your Terms of Service preclude litigants from claiming
consequential damages or attorneys' fees?

This interpretation of New Jersey's 36 year-old Truth in Consumer
Contract, Warranty and Notice Act ("TCCWNA"), N.J.S.A. 56:12-14,
et seq., is certainly aggressive, and quite possibly wrong.  But
because the theoretical damages in these cases is so high, proving
the theory wrong in court would entail significant risks.  The
plaintiffs' bar is counting on lawsuit targets preferring to
settle.

TCCWNA precludes any "seller" from "offer[ing] to any consumer . .
. or enter[ing] into any written consumer contract . . . or
display[ing] any written consumer warranty, notice or sign . . .
which includes any provision that violates any clearly established
legal right of a consumer or responsibility of a seller . . . as
established by State or Federal law at the time. . . ." A warranty
may state generally under TCCWNA that certain of its exclusions
may not apply in some jurisdictions, without specifying which
provisions or which states those may be, but "[n]o consumer
contract, notice or sign shall state that any of its provisions is
or may be void, unenforceable or inapplicable in some
jurisdictions without specifying which provisions are or are not
void, unenforceable or inapplicable within the State of New
Jersey."

"Any person who violates [TCCWNA] shall be liable to the aggrieved
consumer for a civil penalty of not less than $100.00 or for
actual damages, or both at the election of the consumer, together
with reasonable attorney's fees and court costs." Because the
statute makes it unlawful merely to "display" a "notice or sign"
that purports to disclaim a "clearly established legal right," the
argument is that a consumer is "aggrieved" under the statute
merely by virtue of having seen the "notice or sign" before making
a purchase, whether or not the consumer had any problems with the
purchase.

In December 2015, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an
unpublished, non-precedential decision reversing dismissal of a
TCCWNA class action where an extended-service warranty firm's
contract purported to preclude consumers from seeking attorney's
in lawsuits, because New Jersey law precludes waivers of statutory
rights to fee awards. That decision has added new fuel to the
TCCWNA fire.  New Jersey businesses are not happy, but no
legislative fix has yet found any traction.

What can online retailers, and those with brick-and-mortar
presence in New Jersey, do to avoid becoming the next TCCWNA
defendant?

One necessary step is to examine your terms and conditions
carefully and consult counsel familiar with New Jersey consumer
protection law.  If a particular disclaimer of liability, though
unenforceable in New Jersey, is otherwise important to you, TCCWNA
allows you to keep it, but only if you expressly state that the
disclaimer does not apply in New Jersey.  Most online retailers'
terms of service already contain special notifications about
consumers' rights under California's "Shine the Light" marketing
law; the bite of these recent TCCWNA suits may mean it is time to
include special notifications to New Jersey consumers, too.

New Jersey's TCCWNA wave also highlights the value of a well-
drafted arbitration clause and inclusion of a provision requiring
claims to be arbitrated individually, rather than on behalf of a
class.  New Jersey state courts are relatively unfriendly toward
arbitration clauses, and will enforce them only if consumers
received clear notice a contract contained an arbitration clause
and class waiver.  We have a model arbitration provision that
takes account of recent court decisions, and we can help you
implement the provision in ways that maximize its potential for
enforceability.


* Trade Groups Mull Legal Action Over New Retirement Rule
---------------------------------------------------------
Yuka Hayashi, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
opponents of a new rule on retirement advice are regrouping to
mount a fresh attack, as their initial optimism has given way to
the realization of the regulation's deep and long-lasting impact
on the financial industry.

Three weeks after the Labor Department unveiled a tougher standard
for brokers working on retirement accounts, the House is expected
to pass a resolution to scrap it.

Trade groups, after keeping relatively quiet as they sought to
digest the regulation known as the fiduciary rule, have come out
strongly to support the Republican-led efforts aimed at preventing
it from taking effect.

Any legislative attempt to block the new rule has a slim chance of
success.  The White House issued a statement on April 27 saying
the president would veto the bill. Still, the lawmakers' swift
action and the unified front of industry groups show opposition to
the rule remains strong.

Reflecting continued industry concerns, eight big trade groups had
jointly sent a letter timed to House lawmakers on April 27 to
coincide with the vote, urging them to kill the new rule. Among
them were the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, Financial Services Roundtable and Independent
Insurance Agents and Brokers of America.

The 1,023-page rule will make compliance "extremely complicated
and expensive, resulting in increased consumer costs that will
limit the services available to many modest-income investors," the
groups wrote.

Some trade groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say
they are considering the possibility of legal action to fight the
rule, which requires brokers and financial advisers to act in the
best interest of retirement investors.  Earlier, they were
required to offer "suitable" guidance, a looser standard.

Offering a pleasant surprise to industry -- and disappointing
consumer advocates -- the Labor Department made several
adjustments to its final rule to address industry concerns.
Disclosure requirements and the so-called best-interest contracts
for consumer protection were simplified.  The hurdles for selling
companies' proprietary products were lowered.  And the definition
of investor education was broadened, allowing companies to keep
some of their current practices in communicating with customers.
That said, the final rule went in the other direction with indexed
annuities -- a type of savings contract for risk-averse consumers
-- by making it tougher to complete a sale.

Jim Poolman, executive director of the Indexed Annuity Leadership
Council, which represents three of the largest sellers of indexed
annuities, said the group "is still analyzing the rule and its
effect on our distribution."  The three insurers were "very
disappointed" in the tougher treatment given to indexed annuities
between proposed and final versions of the rule.  "We are
analyzing all of our options, including legal options,"
Mr. Poolman said.

Aliya Wong, executive director of retirement policy at the
Chamber, said that despite the industry-friendly changes included
in its final text, the rule represents a huge departure from the
industry's status quo: "We are going to see a sea change, where we
feel there will be a lot of unintended consequences."

The rule's supporters say concessions to industry in the final
rule had the effect of stealing the thunder from opponents'
efforts to keep fighting other parts of the rule.

Industry players "are in an interesting position because they
actually got every change that they had the reasonable right to
expect . . . related to the workability of the rule," said
Barbara Roper, director of investor protection at the Consumer
Federation of America, a consumer group that backs the rule.
"Now do they want to spend all of that money on legal challenges
that are bad for their reputation . . . with a pretty questionable
chance for success?"

Industry officials say the final rule kept intact some of the most
powerful requirements in the draft version.  Among them is a
"private right of action," which allows investors to file a class-
action lawsuit asserting that an adviser isn't acting in an
investor's best interest, a change that could transform how
brokers interact with customers.

Still, individual financial advisers and brokerage firms are
learning to live with the new rule.

"My reaction is a mixed bag.  They certainly loosened up a lot of
the areas that people thought were going to be most restrictive,"
said Joe Heider, a Cleveland-based financial adviser and president
of Cirrus Wealth Management, a registered investment adviser that
manages about $275 million.  "Still, [the rule] introduces another
level of governmental bureaucracy, paperwork, a higher cost of
doing business, and in the end, I'm not sure who it benefits
besides class-action attorneys."

Paul Reilly, chief executive of Raymond James Financial Inc.
offered a perspective from a big financial firm.  "The truth is,
[the rule] is a little better," he said on an April 21 earnings
call.  But "there are going to be changes in client fees and
charges."


* Voltage Pictures Files Reverse Class Action v. Movie Pirates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Torrent Freak reports that U.S.-based movie company Voltage
Pictures has initiated fresh legal action in Canada aimed at
forcing settlements from alleged pirates.  Unusually, Voltage is
seeking remedy via a reverse class action, demanding an
injunction, damages and costs against an unspecified number of
Internet users.

When it comes to the business model of turning piracy into profit,
the name Voltage Pictures is never far from the action.

The Los Angeles-based movie outfit has tested the legal waters in
several jurisdictions in an effort to extract cash settlements
from alleged pirates, most recently in Australia with its movie
Dallas Buyers Club.

In 2012, Voltage targeted Canadian ISP Teksavvy in a long drawn
out battle to identify 2000 allegedly pirating users in order to
force them to settle.  Now, four years later, Voltage are back
again with a new strategy.

The company filed an application in Federal Court, requesting
certification of a reverse class action against an unquantified
number of BitTorrent users who alleged shared five movies
including The Cobbler, Pay the Ghost, Good Kill, Fathers and
Daughters, and American Heist.

According to law professor Michael Geist, reverse class actions
are very rare in Canada with only a few having been reported.  The
application of a reverse class action in a copyright case appears
to be unprecedented.

"Class actions typically involve a representative plaintiff who
represents many others who have suffered the same harms from the
actions of the defendant. Reverse class actions feature a single
plaintiff (Voltage) and multiple defendants (the alleged file
sharers)," Professor Geist explains.

According to the case documents Voltage intends to build its case
around a single and as-yet-unidentified customer of ISP Rogers. He
or she is referred to as John Doe #1 and by the IP address
allocated when the alleged offense took place.

"Through custom-designed software designed to track copyright
infringements, and the online identities of those who commit such
infringements (by way of IP address and time of infringement), the
Voltage Parties have identified many thousand instances of their
films (including the Works) being illegally offered for download
from Individuals using the Internet," the Voltage application
reads.

"The proposed Representative Respondent, John Doe #1, as well as
each member of the proposed Respondent Class . . . are persons
whose names and identities are currently unknown to the Voltage
Parties, but who have unlawfully, and without the Voltage Parties'
authorization or consent, infringed copyright in the Works,
including by illegally uploading and distributing the Works for
free, in full or in part, over the internet."

Interestingly, Voltage is open about the reasons behind this new
strategy, noting that widespread piracy and the high cost of
litigation means it has sought a cheaper way to target large
numbers of infringers at once.

"The Voltage Parties seek to certify this Application as a class
proceeding as a way to address these issues and obtain reasonable
compensation for the significant damages that each proposed Class
Member has caused, in a cost-effective and fair manner for both
the Voltage Parties and the proposed Class Members," the
application reads.

Voltage accuses the Class Members of three "Unlawful Acts"
including making movies available for download via BitTorrent,
advertising by way of the BitTorrent protocol that a work is
available for download by each member, and failing to take
"reasonable steps" to ensure that downloaders were authorized by
law to do so.

But the big question remains -- could such a strategy work?
Professor Geist has his doubts.

"One of the biggest concerns involves questions of representation
for the defendant class.  Before certification [of the reverse
class action], the court will want assurance that the interests of
the defendants will be fairly represented.  But who will represent
those interests? Who will pay for the legal counsel?" Professor
Geist asks.

"Unlike a plaintiff-led class action, where lawyers are often
willing to invest in the case, there is no payoff at the end of
this case and finding someone to represent the class will be a
challenge when the only named representative is John Doe #1."

But the problems don't stop there.  Professor Geist says that in a
certified reverse class action defendants actually have the option
to opt out of the class.

"In other words, after going through the process of trying to meet
the requirements for class proceedings, all the defendants will be
permitted to simply walk away," he explains.

If they do, however, other questions are raised, including whether
those who opt-out will be allowed to keep their anonymity.  If
they are not, this could play right into Voltage's hands.

Copyright cases are complex in their own right but this strategy
from Voltage will set in motion a vigorous scratching of heads.
Definitely one to watch.



                            *********

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  * * *