CAR_Public/160518.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 18, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 99



                            Headlines


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Final Settlement Hearing Set for June 28
ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeal in Augustus Case Still Pending
ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeal in Bucio et al. Case Still Pending
ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Plaintiff's Appellate Brief Due June 6
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: June 28 Final Fairness Hearing Set

ACCRETIVE HEALTH: "Church" Class Action Appeal Underway
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Discovery Underway in "Anger" Action in Mich.
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Dismissal of "Dye" Action Sought
AFFINION GROUP: Updates on Suits Over Trilegiant Programs
AFFINION GROUP: Appeal in Conn. Case v. Webloyalty Underway

AFFINION GROUP: Appeal in Calif. Case v. Webloyalty Underway
AHMAD R. CHATILA: Faces "Church" Lawsuit Under Securities Act
AIR NEW ZEALAND: Settles Class Action for $35 Million
ALERE INC: "Breton" Suit Seeks Remedies Under Securities Act
ASTRAZENECA: Faces Class Action Over Nexium Side Effects

BANK OF AMERICA: Breakwater Trading Alleges Market Manipulation
BLAZE PIZZA: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Under California Labor Law
BLUE CROSS: Faces Suit by BCBS-VT Health Insurance Subscribers
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: "Milan" Sues over Defective Filters
BP PLC: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Shareholder Suit

BP PLC: Expected to Face More Lawsuits This Month Over Oil Spill
BREMERTON, WA: Class Action Over Blue Street Signs Can Proceed
BROWN & MARTIN: Faces Texas Suit Seeking Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
CALAVO GROWERS: Court Tossed Consolidated Class Action
CARTER'S INC: "Morrow" Sues Over Fake Sale

CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Securities Class Action Pending
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: "Canale" Claims Optic White Misrepresentation
CR BARD: Faces Ariz. Lawsuit Over Inferior Vena Cava Filters
CUMULUS MEDIA: Pre-1972 Recordings Suit in New York Stayed
DAIMLER AG: Vancouver Alumni Claims Securities Act Violation

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Balks at Employees' Antitrust Suit
DUPONT CO: Dispute Over GMO Food Labeling Moves to Vermont
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Suit in N.Y. for Overcharged Health Care
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Investors in N.Y. Sue Over Anthem Rift
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Jeep Recall

FINISAR CORPORATION: 9th Cir. Rejected Petition for Rehearing
FORJAS TAURUS: Faces "Burrow" Suit Over Defective Revolvers
FOSTER FARMS: Issues Recall of Breaded Chicken Bits
FRESNO, CA: Faces Complaints Over Low-Income Housing Problems
GALENA BIOPHARMA: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on June 23

GLOBAL PRISONER: Faces "Aston" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
GOPRO: Robbins Geller Takes Lead Role in Securities Class Action
GROUPON INC: July 13 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
GYRODYNE LLC: Hearing Held on Bid to Approve Case Settlement
HCP INC: Firefighters' Pension Fund Files Securities Suit

HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: 2nd Cir. Revives Hospital Patients' Suit
HESPERIA, CA: Faces Suit Over Ordinance Against Ex-Cons
HILLS BANCORPORATION: Plaintiff Drops Suit v. Bank Unit
HONEYWELL INT'L: Mich. Suit Seeks Retiree Healthcare Until 65
HYDRIL CO: Faces "Wisnoskie" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA

JOHN MOORE: Faces "Collins" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
KANSAS: Planned Parenthood Seeks Certification of Class
KB HOME: Settlement in Wage and Hour Litigation Remains Pending
KENYA: Nairobi Senator to Sue Over Huruma Building Collapse
LAKHI GENERAL: Faces "Andrew" Lawsuit to Recover Pay Under FLSA

LANNETT CO: Minnesota Laborers Fund Sues Over Overpriced Drugs
LEBO AUTOMOTIVE: Calif. Sup. Court to Decide on Arbitration Issue
LYFT: Drivers Sue Over Prime-Time Rider Fees
MEDTRONIC PLC: Has Deals to Settle 3,900 INFUSE Claims at March 1
MEDTRONIC PLC: Settled 4,200 Pelvic Mesh Claims as of March 1

MEDTRONIC PLC: W.Va. Pipe Trades Appeal Ongoing Before 8th Cir.
MEDTRONIC PLC: Minnesota Supreme Court Appeal Underway
MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces Calif. Suit Over "Defective" HVAC Systems
MONDELEZ INT'L: "Bush" Suit Alleges Deceit in Go-Paks Packaging
NEW YORK: "Trowbridge" Case Seeks Speedy Trials for Misdeamenors

NEW YORK COMMUNITY: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action
PALOS VERDES, CA: Downplays Lunada Bay Boys' Alleged Harassment
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Cir. Heard Oral Arguments
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending Against "Michaeli" Suit
PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs in Zoloft MDL Appeal Dismissal of Cases

POM WONDERFUL: Supreme Court Upholds Ruling in Deceptive Ads Suit
PRECISION CASTPARTS: Defending Suit Over Berkshire Merger
PRECISION CASTPARTS: Defending "Murphy" Class Action in Oregon
PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement Approval Hearing Held
RESOURCE CAPITAL: Lead Plaintiff Filed Amended Complaint

RJ REYNOLDS: Izarelli Case Ruling May Impact Other PL Cases
ROLLINS-PCI: Faces "Combs" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Wage Laws
SAINT-GOBAINS: Faces Suit Over Water Contamination in Vermont
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Peck" Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Griggs-Marler Suit Removed to W.D. Okla.

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: To Defend Against "Thieme" Class Suit
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: To Defend Against "Beadles" Suit in W.D. Okla.
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: To Defend Against "Lowry" Class Action in Okla.
SANOFI: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
SINAN KAPTAN: "Ochoa" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

SINO-FOREST: Impact of OSC Case on Class Action Uncertain
SLM STUDENT: Investor Group Revised Suit v. Deutsche Bank
STACEY ADAMS: Faces "Busacco" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
TAKATA: More Airbag Inflators Recalled for Replacement
TAKATA CORP: Hawaii Files Suit Over Defective Air Bags

TEASERS: Face Class Action Over Dancers' Unpaid Wages
TICC CAPITAL: NexPoint Advisors Drops Conn. & Maryland Suits
TRUECAR INC: Defending "Rose" Lawsuit in Calif. Superior Court
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Nov. 28 Trial Scheduled in Fraud Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Uber & Lyft to Halt Operations in Austin

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Texas Suit Over "Safe Ride Fees"
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces FLSA Class Action in Chicago
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Trosper" Suit for FLSA Violation
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Cubria Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
UNITED FOOD: Faces Ill. Lawsuit for ERISA Violation

WAL-MART: Shareholder Suit Over Bribery Allegations Tossed
WEST PUBLISHING: 9th Cir. Rules on Atty. Fees in Bar Prep Case
WESTERN RANGE: Faces "Castillo" Suit Seeking Redress Under FLSA
WILLBROS GROUP: Still Defends Suit Over Earnings Restatement
WILLIS TOWERS: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in Meriter Case

WILLIS TOWERS: Bid to Dismiss Merger Class Suit Pending
XOMA CORPORATION: Faruqi Appointed as Lead Counsel

* June 12 Deadline for Comments on CFPB's Arbitration Proposals
* Plaintiffs Lawyers Benefit More From No-Injury Class Actions
* Retail Industry Faces Deceptive-Pricing Class Actions
* Testosterone Replacement Therapy Study May Impact Class Actions


                            *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Final Settlement Hearing Set for June 28
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2016, that the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
(the "Court") on March 24, 2016, gave preliminary approval to the
proposed settlement of the stockholder class action (the "Class
Action") which was filed by Eric Gilbert (the "Class Plaintiff"),
a stockholder of Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (the "Registrant"), on
behalf of himself and other stockholders of the Registrant,
against the Registrant, the Registrant's directors and Wells Fargo
Bank, National Association, in its capacity as administrative
agent for the group of lenders party to two credit agreements
entered into with the Registrant. The Class Action is currently
pending in the Court.

A copy of the Order is available at https://is.gd/i9cLFa

The Court set a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") for June 28,
2016 to determine, among other things, whether the proposed
settlement should be finally approved and to consider an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to the Class Plaintiff's Lead
Counsel. The Court also directed that notice be given to the
Registrant's stockholders concerning the proposed settlement and
their right to be heard in connection with the Settlement Hearing.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeal in Augustus Case Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that no date has been
set for oral argument in the appeal commenced by the Plaintiff in
the consolidated cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American
Commercial Security Services.

The lawsuit was originally filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County.  The Augustus case is a
certified class action involving alleged violations of certain
California state laws relating to rest breaks. The case centers on
whether requiring security guards to remain on call during rest
breaks violated Section 226.7 of the California Labor Code.

On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment on the rest break claim, and on July 31, 2012, the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Superior
Court"), entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of
approximately $89.7 million (the "common fund"). Subsequently, the
Superior Court also awarded plaintiffs' attorneys' fees of
approximately $4.5 million in addition to approximately 30% of the
$89.7 million common fund.

The Company appealed the Superior Court's rulings to the Court of
Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate District (the
"Appeals Court"). On December 31, 2014, the Appeals Court issued
its opinion, reversing the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and
vacating the award of $89.7 million in damages and the attorneys'
fees award. Plaintiffs requested rehearing of the Appeals Court's
decision to reverse the judgment in favor of plaintiffs and vacate
the damages award.

On January 29, 2015, the Appeals Court denied the plaintiffs'
request for rehearing, modified its December 31, 2014 opinion, and
certified the opinion for publication. The Appeals Court opinion
held that "on-call rest breaks are permissible" and remaining on
call during rest breaks does not render the rest breaks invalid
under California law. The Appeals Court explained that "although
on-call hours constitute 'hours worked,' remaining available to
work is not the same as performing work. . . .  Section 226.7
proscribes only work on a rest break."

The plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the California
Supreme Court on March 4, 2015, and on April 29, 2015, the
California Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' petition. No date
has been set for oral argument.

"We believe that the Appeals Court correctly ruled in our favor,
and we look forward to presenting our arguments to the California
Supreme Court," the Company said.

ABM Industries Incorporated, which operates through its
subsidiaries, is a provider of end-to-end, integrated facility
solutions that enable clients to deliver exceptional facility
experiences.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeal in Bucio et al. Case Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that oral argument
has not been scheduled in the appeal from a court ruling in the
consolidated cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial
Services filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco.

The Company said, "The Bucio case is a purported class action
involving allegations that we failed to track work time and
provide breaks. On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing
on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of
that hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify
the class. On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
reconsider, which was denied."

"The plaintiffs have appealed the class certification issues. The
trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision in
the appeal. On August 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their
appellate brief on the class certification issues.

"We filed our responsive brief on November 15, 2012. Oral argument
relating to the appeal has not been scheduled."

ABM Industries Incorporated, which operates through its
subsidiaries, is a provider of end-to-end, integrated facility
solutions that enable our clients to deliver exceptional facility
experiences.


ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Plaintiff's Appellate Brief Due June 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Plaintiff's opening
brief in a class action appeal is due June 6, 2016.

On March 19, 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against Lawrence Mehren, and Steve Reichling, Rapp v.
Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court,
District of Arizona, 2:2015-cv-00504. The complaint alleges that
we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making false or misleading
statements about our ID/AST System, formerly called the BACcel
System. Plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our stock
between March 7, 2014 and February 17, 2015.

On June 9, 2015, Julia Chang was appointed Lead Plaintiff of the
purported class. On June 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b- 5, by making false
or misleading statements or omissions about our ID/AST System and
by allegedly employing schemes to defraud. Plaintiff seeks
certification of the action as a class action, compensatory
damages for the class in an unspecified amount, legal fees and
costs, and such other relief as the court may order. Defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 21, 2015, which
motion was pending before the Court as of December 31, 2015.

Subsequently, the Court granted the motion and dismissed the case
with prejudice on January 28, 2016. On February 26, 2016,
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff challenges the dismissal
of the amended complaint. Plaintiff's opening brief, if she does
not seek additional time, is due June 6, 2016.

Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc. is an in vitro diagnostics company
dedicated to providing solutions that improve patient outcomes and
lower healthcare costs through the rapid diagnosis of serious
infections.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: June 28 Final Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has scheduled a
final fairness hearing to approve the $3.9 million reached in a
class action lawsuit against the Company.

The Company said, "On May 17, 2013, we, along with certain of our
directors, former directors and former officers, were named as a
defendant in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Hughes v. Accretive Health, Inc. et al.). The primary
allegations, relating to our March 8, 2013 announcement that we
would be restating our prior period financial statements, are that
our public statements, including filings with the SEC, were false
and/or misleading with respect to our revenue recognition and
earnings prospects."

"On November 27, 2013, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed our
directors and former directors, other than Mary Tolan. On January
31, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September
25, 2014, the Court granted our motion to dismiss without
prejudice, however, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on October 23, 2014.

"On November 10, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. While that motion was still pending, on January
8, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the second amended
complaint, seeking to add allegations regarding the recently
issued Restatement.

"On April 22, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend,
and a third amended complaint was filed on May 13, 2015. We moved
to dismiss the third amended complaint on June 3, 2015. Such
motion is fully briefed and awaiting decision.

"On December 7, 2015, the parties executed a memorandum of
understanding to resolve the suit for $3.9 million and filed a
notice of settlement with the district court. On March 8, 2016,
the district court granted preliminary approval to the settlement.
The final fairness hearing has been set for June 28, 2016. We
believe the settlement payment of $3.9 million will be covered by
insurance."

Accretive Health is a provider of revenue cycle services that help
healthcare providers generate sustainable improvements in their
operating margins and cash flows.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: "Church" Class Action Appeal Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal from a summary
judgment ruling in the "Church" class action is pending.

"On February 11, 2014, we were named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama (Church v. Accretive Health, Inc.),"
the Company said. "The primary allegation is that we attempted to
collect debts without providing the notice required by the Fair
Debt Collections Practice Act, or the FDCPA. On November 24, 2015,
the district court granted our motion for summary judgment and
dismissed the case with prejudice."

A copy of the Nov. 24 decision is available at
https://is.gd/naMPuk from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on December 21, 2015.

Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 11(c), the Clerk of the District Court for
the Southern District of Alabama on March 29 certified that the
record is complete for purposes of the appeal re:118 Notice of
Appeal, Appeal No. 15-15708 DD.

The case is, MAHALA A. CHURCH, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ACCRETIVE HEALTH, INC., aka dba
MEDICAL FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-0057-
WS-B (S.D. Ala.).

Mahala A. Church, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Earl P. Underwood, Jr., Esq.
     Kenneth J. Riemer, Esq.
     Underwood & Riemer, P.C.
     166 Government Street Suite 100
     Mobile, AL 36602
     Tel: 251 432-9212
     Fax: 251 433-7172
     E-mail: epunderwood@alalaw.com

Accretive Health, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Brian
Clubok -- andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -- Claire M. Murray --
claire.murray@kirkland.com -- Jennifer G. Levy --
jennifer.levy@kirkland.com -- Kathleen A. Brogan --
kathleen.brogan@kirkland.com -- Kellen S. Dwyer --
kellen.dwyer@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, LLP; and Sandy G.
Robinson -- sgr@cabaniss.com -- Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas
& O'Neal.

Accretive Health is a provider of revenue cycle services that help
healthcare providers generate sustainable improvements in their
operating margins and cash flows.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Discovery Underway in "Anger" Action in Mich.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the "Anger" class action lawsuit against
Accretive Health, Inc., it said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

"On July 22, 2014, we were named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan (Anger v. Accretive Health, Inc.),"
the Company said. "The primary allegations are that we attempted
to collect debts without providing the notice required by the
FDCPA and Michigan Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and failed
to abide by the terms of an agreed payment plan in violation of
those same statutes."

"On August 27, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part
our motion to dismiss. An amended complaint was filed on November
30, 2015. Discovery is underway. We believe that we have
meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend ourselves
against these claims. The outcome is not presently determinable."

Accretive Health is a provider of revenue cycle services that help
healthcare providers generate sustainable improvements in their
operating margins and cash flows.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Dismissal of "Dye" Action Sought
--------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. is seeking dismissal of the "Dye" class
action in Michigan, it said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

"On November 16, 2015, we were named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan (Dye v. Accretive Health, Inc.)," the Company said.
"The primary allegations were that we attempted to collect debts
without complying with the provisions of the [Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act]. The case was voluntarily dismissed on December 4,
2015."

"On December 10, 2015, the plaintiff in the Dye action filed a
class-action complaint in the Circuit Court for the County of
Macomb, Michigan, alleging that our attempt to collect his debts
had violated the Michigan Occupational Code. We filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on February 8, 2016 and a hearing [was]
scheduled on March 28, 2016. We believe that we have meritorious
defenses and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the
claims. The outcome is not presently determinable."

Accretive Health is a provider of revenue cycle services that help
healthcare providers generate sustainable improvements in their
operating margins and cash flows.


AFFINION GROUP: Updates on Suits Over Trilegiant Programs
---------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, provided updates on
litigation related to the sale by Trilegiant Corp. of its
membership programs.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative
nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with
the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including
claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"),
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for
unjust enrichment.

On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. On
February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion.

On March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their motion to
compel arbitration. On September 7, 2012, the Second Circuit
affirmed the decision of the district court denying arbitration.

While that issue was on appeal, the matter proceeded in the
district court. There was written discovery and depositions.
Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class
certification that called for the completion of class
certification briefing on May 18, 2012. However, on March 28,
2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due
to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The first of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the
Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A.,
Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United
Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD
Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp.,
People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten
USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc. The second
of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the same
defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc.,
Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. These two cases assert
similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed lawsuit
in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership
programs.

On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated these three cases. The
court also set an initial status conference for May 17, 2012.

At that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file
a consolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the
three previously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the
class certification briefing schedule that had been set
previously.

On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting substantially the same legal claims. The
consolidated amended complaint added Priceline, Orbitz, Chase
Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants and added three
new Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and Rakuten as
Defendants.

On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motions seeking to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and to strike certain
portions of the complaint. Plaintiff's response brief was filed on
February 7, 2013, and Defendants' reply briefs were filed on April
5, 2013.

On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on the motions
to dismiss. On March 28, 2014, the court ruled on the motions to
dismiss, granting them in part and denying them in part. The court
dismissed the Plaintiffs' RICO claims and claims under the
California Automatic Renewal Statute as to all defendants. The
court also dismissed certain named Plaintiffs as their claims were
barred either by the statute of limitations and/or a prior
settlement agreement. Certain Defendants were also dismissed from
the case.

The court also struck certain allegations from the consolidated
amended complaint, including certain of Plaintiffs' class action
allegations under CUTPA. As to the Company and Trilegiant, the
court denied the motion to dismiss certain Plaintiffs' claims
under ECPA and for unjust enrichment, as well as certain other
claims of Plaintiffs under CUTPA.

Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in these
consolidated cases filed an additional action in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut. That case is
identical in all respects to this case except that it was filed by
a new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the class action
complaint previously filed against the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800-
Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November
10, 2010).

On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate that
case into the existing set of consolidated cases.  On June 13,
2013, the court entered an order staying the date for all
Defendants to respond to the Complaint until 21 days after the
court ruled on the motion to consolidate. On March 28, 2014, the
court entered an order granting the motion to consolidate.

On May 12, 2014, remaining Defendants in the consolidated cases
filed answers in which they denied the material allegations of the
consolidated amended complaint.  On April 28, 2014, Plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking interlocutory appellate review of portions
of the court's order of March 28, 2014.  Briefing on the motion
was completed on June 5, 2014.

On March 26, 2015, the court denied Plaintiff's motion for
interlocutory appeal.  On May 29, 2015, the court issued a
scheduling order indicating that discovery was to commence
immediately and be completed by December 31, 2015.  On May 29,
2015, the court also set deadlines for dispositive motions, which
were due February 29, 2016.

According to Affinion, "If no dispositive motions are filed, a
joint trial memorandum would be due by April 1, 2016, and jury
selection would take place on May 3, 2016.  If dispositive motions
are filed, the joint trial memorandum would be due by October 3,
2016, and jury selection would take place on November 1, 2016."

On June 16, 2015, the court set a schedule for class
certification, with plaintiffs' motion for class certification due
on September 15, 2015, and with briefing to be completed by
November 30, 2015. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification on September 15, 2015, and Defendants filed an
opposition brief on December 15, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a reply
brief on December 22, 2015, and Defendants filed a sur-reply on
December 29, 2015.


AFFINION GROUP: Appeal in Conn. Case v. Webloyalty Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the appeal from a
federal district court decision in a Connecticut class action
lawsuit against Webloyalty is ongoing.

On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card
associations in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the
EFT, ECPA, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud and CUTPA violation (the "Connecticut
Action"). This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct
occurring on and after October 1, 2008.

On November 1, 2010, the defendants moved to dismiss the initial
complaint, which plaintiff then amended on November 19, 2010. On
December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a second motion to dismiss
this lawsuit.

On May 15, 2014, the court heard oral argument on plaintiff's
motion to strike the Company's request for judicial notice of the
plaintiff's membership enrollment documents filed in support of
the Company's second motion to dismiss.

On July 17, 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion to strike.
The court, at the same time, dismissed those claims grounded in
fraud, but reserved until further proceedings the determination as
to whether all of plaintiff's claims are grounded in fraud and
whether those claims not grounded in fraud are dismissible.  The
court permitted the plaintiff until August 15, 2014 to amend his
complaint and allowed the parties the opportunity to conduct
limited discovery, to be completed by September 26, 2014,
concerning the issues addressed in its dismissal order. All other
discovery was stayed in the case.

The July 17, 2014 order indicated that the court would set a
further motion to dismiss briefing schedule following the
conclusion of this limited discovery. The plaintiff amended his
complaint as scheduled, and the parties conducted limited
discovery as ordered. After this limited discovery, the parties
proposed a motion to dismiss briefing schedule calling for the
defendants to file their opening briefs on January 9, 2015.  The
plaintiff filed his opposition brief on March 24, 2015, and on
April 24, 2015, the defendants filed their reply briefs in
response to that opposition.

On October 15, 2015, the court entered a judgment dismissing all
of the plaintiff's claims with prejudice and without further leave
to amend. On November 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal of the dismissal decision, but no further dates for that
appeal have been scheduled.

Plaintiff's opening appeals brief was filed on February 10, 2016.
The Company's answering brief was due to be filed by April 15,
2016. Plaintiff will then have 14 days in which to file a reply
brief if he chooses. The Court has not scheduled a date for a
hearing.


AFFINION GROUP: Appeal in Calif. Case v. Webloyalty Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the appeal from a
federal district court decision in a California class action
lawsuit against Webloyalty is ongoing.

On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against
Webloyalty that was factually similar to the Connecticut Action.
The action claims that Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business
practices in violation of California Business and Professional
Code Sec. 17200, et seq. and in violation of the CUTPA. Both
claims are based on allegations that in connection with enrollment
and billing of the plaintiff, Webloyalty charged plaintiff's
credit or debit card using information obtained through a data
pass process and without obtaining directly from plaintiff his
full account number, name, address, and contact information, as
purportedly required under ROSCA.

On September 25, 2012, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety and the court scheduled a hearing on the
motion for January 14, 2013. Webloyalty also sought judicial
notice of the enrollment page and related enrollment and account
documents. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 12, 2012,
and Webloyalty filed its reply submission on January 7, 2013.

Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the court cancelled the
previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated that
it would rule based on the parties' written submissions without
the need for a hearing. On August 28, 2013, the court sua sponte
dismissed plaintiff's complaint without prejudice with leave to
amend by September 30, 2013.

The plaintiff filed his amended complaint on September 30, 2013,
adding purported claims under the ECPA and for unjust enrichment,
money had and received, conversion, civil theft, and invasion of
privacy. On December 2, 2013, the Company moved to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint. Plaintiff responded to the motion
on January 27, 2014.

On February 6, 2014, the court indicated that it would review the
submissions and issue a decision on plaintiff's motion without
oral argument. On September 29, 2014, the court dismissed the
plaintiff's claims on substantive grounds and/or statute of
limitations grounds. The court has allowed the plaintiff 28 days
to file a motion demonstrating why a further amendment of the
complaint would not be futile.

On October 27, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint and attached a proposed amended complaint. The
Company responded to the motion on November 10, 2014. On June 22,
2015, the court entered a final order and judgment denying
plaintiff's motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims with
prejudice, and dismissing all state claims without prejudice.

On July 10, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal
decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company
responded to the motion on November 10, 2014.

On June 22, 2015, the court entered a final order and judgment
denying plaintiff's motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims
with prejudice, and dismissing all state claims without prejudice.
On July 10, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal
decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The plaintiff
filed his opening appeal brief on November 19, 2015, and the
Company's answering brief was filed on January 19, 2016.


AHMAD R. CHATILA: Faces "Church" Lawsuit Under Securities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
DARCY CHURCH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. AHMAD R. CHATILA, and BRIAN WUEBBELS,
Defendants, Case: 4:16-cv-00628 (E.D. Mo., May 3, 2016), was filed
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other
than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or held the
publicly traded securities of Vivint Solar, Inc. between July 20,
2015 and March 7, 2016, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants under the Securities
Exchange Act.

Defendant Ahmad R. Chatila served at all relevant times as the
Chief Executive Officer of SunEdison, Inc. Defendant Brian
Wuebbels served at all relevant times as the Chief Financial
Officer of SunEdison.

SunEdison is a renewable energy development company that develops,
finances, installs, owns and operates renewable power plants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chris Wehrle, Esq.
     WEHRLE LAW LLC
     9909 Clayton Road, Suite 226
     St. Louis, MO 63124
     Phone: (314) 254-0111
     Fax: (314) 216-3700
     E-mail: chris@wehrlelaw.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


AIR NEW ZEALAND: Settles Class Action for $35 Million
-----------------------------------------------------
Kate Geenty, writing for Dow Jones Business News, reports that Air
New Zealand has agreed to settle a class action compensation claim
in the U.S. for US$35 million.

The airline said it opted to settle rather than risk a
"potentially very material commercial liability" by continuing to
defend its position.

"After 10 years of arguing the validity of the civil compensation
lawsuit in U.S. courts, Air New Zealand elected to pursue
settlement with the plaintiffs," the airline said on May 2.

The settlement of US$35 million represents 2.8% of the US$1.22
billion paid in settlements by 28 airlines.  Air New Zealand said
it was one of the last airlines to settle and one of the few
airlines involved in the action to be investigated by the U.S.
Department of Justice and not subsequently prosecuted.  Despite
the settlement, Air New Zealand hasn't admitted any wrongdoing.

The settlement was reached through mediation and was agreed on May
7.  It is still subject to approval by the Court in New York.

"This is purely a question of mitigating an unacceptable risk
created by the U.S. class action system which creates enormous
pressure to settle such matters commercially," said John Blair,
Air New Zealand's general counsel.  "There was no credible
evidence that any Air New Zealand employee participated in any
conspiracy, but the potential for an unexpected verdict was not an
acceptable commercial risk for the airline."

In February, the airline said it expected earnings before taxation
for FY16 to exceed 800 million New Zealand dollars (US$547
million), excluding equity earnings from its Virgin Australia
shareholding.  Air New Zealand said on May 2 that guidance did not
incorporate the impact of the settlement from the U.S class
action.

"Outlook was provided by Air New Zealand on February 25, 2016,
before an estimate or likelihood of a settlement could be
ascertained," the company said in a statement.


ALERE INC: "Breton" Suit Seeks Remedies Under Securities Act
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL P. BRETON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ALERE INC., RON ZWANZIGER, NAMAL
NAWANA, DAVID TEITEL, JAMES F. HINRICHS, and CARLA R.
FLAKNE, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-10834-PBS (D. Mass., May 4,
2016), was filed on behalf of purchasers of Alere securities
between May 9, 2013 and April 20, 2016, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act.

Alere Inc. provides diagnostic tests for infectious disease,
cardiometabolic disease, and toxicology.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     155 Federal Street, Suite 400
     Boston, MA 02110
     Phone: (617) 398-5600
     Fax: (617) 507-6020
     E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


ASTRAZENECA: Faces Class Action Over Nexium Side Effects
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hadley, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that
a Madison County man has filed a class-action suit against pharma
giant AstraZeneca over claims it failed to adequately warn users
of its drug Nexium about alleged dangerous side effects.

Harry Mason filed a lawsuit May 3 in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois against AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
L.P. and AstraZeneca LP, alleging common law fraud, fraudulent
misrepresentation, product liability, negligent misrepresentation,
and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

According to the complaint, proton pump inhibitors, used to treat
heartburn and gastroesophageal reflux disease, have been linked to
kidney failure, pneumonia, hip fractures, infections and other
side effects.  The plaintiff claims his use of the drug since 2006
led to his kidney failure and subsequent kidney transplant. The
suit says AstraZeneca committed fraud by failing to warn consumers
of Nexium's side effects.

Mason seeks a jury trial, punitive and compensatory damages and
litigation costs.

He is represented by attorneys John J. Driscoll and Philip Sholtz
of The Driscoll Firm PC in St. Louis, by W. Mark Lanier of The
Lanier Law Firm PC in Houston and by Russell W. Budd and Sindhu S.
Daniel of Baron & Budd PC in Dallas

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois Case
number 3:16-cv-00493


BANK OF AMERICA: Breakwater Trading Alleges Market Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
BREAKWATER TRADING LLC and BWT PROFESSIONAL TRADING, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA,
NEW YORK AGENCY; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; BEAR, STEARNS & CO., INC.;
BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP.; BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.; CANTOR
FITZGERALD & CO.; CIBC WORLD MARKETS CORP.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS INC.; COMMERZ MARKETS LLC; COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORP.;
CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; DAIWA CAPITAL MARKETS AMERICA
INC.; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO.; HSBC
SECURITIES (USA) INC.; JEFFERIES LLC; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC;
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.; MIZUHO SECURITIES USA
INC.; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL,
INC.; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; RBS SECURITIES INC.; SG AMERICAS
SECURITIES, LLC; TD SECURITIES (USA) LLC; and UBS SECURITIES LLC,
Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-03449 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2016), is a
purported antitrust and commodities class action claiming
Defendants' conspiracy to fix and manipulate the markets for
marketable U.S. Treasuries and related Auctions and derivative
financial products (i.e., Treasury-Predicated Instruments),
including Treasury-predicated futures and options traded on the
Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME).

Bank of America Corporation is a bank holding and financial
holding company.

The plaintiff is represented by:

     NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
     Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
     Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
     Bradley J. Demuth, Esq.
     570 Lexington Avenue, 19 Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 722-7053
     E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
             bcohen@nussbaumpc.com
             bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com

         - and -

     Michael E. Criden, Esq.
     Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
     CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
     7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515
     South Miami, FL 33143
     Phone: (305) 357-9000
     Fax: (305) 357-9050
     E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
             lgrossman@cridenlove.com

         - and -

     Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
     Jonathan Gdanski, Esq.
     Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
     SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
     1212 Southeast Third Avenue
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
     Phone: (954) 320-9507
     Fax: (954) 320-9509
     E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com
             jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com
             jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com


BLAZE PIZZA: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Under California Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
VILMA AGUILAR, an individual, and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, vs. BLAZE PIZZA, LLC, a
California limited liability company; LA METRO BP HOLDING CO.,
LLC, a California limited liability company; SOUTH GATE BP, LLC, a
California limited liability company; CULVER CITY BP, LLC. a
California limited liability company; DEL AMO BP, LLC, a
California limited liability company; BP FARMERS MARKET, LLC, a
California limited liability company; SANTAANABP, LLC, a
California limited liability company; LA PAZ LAGUNA BP, LLC, a
California limited liability company; CERRITOS BP, LLC, a
California limited liability company; GATEWAY USC BP, LLC; a
California limited liability company; WHITTIER BP, LLC, a
California limited liability company; ROLLING HILLS BP, LLC, a
California limited liability company; ALBERTO DANIEL DRIZ, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC 618872 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, April 29, 2016) was
brought pursuant to the California Labor Code, and the Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Blaze Pizza, LLC owns and operates a chain of fast-casual pizza
stores in the United States. It provides signature pizzas, salads,
and drinks and desserts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Amanda S. Naoufal, Esq.
     Vilma Aguilar, Esq.
     MATERN LAW GROUP
     1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
     Phone: (310) 531-1900
     Fax: (310) 531-1901


BLUE CROSS: Faces Suit by BCBS-VT Health Insurance Subscribers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barr, Sternberg, Moss, Lawrence, Silver & Munson, P.C., v. Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Alabama ("BCBS-AL"); Premera Blue Cross ("BC-
W A"), which also does business as Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Alaska ("BCBS-AK"); Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona
("BCBSAZ"); USAble Mutual Insurance Company, d/b/a Arkansas Blue
Cross and Blue Shield ("BCBSAR"); Anthem, Inc., flk/a WellPoint,
Inc., d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance
Company and Blue Cross of California as well as Blue Cross of
Southern California and Blue Cross of Northern California
(together, "BC-CA"), Rocky Mountain Hospital & Medical Service
Inc., doing business as Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado
("BCBS-CO") and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nevada ("BCBS-
NV"), Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Connecticut ("BCBS-CT"),
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia ("BCBS-GA"), Anthem Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Indiana ("BCBS-IN"), Anthem Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Kentucky ("BCBS-KY"), Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Maine ("BCBS-ME"), Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Missouri as
well as RightCHOICE Managed Care, Inc. and HMO Missouri Inc.
("BCBS-MO"), Anthem Health Plans of New Hampshire as Anthem Blue
Cross Blue Shield of New Hampshire ("BCBS-NH"), Empire
HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. as Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield
("Empire BCBS"), Community Insurance Company as Anthem Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Ohio ("BCBS-OH"), Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
of Virginia ("BCBS-VA"), and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Wisconsin ("BCBS-WI"); California Physicians' Service,
d/b/a Blue Shield of California ("BS-CA"); Highmark, Inc.
("Highmark BCBS"); Highmark West Virginia, Inc. ("BCBS-WV");
Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield Delaware, Inc. ("BCBSDE");
CareFirst, Inc. (alk/a CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield); Group
Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a CareFirst
BlueCross BlueShield ("BCBS-DC"); CareFirst of Maryland, Inc.,
d/b/a Carefirst BlueCross BlueShield ("BCBS-MD"); Blue Cross Blue
and Shield of Florida, Inc. ("BCBS-FL"); Hawai'i Medical Service
Association d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Hawai'i ("BCBS-
HI"); Blue Cross of Idaho Health Service, Inc., d/b/a Blue Cross
of Idaho ("BC-ID"); Cambia Health Solutions, Inc., f/d/b/a Regence
BlueShield of Idaho ("BSID"), Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Oregon ("BCBS-OR"), Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of Utah ("BCBS-
UT"), and Regence Blue Shield (in Washington) ("BS-W A"); Health
Care Service Corporation, d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Illinois ("BCBS-IL"), Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana,
(BCBS-MT"), Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico ("BCBS-NM"),
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma as well as GHS Property and
Casualty Insurance Company and GHS Health Maintenance Organization
("BCBS-OK"), and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas ("BCBS-TX");
Caring for Montanans, Inc.; Wellmark, Inc. d/b/a Wellmark Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Iowa ("BCBS-IA"); Wellmark of South
Dakota, Inc., d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Dakota
("BCBS-SD"); Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc. ("BCBS-
KS"); Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana ("BCBS-LA"); Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc.
("BCBS-MA"); Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan ("BCBS-MI");
BCBSM, Inc., d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota ("BCBS-
MN"); Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mississippi ("BCBS-MS"); Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City ("BCBS-KC"); Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Nebraska ("BCBS-NE"); Horizon Healthcare Services,
Inc., d/b/a Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey ("BCBS-
NJ"); HealthNow New York, Inc., d/b/a BlueCross
BlueShield of Western New York ("BCBS-Western NY") and BlueShield
of Northeastem New York ("BS-Northeastem NY"); Excellus Health
Plan, Inc., d/b/a Excellus BlueCross BlueShield ("Excellus BCBS");
Blue Cross and Blue Shield ofNorth Carolina, Inc. ("BCBS-NC");
Noridian, Mutual Insurance Company d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield of
North Dakota ("BCBS-ND"); Hospital Service Association of
Northeastern Pennsylvania d/b/a Blue Cross of Northeastern
Pennsylvania ("BC-Northeastern PA"); Capital BlueCross ("Capital
BC"); Independence Hospital Indemnity Plan, Inc., f/k/a
Independence Blue Cross ("Independence BC"); Triple SSalud,
Inc. ("BCBS-Puerto Rico"); Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Rhode
Island ("BCBS-RI"); Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Carolina
("BCBS-SC"); Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, Inc. ("BCBS-
TN''); Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont ("BCBS-VT"); and Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Wyoming ("BCBS-WY") (collectively, the
"Individual Blue Plans"); and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association ("BCBSA"), Case 2:16-cv-00744-RDP (D. Vt., April 14,
2016), was filed on behalf of subscribers of BCBS-VT health
insurance to enjoin an alleged ongoing conspiracy between and
among BCBS-VT, the Individual Blue Plans and BCBSA to allocate
markets in violation of the prohibitions of the Sherman Act.

Defendant BCBSA is a corporation organized under the state of
Illinois and headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. It is owned and
controlled by 36 health insurance plans that operate under the
Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names. BCBSA was
created by these plans and operates as a licensor for these plans.
Health insurance plans operating under the Blue Cross and Blue
Shield trademarks and trade names provide health insurance
coverage for approximately 100 million -- or one in three --
Americans.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jonathan R. Voegele, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
     26 South Main Street
     Hanover, NH 03755
     Phone: (603) 643-9090
     Fax: (603) 643-9010
     E-mail: jvoegele@bsfllp.com

         - and -

     Adam R. Shaw, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
     30 South Pearl Street
     Albany NY, 12207
     Phone: (518) 434-0600
     Fax: (518) 434-0665
     E-mail: ashaw@bsfllp.com

         - and -

     David Boies, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
     333 Main Street
     Armonk, NY 10504
     Phone: (914) 749-8200
     Fax: (914) 749-8200
     E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com

         - and -

     Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
     PITIMAN, DUITON & HELLUMS, P.C.
     2001 Park Place N, 1100 Park Place Tower
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: (205) 322-8880
     Fax: (205) 328-2711
     E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com

         - and -

     Michael Hausfeld
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (202) 540-7200
     Fax: (202) 540-7201
     E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com

         - and -

     Cyril V. Smith, Esq.
     ZUCKERMANSPAEDER, LLP
     100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
     Baltimore, MD 21202-1031
     Phone: (410) 949-1145
     Fax: (410) 659-0436
     E-mail: csmith@zuckerman.com

         - and -

     William A. Isaacson, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
     5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
     Washington, DC 20015
     Phone: (202) 237-2727
     Fax: (202) 237-6131
     E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com

         - and -

     Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 191 03
     Phone: 1-800-424-6690
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     E-mail: ecramer@bm.net

         - and -

     Bryan Clobes, Esq.
     Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
     CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
     1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
     Philadelphia, PA 191 07
     Phone: (215) 864-2800
     Fax: (215) 864-2810
     E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
             emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com

         - and -

     Karen Dyer, Esq.
     Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
     5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
     Washington, DC 20015
     Phone: (202) 237-2727
     Fax: (202) 237-6131
     E-mail: tchutkan@bsfllp.com
             kdyer@bsfllp.com
             hhume@bsfllp.com
             kkiernan@bsfllp.com

         - and -

     Megan Jones, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 744-1970
     Fax: (415) 358-4980
     E-mail: mjones@hausfeldllp.com

         - and -

     Patrick Cafferty, Esq.
     CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETIIER & SPRENGEL LLP
     101 North Main Street, Suite 565
     Ann Arbor, MI 48104
     Phone: (734) 769-2144
     Fax: (734) 769-1207
     E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com

         - and -

     Kathleen Chavez, Esq.
     FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
     10 West State Street, Suite 200
     Geneva, IL 60134
     Phone: (630) 797-3339
     Fax: (630) 232-7452
     E-mail: kcc@fmcolaw.com

         - and -

     Charles T. Caliendo, Esq.
     GRANT & EISENHOFER
     485 Lexington A venue
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (646) 722-8500
     Fax: (646) 722-8501
     E-mail: ccaliendo@gelaw.com

         - and -

     Gregory Davis, Esq.
     DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC
     7031 Halcyon Park Drive
     Montgomery, AL 36117
     Phone: (334) 832-9080
     Fax: (334) 409-7001
     E-mail: gldavis@knology.net

         - and -

     Robert Eisler, Esq.
     GRANT & EISENHOFER
     123 Justison Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 622-7000
     Fax: (302) 622-7100
     E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com

         - and -

     Douglas Dellaccio, Esq.
     CORY WATSON CROWDER & DEGARIS, P.C.
     2131 Magnolia A venue, Suite 200
     Birmingham, AL 32505
     Phone: (205) 328-2200
     Fax: (205) 324-7896
     E-mail: ddellaccio@cwcd.com

         - and -

     Chris Cowan, Esq.
     THE COWAN LAW FIRM
     209 Henry Street
     Dallas, TX 74226-1819
     Phone: (214) 826-1900
     Fax: (214) 826-8900
     E-mail: chris@cowanlaw.net

         - and -

     David Guin, Esq.
     Tammy Stokes, Esq.
     GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC
     The Financial Center
     505 20th Street North, Suite 1000
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: (205) 226-2282
     Fax: (205) 226-2357
     E-mail: davidg@gseattomeys.com
             tammys@gseattomeys.com

         - and -

     Daniel Gustafson, Esq.
     Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 333-8844
     Fax: (612) 339-6622
     E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
             dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com

         - and -

     Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
     Benjamin Sweet, Esq.
     DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH S1ROYD LLC
     200 First Avenue, Suite 300
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 261-2393
     Fax: (412) 261-2110
     E-mail: ekilpela@dsclaw.com
             bsweet@dsclaw.com

         - and -

     William Butterfield, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (202) 540-7200
     Fax: (202) 540-7201
     E-mail: wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com

         - and -

     Robert M. Foote, Esq.
     FOOlE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
     10 West State Street, Suite 200
     Geneva, IL 60134
     Phone: (630) 797-3339
     Fax: (630) 232-7452
     E-mail: rmf@fmcolaw.com

         - and -

     Virginia Buchanan, Esq.
     LEVIN PAP ANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
     316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
     Pensacola, FL 32502
     Phone: (850) 435-7000
     Fax: (850) 435-7020
     E-mail: vbuchanan@levinlaw.com

         - and -

     Arthur Bailey, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 744-1970
     Fax: (415) 358-4980
     E-mail: abailey@hausfeldllp.com

         - and -

     Robert Methvin, Esq.
     James M. Terrell, Esq.
     MCCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, P.C.
     The Highland Building
     2201 Arlington A venue South
     Birmingham, AL 35205
     Phone: (205) 939-0199
     Fax: (205) 939-0399
     E-mail: rgm@mmlaw.net
             jterrell@mmlaw .net

         - and -

     Brent Hazzard, Esq.
     HAZZARD LAW, LLC
     447 Northpark Drive
     Ridgeland, MS 39157
     Phone: (601) 977-5253
     Fax: (601) 977-5236
     E-mail: brenthazzard@yahoo.com

         - and -

     Michael McGartland, Esq.
     MCGARTLAND & BORCHARDT LLP
     1300 South University Drive, Suite 500
     Fort Worth, TX 76107
     Phone: (817) 332-9300
     Fax: (817) 332-9301
     E-mail: mike@attomeysmb.com

         - and -

     John Saxon, Esq.
     JOHN D. SAXON, P.C.
     2119 3rd A venue North
     Birmingham, AL 35203-3314
     Phone: (205) 324-0223
     Fax: (205) 323-1583
     E-mail: jsaxon@saxonattomeys.com

         - and -

     H. Lewis Gillis, Esq.
     MEANS GILLIS LAW, LLC
     3121 Zelda Court
     Montgomery, AL 36106
     Phone: 1-800-626-9684
     E-mail: hlgillis@tmgslaw .com

         - and -

     Lawrence Jones, Esq.
     JONES WARD PLC
     312 South Fourth Street, Sixth Floor
     Louisville, KY 40202
     Phone: (502) 882-6000
     E-mail: larry@jonesward.com

         - and -

     David J. Hodge, Esq.
     MORRIS, KING & HODGE
     200 Pratt Avenue NE
     Huntsville, AL 35801
     Phone: (256) 536-0588
     Fax: (256) 533-1504
     E-mail: lstewart@alinjurylaw .com

         - and -

     Andrew Lemmon, Esq.
     LEMMON LAW FIRM
     650 Poydras Street, Suite 2335
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 581-5644
     Fax: (504) 581-2156
     E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com

         - and -

     Jason Thompson, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
     One Towne Square, 17th Floor
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: (248) 355-0300
     E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com

         - and -

     Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
     NASTLAW LLC
     1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Phone: (215) 923-9300
     Fax: (215) 923-9302
     E-mail: dnast@nastlaw .com

         - and -

     Larry McDevitt, Esq.
     David Wilkerson, Esq.
     VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
     11 North Market Street
     Asheville, NC 28801
     Phone: (828) 258-2991
     E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com
             dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

         - and -

     Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
     Christopher Coffin, Esq.
     PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
     Post Office Drawer 71
     Plaquemine, LA 70765
     Phone: (225) 687-6369
     E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com
             ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com

         - and -

     Carl S. Kravitz, Esq.
     ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
     1800 M Street NW, Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20036-5807
     Phone: (202) 778-1800
     Fax: (202) 822-8106
     E-mail: ckravitz@zuckerman.com

         - and -

     Edgar D. Gankendorff, Esq.
     Eric R.G. Belin, Esq.
     PROVOSTY & GANKENDORFF, LLC
     650 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 410-2795
     Fax: (504) 410-2796
     E-mail: egankendorff@provostylaw.com
             ebelin@provostylaw.com

         - and -

     Edgar D. Gankendorff, Esq.
     Eric R.G. Belin, Esq.
     PROVOSTY & GANKENDORFF, LLC
     650 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 410-2795
     Fax: (504) 410-2796
     E-mail: egankendorff@provostylaw.com
             ebelin@provostylaw.com

         - and -

     Richard Rouco, Esq.
     QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO LLP
     2700 Highway 280 East, Suite 380
     Birmingham, AL 35223
     Tel: (205) 870-9989
     Fax: (205) 870-9989
     E-mail: rrouco@qcwdr.com

         - and -

     Garrett Blanchfield, Esq.
     REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
     E-1250 First National Bank Building
     332 Minnesota Street
     St. Paul, MN 55101
     Phone: (651) 287-2100
     Fax: (651) 287-2103
     E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: "Milan" Sues over Defective Filters
------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Milan, individually and as a representative of all
similarly situated persons v. Boston Scientific Corporation, Case
No. 5:16-cv-00065-TBR (W.D. Ky., May 6, 2016) seeks compensatory
damages, together with interest, attorney fees, costs of suit and
any other relief pursuant to Kentucky Common Law and the Kentucky
Product Liability Act.

Plaintiff was diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis. A Greenfield
Vena Cava Filter, made by Boston Scientific, was placed within her
left inferior vena cava. After complaining of left thigh and lower
abdomen pain and extensive clots in the right lower extremity and
acute deep vein thrombosis on her left lower extremity, a CAT scan
revealed that the said filter was occluded.

Boston Scientific Corporation is a Delaware Corporation, with its
corporate headquarters located in Malborough, Massachusetts. It
designs, develops, produces, manufactures, assembles, markets,
distributes, and sells medical devices across the country and in
Kentucky.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark P. Bryant, Esq.
      Emily Ward Roark, Esq.
      BRYANT LAW CENTER, PSC
      601 Washington St.
      Paducah, KY 42002
      Phone: (270) 442-1422
      Fax: (270) 443-8788
      Email: mark.bryant@bryant.law
             emily.roark@bryant.law


BP PLC: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Eric Needs, writing for Leal Reader, reports that Supreme Court
rejects appeal in shareholder suit against BP, declining a request
on May 2 from shareholders who want to revive their class action
lawsuit against BP, claiming the British oil company
misinterpreted its safety procedures prior to the 2010 Gulf of
Mexico oil spill.

The court left in place a September 2015 ruling by the New
Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that did no
certify the lawsuit filed by investors who bought shares in the 2-
1/2 years prior to the spill.  After the disaster BP's share price
plummeted, costing the company more than $55 billion.

In court papers BP said the lawsuit should not proceed as the
plaintiffs were seeking damages improperly for the entire decline
in stock prices as a result of the spill.

According to the appeals court, some of the investors might have
bought stock without knowing the risk, and these investors may
individually sue BP.

The appeals court allowed claims in the same ruling by investors
who bought shares after the spill to move forward. These claims
were not an issue in the appeal.

"BP has long argued that all the plaintiffs' securities claims are
meritless and will continue to defend vigorously against them,"
said BP spokesman Geoff Morrell.

The investors' lawyers did not immediately respond to a request
seeking comment.

The Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion and Macondo oil well
rupture on April 20, 2010 killed 11 workers, causing the largest
offshore environmental disaster in U.S. history, polluting large
parts of the gulf, harming businesses and killing marine wildlife.
It took 87 days to plug the leak on the ocean floor.

BP has incurred a total of about $55 billion in losses as result
of the spill, including $18.7 billion to settle federal, state and
local claims.


BP PLC: Expected to Face More Lawsuits This Month Over Oil Spill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that despite the $20 billion settlement BP PLC struck with the
U.S. Department of Justice over the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil
spill, tens of thousands of lawsuits could hit the courts this
month, adding to the oil company's ballooning costs.

About 85,000 individuals and businesses claiming nongovernmental
economic damages tied to the spill are due to file lawsuits
against BP by May 16.  Their claims are separate from the $20
billion deal; most were either excluded from or opted out of a
2012 class action settlement that was supposed to resolve economic
damages claims.

"It's commonly believed, and a misnomer, by the American public
that those claims have already been resolved but, in fact, 85,000
of them have not," said Charles Herd, a maritime lawyer at The
Lanier Law Firm in Houston, which has 229 clients with claims
outstanding.

On April 26, BP reported an unexpected $917 million pre-tax charge
relating to costs associated with the spill that so far have
totaled more than $56 billion.  Most of that charge was due to the
class action settlement, whose value BP revised to a record $12.9
billion but is projected to be "significantly higher" once all
claims had been processed.  BP also continues to face pending
litigation that includes the claims from businesses that opted out
of the settlement.

BP spokesman Geoff Morell declined to comment.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier last month signed off on BP's $20
billion deal -- a consent decree with the U.S. government and five
Gulf Coast states that was finalized on Oct. 5 to resolve
environmental fines relating to the spill.

But in March, in an attempt to wrap up all remaining lawsuits and
claims against BP, Judge Barbier issued a pretrial order that
requires individuals and businesses to file certain documents with
the court or face dismissal of their claims.  Some must file sworn
statements that they haven't released their claims, while others
must file individual lawsuits.

"He's now turned his attention to what most people thought the
case was going to be about from the beginning -- all the
individuals, mom and pop stores, who were economically and
otherwise harmed by the spill itself," Mr. Herd said of the judge.

Judge Barbier, who originally set a deadline for May 2, did not
indicate what he planned to do once the lawsuits have been
identified.  Plaintiffs lawyers, some of whom already are working
with court-appointed mediators, predicted that some cases could
settle.  Others said Judge Barbier could send the cases back to
the courts in which they were originally filed.  Many could get
dismissed, having failed to meet the deadline.

"Sadly, I would suspect a large number of claims will be summarily
dismissed, which is the most disappointing part of this," said
Brent Coon, of Brent Coon & Associates in Beaumont, Texas, who
represents 3,600 clients.

More than 100 law firms filed motions to extend the deadline,
citing procedural and logistical hurdles, ongoing settlement
negotiations and clients who were out at sea.  Some firms had more
than 1,000 claimants, while others represented just a handful.
Many had asked for 90 more days.

Judge Barbier granted the firms a 14-day extension.

BP has been one of the biggest critics of the settlement.  In
court, the company has argued that the claims administrator's
interpretations of the settlement have led to payments to
businesses that suffered no oil spill damages and has filed
numerous challenges before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs lawyers have insisted that fraudulent claims, if they
exist, are few.  But they also have their own complaints about the
deal. Herd said many of his clients have gone out of business or
filed for bankruptcy while waiting for their claims to be approved
or denied.  He said most of his clients have grown frustrated with
the process, which he called "an administrative and bureaucratic
nightmare."

"For the majority of our clients, the administrative remedy scheme
has been at best frustrating and at worst maddening," he said.


BREMERTON, WA: Class Action Over Blue Street Signs Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Kitsap County judge has
cleared the way for a class-action lawsuit over downtown
Bremerton's navy blue street signs.

The Kitsap Sun reports that attorneys successfully argued on
May 7 that the case should include anyone who has been issued a
parking ticket in the city within the statute of limitations, so
going back to 2012.

Plaintiff George Karl started the case after he received a parking
ticket in 2014 because he couldn't see a time limit. He says the
city's blue signs violate state and federal law because of their
color.

The plaintiffs will ask the judge to require the city to install
standard white and red parking signs and to distribute financial
damages to people who have been ticketed.

An attorney for Bremerton says the signs comply with federal law.


BROWN & MARTIN: Faces Texas Suit Seeking Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL COLLINS, and JOEL RUMPH, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, V. BROWN & MARTIN
GREENHOUSES LLC and AKA GENERAL CONTRACTORS, Defendants, Case
1:16-cv-00134 (E.D. Tex., May 4, 2016), seeks to recover all
unpaid wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a business that provides greenhouses.  Their
business provides the manual labor force required to build,
maintain or demolish greenhouses.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Todd Slobin, Esq.
     Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
     SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 621-2277
     Fax: (713) 621-0993
     E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net
             rprieto@eeoc.net


CALAVO GROWERS: Court Tossed Consolidated Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Calavo Growers, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that in January 2015,
various class action lawsuits, which had been consolidated into a
single lawsuit during the Company's second fiscal quarter of 2015,
were initiated against the company related to the restatement of
previously-issued financial statements.  On February 24, 2016, the
court agreed with the Company's claim that this case was without
merit and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Calavo Growers, Inc. considers itself a global leader in the
avocado industry and an expanding provider of value-added fresh
food.


CARTER'S INC: "Morrow" Sues Over Fake Sale
------------------------------------------
Siobhan Morrow and Ashley Gennock, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Carter's, Inc, The
William Carter Company, a Massachusetts corporation, Carter's
Retail, Inc., Oshkosh B'gosh, Inc. and DOES 1- 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01485-ELR (N.D. Ga., May 6, 2016),
seeks (i) restitution and disgorgement of all profits and unjust
enrichment resulting from unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business
practices, and (ii) declaratory and injunctive relief and such
other and further relief for violation of Unfair Competition Law
and California False Advertising Law of the California Business
and Professions Code, Consumers Legal Remedies Act under
California Civil Code Sec. 1750, et seq. and Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law under 73 Pennsylvania
Statute Sec. 201-1, et seq.

Defendants allegedly advertised false price discounts for
merchandise sold throughout its retail and/or outlet stores.

Defendant Carter's, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal executive offices in Atlanta, Georgia. It is the parent
company of The William Carter Company, Carter's Retail, Inc. and
OshKosh B'gosh, Inc. Defendants operate Carter's and OshKosh
B'gosh retail and outlet stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 347-3517
     Facsimile: (619) 756-6990
     Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

           - and -

     Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
     Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
     1133 Penn Avenue
     5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Telephone: (412) 322-9243
     Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
     Email: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
            glynch@carlsonlynch.com

           - and -

     Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
     8E Liberty Street
     Savannah, GA 31401
     Telephone: 912-447-8400
     Facsimile: 912-233-6584
     Email: twithers@gwllawfirm.com

           - and -

     Anthony C. Lake
     3490 Piedmont Road, N.E.
     One Securities Centre, Suite 1050
     Atlanta, GA 30305
     Telephone: 404-842-9700
     Facsimile: 404-842-9750
     Email: aclake@gwllawfirm.com


CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Securities Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Castlight Health, Inc. continues to defend a securities class
action lawsuit in California court, the Company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 10, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company said, "On April 2, April 16, April 29, and May 4,
2015, purported securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo,
against us, certain of our current and former directors, executive
officers, significant stockholders and underwriters associated
with our initial public offering (IPO). The lawsuits, which were
consolidated on July 22, 2015, were brought by purported
stockholders of our company seeking to represent a class
consisting of all those who purchased our stock pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with our IPO. A consolidated complaint ("Complaint")
was filed on July 23, 2015, which purports to allege claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933."

"On September 22, 2015 we filed a Demurrer to the Complaint. After
briefing and argument, the Court overruled the demurrer as to
Plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11 and 15 and granted with leave
amend the demurrer to Plaintiff's claims under Section 12(a)(2).
The Complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
Discovery in the action is ongoing. We believe that the claims are
without merit and intend to defend the action vigorously."

Castlight offers a health benefits platform that engages employees
to make better health care decisions and enables employers to
communicate and measure their benefit programs.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: "Canale" Claims Optic White Misrepresentation
----------------------------------------------------------------
LORI CANALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., Defendant, Case
7:16-cv-03308 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2016), alleges that Colgate makes
false and misleading representations about Colgate Optic White
toothpaste to sell Optic White at a premium price.

Colgate Palmolive Co. is engaged in the business of manufacturing,
mass marketing, and distributing Colgate Optic White toothpaste
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
     Frederick J. Klorczyk, Esq.
     Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (646) 837-7150
     Fax: (212) 989-9163
     E-mail: scott@bursor.com
             jmarchese@bursor.com
             fkloczyk@bursor.com
             pfraietta@bursor.com


CR BARD: Faces Ariz. Lawsuit Over Inferior Vena Cava Filters
------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA E. BARRAZA, THOMAS FLOURNAY, JAMES HOLT, GREGORY LESTER,
KEVIN MEEKS, MICHELLE MESSNER, EDDIE MIMS, DELMAR LEE PECK,
LATASHA PROPHET, DENISE TOMLIN, AND DIANE WASHINGTON Plaintiffs,
v. C.R. BARD, INC., and BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC.,
Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-01374-DGC (D. Ariz., May 5, 2016), seeks
appropriate diagnostic services and other declaratory relief that
they require as a direct and proximate result of the negligent and
wrongful misconduct of Defendants in connection with the
development, design, promotion, marketing, and sale of certain
inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.

C. R. Bard, Inc. is a multinational developer, manufacturer, and
marketer of innovative, life-enhancing medical technologies in the
fields of vascular, urology, oncology, and surgical specialties.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ramon R. Lopez, Esq.
     LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP
     100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Phone: 949-812-5771

        - and -

     Wendy R. Fleishman, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10013
     Phone: 212-355-9500


CUMULUS MEDIA: Pre-1972 Recordings Suit in New York Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the case, ABS
Entertainment, Inc., v. Cumulus Media Inc., has been stayed
pending an appeal before the Second Circuit involving unrelated
third-parties over whether the owner of a Pre-1972 Recording holds
an exclusive right to publicly perform that recording under New
York common law.

In August 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in two
separate putative class action lawsuits relating to our use and
public performance of certain sound recordings fixed prior to
February 15, 1972 (the "Pre-1972 Recordings").

The first suit, ABS Entertainment, Inc., et al. v, Cumulus Media
Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California and alleges, among other things,
violation of California rights of publicity, common law
conversion, misappropriation and unfair business practices. On
December 11, 2015, the first suit was dismissed without prejudice.

The second suit, ABS Entertainment, Inc., v. Cumulus Media Inc.,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and alleges, among other things, common law
copyright infringement and unfair competition. The New York
lawsuit has been stayed pending an appeal before the Second
Circuit involving unrelated third-parties over whether the owner
of a Pre-1972 Recording holds an exclusive right to publicly
perform that recording under New York common law.

Each suit seeks unspecified damages.
"We are evaluating each suit, and intend to defend ourselves
vigorously, are not yet able to determine what effect the lawsuit
will have, if any, on our financial position, results of
operations or cash flows," the Company said.


DAIMLER AG: Vancouver Alumni Claims Securities Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
VANCOUVER ALUMNI ASSET HOLDINGS INC., Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. DAIMLER AG,
DIETER ZETSCHE, and THOMAS WEBER, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-02942
(C.D. Cal., April 29, 2016), was filed on behalf of a purported
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired Daimler American Depositary
Receipts (ADRs) between February 22, 2012 and April 21,
2016, both dates inclusive.

Defendant Daimler, through its subsidiaries, develops, produces,
distributes, and sells passenger cars, vans, trucks, and buses
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     355 South Grand Avenue, 2450
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 785-2610
     Fax: (213) 226-2684
     E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Balks at Employees' Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Dreamworks, Pixar and Disney told a federal judge in San Jose,
Calif., May 6, that employees and former employees have no basis
for a class action antitrust suit accusing major animation studios
of conspiring to fix wages.

"Their fraudulent concealment claims fall short of what they
promised. They haven't done their homework and it's not
certifiable," Dreamworks Animation attorney Robert Van Nest told
U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh. "This case should not go
forward as a class action."

Lucasfilm, Sony Pictures and three other studios also are
defendants.

Van Nest offered two principal reasons against class
certification.

First, he said, the plaintiffs did a poor analysis of which
employees were harmed by the alleged conspiracy to suppress wages.

The putative class includes independent actors who make millions
of dollars, which demonstrates that the plaintiffs' analysis was
faulty, as was their estimate that the class contains about 10,000
people, Van Nest said.

"You have actors making millions of dollars that just get thrown
in the class," Van Nest said. "You have market executives,
assistants, heads of creative all of these people, clearly at a
management level."

Plaintiffs' attorney Jeff Friedman said the analysis was based on
Social Security numbers, and in some cases employees had been
promoted, changed jobs or had their job titles changed, which
should not disqualify them from the class.

Friedman added that arguing about how large or small the class
should be differs from whether there should be a class at all.

"Their only challenge is the composition of the class," Friedman
said of the studios. "There is nothing there."

Van Nest's second argument was that the plaintiffs failed to
demonstrate concealment: that blog posts, emails and other
documents show that many of the putative class members were aware
of the studios' attempt to suppress wages.

"There was a town hall meeting at Disney in 2006, where they
directly disclosed the company had a no-poaching agreement," Van
Nest told Judge Koh. He said that two of the three class
representatives were aware of the scheme, which should disqualify
them from the lawsuit.

Mark Selzer, another attorney for lead plaintiff Robert A. Nitsch
Jr., et al., said the defense arguments properly belong to a
trial, not a class certification hearing.

"They cherry-picked some third party statements about whether
maybe some employees got noticed," Selzer said. "But these
[communications] affect a tiny part of the class members, and it
is no reason to deny the vast majority of class members their day
in court."

Nitsch's September 2014 lawsuit claims major animation studios
colluded to fix wages and restrict career opportunities for their
artists.

Nitsch, who was a senior character effects artist for DreamWorks
and a clothes and hair technical director at Sony Pictures
Imageworks, says animation and special effects studios - including
Walt Disney and its subsidiaries Pixar and Lucasfilm, Sony
Pictures, Digital Domain 3.0 and ImageMovers - conspired to stifle
wages and restrict career opportunities for animators, digital
artists, software engineers and other technical workers.

The lawsuit mirrors a class action filed against tech giants,
Apple, Google and others in 2010, which claimed their CEOs made
"gentleman's agreements" to eliminate competition and companion
wage-setting mechanisms, by not poaching each other's employees.

Pixar and Lucasfilm settled that case for $9 million collectively
last year, but Judge Koh has rejected a $325 million agreement
proposed by Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe in that case.

Nitsch claims the animation studios acted in much the same way as
the tech companies, conspiring to deprive artists of "millions of
dollars which defendants instead put to their bottom lines."

The lawsuit continues: "It did so at the same time the films
produced by these workers achieved world renown and generated
billions in the United States and abroad."

Nitsch says the scheme dates back to when Apple founder Steve Jobs
bought Lucasfilm's computer graphics division from George Lucas in
1986 and created Pixar. Nitsch says jobs, Lucas and Pixar
president Ed Catmull agreed not to cold-call each other's
employees.

Neither Lucas, Catmull nor Apple are defendants in Nitsch's
complaint.

He claims Pixar and Lucasfilm agreed to notify each other when
making an offer to an employee, and agreed not to offer higher pay
if the employee's current employer made a counteroffer. And, he
says, Jobs and Catmull spread this kind of anti-competitive
agreement throughout the animation industry.
"Whenever a studio threatened to disturb the conspiracy's goals of
suppressing wages and salaries by recruiting employees and
offering better compensation, the leaders of the conspiracy took
steps to stop them," the complaint states.

The artists say the studios' cooperation was so thorough they
emailed each other salary and budget information.

Nitsch quotes Lucas as saying that "the rule we always had [was]
we cannot get into a bidding war with other companies because we
don't have the margins for that sort of thing."

The other studios used similar practices and pay structures,
Nitsch's complaint states.

After a Justice Department investigation, Nitsch says, Pixar and
Lucasfilm signed settlements prohibiting them from making such
nonsolicitation agreements. But Nitsch says the practice
continues.

Van Nest is with Keker and Van Nest in San Francisco; Friedman
with Hagens Berman Sobol Shaprio in Berkeley; and Selzer with
Susman Godfrey in Los Angeles.


DUPONT CO: Dispute Over GMO Food Labeling Moves to Vermont
----------------------------------------------------------
Randall Chase, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge in Delaware says a legal battle between the Dupont
Co. and Vermont officials over genetically modified foods should
play out in Vermont.

The judge on May 13 granted a request by Vermont officials to
transfer the case to their state, where trade groups representing
food producers are fighting a new law requiring the labeling of
foods containing genetically modified ingredients.  The first-in-
the-nation law is to take effect July 1.  The Grocery
Manufacturer's Association is leading a court challenge claiming,
among other things, that the labeling law violates the First
Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague.

Meanwhile, Dupont and Syngenta Corp. are fighting efforts by
Vermont officials to force the companies to turn over results of
their research regarding the potential health and environmental
impacts of genetically engineered crops.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Suit in N.Y. for Overcharged Health Care
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Doe One and John Doe Two, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Express Scripts, Inc.
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03399 (S.D.
N.Y., May 6, 2016), seeks (i) enjoinment of Express Scripts from
overcharging enrollees and subscribers in Anthem health care
plans, (ii) relief, actual, compensatory, statutory and/or treble
damages, (iii) attorney fees, litigation expenses, expert witness
fees and other costs, and (iv) prejudgment and post-judgment
interest pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 and Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, for
breach of contract and for violation of Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.

Plaintiffs allege that they have been directly overcharged as a
result of the inflated prices Express Scripts has imposed on
Anthem by utilizing independently demonstrated supracompetitive
prices.

Express Scripts is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business at One Express Way, St. Louis, Missouri 63121. It
provides pharmacy benefit management services, including network-
pharmacy claims processing, mail order delivery pharmacy services,
specialty pharmacy benefit management, benefit-design
consultation, drug-utilization review, formulary management, and
medical and drug data analysis services to manage prescription
drug plans for a wide variety of health insurers, self-funded
employers, the public sector, and government entity clients. It
serves as the exclusive provider for health care plans
administered and/or insured by Anthem affiliates for a ten-year
period.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
     Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
     Ilze C. Thielmann, Esq.
     Michael S. Lyons, Esq.
     WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
     1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Tel: (212) 447-7060
     Fax: (800) 922-4851
     Emails: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
             ekallas@whatleykallas.com
             ithielmann@whatleykallas.com
             mlyons@whatleykallas.com

           - and -

     Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
     WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
     16870 W. Bernardo Dr., Suite 400
     San Diego, CA 92127
     Tel: 858-674-6641
     Fax: 855-274-1888
     Email: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

           - and -

     Harvey Rosenfield, Esq.
     Jerry Flanagan, Esq.
     Laura Antonini, Esq.
     2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
     Santa Monica, CA 90405
     Tel: (310) 392-0522
     Fax: (310) 392-8874
     Emails: harvey@consumerwatchdog.org
             jerry@consumerwatchdog.org
             laura@consumerwatchdog.org


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Investors in N.Y. Sue Over Anthem Rift
-------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, Writing for writing for Courthouse News Service,
reported that Express Scripts faces a federal shareholder class
action after the threat of losing Anthem's business put the
pharmacy-benefits manager's stock value into a tailspin.

Melbourne Municipal Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund, the
shareholder taking Express Scripts to court in Manhattan, says
Anthem is Express Scripts' most important client, accounting for
14 percent of revenues.

"Throughout the class period, Express Scripts repeatedly assured
investors that its relationship with Anthem remained strong and
that it was providing Anthem, and all of its customers, with high
quality service," the May 4 complaint states.

But in January 2016, Anthem publicly threatened to end its
relationship with Express Scripts unless the company renegotiated
its contract.

"Anthem's statement made clear that Anthem and Express Scripts had
engaged in contentious pricing negotiations for some time, and
made clear that if Express Scripts remained unwilling to engage in
good-faith negotiations regarding drug pricing, Anthem would
terminate its relationship with Express Scripts and seek out a
competing PBM [pharmacy benefits manager]," the complaint states.

Express Scripts' share price fell 13 percent over the following
week, but the fund says shares at this time were still inflated
because the company continued to conceal its deteriorating
relationship with Anthem.

Shares fell further in March when Anthem brought a lawsuit
accusing Express Scripts of failing to negotiate drug prices in
good faith, costing Anthem $3 billion a year.

"The lawsuit revealed a deep (and never before disclosed) conflict
between Express Scripts and Anthem dating back to at least
February 2015, including allegations that Express Scripts was
experiencing severe operational problems that interfered with its
ability to adequately serve Anthem and exposed Anthem to increased
regulatory scrutiny by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services," the lawsuit claims. "More importantly, investors
learned that Anthem would almost certainly either renegotiate its
contract to pay billions of dollars less to Express Scripts, or
worse, seek to engage a competing PBM resulting in the complete
loss of Anthem's business."

Express Scripts' share price fell from $85.57 right before
Anthem's public statement in January, to $67.52 after the
lawsuit's announcement in March. It closed May 6 at $73.13.

The fund says Express Scripts' executives should be held
accountable for failing to inform investors about its operational
failures which threatened its relationship with the company's most
important client.

Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- and Avi Josefson --
avi@blbglaw.com -- with Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman in
New York represent the class.

Express Scripts spokesman Brian Henry declined to comment on the
lawsuit except to say that the company will defend itself
"vigorously."

Express Scripts is the largest independent pharmacy-benefit
manager in the U.S. It manages the prescription drug benefits of
customers' health insurance plans, and negotiates drug prices with
its network of pharmacies.

Anthem is a massive health insurer in the Blue Cross and Blue
Shield Association.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Jeep Recall
--------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a car
safety recall is supposed to fix problems, but according to a
proposed class-action lawsuit against Fiat Chrysler (FCA US), a
Jeep recall caused problems that weren't there before the recall.

Plaintiff Lynn Grimstad filed the lawsuit alleging the problems
occur in 2005-2010 Jeep Grand Cherokees and 2006-2010 Jeep
Commanders that were recalled in 2013.

The story begins with the recall of nearly 300,000 of the Jeeps in
May 2013 to keep the SUVs from rolling away.  At the time,
Chrysler said a transfer case electrical failure could cause an
unintentional shifting of the transfer case into the neutral
position.  However, according to the lawsuit, a circuit board
could fracture because of a hardware defect and cause the Jeeps to
roll away.

Chrysler's plan was to update the software of the drive controller
which governs the transfer case.  However, the plaintiffs claim
the software changes made it impossible to shift the SUVs into the
low-gear of four-wheel-drive.

Ms. Grimstad says the SUVs are equipped with Quadra-Drive II or
Quadra-Trac II four-wheel-drive systems with "final drive control
modules" that were disabled by the software changes made during
the recall.  This allegedly causes a failure of the transfer case
to shift into neutral and further disables the four-wheel-drive
lock capability.

That feature gives drivers more axle torque for off-road driving
or towing a heavy load.  According to the lawsuit, the recall
repairs disabled a feature necessary for the safety of the SUVs.

Ms. Grimstad claims trying to shift the SUVs into low gears
doesn't work and only causes a light to illuminate that says
"Service 4WD System."  In addition, Ms. Grimstad says Chrysler
tried to fix problems with a software update instead of replacing
hardware, all allegedly to save money on repairs.

The plaintiffs say they would have never allowed the recall
repairs if they would have known the repairs could affect the
four-wheel-drive features.

According to the plaintiffs, the automaker showed a "reckless
disregard" of the truth when Chrysler said it would repair the
SUVs under the recall but instead caused additional problems.

The Jeep Grand Cherokee and Commander lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California -
Grimstad, et al v. FCA US LLC, et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by A.O.E. Law & Associates.

CarComplaints.com has complaints about the Jeep Grand Cherokee and
Jeep Commander SUVs named in the lawsuit:

Jeep Grand Cherokee

2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee
2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee
2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee
2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee
2009 Jeep Grand Cherokee
2010 Jeep Grand Cherokee

Jeep Commander

2006 Jeep Commander
2007 Jeep Commander
2008 Jeep Commander
2009 Jeep Commander
2010 Jeep Commander


FINISAR CORPORATION: 9th Cir. Rejected Petition for Rehearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit, in an order dated March 25, 2016, voted to deny Finisar
Corp.'s petition for panel rehearing.  The Appeals Court said no
further petitions will be permitted.

The case is, In re: FINISAR CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION,
OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. FINISAR CORPORATION; JERRY S. RAWLS; EITAN GERTEL;
KURT ADZEMA, Defendants-Appellees, No. 13-17199 (9th Cir.).

A copy of the March 25 Memorandum is available at
https://is.gd/w9nT1N from Leagle.com.

Finisar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that several securities
class action lawsuits related to the Company's March 8, 2011
earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, have
been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a purported class of persons
who purchased stock between December 1 or 2, 2010 through March 8,
2011. The named defendants are the Company and its Chairman of the
Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. To
date, no specific amount of damages has been alleged. The cases
were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were appointed and a
consolidated complaint was filed.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. On January 16,
2013, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
and granted the lead plaintiffs leave to amend the consolidated
complaint.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed on February 6, 2013.
Thereafter, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss the
case. On September 30, 2013, the District Court granted the
Company's motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, and
plaintiff appealed.

On January 8, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the judgment in part for further proceedings in the District
Court. On January 22, 2016, Finisar filed a petition for panel
rehearing in part.

Finisar is a provider of optical subsystems and components that
are used in data communication and telecommunication applications.


FORJAS TAURUS: Faces "Burrow" Suit Over Defective Revolvers
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BURROW and OMA LOUISE BURROW, Plaintiffs, v. FORJAS TAURUS
S.A. and BRAZTECH INTERNATIONAL, L.C., Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-
21606-JLK (S.D. Fla., May 5, 2016), claims that the revolvers
designed, manufactured, assembled, imported, and marketed by the
Taurus Defendants are considered inherently dangerous because it
contains at least one defect.

Brazil and Forjas Taurus manufactures the revolvers and other
firearms in Brazil under the "Rossi" brand name and distributes
the Revolvers and other firearms in Florida and throughout the
United States under the "Rossi" brand name via Defendant Braztech.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew F. Knopf, Esq.
     KNOPF BIGGER
     1560 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 220
     Winter Park, FL 32789
     Phone: (407) 622-2111
     Fax: (407) 622-2112
     E-mail: andrew@knopfbigger.com
             burton@knopfbigger.com
             stephanie@knopfbigger.com

        - and -

     Sam David Knight, Esq.
     BADHAM & BUCK, LLC
     2001 Park Place North, Suite 500
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: (205) 521-0036
     Fax: (205) 521-0037
     E-mail: sdknight@badhambuck.com
             kmiller@badhambuck.com
             jhughes@badhambuck.com

        - and -

     W. Percy Badham III, Esq.
     Brannon J. Buck, Esq.
     BADHAM & BUCK, LLC
     2001 Park Place North, Suite 500
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: (205) 521-0036
     Fax: (205) 521-0037
     E-mail: pbadham@badhambuck.com
             bbuck@badhambuck.com

        - and -

     Gregory A. Brockwell, Esq.
     LEITMAN, SIEGAL & PAYNE, P.C.
     420 20th Street North, Suite 2000
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: 205-251-5900
     E-mail: gbrockwell@lsppc.com

        - and -

     Alan K. Bellenger, Esq.
     Vincent Swiney, Esq.
     SWINEY & BELLENGER, LLC
     2910 Linden Ave., Suite 201
     Homewood, AL 35209
     Phone: (205) 588-4652
     Fax: (205) 224-5683
     E-mail: akb@sblaw.net
             jvs@sblaw.net


FOSTER FARMS: Issues Recall of Breaded Chicken Bits
---------------------------------------------------
John Hult, writing for Argus Leader, reports that buyers of Foster
Farms' 5- and 10-pound chicken nugget boxes got some unhappy news.
The company issued a recall of 220,000 pounds worth of the usually
kid-friendly breaded chicken bits after a series of complaints
from consumers who found pieces of blue plastic and black rubber
inside.  Not a happy meal.


FRESNO, CA: Faces Complaints Over Low-Income Housing Problems
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Castillo, Barbara Anderson and Bonhia Lee, writing for
Miami Herald, report that thousands of the city of Fresno's
poorest and most vulnerable people live in unhealthy and unsafe
apartments.  They stay silent because they fear being evicted or
deported, and they continue to live in misery.

City officials knew for decades about problems with low-income
housing.  Property owners faced few repercussions from a city
still reeling from the effects of the Great Recession that slashed
deeply into code enforcement.  But by refusing to put teeth into
inspections and enforcement efforts, the city failed to protect
many of its most at-risk citizens.

Fresno's low-income housing crisis was thrust into the spotlight
last November with the news that a central Fresno apartment
complex, home to 1,000 people, had neither heat nor hot water.
Residents couldn't cook or keep their apartments warm at the
coldest part of autumn.  By the time officials learned about the
gas line closure, tenants at Summerset Village Apartments had been
cold and hungry for a week. One elderly tenant would later die of
respiratory failure brought on by pneumonia.

The conditions at Summerset spurred The Bee to focus on
substandard housing in Fresno.  A four-month investigation by The
Bee found that making Fresno apartments livable and safe was a
very low priority for landlords and government officials. The Bee
investigation also found:

   -- Some enforcement cases were closed before repairs were
completed.

   -- There has never been a criminal consequence for landlords
renting substandard apartments.

   -- In some apartments, toilets regularly overflow, soaking
carpets with sewage.

   -- Rotted ceilings from water leaks were left unrepaired at
many apartments.

  -- Ovens and portable heaters were the main source of heat in
some apartments.

  -- Routine interior inspections, considered best practices in
many cities, are not performed in Fresno.

City officials offer excuses for not moving aggressively to
protect residents.  The system is decidedly tilted in favor of
landlords.  When they appeal city fines, for example, judgments
usually benefit them.

City leaders were surprised that code enforcement was not
bombarded by complaints from cold and weary tenants at Summerset.
Sophia DeWitt, a longtime advocate for refugees who worked at
Fresno Interdenominational Refugee Ministries from 2003 to 2014,
was not.  There is a cultural basis for remaining silent, she
says.

"Folks who are refugees and fled their government because they
were in danger of being killed or physically harmed will really do
a lot of things to not have to speak up or complain or do anything
to any kind of authority figure," she says.

While investigating substandard housing in Fresno, Bee reporters
knocked on dozens of doors over the course of four months.  Of the
tenants who answered, most declined to give their names or be
photographed.  When asked whether they report housing violations,
many tenants say they complain to their landlords but not to code
enforcement.  One woman explained what stopped her from calling:
"I felt it would be a waste of time.  I heard the city doesn't do
anything."

Failed attempts

Leah Simon-Weisberg, legal director with the advocacy group
Tenants Together, believes property owners should have reason to
fear code enforcement.  She is leading a class-action lawsuit
against JD Home Rentals, one of Fresno's largest rental companies,
for alleged widespread failure to maintain its properties.

But in Fresno, she said, the department functions more like a
management company, letting landlords fix problems often without
any ramifications.

"If you have a situation where landlords are never caught for
creating dangerous housing conditions unless tenants complain to
code enforcement, you get delayed maintenance," she said.  "Fresno
is the land of delayed maintenance."

Until this year, Fresno code enforcement inspectors gave calls
about abandoned vehicles and weeds as much priority as calls about
broken heaters and unsafe stairs.

Of the 11,500 code cases processed in fiscal year 2015, less than
16 percent were for housing issues.  The remainder were complaints
for public nuisances and zoning issues, according to city records.

The city only issues fines if a landlord fails to correct
violations by a given deadline.  Even then, there might be no fine
if officials believe the landlord is making a good-faith effort.

Landlords who feel they were wrongly fined by code enforcement can
appeal.  Fresno hearing officer Ed Johnson, who was hired on a
three-year contract in late 2013, has overseen more than 3,000
cases for everything from parking hearings to marijuana
cultivation.  A second hearing officer, Michael Flores, was hired
in February.

In late April, the City Council approved an ordinance requiring
hearing officers to double fine amounts if an owner or occupants
fail to begin repairs or demolition within 60 days of the appeal
hearing.  The hearing officer also can recommend misdemeanor
prosecution.

"Some of these property owners will use every trick in the book to
delay having to make any corrections," says City Manager Bruce
Rudd, who is optimistic the new ordinance will speed things up.

Landlords have 90 days to appeal the hearing officer's decision to
the Fresno County Superior Court.  Mr. Johnson says that could add
months to the process, since it's up to the court to schedule the
new hearing.

Among 127 administrative citation cases from late 2013 through
mid-April -- most of which Johnson says were for housing
violations -- only 38 were upheld completely by the hearing
officer.

The rest were either reduced, dismissed or had no action taken.
Mr. Johnson says that's usually because there wasn't enough
evidence to support the citation or the property owner didn't
receive the notice.

In addition to paying a fine, property owners can get hit with a
bill if the city has to take on repairs, and bills can be
converted into a lien on the property until the owner pays up or
the property is sold.

Until recently, liens had been the city's final go-to option to
get landlords to fix their properties.  Owners can take years to
pay liens -- or never pay them -- and the city historically has
taken no action to hold them responsible.  Other cities such as
Visalia attach unpaid fines to property tax bills that owners must
pay yearly.

Other efforts by the city of Fresno over the years to address
substandard housing have fallen flat.  In 1998, an 11-member task
force of property managers, developers and owners planned to
revive an old ordinance that would give the city more leverage
against landlords who refused to fix issues.

Seven years later, an Anti-Slum Strike Force focused on larger
apartment complexes with repeat code violations.  On the agenda:
persuade landlords to bring their properties up to code or pursue
fines, lawsuits or criminal sanctions against them; establish a
community advisory group; inform tenants and landlords of their
rights and responsibilities.

Just before the recession in 2007, then-Mayor Autry's 10X10 Blue
Ribbon Committee called for more code enforcement inspectors and
attorneys, receivership (whereby the city gains legal control of a
property), tenant education and a systematic inspection process
for frequent code violators.

Despite those actions, tenants still were plagued with shoddy
conditions.


GALENA BIOPHARMA: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on June 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
Galena Biopharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon has granted preliminary
approval of the settlement and set the final approval hearing for
June 23, 2016.

Five purported securities class action complaints filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon have been
consolidated into a single action, In re Galena Biopharma, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-367-SI (D. Or.), and a lead
plaintiff has been appointed.

"On October 31, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint, which alleges, among other things, that our
company and certain of our officers and directors violated the
federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and omissions in press releases and in filings with the
SEC arising out of the same circumstances that are the subject of
the derivative actions described above, and which alleges that
certain of our officers and directors sold company stock while in
possession of material non-public information," the Company said.

"On December 3, 2015, we also agreed in principal to resolve and
settle the securities putative class action lawsuit, In re Galena
Biopharma, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-
00367-SI, pending against us, certain of our current and former
officers and directors and other defendants in the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon. The agreement, which is
subject to shareholder notice and Court approval, provides for a
settlement payment of $20 million to the class and the dismissal
of all claims against us and the other defendants in connection
with the consolidated federal securities class actions.

"Of the $20 million settlement payment to the class, $16.7 million
will be paid by our insurance carriers and $3.3 million will be
paid by us through a combination of $2.3 million in cash and $1
million in shares of our common stock. In addition to the $3.3
million payable accrued as of December 31, 2015 the company paid
$2.0 million in December 2015 in attorney fees outstanding as a
condition of the settlement.

"We will be responsible for defense costs and any settlements or
judgments incurred for any related opt-out lawsuits.

"On February 16, 2016, the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon granted preliminary approval of the settlement
and set the final approval hearing for June 23, 2016."

Galena Biopharma, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company committed to
the development and commercialization of targeted oncology
therapeutics that address major unmet medical needs.


GLOBAL PRISONER: Faces "Aston" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Aston, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiffs, vs. GLOBAL PRISONER SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case 5:16-cv-00420 (W.D. Tex., May 5, 2016), was brought for
Defendants' failure to pay overtime and minimum wages in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

LOBAL PRISONER SERVICES, LLC provides prisoner transportation
services in Texas and throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Philip Bohrer, Esq.
     Scott E. Brady, Esq.
     BOHRER BRADY, LLC
     8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
     Baton Rouge, LA 70809
     Phone: (225) 925-5297
     Fax: (225) 231-7000
     E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
             sott@bohrerbrady.com

        - and -

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
     1150 Bissonet
     Houston, TX 77005
     Phone: (713) 751-0025
     Fax: (713) 751-0030
     E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
             litkin@fibichlaw.com
             adunlap@fibichlaw.com


GOPRO: Robbins Geller Takes Lead Role in Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that it may not be
a film-worthy extreme sport, but a contest over who should get to
take charge of a securities fraud class action against wearable
camera maker GoPro Inc. took an interesting turn on April 28.

Lawyers at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd elbowed out securities
fraud specialist Laurence Rosen's The Rosen Law Firm to secure the
leading role, despite the fact that Robins Geller's client has
less money at stake.

Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, or PLSRA, the
lead plaintiff in a securities fraud case is usually supposed to
be the one with the most to lose.  Mr. Rosen's clients
collectively claim they lost more than $1.3 million.

But U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of
California faulted Rosen for bringing together a group of people
under the "GoPro Group Lead Plaintiff Group" umbrella that the
judge said appeared to have no link to one another.

"While three of the GoPro Group's members appear to be family
members (or trusts owned or controlled by family members), the
GoPro Group does not even attempt to explain the connection
between these family members and the GoPro Group's other members,"
Judge Tigar wrote.

"Absent any indication otherwise, the court finds that the GoPro
Group's amalgamation of previously unrelated individuals together
in this case was made 'for the sole purpose of aggregating their
claims in an effort to become the presumptive lead plaintiff,'" he
added.

The judge pointed to case law in the Northern District holding
that appointing a group of unrelated investors as lead counsel
undercuts the objective of the PSLRA: "to eliminate lawyer-driven
litigation."

Judge Tigar's decision allows Robbins Geller partners
Shawn Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- and Danielle Myers --
danim@rgrdlaw.com -- to grab the role of lead plaintiffs counsel
in the class action.  Their client, Camia Investment, alleges it
suffered a loss of $904,799.

Judge Tigar's order also combined the half-dozen securities fraud
suits against GoPro pertaining to the company's alleged failure to
disclose information relating to its HERO Session line of cameras.
The suits against GoPro were filed in January and February, after
the company missed its earnings targets for two quarters in a row
due to weaker than expected sales for its HERO cameras.

GoPro's stock price, which topped $64 in August 2015, fell below
$13 on January 14, the day after it released its preliminary
fourth quarter results.  It has been stuck at around $13 since.


GROUPON INC: July 13 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

In re GROUPON, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION

Master File No. 12 C 2450
Hon. Charles R. Norgle
This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS.

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.

TO:     ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SHARES
OF GROUPON'S CLASS A COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $0.0001 PER SHARE
(THE "COMMON STOCK"), IN OR TRACEABLE TO GROUPON'S INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING BETWEEN NOVEMBER 4, 2011 AND MARCH 30, 2012, BOTH DATES
INCLUSIVE ("THE CLASS PERIOD"), AND WERE OR MAY HAVE BEEN DAMAGED
THEREBY.

- AND -

ALL SUCH PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SHARES OF
COMMON STOCK BETWEEN FEBRUARY 9, 2012 AND MARCH 30, 2012, BOTH
DATES INCLUSIVE ("THE SUBCLASS PERIOD") AND WERE OR MAY HAVE BEEN
DAMAGED THEREBY.

Excluded from the Class are (1) Defendants and Former Underwriter
Defendants and their immediate families; (2) any entity in which
Defendants or Former Underwriter Defendants have or had a majority
interest; (3) past and present Officers and Directors of Groupon,
Inc.; and (4) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or
assigns of any excluded party.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court, Northern District of Illinois (the "Court") of a
proposed $45 million Settlement in the above-captioned action (the
"Action").  Plaintiffs estimate there were approximately 40.25
million shares of the Common Stock traded during the Class Period
that may have been damaged.  If all such shares were in fact
damaged and elect to participate in the Settlement, the average
recovery per share could be $1.118 before deduction of any fees,
expenses, costs, and awards described herein.  The actual amount
disbursed to members of the Class who participate in the
Settlement may be more or less than this figure.

A hearing will be held on July 13, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. before
Honorable Charles R. Norgle in Courtroom 2341 of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Everett
McKinley Dirksen Building, United States Courthouse, 219 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604, to determine: (1) whether the
proposed Settlement of the Class's claims against the Defendants
for $45,000,000.00 should be approved as fair, reasonable and
adequate; (2) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair,
just, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the Court should
permanently enjoin the assertion of any claims that arise from or
relate to the subject matter of the Action; (4) whether the Action
should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court; (5)
whether the application by Class Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; and (6) whether
the Class Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of costs and
expenses should be granted.

If you purchased the Common Stock in or traceable to Groupon's IPO
during the Class Period and were or may have been damaged thereby
OR you purchased or acquired the Common Stock during the Subclass
Period and were or may have been damaged thereby, your rights may
be affected by the Settlement of this Action.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action (the
"Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you
may obtain copies by writing to the Claims Administrator at In re
Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o KCC Class Action Services,
P.O Box 40007 College Station TX 77842-4007, by calling (877) 369-
3968, or by visiting www.grouponsecuritieslitigation.com

If you are a member of the Class, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must timely submit a
Proof of Claim to the Claims Administrator's address provided
above and postmarked no later than August 26, 2016.  If you are a
member of the Class and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim, you
will not share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the
Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgment or
orders entered by the Court.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion, at the
address above and postmarked no later than June 29, 2016, in the
manner and form detailed in the Notice.  If you properly exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any
judgment or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will
not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

If you have any objection to the proposed Settlement, the adequacy
of the representation provided by Class Plaintiffs and Class
Counsel, the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement
Fund, the Final Order and Judgment contemplated by the
Stipulation, the application for attorneys' fees not to exceed 30%
of the Settlement Amount, and reimbursement of expenses not to
exceed $1.15 million, and/or the application of a Compensatory
Award, not to exceed $5,000 each, for the time and expenses
incurred by Class Plaintiffs, or if you otherwise wish to be heard
with respect to any of the foregoing, you may appear in person or
by attorney at the Final Approval Hearing.  Notice of objection or
appearance must be filed in the manner detailed in the Notice with
the Clerk of the Court and delivered to Class Counsel and
Defendants' Counsel, such that it is received by each party no
later than June 29, 2016, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice.

All members of the Class who do not request exclusion therefrom,
in the manner provided herein, will be represented by Class
Counsel in connection with the Settlement, but may, if they so
desire, also enter an appearance through counsel of their own
choice and at their own expense.

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE,
THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL.  Any questions should be
directed to:

Claims Administrator:
In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o KCC Class Action Services
P.O Box 40007
College Station TX 77842-4007
Telephone: (877) 369-3968

Class Counsel:
Joshua B. Silverman, Esq.
Pomerantz LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
jbsilverman@pomlaw.com

Dated: May 9, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
By Order of the Court

United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.


GYRODYNE LLC: Hearing Held on Bid to Approve Case Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Gyrodyne, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a hearing before the
Court to address the parties' application for approval of a class
action settlement was scheduled for April 8, 2016.

On July 3, 2014, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company and members of
its Board (the "Individual Defendants"), and against GSD and
Gyrodyne, LLC (collectively, the "Defendants"), in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk (the "Court"),
captioned Cashstream Fund v. Paul L. Lamb, et al., Index No.
065134/2014 (the "Action"). The complaint alleges, among other
things that (i) the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties or aided and abetted the breach of those duties in
connection with the merger and (ii) the Company and the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose
material information in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus.

On July 20, 2015, the plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint
with the Court.   The claims, relief sought, and Defendants named
in the supplemental complaint remained the same.

On August 14, 2015, the parties to the Action entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement (the "Settlement") providing for the
settlement of the Action, subject to the Court's approval.  Under
the Settlement, Gyrodyne supplemented its Proxy Statement on
August 17, 2015 with certain supplemental disclosures, and has
agreed that any sales of its properties would be affected in
arm's-length transactions at prices at or above their most recent
appraised values.  The plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the
members of the putative class it represents, has agreed to release
and dismiss with prejudice all claims that had or could have been
asserted in the Action or in any other forum against the
Defendants and their affiliates and agents arising out of or
relating to the merger and the other transactions alleged by
plaintiff in its complaint, as supplemented.  The Settlement
further provides that plaintiff may apply to the Court for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses not to exceed $650,000 in
the aggregate.  A hearing before the Court to address the parties'
application for approval of the Settlement was scheduled for April
8, 2016.

Gyrodyne, LLC is a limited liability company formed under the laws
of the State of New York whose primary business is the investment
in and the acquisition, ownership and management of a
geographically diverse portfolio of medical office, industrial and
development of industrial and residential properties located in
the Northeast region of the United States.


HCP INC: Firefighters' Pension Fund Files Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
BOYNTON BEACH FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HCP, INC.; HCR
MANORCARE, INC.; LAURALEE MARTIN; TIMOTHY SCHOEN; PAUL A. ORMOND;
and STEVEN M. CAVANAUGH, Defendants, Case: 3:16-cv-01106 (N.D.
Ohio, May 9, 2016), was brought on behalf of all persons or
entities that purchased HCP's common stock from March 30, 2015
through February 8, 2016.  The case alleges violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act.

HCP is a real estate investment trust (REIT) focused on the
healthcare industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John R. Climaco, Esq.
     Scott D. Simpkins, Esq.
     CLIMACO WILCOX PECA TARANTINO & GAROFOLI CO., LPA
     55 Public Square, Suite 1950
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: (216) 621-8484
     Fax: (216) 771-1632
     E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com
             sdsimp@climacolaw.com

         - and -

     Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
     Avi Josefson, Esq.
     Rebecca E. Boon, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
     1251 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10020
     Phone: (212) 554 1400
     Fax: (212) 554 1444
     E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
             avi@blbglaw.com
             rebecca.boon@blbglaw.com


HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: 2nd Cir. Revives Hospital Patients' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that patients can sue western New York hospitals for allegedly
overcharging them for copies of their medical records, though
their attorneys paid the initial bills, the Second Circuit ruled.

Seven hospital patients filed a federal class action in
2014, alleging they were overcharged for copies of their medical
records by Rochester General Hospital, Unity Hospital of
Rochester, and F.F. Thompson Hospital Inc. through their agent
HealthPort Technologies LLC.

HealthPort charged the plaintiffs 75 cents per page, plus a $2 fee
for electronic delivery -- though it sent hard copies -- from
October 2012 to April 2014, according to the complaint.  That
meant lead plaintiff Marissa Carter was charged $77 for 100 pages
of medical records requested on Sept. 5, 2013, though the
production cost was substantially less, she claims.

Plus, the fee included a built-in kickback from HealthPort to
Rochester General Hospital, in violation of New York Public Health
Law, Carter claims.

Chief U.S. District Judge Frank Geraci dismissed the complaint for
lack of standing last year, finding that the plaintiffs said their
attorneys -- not the plaintiffs -- had paid for the records. But
the Second Circuit vacated the lower court's ruling and remanded
the case May 10.

"The complaint alleged expressly, and plaintiff-by-plaintiff, that
the specified plaintiff 'requested' 'medical records' from the
treating hospital 'through [her or his] counsel'; it alleged that
each plaintiff 'paid' the demanded 'charge' for those records
'through [her or his] counsel'," Judge Amalya Kearse wrote for the
three-judge panel (brackets in original). "These are detailed
factual allegations that the plaintiffs were the principals, who
acted through their agents in requesting and paying for the
records."

The panel found "nothing implausible in the propositions that a
person needs her medical records from a hospital and has retained
an attorney to represent her. Indeed, those propositions were
explicitly reflected in documents proffered by defendants in
support of their motions."

The attorneys' letters did not imply that the client need not
reimburse them, the ruling states.

"And any such idea was expressly contradicted by the factual
allegations in the complaint, which were required to be accepted
as true, that 'the ultimate expense' for the records was borne by
'plaintiffs and other class members,'" Kearse wrote. "The fact
that the payments were to be promptly made by the attorneys does
not contradict the allegation that plaintiffs themselves were or
would be the ultimate payors."

One of the plaintiffs' attorneys, Kai Richter, with Nichols Kaster
in Minneapolis, said they are "pleased that the Second Circuit
found that our clients were injured by the overcharges, and look
forward to litigating the case on the merits."

The defendants' attorneys, Rebecca Brazzano with Thompson Hine LLP
in New York; Michael Cohen, Christopher Porzio, and Michelle Yuen
with Nixon Peabody in Jericho, N.Y.; Aaron Saykin and Jodyann
Galvin with Hodgson Russ in Buffalo, N.Y.; and Eric Ward with Ward
Greenberg Heller & Reidy in Rochester, N.Y., did not respond to
requests for comment emailed May 10.

The plaintiffs seek to represent all patients who requested and
were charged for medical records from HealthPort-contracted New
York health care providers on or after May 20, 2008.

The case is captioned, MARISSA CARTER, EVELYN GRYS, BRUCE CURRIER,
SHARON KONING, SUE BEEHLER, MARSHA MANCUSO, JACLYN CUTHBERTSON, as
individuals and as representatives of the classes, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. HEALTHPORT  TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, THE ROCHESTER
GENERAL HOSPITAL, THE UNITY HOSPITAL OF ROCHESTER, F.F. THOMPSON
HOSPITAL, INC., Defendants-Appellees., Docket No. 15-1072 (2nd
Cir.).


HESPERIA, CA: Faces Suit Over Ordinance Against Ex-Cons
-------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Californians in the high desert town of Hesperia don't want
ex-cons living there and passed unconstitutional ordinances to
keep them out, a nonprofit claims in a Riverside, Calif. federal
class action.

The Victor Valley Family Resource Center (VVFRC) operates three
group homes, also known as halfway houses, in Hesperia, a city of
92,000 in the Mojave Desert, 35 miles north of San Bernardino.
The group is "dedicated to reducing homelessness and recidivism by
providing homeless and previously incarcerated individuals with
the skills, resources, and supports they need to successfully
reintegrate into the community," it says in its May 4 federal
lawsuit.

"Although VVRFC offers housing and supportive services for up to
one year, its clients generally transition to permanent housing
within six to nine months," according to its 34-page complaint.
"There have been no substantive complaints from neighbors
regarding those homes or its residents. The homes look no
different than any other home in the neighborhood," the group
says.

The homes, which have on-site staff and are closely monitored by
parole officers, are a "critical component" of California's
overhaul of its criminal justice system, plagued by
unconstitutional overcrowding of prisons, the group says. The
overhaul is meant to focus on rehabilitation and prevention.

But Hesperia passed two unconstitutional ordinances to keep people
out, the Resource Center says. Its Group Home Ordinance of 2007
was followed by a Rental Housing Ordinance in 2015.

The Group Home Ordinance prohibits group homes from housing two or
more people who are on probation.

Under the Rental Housing Ordinance, landlords must hand over
tenants' personal information to the Hesperia Police Department,
which conducts background checks and uploads the information to a
city database administered by police. Police provide notice if a
tenant engages in criminal activity, which triggers eviction
proceedings, giving the landlord 10 days to kick the offending
tenant out.

Victor Valley, its CEO Sharon Green and six group home residents
sued the City of Hesperia, San Bernardino County Sheriff John
McMahon and Hesperia Code Enforcement Officer Ernesto Montes,
alleging violations of state and federal law, including the First,
Fourth and 14th Amendments.

"Defendants continue to engage in policies and practices that
limit the housing options for persons on probation, prohibit
transitional supportive housing, and incite landlords to evict
tenants like plaintiff VVFRC and its clients," the complaint
states. "By doing so, defendants not only violate plaintiffs'
constitutional and statutory rights, but also compromise public
safety, increase homelessness and deprive the region of successful
integrative and supportive services that make all Hesperia
residents safer."

Hesperia residents claim the probationers endanger the community
and harm property values.

"Defendants fear that state criminal justice reforms, such as
California's Public Safety Realignment Act and the Safe
Neighborhoods and Schools Act will cause an influx of people with
criminal records to move into Hesperia, threatening their
preferred 'demographic' for the city," the complaint states.
"Rather than participate in statewide efforts to safely
reintegrate individuals with criminal records into the community,
defendants have enacted and enforced municipal ordinances designed
to exclude such individuals from housing in the city."

Hesperia's public information officer, Rachel Molina, said the
city could not comment on the lawsuit.

"I am aware of the lawsuit, but we just got served today," she
said. "We have not been able to review the lawsuit, so we won't be
able to answer any questions."

The plaintiffs' attorney, Adrienne Wong with the ACLU in San
Bernardino, did not return a phone call seeking comment May 6.
Nor did ACLU spokeswoman Sandra Hernandez.

The Resource Center asks the court to permanently enjoin the
defendants from enforcing the two ordinances, plus costs and
attorneys' fees.

Hesperia, 3,186 feet high in the desert, is 49 percent Latino and
41 percent white, according to city-data.com. Its median household
income of $42,990 was 29 percent below the statewide median of
$60,190 in 2013. The median value of a home or condo that year was
$149,200, 60 percent below the statewide median, according to
city-data.


HILLS BANCORPORATION: Plaintiff Drops Suit v. Bank Unit
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Hills Bank has been dismissed,
Hills Bancorporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

On April 24, 2014, a suit was filed against the Bank in the Iowa
District Court for Johnson County by a customer alleging that the
fees associated with the Bank's automated overdraft program in
connection with its debit and ATM cards constitute unlawful
interest in violation of Iowa's usury laws and that the collection
of such interest violates the Iowa Debt Collection Practices Act.
The suit sought class-action status for Bank customers who paid
overdraft fees arising from debit or ATM card transactions on
their consumer accounts.  The parties and District Court had put
the case on hold pending a ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court in an
appeal filed by West Bank on a similar issue under dispute in the
Hills Bank case.

On January 22, 2016, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the payment
of overdraft amounts on bank card transactions does not constitute
an extension of credit under the Iowa Consumer Credit Code and is
therefore not a violation of Iowa's usury laws.  Following the
Court's ruling, the plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit against Hills
Bank on January 28, 2016.

Hills Bancorporation (the "Company") is a holding company
principally engaged, through its subsidiary bank, in the business
of banking.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Mich. Suit Seeks Retiree Healthcare Until 65
-------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA COOPER, MORRIS MCKENNEY, ROBERT KOLINSKE, for themselves
and others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant, Case 1:16-cv-00471 (W.D. Mich., May
5, 2016), was filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other
similarly-situated retirees and their spouses and eligible
dependents, and surviving spouses to enforce their rights to
collectively-bargained retiree healthcare until age 65 pursuant to
the Labor Management Relations Act and the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

Honeywell International Inc. is a technology and manufacturing
company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     William Wertheimer, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM WERTHEIMER
     30515 Timberbrook Lane
     Bingham Farms, MI 48025
     Phone: 248-644-9200
     E-mail: billwertheimer@gmail.com

        - and -

     Stuart M. Israel, Esq.
     John G. Adam, Esq.
     LEGGHIO & ISRAEL, P.C.
     306 South Washington, Suite 600
     Royal Oak, MI 48067
     Phone: 248- 398-5900
     E-mail: israel@legghioisrael.com
             jga@legghioisrael.com


HYDRIL CO: Faces "Wisnoskie" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRAD WISNOSKIE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff V. Civil Action 4:16-cv-1184 HYDRIL COMPANY,
d/b/a TENARIS HYDRIL, Defendant, Case 4:16-cv-01184 (S.D. Tex.,
April 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant is a global oil and gas services firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
     Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
     THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
     2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
     Houston, TX 77018
     Phone: 713-868-3388
     Fax: 713-683-9940
     E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


JOHN MOORE: Faces "Collins" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
DUANE COLLINS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, V. JOHN MOORE LP, Defendant, Case 4:16-cv-
01227, (S.D. Tex., May 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages owed to him pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

John Moore is a full service company that provides its customers
with plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, electrical, carpet
cleaning, lawn treatment, pest control, remodeling, roof repair
and water damage repair.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.
     SHELLIST, LAZARZ, SLOBIN LLP
     Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 621-2277
     Fax: (713) 621-0993
     E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net
             rprieto@eeoc.net


KANSAS: Planned Parenthood Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF KANSAS
AND MID-MISSOURI, et al. v. SUSAN MOSIER, M.D., Secretary, Kansas
Department of Health and Environment, Case No. 2:16-cv-2284-JAR-
GLR (D. Kan.), move the Court for an order authorizing the
proceeding to be maintained as a class action on behalf of a class
comprised of all Kansas Medicaid beneficiaries who obtain, or who
seek to obtain, covered health care services at Planned Parenthood
of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis
Region and Southwest Missouri, and from their current affiliated
providers.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint these firms to
represent the class: Benson & Associates, Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, Slagle, Bernard and Gorman, P.C., and
Robert V. Eye Law Office, LLC.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1LmOLwFe

Planned Parenthood of Kansas & Mid-Missouri is represented by:

          Jamie Kathryn Lansford, Esq.
          Arthur A. Benson, II, Esq.
          BENSON & ASSOCIATES
          4006 Central Avenue
          P.O. Box 119007
          Kansas City, MO 64171-9007
          Telephone: (816) 531-6565
          Facsimile: (816) 531-6688
          E-mail: jlansford@bensonlaw.com
                  abenson@bensonlaw.com

               - and -

          Diana O. Salgado, Esq.
          Melissa A. Cohen, Esq.
          PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA
          PUBLIC POLICY LITIGATION & LAW
          123 William St., 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 261-7800
          Facsimile: (212) 247-6811
          E-mail: diana.salgado@ppfa.org
                  melissa.cohen@ppfa.org

               - and -

          Douglas N. Ghertner, Esq.
          SLAGLE, BERNARD AND GORMAN, P.C.
          600 Plaza West Building
          4600 Madison Avenue
          Kansas City, MO 64112-3031
          Telephone: (816) 410-4664
          Facsimile: (816) 561-4498
          E-mail: dghertner@sbg-law.com

The Individual Provider Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert V. Eye, Esq.
          ROBERT V. EYE LAW OFFICE, LLC
          4840 Bob Billings Parkway, Suite 1010
          Lawrence, KS 66049
          Telephone: (785) 234-4040
          Facsimile: (785) 749-1202
          E-mail: bob@kauffmaneye.com


KB HOME: Settlement in Wage and Hour Litigation Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
KB Home said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 8, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended February 29, 2016, that the mediated settlement in a wage
and hour litigation remains subject to judicial approval.

The Company said, "In May 2011, a group of current and former
sales representatives filed a collective action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Galveston Division entitled Edwards, K. v. KB Home.  The lawsuit
alleged that we misclassified sales representatives and failed to
pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 206-07)."

"In September 2012, the Edwards court conditionally certified a
nationwide class, and in May 2015, scheduled an initial trial
involving a portion of the plaintiffs for December 2015.

"In September 2013, some of the plaintiffs in the Edwards case
filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court entitled Andrea L.
Bejenaru, et al. v. KB Home, et al.  The lawsuit alleged
violations of California laws relating to overtime, meal period
and rest break pay, itemized wage statements, waiting time
penalties and unfair business practices for a class of sales
representatives.

"Although the case involved a putative class of individuals who
were our sales representatives from September 2009 forward, the
Bejenaru case was not certified as a class action.

"In the second quarter of 2015, plaintiff representatives in the
Edwards and the Bejenaru cases claimed $66 million in compensatory
damages, penalties and interest, as well as injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs for both matters.

"On November 18, 2015, we reached a tentative mediated settlement
with the plaintiff representatives in both cases that remains
subject to judicial approval.  In 2015, we established an accrual
for these matters, which reflects the tentative settlement."


KENYA: Nairobi Senator to Sue Over Huruma Building Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Nairobi Senator Mike Sonko says he will sue the county
government for criminal negligence following the deaths of 49
people after a building collapsed in Huruma.

Mr. Sonko said the county admitted liability by taking to court
the owners of the house, city planning and compliance officers
among others involved in the shoddy construction.

"It is criminal negligence where City Hall officers failed in
their duty by allowing the house to be built."

Mr. Sonko has instructed lawyers to file a case against the
Nairobi City County government and owners of the building for
negligence.

"We are not satisfied with only the engineers and owners being
charged. We want the families to be compensated," he said in an
interview with the Star on May 7.

The senator said the county cannot argue that this building was
put up before the life of the current administration.

"The fact is they inherited all the responsibilities from the
Nairobi City Council and have been in charge of inspecting
buildings ever since. They did nothing and this is the result,"
Mr. Sonko added.

A total of 49 people have been confirmed dead and 47 others are
still missing; 140 people were rescued.

The six-storey block collapsed on April 29, following days of
heavy rain in the capital.

The recovery operations have been extended to a river bordering
the apartment building.

The joint rescue team feared some residents may have tried to jump
to safety as the building collapsed.

This is the second class action suit to be filed by Mr. Sonko.

The first was after the Sinai fire tragedy in which 110 people
died and 116 others were burned in an explosion following a fuel
leak in Nairobi's Industrial Area.

The senator filed a case seeking Sh25 billion for the families,
and the ruling is due to be delivered later this month.


LAKHI GENERAL: Faces "Andrew" Lawsuit to Recover Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
KANAN ANDREW, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. LAKHI GENERAL CONTRACTOR INC., ABC
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CORP., ENDURANCE AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, GURCHARAN S. SINGH and TONY KAJA, Defendants, Case 1:16-
cv-02216 (E.D.N.Y., May 3, 2016), was brought pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Lakhi is a general contractor owned and operated by Gurcharan S.
Singh.  ABC is a roofing contractor owned and operated by Tony
Kaja.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Cafaro, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
     108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
     New York, NY 10018
     Phone: (212) 583-7400


LANNETT CO: Minnesota Laborers Fund Sues Over Overpriced Drugs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lannett
Company, Inc., Impax Laboratories, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals
Corporation, Allergan PLC, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Par
Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
02191-CMR (E.D. Pa., May 6, 2016), seeks damages, injunctive and
equitable relief, costs of suit, reasonable attorney's fees for
violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act.

Defendants are accused of engaging in a conspiracy to fix,
maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of generic digoxin or
doxycycline.

Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund is an employee welfare
benefit plan that includes paying medical benefits for
prescription drugs needs of its members. It claims it purchased
generic digoxin and doxycycline manufactured by one or more
Defendants at supra-competitive prices.

Lannett is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of
business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Lannett is a distributor
of generic digoxin and generic doxycycline.

Impax is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of
business in Hayward, California. Impax's generics division is
called Global Pharmaceuticals and is a manufacturer and
distributor of generic digoxin.

Par is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in Chestnut Ridge, New York. It supplies and distributes a generic
version of Lanoxin (R) (digoxin) tablets made by Covis Pharma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Bolognese
      Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
      BOLOGNESE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 320
      Two Penn Center Plaza
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Tel: (215) 814-6750
      Email: jgrabar@bolognese-law.com

           - and -

      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
      Kristen G. Marttila, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com
             khriebel@locklaw.com
             wjbruckner@locklaw.com
             raloclridge@locklaw.com
             kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

           - and -

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH LTD
      PNC Park
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Tel: (412) 322-9243
      Fax: (412) 231-0246
      Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

           - and -

      Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
      John A. Macoretta, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS P.C.
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 496-0300
      Fax: (215) 496-6611

           - and -

      William H. London, Esq.
      FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
      2201. Waukegan Road, Suite 130
      Bannockburn, IL 60015
      Tel: (224) 632-4500
      Fax: (224) 632-4521
      Email: wlondon@klmlaw.com

           - and -

      Christian M. Sande
      CHRISTIAN SANDE LLC
      310 Clifton Avenue, 18 00
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Tel: (612) 387-1430
      Fax: (612) 677-3078
      Email: Christian@christiansande.com


LEBO AUTOMOTIVE: Calif. Sup. Court to Decide on Arbitration Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that usually, it's
the plaintiffs lawyers who are itching to escape arbitration and
get back into the courtroom.

That made May 3 arguments before the California Supreme Court
something of a role reversal.

In Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, plaintiffs argue that an
arbitrator, not the court, should determine whether a company's
arbitration clause allows a matter to be arbitrated on a classwide
basis.  Meanwhile, the company's lawyers contend that the matter
should be treated as a "gateway" question and decided by the
court.

It was tough to tell from oral arguments -- the first-ever webcast
proceedings by the California Supreme Court -- which way the court
will rule.

Plaintiffs lawyers involved in the case say companies are trying
to have it both ways: the efficiency of arbitration in individual
cases, but the promise of appellate review when the threat of a
class arbitration proceeding looms.

Some plaintiffs lawyers also privately acknowledge that they see
better odds for getting approval to proceed in class arbitration
from an arbitrator who has a financial incentive to grab a big
workload.  After a series of Supreme Court decisions have routed
class actions out of the courts, that's a benefit the plaintiffs
bar wants to hang on to.

Wendy McGuire Coats -- wcoats@laborlawyers.com -- of Fisher &
Phillips, who argued on behalf of Lebo Automotive Inc., told the
justices that there is too much at stake for the arbitrator to
make the call on class proceedings.

If an arbitrator makes a mistake in individual arbitration,
there's a small price to pay for the company, she argued.  "If
we're now put into class arbitration," Ms. Coats said, "that takes
a $200,000 case to a $2 billion case . . . with virtually none of
the appellate review protections that would [be] and are a part of
traditional class litigation."

That notion -- that high-stakes financial exposure necessitates
court intervention -- seemed to draw skepticism from some of the
justices.  Justice Leondra Kruger prodded Coats on whether her
argument was that arbitrators can't be trusted to handle decisions
when the consequences of an error are "vast."

At that, Ms. Coats hedged, emphasizing that only courts have the
authority to determine whether an agreement permits
"arbitrability" between only two parties, or between one party and
an entire class.

The case stems from a bias suit brought against a California car
dealership by Timothy Sandquist.  Mr. Sandquist, who is black,
says that he and other employees were subjected to harassment and
passed over for promotions because of their race.

He filed a class action but was routed into arbitration by a trial
court, which found that he could only proceed on an individual
basis.  The California Court of Appeal for the Second District
reversed that decision in 2014.

Technically speaking, the matter before the court is whether
letting a class arbitration move forward is a "procedural"
question or a "gateway" question.  Ms. Coats argued that it's the
latter, and thus should be decided by a court, according to U.S.
Supreme Court case law.  Her opponents argue it's procedural and
should be decided by the arbitrator.

Paul Bland, executive director of Public Justice, argued for
Mr. Sandquist.  Mr. Bland accused Coats of doing "violence to the
English language" by trying to say the question is not procedural
simply because it's consequential.


LYFT: Drivers Sue Over Prime-Time Rider Fees
--------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Lyft skims money from prime-
time ride fees from drivers though it promises not to, drivers say
in a federal class action in San Francisco.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Has Deals to Settle 3,900 INFUSE Claims at March 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
January 29, 2016, Medtronic PLC estimates law firms representing
approximately 6,000 claimants have asserted or intend to assert
personal injury claims against Medtronic in the U.S. state and
federal courts involving the INFUSE bone graft product. As of
March 1, 2016, the Company has reached agreements to settle
approximately 3,900 of these claims. The Company recorded an
additional expense of $26 million in the second quarter of fiscal
year 2016 related to probable and reasonably estimable damages in
connection with this matter.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Settled 4,200 Pelvic Mesh Claims as of March 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
January 29, 2016, Medtronic PLC said that the Company, through the
acquisition of Covidien, is involved in litigation in various
state and federal courts against manufacturers of pelvic mesh
products alleging personal injuries resulting from the
implantation of those products. Two subsidiaries of Covidien
supplied pelvic mesh products to one of the manufacturers, C.R.
Bard (Bard), named in the litigation. The litigation includes a
federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of West Virginia and cases in various state
courts and jurisdictions outside the U.S. Generally, complaints
allege design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of
warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and
loss of consortium claims. In July 2015, the Company and Bard
agreed that Bard would pay the Company $121 million towards the
settlement of 11,000 of these claims. The $121 million settlement
was recorded as an opening balance sheet adjustment related to the
Covidien acquisition in the first quarter of fiscal year 2016.
That agreement does not resolve the dispute between the Company
and Bard with respect to claims that do not settle, if any. As
part of the agreement, the Company and Bard agreed to dismiss
without prejudice their pending litigation with respect to Bard's
obligation to defend and indemnify the Company. The Company
estimates law firms representing approximately 15,800 claimants
have asserted or may assert claims involving products manufactured
by Covidien's subsidiaries. As of March 1, 2016, the Company has
reached agreements to settle approximately 4,200 of these claims.


MEDTRONIC PLC: W.Va. Pipe Trades Appeal Ongoing Before 8th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appellate case, West Virginia Pipe Trades et al. v. Medtronic
Inc et al., case number 15-3468, (8th Cir.), is underway, with
both parties having filed briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit.

In its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
January 29, 2016, Medtronic PLC said West Virginia Pipe Trades and
Phil Pace, on June 27, 2013 and July 3, 2013, respectively, filed
putative class action complaints against Medtronic, Inc. and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, alleging that the defendants made false and
misleading public statements regarding the INFUSE Bone Graft
product during the period of December 8, 2010 through August 3,
2011. The matters were consolidated in September, 2013, and in the
consolidated complaint plaintiffs alleged a class period of
September 28, 2010 through August 3, 2011.

On September 30, 2015, the Court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment in the consolidated matters.  A copy of the Chief
District Judge John R. Tunheim's Sept. 30 ruling is available at
https://is.gd/2jE78q from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

Carmen Germaine, writing for Law360, reported in March 2016, that
Medtronic has filed a response brief urging the Eighth Circuit to
affirm the dismissal order, saying the investors filed the suit
several years after the allegations had come out.

"As the court rightly recognized, materials in the public domain -
- including in press accounts and prior litigation -- would have
made it possible for a reasonable plaintiff to discover the facts
constituting the alleged violation no later than June 23, 2011,
more than two years before plaintiffs filed their complaint,"
Medtronic said in the brief, the report said.

The report noted that the stockholders said in a brief filed in
January this year that Judge Tunheim had said the earlier investor
suit only put them on notice of "some aspects" of their claims,
and arguing they couldn't have discovered all of the facts before
an October 2012 report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance
alleging that Medtronic had actually drafted and edited the
researchers' studies.

According to the report, Medtronic replied that the investors were
mischaracterizing Judge Tunheim's view of the previous class
action, which settled in 2012 for $85 million, saying they had
quoted only a section of a footnote.  The entire note, cited by
Medtronic, said that although the previous action concerned only
off-label sales of Infuse, the "on-label/off-label distinction is
not so great that the . . . litigation could not put the
plaintiffs on notice as to some aspects of their claims."

The investors are represented by Susan K. Alexander, Andrew S.
Love, Shawn A. Williams, Christopher M. Wood, Arthur C. Leahy,
Danielle S. Myers, Susannah R. Conn of Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP and James M. Hughes, David P. Abel and Christopher F.
Moriarty of Motley Rice, Carolyn G. Anderson, Anne T. Regan and
Brian C. Gudmundson of Zimmerman Reed PLLP and Warren Price III
and Robert A. Marks of Price Okamoto Himeno Lum.

Medtronic and the individual defendants are represented by:

     Linda T. Coberly, Esq.
     Alexandra J. Schaller, Esq.
     Winston & Strawn LLP
     35 W. Wacker Drive
     Chicago, IL 60601-9703
     Tel: (312) 558-5600
     Fax: (312) 558-5700
     E-mail: lcoberly@winston.com
             aschaller@winston.com

          - and -

     Andrew C. Nichols, Esq.
     Winston & Strawn LLP
     1700 K Street, N.W.
     Washington, D.C. 20006-3817
     Tel: (202) 282-5000
     Fax: (202) 282-5100
     E-mail: anichols@winston.com

          - and -

     James K. Langdon, Esq.
     Theresa M. Bevilacqua, Esq.
     Kristin K. Zinsmaster, Esq.
     Benjamin L. Ellison, Esq.
     Dorsey & Whitney LLP
     50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500
     Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
     Tel: (612) 340-2600
     E-mail: langdon.jim@dorsey.com
             bevilacqua.theresa@dorsey.com
             zinsmaster.kristin@dorsey.com
             ellison.benjamin@dorsey.com


MEDTRONIC PLC: Minnesota Supreme Court Appeal Underway
------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
January 29, 2016, Medtronic PLC said it has petitioned the
Minnesota Supreme Court to review the decision of the Minnesota
State Court of Appeals in a shareholder class action related to
the acquisition of Covidien.

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking
to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien. The lawsuit
named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic,
Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and alleged
that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders
with regard to the then-potential acquisition. On August 21, 2014,
Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder class action in
Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also seeking an
injunction to prevent the potential Covidien acquisition. In
September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were
consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien
transaction. On December 30, 2014, a hearing was held on
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and on defendants'
motion to dismiss.

On January 2, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued its opinion.
On March 20, 2015, the Court issued its order and opinion granting
Medtronic's motion to dismiss the case. In May of 2015, the
plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of 2016, the Minnesota
State Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. A
copy of the Jan. 25 Remand Order is available at
https://is.gd/pZvv31 from Leagle.com.  In February of 2016, the
Company petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the
decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals.

Counsel for Appellant:

     Vernon J. Vander Weide, Esq.
     Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
     Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
     Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen, P.L.L.P.
     100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
     Tel: 612-339-6900
     Fax: 612-339-0981
     E-mail: vjvanderweide@locklaw.com
             gmfishbein@locklaw.com
             ralockridge@locklaw.com

          - and -

     Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
     James S. Notis, Esq.
     Jennifer Sarnelli, Eq.
     Gardy & Notis, LLP
     Tower 56
     126 East 56th Street
     New York, NY 10022
     E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
             jnotis@gardylaw.com
             jsarnelli@gardylaw.com

          - and -

     Emily Komlossy, Esq.
     Ross Appel, Esq.
     Komlossy Law, P.A.
     2131 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 408
     Hollywood, FL 33020
     Tel: (855)858-1233
     E-mail: eck@komlossylaw.com
             raa@komlossylaw.com

Counsel for Respondents are:

     James K. Langdon, Esq.
     Michelle S. Grant, Esq.
     James K. Nichols, Esq.
     Dorsey & Whitney LLP
     50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500
     Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
     Tel: (612) 340-2600
     E-mail: langdon.jim@dorsey.com
             grant.michelle@dorsey.com
             nichols.james@dorsey.com


MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces Calif. Suit Over "Defective" HVAC Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------
MANAN BHATT, LISA RUH, SUNIL AMIN, and TRUSHAR PATEL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-03171 (C.D. Cal.,
May 9, 2016), is a purported class action complaint for (1)
Violations of California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (2)
Violations of Unfair Competition Law (3) Breach of Implied
Warranty Pursuant to Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
(4) Breach of Express Warranty - Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
(5) Breach of Implied Warranty (6) Breach of Implied Warranty -
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (7) Violations of Georgia Fair
Business Practices Act (8) Violations of Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act (9) Breach of Implied Warranty of
Merchantability (10) Fraud by Concealment (11) Unjust Enrichment.
The Plaintiffs claim that the HVAC Systems manufactured,
distributed, and/or sold by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, and/or its
related subsidiaries or affiliates are defective.

MERCEDES-BENZ is engaged in the business of designing,
manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, warranting,
distributing, selling, leasing, and servicing automobiles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 956-1000
     Fax: (415) 956-1008
     E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com

         - and -

     Annika K. Martin, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10013-1413
     Phone: (212) 355-9500
     Fax: (212) 355-9592
     E-mail: akmartin@lchb.com

         - and -

     Ketan A. Patel, Esq.
     CORPUS LAW PATEL, LLC
     PO BOX 1022
     Atlanta, GA 30290
     Phone: (678) 597-8020
     Fax: (678) 826-4700
     E-mail: kp@personalinjury-ga.com


MONDELEZ INT'L: "Bush" Suit Alleges Deceit in Go-Paks Packaging
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY BUSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., MONDELEZ
GLOBAL, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Defendants, Case
3:16-cv-02460-JCS (N.D. Cal., May 5, 2016), alleges that Mondelez
falsely and deceptively misrepresents the quantity of food
contained in each unit of Go-Paks (including Mini Chips Ahoy!,
Mini Oreo, Golden Oreo Mini, Nutter Butter Bites, Mini Nilla
Wafers, Ritz Bits, and Teddy Grahams) by way of its packaging.

MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., and MONDELEZ GLOBAL, LLC are the
owner, manufacturer, and distributor of Go-Paks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
     Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
     CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
     The Pershing Square Building
     448 S. Hill St., Suite 701
     Los Angeles, CA 90013
     Phone: (213) 788-4050
     Fax: (213) 788-4070
     E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
             sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com


NEW YORK: "Trowbridge" Case Seeks Speedy Trials for Misdeamenors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
tens of thousands of people languish in Bronx jails awaiting trial
for misdemeanors, making the constitutional right to a speedy
trial "illusory," four New Yorkers claim in a Manhattan federal
class action.

Lead plaintiff Christopher Trowbridge, a 42-year-old black man
from the South Bronx, sued Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the chief judge
and administrator of the state's judicial system.  Trowbridge says
his struggle with heroin addiction led him to several brushes with
the system, as well as detox and rehabilitation facilities. He has
been prosecuted six times in Bronx Criminal Court since 2008.

The Bronx Defenders, a nonprofit whose attorneys represent
Trowbridge and others, says the borough's backlog of cases "makes
it virtually impossible" to receive a timely trial.

"Justice delayed is justice denied," the 37-page complaint begins.
"The constitutional right to a trial -- a speedy and public trial
-- is the foundation of our adversarial criminal justice system.
The right to challenge the state's evidence and confront witnesses
in a meaningful and timely manner gives legal and moral legitimacy
to the system as a whole. For people accused of misdemeanors in
the Bronx, however, this right is illusory."

At the end of 2015, there were 12,445 misdemeanor cases pending in
the Bronx, according to the lawsuit.

The previous year, the Bronx had significantly fewer misdemeanor
arraignments than Manhattan, Brooklyn or Queens, but its backlog
was far higher, the complaint states.

Michael Torres, a 43-year-old father of two, said he had to appear
in court 14 times for a misdemeanor marijuana possession charge.
He said the court adjourned his case 877 days after his
arraignment, but he lost his job after too many absences.

"After waiting all that time, I wasn't even able to have my day in
court," Torres said in a statement. "I did everything I was
supposed to do, but the system failed me -- I joined this case
because I want to ensure this doesn't happen to others."

State standards require that 90 percent of misdemeanor cases be
disposed within 90 days, but the average age of misdemeanor cases
pending in the Bronx last year was 219 days, according to the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit comes a little more than a year after then-Chief Judge
Jonathan Lippman and Mayor Bill de Blasio announced a plan to
address the delays to shrink the population of Rikers Island,
which is under court supervision to reform what U.S. Attorney
Preet Bharara called a "Lord of the Flies" climate.

The plaintiffs seek class certification and "appropriate relief"
for constitutional violations.  They are represented by Scott Levy
with the Bronx Defenders and Matthew Brinckerhoff with Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady.


NEW YORK COMMUNITY: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
New York Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2016, that
a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") has been reached
regarding certain litigation relating to the proposed merger (the
"merger") of Astoria Financial Corporation ("Astoria") with and
into New York Community Bancorp, Inc. ("NYCB") pursuant to the
agreement and plan of merger (the "merger agreement"), dated as of
October 28, 2015, by and between Astoria and NYCB.

The MOU relates to six putative class action lawsuits filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau,
challenging the proposed merger and names as defendants Astoria,
its directors, and NYCB (collectively, the "defendants"). These
actions are captioned: (1) Sandra E. Weiss IRA v. Chrin, et al.,
Index No. 607132/2015 (filed November 4, 2015); (2) Raul v.
Palleschi, et al., Index No. 607238/2015 (filed November 6, 2015);
(3) Lowinger v. Redman, et al., Index No. 607268/2015 (filed
November 9, 2015); (4) Minzer v. Astoria Fin. Corp., et al., Index
No. 607358/2015 (filed November 12, 2015); (5) MSS 12-09 Trust v.
Palleschi, et al., Index No. 607472/2015 (filed November 13,
2015); and (6) Firemen's Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. Keegan, et al.,
Index No. 607612/2015 (filed November 23, 2015). On January 15,
2016, the court consolidated the actions under the caption In re
Astoria Financial Corporation Shareholders Litigation, Index No.
607132/2015 (collectively, the "Actions"), and on January 29 lead
plaintiffs in the Actions filed an amended consolidated complaint.
The amended consolidated complaint alleges, among other things,
that the directors of Astoria breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with their approval of the merger agreement, including
by: agreeing to an allegedly unfair price for Astoria; approving
the transaction notwithstanding alleged conflicts of interest;
agreeing to deal protection devices that plaintiffs allege are
unreasonable; and by failing to disclose certain facts about the
process that led to the merger and financial analyses performed by
Astoria's financial advisors. The amended consolidated complaint
also alleges that NYCB aided and abetted those alleged fiduciary
breaches. The amended consolidated complaint seeks, among other
things, an order enjoining completion of the proposed merger.

On April 6, 2016, defendants and lead plaintiffs entered into the
MOU, which provides for the settlement of the Actions. The MOU
contemplates, among other things, that Astoria will make certain
supplemental disclosures relating to the merger, all of which are
set forth below. Although the defendants deny the allegations made
in the Actions (including the amended consolidated complaint) and
believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under
applicable laws, in order to avoid the burden and expense of
further litigation, Astoria agreed to make such supplemental
disclosures pursuant to the terms of the MOU.

The settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to confirmatory
discovery and customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Astoria's stockholders. A hearing will be
scheduled at which the Supreme Court of the State of New York 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 Astoria
challenging any aspect of the proposed merger, the merger
agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to
final approval of the settlement. There can be no assurance that
the court will approve the settlement contemplated by the MOU. If
the court does not approve the settlement, or if the settlement is
otherwise disallowed, the proposed settlement as contemplated by
the MOU may be terminated.


PALOS VERDES, CA: Downplays Lunada Bay Boys' Alleged Harassment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Therolf, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that a
harassment allegations increased against a surfer gang known as
the "Bay Boys," Palos Verdes Estates officials dismissed the
problem as "urban legend" and discussed ways to avoid further
public and media scrutiny, correspondence obtained by The Times
shows.

The messages among City Manager Tony Dahlerbruch, Police Chief
Jeff Kepley and City Council members indicate that city leaders
repeatedly downplayed the alleged harassment by the Bay Boys
against other surfers at Lunada Bay.  The documents were obtained
through the California Public Records Act.

Beachgoers and witnesses have accused the Bay Boys, some of whom
are reportedly middle-aged, of bombarding outsiders with dirt
clods, slashing their tires and assaulting them in the water --
sometimes coordinating the attacks with walkie-talkies.

One alleged victim said she was sexually harassed and doused with
beer in retaliation for appearing in a news article about the
problems.

Earlier this year, an El Segundo police officer who says he has
been harassed by the Bay Boys joined other alleged victims in a
class-action lawsuit.

The officer, Cory Spencer, and Diana Milena Reed, the alleged
harassment victim, asked a federal judge to prevent members of the
gang from congregating at Lunada Bay, one of the state's most
coveted surf breaks.  The suit also targets the city of Palos
Verdes Estates, asking a judge to require officials to investigate
and prosecute crimes committed by the group of surfers.

The exchanges show that when Assemblyman David Hadley (R-Torrance)
had a conference call with city officials earlier this year,
offering to intervene with state resources, Mr. Dahlerbruch and
other Palos Verdes Estates leaders rejected the overture, saying
they feared it would draw more media attention.

Mr. Kepley rejected recommendations from former law enforcement
officers from other areas on ways to police the matter more
aggressively with sting operations and more frequent patrols,
according to an email he sent to a council member.

"This is an old story and one that I do not consider news or
worthy of news coverage," Mr. Kepley wrote in a memorandum that
also conceded that the Police Department had done "likely not
enough" to rid Lunada Bay of harassment.

Mr. Kepley declined to comment for this report.

In a March meeting with California Coastal Commission staffers
trying to promote public access, city officials argued that the
problem was merely "urban legend," according to a memorandum
Mr. Dahlerbruch wrote to the City Council.

Critics have long argued that locals treat the rock and sand shore
at Lunada Bay as if it were their own private beach. The
commission staffers suggested ways to make sure people from
outside the city can get to the water, including improved trails
and better signage.

Councilman James F. Goodhart said in an interview that none of the
public access proposals have received consideration from the
council.

The commission staffers had also said Palos Verdes Estates needs
to remove or get permits for a stone fort illegally built by some
of the Bay Boys at the shore's edge.

In another piece of correspondence, Mr. Dahlerbruch told the
council that the Lunada Bay Homeowners Assn. is urging the city to
focus on policing the bullying in hopes that "the existence and
use of the patio becomes irrelevant."

Mr. Goodhart said no staff recommendations to permit the fort or
tear it down have since been delivered to the council.

In a memorandum, Mr. Dahlerbruch reported to the council that he
also made a personal visit to the fort, where he received a
friendly greeting and was offered a beer.  He did not respond to
subsequent questions about whether the illegal alcohol use
resulted in a police response, and the city declined to
immediately respond to a request for any related police reports.

The lawsuit against the city alleges that some of the trouble has
been alcohol-fueled.

The city's municipal code prohibits alcohol consumption at public
spaces, including Lunada Bay.  "It doesn't bother me if they are
drinking beer there," Mr. Goodhart said.  "I don't know if it's
illegal or not on our coastline."

Said Kurt A. Franklin, one of the lawyers representing the
plaintiffs: "The problem of violence directed at non-resident
beachgoers at Lunada Bay is real . . . . If blaming victims of
perpetuating an 'urban legend' is the official position of Palos
Verdes Estates, it is disappointing."

The hostility toward outsiders is not unique to the Palos Verdes
Peninsula.  Surf breaks in Hawaii, Oxnard, La Jolla and Hollister
Ranch in Santa Barbara County have similar reputations.  In Lunada
Bay's case, it's the rocky reef and points of land on both sides
that helped earn its prized status, allowing waves to unspool as
one ridable ribbon.

And news about a group of largely affluent white surfers in a
placid community of multimillion-dollar homes terrorizing less
privileged, multicultural outsiders has generated stories in
publications around the world.

Some in the community have pressured city officials to support the
Bay Boys or at least to refrain from caving in to demands that
Palos Verdes make it easier for nonresidents to visit the stretch
of public beach.

"What threat are the Bay Boys to our city?" Robert Van Dine, a
longtime resident of Palos Verdes Estates, wrote in an email to
the City Council.  "The argument can actually be made that they
keep a cap on crime."

In a note to the city manager and police chief, Councilman
Goodhart acknowledged the residents' concerns. Regarding the media
focus on the Bay Boys, he said: "We need to be smart about this
unprecedented attack on our city."

Palos Verdes Estates, he said, should consider not communicating
with reporters to send a message that it would not tolerate
"sensationalizing stories about our city."

In recent weeks, the police chief and city manager have stopped
answering questions from The Times about Lunada Bay.

Complaints about the gang go back years. But videos that surfaced
last year have fueled new debate about access to the area.


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Cir. Heard Oral Arguments
--------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judges Harry Pregerson, Jay Bybee and N. Randy Smith of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 4 heard
oral arguments in an appeal from a district court's dismissal of a
shareholder class action complaint against Peregrine
Pharmaceuticals and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.  The appellate case is, Nathaniel L. Anderson v.
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., case number 14-55882 (9th
Cir.).

Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that, "On September
28, 2012, three complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (the "District Court")
against us and certain of our executive officers and one
consultant (collectively, the "Defendants") on behalf of certain
purchasers of our common stock. The complaints have been brought
as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include
allegations that Defendants violated (i) Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii)
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the interim results of our
bavituximab Phase II second-line NSCLC trial, thereby artificially
inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief."

"On February 5, 2013, the court consolidated the related actions
with the low-numbered case (captioned Anderson v. Peregrine
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-1647-PSG (FMOx)).
After the court issued two separate orders granting the
Defendants' two separate motions to dismiss, on May 1, 2014, the
court issued a third order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss
the plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice.

On May 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with respect to the
District Court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit scheduled oral
argument for lead plaintiff's appeal for May 4, 2016.

Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reported that during oral
arguments in Pasadena, California, Ronald J. Mann of Columbia
University Law School, representing named plaintiff Thomas Fahey,
urged a three-judge panel to reverse U.S. District Judge Phillip
Gutierrez's ruling dismissing the suit for a failure to allege
scienter, or that Peregrine Pharmaceuticals Inc. and its top
executives Steven King, Paul Lytle, Joseph Shan and Robert Garnick
intentionally misled investors about clinical trial results for
bavituximab, an experimental drug for the treatment of nonsmall
cell lung cancer and one of the company's signature products.
Mann argued that because the reports made by the company about the
trials were so glowing when even a cursory examination of the
trials would have revealed that they failed to live up to
regulatory standards, the company either must have known it was
making false statements or was so reckless as to be liable
regardless.

"They said these drug trials are magnificent, they prove this drug
is good; it turned out the trials were poorly conducted," he said,
according to the report.  "The things that they said about the
studies suggest a degree of verification and robustness that was
simply not true at the time they said it."

The class action was initially filed by named plaintiff Nathan
Anderson on Sept. 28, 2012.  In April 2013, Mr. Fahey was
substituted as named plaintiff in a consolidated complaint.

According to the Law360 report, Koji Fukumura of Cooley LLP,
representing Peregrine, urged the Ninth Circuit panel to uphold
that ruling, arguing that Peregrine initially only received
information about the results of the trial from the third party
that had administered it, and based its positive statements in
good faith on those results.

"Was this exaggerated? That's what the data said," he argued.
"There is no standard that says, by the way, when you get this
data from your biostatistician . . . you must stop and double
check every single thing."

The panel took the matter under submission, the report noted.

Fahey is represented by Thomas J. McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com
-- and Gregory M. Egleston -- gegleston@gme-law.com -- of Gainey
McKenna & Egleston, Patrice Lynn Bishop -- pbishop@ssbla.com -- of
Stull Stull & Brody and Ronald J. Mann of Columbia University Law
School.

Peregrine is represented by Koji F. Fukumura --
kfukumura@cooley.com -- Peter M. Adams -- padams@cooley.com -- and
Blake M. Zollar -- bzollar@cooley.com -- of Cooley LLP.

"We believe that the class action lawsuit is without merit and
intend to vigorously defend the action," the Company said in its
SEC report.

Peregrine is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing
novel investigational products that help utilize the body's own
immune system to fight cancer, also known as immunotherapy.


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending Against "Michaeli" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
January 31, 2016, Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said the
defendants in the "Michaeli" lawsuit has filed their answer to the
amended complaint.

The Company said, "On October 10, 2013, a derivative/class action
complaint, captioned Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., C.A. No.
8994-VCL, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against certain of our executive officers and directors.
On December 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended and
supplemental derivative/class action complaint. The amended
complaint alleged that our directors and executives breached their
respective fiduciary duties in connection with certain purportedly
improper compensation decisions made by our Board of Directors
during the past four fiscal years ended April 30, 2015, including:
(i) the grant of a stock option to Mr. King on May 4, 2012; (ii)
the non-routine broad-based stock option grant to our directors,
executives, all other employees and certain consultants on
December 27, 2012; and (iii) the payment, during the past four
fiscal years ended April 30, 2015, of compensation to our non-
employee directors."

"In addition, the complaint alleges that our directors breached
their fiduciary duty of candor by filing and seeking stockholder
action on the basis of an allegedly materially false and
misleading proxy statement for our 2013 annual meeting of
stockholders. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
recession of a portion of the stock option grant to Mr. King on
May 4, 2012 and the stock options granted to the defendants on
December 27, 2012, as well as disgorgement of any excessive
compensation paid to our non-employee directors during the four
fiscal years ended April 30, 2015 and other monetary relief for
our benefit.

"The defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint on
February 19, 2016. We believe that the derivative/class action
complaint, as amended, is without merit and intend to vigorously
defend the action."

Peregrine is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing
novel investigational products that help utilize the body's own
immune system to fight cancer, also known as immunotherapy.


PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs in Zoloft MDL Appeal Dismissal of Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the plaintiffs in 316 dismissed cases from the scuttled Zoloft
multidistrict litigation in Pennsylvania federal court have
appealed the judge's decision to end the MDL.

The appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
takes issue with "each and every part" of the April 5 decision by
U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania to dismiss the MDL.

Lead plaintiffs counsel Dianne Nast of NastLaw, while declining to
say whether she was optimistic about the plaintiffs' chances in
the Third Circuit, said, "Every time you file an appeal you're
hopeful."

In a statement, a Pfizer spokesperson said, "Pfizer believes that
the court appropriately granted Pfizer's motion for summary
judgment, which affirmed that the plaintiffs failed to produce any
reliable scientific evidence demonstrating that Zoloft causes the
injuries they alleged."

Judge Rufe had written in her opinion that while it hasn't been
proven that Zoloft doesn't cause birth defects, parties have
failed in their attempts to prove it does.

"Dismissal without prejudice under the circumstances of this MDL
and in the face of this essential defect of proof would work
against the fair administration of justice," Judge Rufe had said.
"The court recognizes that the final scientific verdict as to
whether Zoloft can cause birth defects may not be delivered for
many years.  Nevertheless, plaintiffs chose when to file their
cases, and the court concludes that for the plaintiffs who have
continued to pursue their claims, the litigation gates must be
closed."

She added, "At the end of the day, plaintiffs have failed to raise
a jury question on the necessary predicate to success in any case:
that Zoloft was capable of causing their injuries."

In December, Judge Rufe barred testimony of the plaintiffs'
general causation expert, Dr. Nicholas Jewell, a professor of
biostatistics at the University of California, Berkeley.  Judge
Rufe's ruling came after the dismissal of hundreds of noncardiac
birth-defect cases in the litigation over the summer--halving the
litigation in size.  Dr.Jewell was put forth as the expert for the
remaining, cardiac-related cases.  At its peak, the MDL numbered
around 600 cases.

As a statistics expert, Judge Rufe said Jewell would have to
explain why he believes that the positive associations between
mothers' use of Zoloft and cardiac birth defects, reported in some
studies, are accurate and not the result of statistical flaws or
biases and reconcile those studies that claimed there was no
increased risk of cardiac birth defects with his opinion.

According to Judge Rufe's prior opinion, Jewell "has deviated from
or downplayed certain well-established principles of his field,
and has inconsistently applied methods and standards to the data
so as to support his prior opinion.  It is improper for an expert
to take a results-driven approach to a question, molding his
methodology and selectively relying upon data so as to confirm his
preconceived opinion."

Earlier in the litigation, Judge Rufe had barred testimony from
the plaintiffs' noncardiac birth-injury expert, Dr. Anick Berard.


POM WONDERFUL: Supreme Court Upholds Ruling in Deceptive Ads Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for Law.com, reports that the Federal Trade
Commission has finally prevailed in a long-running dispute with
POM Wonderful over allegedly misleading claims about the health
benefits of the company's pomegranate products.

Without comment, the U.S. Supreme Court denied POM's challenge to
an appeals court ruling that upheld the commission's order to stop
making the unsubstantiated claims.  The company asserted, among
other things, that the order impinged on its First Amendment free
speech rights.

The high court's action leaves its commercial speech doctrine in
some uncertainty, supporters of the company said May 2.

"It's unfortunate that the Supreme Court ducked this excellent
opportunity to clarify the confusing precedents about misleading
speech," Cato Institute scholar Ilya Shapiro said.  "Regardless of
the scope of First Amendment protection for commercial speech,
businesses and consumers need certainty and stability here--and
they need it to come from courts, not through arbitrary and self-
serving determinations by executive agencies."

First Amendment scholar Ron Collins said he was not surprised the
court would decline review, in part because the justices are
inclined lately to "leave it alone" when asked to update or change
free speech doctrines.

FTC chairwoman Edith Ramirez applauded the court's rejection of
POM's appeal.  "I am pleased that the POM Wonderful case has been
brought to a successful conclusion," she said in a statement. "The
outcome of this case makes clear that companies like POM making
serious health claims about food and nutritional supplement
products must have rigorous scientific evidence to back them up.
Consumers deserve no less."

The commission first filed a complaint against POM in 2010
asserting that its advertising since 2003 falsely claimed daily
use of its products could prevent or treat ailments ranging from
heart disease to erectile dysfunction.  In 2012, an administrative
law judge ordered the company to cease and desist from making some
of the health claims unless they were supported by scientific
evidence. The commission affirmed the judge's decision.

On appeal, the D.C. Circuit supported the commission's actions
without de novo review, and stated that "the FTC Act proscribes
-- and the First Amendment does not protect -- deceptive and
misleading advertisements."  The decision did state, however, that
under First Amendment precedents, the commission went too far in
requiring two rounds of medical trials to support health claims
made by the company.  Judge Sri Srinivasan wrote the opinion, with
Judge Merrick Garland -- now a Supreme Court nominee -- and Judge
Douglas Ginsburg joining him on the decision.

In its appeal to the high court, POM insisted the ads were
truthful and urged the justices to use the case to rein in the
commission and other regulatory agencies.

"If this court intends its commercial-speech law to meaningfully
curb the speech-restricting choices of federal agencies going
forward, it should grant certiorari and resolve this disagreement
in favor of the rule its cases already require," the company's
lawyers wrote in their cert petition.

Thomas Goldstein -- tgoldstein@goldsteinrussell.com -- of
Goldstein & Russell is counsel of record on the petition, which
includes full-color reproductions of some of the POM Wonderful
advertisements at issue.  He declined to comment on the court's
action on May 2.

Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself in the case, as he has in
past disputes involving the California company.

Justice Breyer has not publicly explained his reason for recusal,
but it does not appear to be financial. Founders Stewart and Lynda
Resnick are sole owners of POM Wonderful and the parent company
Roll Global.


PRECISION CASTPARTS: Defending Suit Over Berkshire Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Precision Castparts Corp. said in its Form 10-KT Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2016, for the
transition period from March 30, 2015 to January 3, 2016, that the
Company, the Company's directors, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
("Berkshire") and NW Merger Sub Inc. are named as defendants in a
purported class action lawsuit relating to the acquisition of the
Company by Berkshire (the "Merger") that is pending in the Circuit
Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County.  During the
months of August and September 2015, eight separate lawsuits were
filed relating to the Merger.  The eight pending lawsuits were
consolidated by the court in December 2015.

Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on February 18,
2016, which generally alleges that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Company shareholders by, among
other things, agreeing to enter into the transaction for an
allegedly unfair price and as the result of an allegedly unfair
process. The lawsuit also alleges that the Company, Berkshire
and/or NW Merger Sub Inc. aided and abetted the alleged breaches
by the Company's directors.  The consolidated complaint seeks
monetary damages as the sole remedy.

Plaintiffs claim that their alleged damages will be proven at
trial but further state that they currently estimate damages to be
as high as 35% of the sale price or $80 per share, which would
equate to about $11 billion.  The Company believes that the
lawsuit lacks merit and intends to defend the claims vigorously.

Precision Castparts Corp. is a worldwide manufacturer of complex
metal components and products, provides high-quality investment
castings, forgings, fasteners/fastener systems and aerostructures
for critical aerospace and power applications.


PRECISION CASTPARTS: Defending "Murphy" Class Action in Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Precision Castparts Corp. said in its Form 10-KT Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2016, for the
transition period from March 30, 2015 to January 3, 2016, that the
Company, Mark Donegan ("Donegan") the Chief Executive Officer of
the Company and Shawn Hagel ("Hagel") the Company's Chief
Financial Officer are named as defendants in a lawsuit, Kevin
Murphy v. Precision Castparts Corp. et al., filed on March 25,
2016, in the United States District Court in Oregon. Case No.
3:16-CV-00521 in the United States District Court of Oregon, which
seeks to certify a class action of shareholders that owned Company
shares between May 9, 2013 and January 15, 2015.  The claims in
the litigation arise from certain allegations asserting the
Company, Donegan, and Hagel, committed Securities Exchange Act
violations from May 9, 2013 to January 15, 2015, by allegedly
making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to
disclose: (1) the Company was losing significant market share to
its competitors; (2) that this loss of business to competitors was
not, as the Company represented, a temporary decline in sales that
would reappear in the near future, but was allegedly instead a
permanent decline in demand for the Company's products; and (3)
that, as a result, the Company's positive statements about its
business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis
allegedly resulting in the Company's securities to be overvalued
and artificially inflated.   Plaintiffs have not identified a
damage amount, rather they claim that their alleged damages will
be proven at trial.  The Company has not been served with the
lawsuit at this time; however, believes that the lawsuit lacks
merit and intends to defend the claims vigorously.

Precision Castparts Corp. is a worldwide manufacturer of complex
metal components and products, provides high-quality investment
castings, forgings, fasteners/fastener systems and aerostructures
for critical aerospace and power applications.


PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement Approval Hearing Held
--------------------------------------------------------------
Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the court
in a federal class action set an April 7, 2016, hearing on
preliminary settlement approval.

On May 27, 2014, Cary Farrah and James H. Harrison, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the
"Farrah Case"), and on May 29, 2014, each of Paul Jason Chaney,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the
"Chaney Case"), and Jayson Dauphinee, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated (the "Dauphinee Case") (the
plaintiffs in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee
Case collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs"), each filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee against the Company, H. Craig Dees,
Timothy C. Scott and Peter R. Culpepper (the "Defendants")
alleging violations by the Defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
seeking monetary damages.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs in each of the Farrah Case, the
Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case allege that the Defendants are
liable for making false statements and failing to disclose adverse
facts known to them about the Company, in connection with the
Company's application to the FDA for Breakthrough Therapy
Designation ("BTD") of the Company's melanoma drug, PV-10, in the
Spring of 2014, and the FDA's subsequent denial of the Company's
application for BTD.

On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed joint
motions in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case
to consolidate the cases and transfer them to United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. By order
dated July 16, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee entered an order consolidating the
Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case (collectively
and, as consolidated, the "Securities Litigation") and transferred
the Securities Litigation to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee.

On November 26, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee (the "Court") entered an order
appointing Fawwaz Hamati as the Lead Plaintiff in the Securities
Litigation, with the Law Firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP as
counsel to Lead Plaintiff. On February 3, 2015, the Court entered
an order compelling the Lead Plaintiff to file a consolidated
amended complaint within 60 days of entry of the order.

On April 6, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") in the Class
Action Case, alleging that Provectus and the other individual
defendants made knowingly false representations about the
likelihood that PV-10 would be approved as a candidate for BTD,
and that such representations caused injury to Lead Plaintiff and
other shareholders. The Consolidated Complaint also added Eric
Wachter as a named defendant.

On June 5, 2015, Provectus filed its Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss"). On July 20,
2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed his response in opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss (the "Response"). Pursuant to order of the
Court, Provectus replied to the Response on September 18, 2015.

On October 1, 2015, the Court entered an order staying a ruling on
the Motion to Dismiss pending a mediation to resolve the
Securities Litigation in its entirety. A mediation occurred on
October 28, 2015, and discussions are continuing. On January 28,
2016, a settlement terms sheet (the "Terms Sheet") was executed by
counsel for the Company and counsel for the Lead Plaintiff in the
consolidated Federal Class Actions.

Pursuant to the Terms Sheet, the parties agree, contingent upon
the approval of the court in the consolidated Federal Class
Actions, that the cases will be settled as a class action on the
basis of a class period of December 17, 2013 through May 22, 2014.
The Company and its insurance carrier will pay the total amount of
$3.5 Million (the "Settlement Funds") into an interest bearing
escrow account upon preliminary approval by the court in the
Consolidated Federal Class Actions (see Note 9 to the financial
statements). Notice will be provided to shareholder members of the
class. Shareholder members of the class will have both the
opportunity to file claims to the Settlement Funds and to object
to the settlement. If the court enters final approval of the
settlement, the Federal Class Actions will be dismissed with full
prejudice, the Defendants will be released from any and all claims
in the Federal Class Actions and the Federal Class Actions will be
fully concluded. If the court does not give final approval of the
Settlement, the Settlement Funds, less any claims administration
expenses, will be returned to the Company and its insurance
carrier.

A Stipulation of Settlement encompassing the details of the
Settlement and procedures for preliminary and final court approval
was filed on March 8, 2016. The Stipulation of Settlement
incorporates the provisions of the Terms Sheet and provides for
the procedures for providing notice to stockholders who bought or
sold stock of the Company during the class period. The Stipulation
of Settlement provides for (1) the methodology of administering
and calculating claims, final awards to stockholders, and
supervision and distribution of the Settlement Funds and (2) the
procedure for preliminary and final approval of the settlement of
the Federal Class Action. The court in the Federal Class Action
set April 7, 2016 for a hearing on preliminary settlement
approval. If the Settlement is not approved and consummated, the
Company intends to defend vigorously against all claims in the
Consolidated Complaint.

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation formed
in 2002, together with its six wholly owned subsidiaries and one
majority owned subsidiary managed on a consolidated basis, is a
development-stage biopharmaceutical company that is primarily
engaged in developing ethical pharmaceuticals for oncology and
dermatology indications.


RESOURCE CAPITAL: Lead Plaintiff Filed Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
Resource Capital Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Douglas Drees, the lead
plaintiff in a class action lawsuit, has filed an amended
complaint.

The Company said, "On September 2015, Daren Levin filed a putative
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased our
common stock between March 2, 2015 and August 4, 2015.  On
November 24, 2015, the Court appointed Douglas Drees as the lead
plaintiff in the action, and thereafter entered a stipulation and
order directing the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint."

"On February 12, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, alleging that we and certain of our officers and
directors materially misrepresented certain risks of our
commercial loan portfolio and our processes and controls for
assessing the quality of our portfolio.

"Based on these allegations, the amended complaint asserts claims
for violation of the securities laws and seeks a variety of
relief, including unspecified monetary damages as well as costs
and attorneys' fees.  We believe the amended complaint is without
merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously."

Resource Capital is a diversified real estate finance company that
is organized and conducts its operations to qualify as a real
estate investment trust, or REIT, for federal income tax purposes
under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended.


RJ REYNOLDS: Izarelli Case Ruling May Impact Other PL Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christian Nolan, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that a Norwich woman who developed cancer after years of smoking
Salem cigarettes is one step closer to collecting a $28 million
judgment against tobacco manufacturer R.J. Reynolds.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that lawsuits against
cigarette manufacturers aren't prohibited by an exemption in
Connecticut's tort liability law.  The court was asked to decide
the issue by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
which is considering R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.'s appeal of the
award.

"For plaintiff's trial lawyers, the goal is to be able to try your
case to the jury," said Jeffrey R. White, senior litigation
counsel for the Center for Constitutional Litigation in
Washington, D.C. "I think what the [Connecticut] Supreme Court did
was update its rules to make sure that the courthouse doors stay
open to plaintiffs who can prove their case."

White, who submitted an amicus brief with Kathleen Nastri on
behalf of the American Association for Justice, said the state
Supreme Court ruling has broad implications.  "This extends far
beyond tobacco and cigarette cases," White explained.  "If
something is blatantly dangerous, it doesn't give the manufacturer
a free ride, or an escape from liability.

"There are an awful lot more injured workers trying to bring suits
against the makers of dangerous machines than there are smokers
suing tobacco companies," Mr. White continued.  "For the smokers
themselves, this obviously is a step in the right direction. [It's
now] much easier to get to a jury with the test the court
announced, though it's not necessarily a guarantee you're going to
win."

Barbara Izzarelli was in her early teens in the 1970s when she
began smoking Salem cigarettes.  She smoked heavily for more than
20 years.  In 1996, at age 36, she developed larynx cancer.  She
underwent a total laryngectomy, followed by radiation and
chemotherapy treatments.  She can no longer breathe through her
mouth or nose; she uses a tube in her throat.  Her diet consists
of soft foods such as pudding and mashed potatoes.

Ms. Izzarelli filed a product liability claim in federal court,
through her lawyer, David Golub -- dgolub@sgtlaw.com -- of Silver
Golub & Teitell in Stamford.  After a monthlong trial in April and
May 2010, the jury awarded $13.6 million in damages.  The jury
held that the Salem cigarettes made by R.J. Reynolds were
unreasonably dangerous and defectively designed and that the
company had acted with reckless disregard for the safety of
consumers.

However, jurors said Ms. Izzarelli was 42 percent at fault for
smoking all those Salems.  That reduced the initial award to $8
million.  But about seven months later, U.S. District Judge Stefan
Underhill awarded $4 million in punitive damages.  In 2011, Judge
Underhill added $15.7 million in offer of compromise interest.
Mr. Golub said his side had offered to settle for $400,000 back in
1999 when the lawsuit was filed.

Ms. Izzarelli's case was the first smoker's lawsuit against a
tobacco company to go to trial in Connecticut and the first jury
verdict against a tobacco company in New England.

One of the elements of the lawsuit was a strict liability claim
under the Connecticut Product Liability Act.  To prove such a
claim, a plaintiff must show that a product was in a defective
condition and unreasonably dangerous to the user.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has derived its definition of
"unreasonably dangerous" from comment (i) to Section 402A of the
Restatement (Second) of Torts, an influential treatise by the
American Law Institute that summarizes the general principles of
U.S. tort law.  The comment provides that "the article sold must
be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated
by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary
knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics."
At trial, the plaintiff presented evidence that the defendant
manufactured Salem Kings to specifications intended to get
nonsmokers addicted to nicotine and to get addicted smokers to
smoke more cigarettes without satisfying their addiction.

Following the 2010 verdict, R.J. Reynolds appealed to the Second
Circuit.  The tobacco company's lawyers argued that Connecticut
law excludes strict product liability claims against cigarette
manufacturers absent evidence that the cigarettes were
contaminated or adulterated.  The defense relied on a provision in
comment (i) stating that "good tobacco is not unreasonably
dangerous merely because the effects of smoking may be harmful;
but tobacco containing something like marijuana may be
unreasonably dangerous."

Because there is no Connecticut appellate precedent addressing the
"good tobacco" provision, the Second Circuit determined that the
issue should be certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The
court was asked to address the following question: "Does comment
(i) to Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts preclude
a suit premised on strict products liability against a cigarette
manufacturer based on evidence that the defendant purposefully
manufactured cigarettes to increase daily consumption without
regard to the resultant increase in exposure to carcinogens, but
in the absence of evidence of any adulteration or contamination?"

Justice Andrew McDonald authored the 27-page ruling.  "We answer
the certified question 'no,'" wrote Justice McDonald.  "It would
be contrary to the public policy of this state to incorporate the
exceptions in comment (i) insofar as they would immunize a
manufacturer from liability for manipulating the inherently
dangerous properties of its product to pose a greater risk of
danger to the consumer."

Mr. Golub, Ms. Izzarelli's lawyer, was pleased with the ruling.
"The ruling makes it clear cigarette companies don't really have
any immunity," said Mr. Golub.  "They were claiming they were
immune from product liability actions in Connecticut.  The Supreme
Court rejected that."

Theodore "Ted" Grossman -- tgrossman@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day
in New York, is lead counsel for R.J. Reynolds.  Mr. Grossman
downplayed the importance of the decision. "The Second Circuit
just had a question to ask the Connecticut Supreme Court," said
Mr. Grossman. "But the case is before the Second Circuit. . . .
It's part of a long process.  We'll see where it goes."

The state Attorney General's Office submitted an amicus brief to
the Supreme Court on behalf of the state Department of Consumer
Protection.  The state offices, for many years, have been
concerned about the tobacco industry and the dangers cigarettes
pose to consumers.  In 1996, Connecticut brought a suit against
tobacco companies alleging that they had participated in a
continuing course of deceptive conduct intended to mislead the
public, including children, about the health dangers and addictive
nature of their products.

That lawsuit, along with similar suits brought by other states,
led to a "Master Settlement Agreement" reached in November 1998 by
the attorneys general of 46 states, five U.S. territories, the
District of Columbia and the five largest tobacco companies in
America concerning the advertising, marketing and promotion of
tobacco products.  The companies also agreed to pay the states
billions of dollars annually.

"In filing an amicus brief in this case, our office sought to
ensure that our law properly protects injured consumers from
dangerous products," said Jaclyn Falkowski, a spokeswoman for the
AG's office.  "As such, we are pleased that the [Supreme] Court in
this decision did not adopt an approach that would have unduly
limited the protections offered to injured consumers."


ROLLINS-PCI: Faces "Combs" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Wage Laws
---------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN J. COMBS, 5123 Marx Drive, West River, Maryland 20778
Resident of Anne Arundel County, Plaintiff, v. ROLLINS-PCI
CONSTRUCTION, INC., 1302 Rising Ridge Road, Unit #9, Mount Airy,
Maryland 21771, Serve: Stephen D. Graeff, R.A., 3910 Rosemary
Street, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815, and PCI COMMERCIAL
CONTRACTING, INC. D/B/A ROLLINS-PCI, CONSTRUCTION, INC.
1302 Rising Ridge Road, Unit #9 Mount Airy, Maryland 21771, Serve:
Judith A. Roche, R.A., 1302 Rising Ridge Road, Unit #9
Mount Airy, Maryland 21771, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-01338-ELH (D.
Md., May 4, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Code Annotated,
Labor and Employment Article Maryland Wage Payment and Collection
Law.

Defendant Rollins-PCI Construction, Inc. is a private organization
that is engaged in the business of general contracting and
construction management.

Defendant PCI Commercial Contracting, Inc. D/B/A Rollins-PCI
Construction Inc. is a private organization that is engaged in the
business of general contracting and construction management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph Spicer, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454


SAINT-GOBAINS: Faces Suit Over Water Contamination in Vermont
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zack Huffman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Vermont towns have been alarmed by reports that their drinking
water has been contaminated with carcinogenic perflourooctanoic
acid, and residents filed a federal class action in Rutland, Vt.
blaming Saint-Gobains Performance Plastics for it.

Lead plaintiff James Sullivan et al. say the plastic factory and
its predecessor, ChemFab Corp., poisoned water and air in and
around Bennington and North Bennington for more than 20 years.
Reports of test results from Bennington spurred other towns and
residents in southern Vermont to test their own water and the
Vermont Legislature to pass legislation this year to encourage
quicker response and residents' ability to collect damages from
polluters.

Many Vermonters get their drinking water from private wells.
Environmental advocates were disappointed that this year's
legislation did not require testing of private wells near the
chemical plant.

The chemical, known as PFOA, also was found in drinking water in
Pownal, south of Bennington.

New Hampshire officials are concerned that drinking water may have
been contaminated with PFOA from a St. Gobain plant in Merrimack,
N.H. PFOA has been found in 100 to 200 private wells in New
Hampshire, and the number continues to rise, according to New
Hampshire Public Radio.

Saint-Gobain and ChemFab made Teflon-coated fiberglass fabrics
from 1977 to 2002 in Southern Vermont and "discharged significant
amounts of PFOA" into the air, soil and water, according to the
complaint.  PFOA repels water and oil, making it useful for Teflon
coating for non-stick cooking utensils.  According to a 2010 study
from the National Institutes of Health, PFOA does not occur
naturally, is most likely introduced to humans through drinking
water and can have toxic effects on the immune, liver and
endocrine systems.

The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in
March sampled 180 private drinking wells within 1.5 miles of
Saint-Gobain's plant and found that 116 contained PFOA, 105 of
them in concentrations about the state public health department's
limit for safe drinking water.

The DEC has declared parts of Bennington and North Bennington
"Designated Areas of Concern."

The four named plaintiffs live in the designated areas.

"As a result of the contamination of their private drinking water
supply wells with PFOA, plaintiffs and class members have consumed
and ingested PFOA over many years, with deleterious long-term
physiologic alterations and damage to their blood, liver, kidneys,
immune system, and other organs," according to the complaint.

Saint-Gobain is evaluating the claims, its spokeswoman Dina Silver
Pokedoff said.

"Saint-Gobain has acted quickly and openly since learning the
presence of PFOA in private wells, including funding bottled water
and point-of-entry filtration systems, as well as discussing
potential long-term solutions," Pokedoff said in an email. "We
will continue to work cooperatively with the state to address
concerns over the drinking water. Our priority has been and
continues to be ensuring the residents of North Bennington have
clean drinking water."

The plaintiffs' lead counsel is Patrick Bernal --
pjb@wittenetal.com -- with Witten, Woolmington, Campbell & Bernal
in Manchester Center.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Peck" Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit by Mickey Peck against SandRidge Energy,
Inc., has obtained conditional class certification, the Company
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015.

On November 18, 2015, Mickey Peck, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, filed a First Amended Collective Action
Complaint in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Energy, Inc., and SandRidge
Operating Company for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff alleges that the Company improperly classified certain
of its consultants as independent contractors rather than as
employees and, therefore, improperly paid such consultants a day
rate without paying any overtime compensation.

On January 14, 2016, the Court entered an Order conditionally
certifying the class and providing for notice. This lawsuit is in
the early stages and, accordingly, an estimate of reasonably
possible losses associated with this action, if any, cannot be
made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to
the plaintiffs' claims and the defendants' defenses are fully
disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any
reserves relating to this action.


SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an energy company engaged in the
exploration, development and production of crude oil, natural gas
and NGLs.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Griggs-Marler Suit Removed to W.D. Okla.
----------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the lawsuit by Lisa
Griggs and April Marler has been removed to the Western District
of Oklahoma court.

On January 12, 2016, Lisa Griggs and April Marler, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, filed a putative
class action petition in the District Court of Logan County,
Oklahoma, against SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC, and
certain other oil and gas exploration companies. In their
petition, plaintiffs assert various tort claims based upon
purported damage and loss resulting from earthquakes allegedly
caused by the defendants' operations of wastewater disposal wells.
Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of "all residents of Oklahoma
owning real property from 2011 through the time the Class is
certified."

On February 16, 2016, the defendants filed a Notice of Removal of
the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma. This lawsuit is in the early stages and,
accordingly, an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated
with this action, if any, cannot be made until the facts,
circumstances and legal theories relating to the plaintiffs'
claims and the defendants' defenses are fully disclosed and
analyzed. The Company has not established any reserves relating to
this action.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an energy company engaged in the
exploration, development and production of crude oil, natural gas
and NGLs.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: To Defend Against "Thieme" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Brian Thieme, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, filed on March 3,
2016, a putative class action petition in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
SandRidge Energy, Inc. and the Company's former CEO, Tom L. Ward,
among other defendants. Plaintiff alleges that, commencing on or
around December 27, 2007, and continuing until at least March 31,
2012, the defendants conspired to rig bids and depress the market
for the purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold interests and
properties containing producing oil and natural gas wells located
in certain areas of Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado and Kansas, in
violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Plaintiff seeks to certify two separate and distinct classes of
members. This lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly, an
estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this
action, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and
legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the
defendants' defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company
has not established any reserves relating to this action.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an energy company engaged in the
exploration, development and production of crude oil, natural gas
and NGLs.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: To Defend Against "Beadles" Suit in W.D. Okla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Don Beadles, in Trust
for the Alva Synagogue Church, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, filed on March 10, 2016, a putative class
action petition in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Energy, Inc. and
the Company's former CEO, Tom L. Ward, among other defendants.
Plaintiff alleges that since as early as December 2007, and
continuing until at least as late as March 2012 (the "Relevant
Class Period"), the defendants conspired to rig bids and otherwise
depress the amounts they paid to property owners for the
acquisition of oil and gas leasehold interests and producing
properties located in certain areas of Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado
and Kansas, in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of "all persons
and entities that, during the Relevant Class Period, provided or
sold to one of more of the Defendants (a) oil and gas leasehold
interests on their property and/or (b) the producing properties,
in exchange for lease payments, including but not limited to lease
bonuses."

This lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly, an estimate
of reasonably possible losses associated with this action, if any,
cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories
relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the defendants' defenses
are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established
any reserves relating to this action.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an energy company engaged in the
exploration, development and production of crude oil, natural gas
and NGLs.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: To Defend Against "Lowry" Class Action in Okla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Janet L. Lowry, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed on
March 24, 2016, a putative class action petition in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
SandRidge Energy, Inc. and the Company's former CEO, Tom L. Ward,
among other defendants. Plaintiff alleges that, commencing on or
around December 27, 2007, and continuing until at least March 31,
2012, the defendants conspired to rig bids and depress the price
of royalty and bonus payments exchanged for purchases of oil and
natural gas leasehold interests and interests in properties
containing producing oil and natural gas wells located in certain
areas of Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado and Kansas, in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Plaintiff seeks to certify
two separate and distinct classes of members.

This lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly, an estimate
of reasonably possible losses associated with this action, if any,
cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories
relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the defendants' defenses
are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established
any reserves relating to this action.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. is an energy company engaged in the
exploration, development and production of crude oil, natural gas
and NGLs.


SANOFI: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
John Ikard, writing for TheRacetotheBottom.org, reports that in In
re Sanofi Sec. Litig., 2016 BL 3051 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 06, 2016), the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted corporate defendant Sanofi and individual
defendant Christopher Viehbacher's (collectively, "Defendants")
motion to dismiss Meitav DS Provident Funds and Pension Ltd., and
Joel Mofenson's (collectively, "Plaintiffs") putative class action
asserting federal securities fraud claims.

According to the complaint, Sanofi, a global pharmaceutical
company, engaged in an illegal marketing scheme ("Scheme") to
artificially boost the sales of its diabetes product line
("Drug").  Plaintiffs alleged the Scheme consisted of funneling
millions of dollars in payments disguised as contracts to
Accenture and Deloitte, acting as middlemen, in an attempt to
induce pharmaceutical retailers and hospitals to favor the Drug.
Plaintiffs further alleged that Mr. Viehbacher, as CEO and a
member of the board of directors, was in a position to have
knowledge of the Scheme but failed to stop it.  When two
whistleblowers revealed the Scheme, an internal investigation
ensued and the Scheme was abandoned, which caused the Drug's sales
to slow and the share value to decline significantly. Plaintiffs
brought a putative class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased shares of Sanofi between February 7, 2013 and October
29, 2014 (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

To state a Section 10(b) securities fraud claim, a plaintiff must
plead the defendant: (1) made misstatements or omissions of
material fact, (2) with scienter, (3) in connection with the
purchase or sale of securities, (4) upon which plaintiffs relied,
and (5) the reliance was a proximate cause of their injury.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 9(b)
and 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the Plaintiffs failed to
adequately allege: (1) any actionable false statements or
omissions of material fact, (2) a strong inference of scienter,
and (3) loss causation.

A complaint alleging securities fraud based on misstatements must,
among other factors, explain why certain defendant misstatements
were fraudulent.  The court organized the alleged misstatements
and omissions into three categories: (1) statements on compliance
and corporate integrity; (2) Mr. Viehbacher's Sarbanes-Oxley
("SOX") certification; and (3) SEC filings, press releases, and
conference calls stating the growth of the Drug.

The court found Defendants' statements on compliance and corporate
integrity were not actionable under the securities laws because
they were examples of corporate "puffery" and could not mislead a
reasonable investor.  Similarly, the court determined Defendants'
statements made in SEC filings, press releases, and conference
calls were not actionable because they did nothing more than
characterize, "albeit it with more fanfare," the accurate
historical data: that the Drug's sales were growing during the
Class Period.  Finally, the court held that, since
Mr. Viehbacher's SOX certification was a statement of opinion,
Plaintiffs were required to plead facts demonstrating
Mr.  Viehbacher did not actually believe what he said.  Here, the
court found nothing alluding to Viehbacher's subjective knowledge
in the complaint.

Next, one way a plaintiff can establish scienter is through
"strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or
recklessness."  Plaintiffs argued such evidence derived from
Defendants' access to the whistleblower reports and internal
investigation.  The court disagreed and found the Plaintiffs'
complaint relied on "unsubstantiated conclusions" and did not
reference or identify specific facts, reports, or documents that
could establish circumstantial evidence of scienter.  Thus, the
court held Plaintiffs failed to plead a strong inference of
scienter.

Finally, to prove loss causation, a plaintiff may show: (1) cause-
in-fact proof, or (2) the loss suffered was foreseeable and caused
by the materialization of the risk concealed by the fraudulent
statements.  Plaintiffs theorized that after Defendants abandoned
the Scheme, the Drug faced less advantageous pricing in the
market, which caused the Drug to sell less, adversely affecting
the value of shares.  The court agreed Plaintiffs theory could
establish loss causation, but found no evidence Defendants' Scheme
actually materially inflated the Drug sales.  Here, the court
concluded loss causation could not be proven without evidence of a
casual relationship between the Scheme being abandoned and the
share price declining.

Accordingly, the court dismissed Plaintiffs' putative class action
asserting federal securities fraud claims.

Primary materials for this case may be found on the DU Corporate
Governance website.


SINAN KAPTAN: "Ochoa" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------
Gustavo Ochoa, William Ochoa, Edenilson Castro and Oscar
Villalobos, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Sinan Kaptan, Sel Kaptan and Euroasia Stone Work
Corp., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02295 (E.D. N.Y., May 6,
2016), seeks unpaid wages for overtime work performed, liquidated
damages, attorney fees, interest and all costs and disbursements
for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.

Eurosia Stone Work Corp. is a New York Corporation with principal
place of business is located at 1150 Broadway, Suite 105, Hewlett,
New York 11557 where Defendants worked as fabricators and
installers. They claim to be denied overtime and spread of hours
pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
      MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
      91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
      Hempstead, NY 11550
      Telephone: (516) 280.4600
      Facsimile: (516) 280.4530
      Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com


SINO-FOREST: Impact of OSC Case on Class Action Uncertain
---------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Posadzki, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
as the Ontario Securities Commission's case against Sino-Forest
nears its end, questions remain about how enforceable any possible
outcomes might be.

Lawyers have been delivering their closing remarks over the past
few weeks in what has been one of the most complex cases in the
OSC's history, encompassing more than 170 days of hearings, 22
witnesses, over 22,000 pages of transcripts and thousands of
exhibits.

If the securities watchdog wins the case, former CEO Allen Chan
and four other former executives of the now-defunct forestry
company could be permanently banned from Canada's capital markets,
or fined up to $1 million for each failure to comply with Ontario
securities law.

But some observers question how consequential such actions would
be because all five of the accused live in China.

"Even if the securities commission is entirely successful, what
purpose will it serve?" says Garth Myers -- gmyers@kmlaw.ca -- a
lawyer at Koskie Minsky who is representing Sino-Forest
shareholders in a class-action lawsuit against the former company
and its underwriters.

"Sino-Forest as a company doesn't exist anymore. The other
individual defendants likely will never sit on boards or be
officers of public companies again in any event, so it may be a
pyrrhic victory."

Established in 1994, Sino-Forest was an Ontario-based company that
conducted most of its business in China.  It was once the most
valuable forestry company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange,
with a market capitalization of $6 billion, before its collapse in
2012.

The OSC has accused Chan and four other former executives --
Albert Ip, Alfred Hung, George Ho and Simon Yeung -- of defrauding
investors by overstating the company's assets and revenue.

Defense lawyers have argued that what the OSC is calling fraud
were actually mistakes made by a rapidly-growing company, and that
Canadian regulators have failed to understand Chinese business
customs.

Regardless of who wins, Myers says collecting any fines that may
be levied could pose a challenge.

A memorandum of understanding between the OSC and the China
Securities Regulatory Commission could help on that front, says
Douglas Cumming, a finance professor at York University's Schulich
School of Business.

However, the bankrupt entity may not have the cash to cover any
possible fines.

"A tremendous amount of money was spent defending Sino-Forest and
its officers and inside management in the OSC proceedings that
could otherwise have gone to compensating Sino-Forest
shareholders," said Myers.

Sino-Forest has already burned through $60 million of the $62
million it had in insurance policies, and the bulk of that money -
- all but $4.2 million, which went to shareholders -- has gone to
defending the company and its former executives in legal
proceedings, said Myers.

Neil Gross, the executive director of investor rights group FAIR
Canada, says the case highlights how risky it can be to allow
emerging companies to use Canada's capital markets to raise money.

"Those risks have materialized, repeatedly, in frauds costing
Canadian investors enormous amounts of money," Mr. Gross said in
an email.

Canadian policy-makers should take some time to assess whether the
benefits to Canada's capital markets outweigh such risks, he said.

Carson Block, the chief executive of Muddy Waters -- the activist
investment firm that first blew the whistle on Sino-Forest -- says
that despite any possible enforcement hurdles, the money the OSC
has spent on the case is worth it.

"It signals that the OSC is willing to go the distance to hold
people accountable," says Mr. Block.

Muddy Waters released a research report on June 2, 2011, that
alleged Sino-Forest was a Ponzi scheme and accused it of massively
exaggerating its assets, causing trading in its shares to be
halted.

Nearly five years after that initial report, Mr. Block says the
case has been a lesson for investors.

"Sino-Forest opened the eyes of a great many Western investors to
the prevalence and scale of fraud in China," Mr. Block said in an
email.

"The hard lessons from Sino have protected investors from losing
billions more to China frauds."


SLM STUDENT: Investor Group Revised Suit v. Deutsche Bank
---------------------------------------------------------
SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 said in its Form 10 Asset-Backed
Issuer Distribution Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 10, 2016, for the distribution period from
January 1, 2016 to January 31, 2016, that a group of investor
plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint against Deutsche Bank
Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company ("DBNTC").

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 Trust Company Americas
("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") 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 (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 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.


STACEY ADAMS: Faces "Busacco" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUNE BUSACCO, Plaintiff, v. STACEY ADAMS, INC. and ABDALLA
IBRAHIM, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-02291 (E.D. N.Y., May 6, 2016),
seeks redress for an alleged systematic underpayment of minimum
wages and overtime pay, and for unjust enrichment by the
Defendants in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

STACEY ADAMS, INC. operate clothing stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Glendoval J. Stephens, Esq.
     CASTILLO STEPHENS LLP
     305 Broadway, Suite 1200
     New York, NY 10007
     Phone: 212-835-1400
     Fax: 212-835-1401


TAKATA: More Airbag Inflators Recalled for Replacement
------------------------------------------------------
John Hult, writing Argus Leader, reports that the already-enormous
Takata airbag recall got even bigger, with another 35 to 40
million airbag inflators called back for replacement.  There have
been 28.8 million recalled already due to concerns over possible
injury upon deployment.  Eleven deaths have been attributed to the
Takata recall.  The National Highway Traffic and Safety
Administration have now declared it the largest recall in the
history of the United States.  Some estimates say as many as a
quarter of the cars on the road in the country have been impacted.


TAKATA CORP: Hawaii Files Suit Over Defective Air Bags
------------------------------------------------------
Cathy Bussewitz, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the state of Hawaii is suing Japanese manufacturer Takata over
defective air bags they say threaten peoples' lives.

The lawsuit filed on May 13 in the First Circuit Court of Hawaii
also names auto manufacturer Honda.

Millions of Takata's defective air bags have been recalled because
their inflators can explode, spewing shrapnel in cars. Hawaii is
the first state in the nation to sue over the air bags, which are
blamed for at least 11 deaths worldwide and more than 100
injuries.

Independent reports have concluded that a chemical used in Takata
air bags -- ammonium nitrate -- can degrade when exposed to heat
and humidity, which can trigger explosions.

"We're particularly vulnerable here in Hawaii to the defect that
Takata has manufactured . . . we're not going to wait until
something like this happens," said Stephen Levins, executive
director of the Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection.

Takata switched to ammonium nitrate, a cheaper component for the
inflator of the company's air bags, despite the fact that it was
widely known to be an unstable and dangerous chemical, Mr. Levins
said. Honda was in a position where the company should have known
what was going on, Levins said.

"Clearly Takata has engaged in a deceptive manner in marketing
this, and actually has put profits, their own profits, over the
personal welfare and safety of people around the United States,
and around the world, and people here in Hawaii," Mr. Levins said.
"It's a situation that's intolerable, and we're not going to put
up with it."

Honda hasn't yet received the lawsuit so it can't comment, said
Chris Martin, a spokesman for American Honda Co., in an email.
Martin said Honda is cooperating with the government on the Takata
air bag inflator issue.

More than 70,000 cars containing Takata air bags have been sold in
Hawaii, according to the complaint.  The state is seeking
penalties of $10,000 per violation.

Earlier this month, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration said it was adding up to 40 million air bags to the
ongoing recall of 28.8 million air bags made by Takata.

"The dealerships have the obligation to fix this . . .
Unfortunately, they don't have sufficient quantities of parts on
hand right now," Mr. Levins said.

People can check whether their car is subject to the recall by
visiting the federal website www.safercar.gov


TEASERS: Face Class Action Over Dancers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Consuella Pachico, writing for Legal Reader, reports that after
obtaining a $1.2 million class-action settlement with a Key West,
Florida, strip club for not paying wages to dancers it treated as
employees, two lawyers have filed another federal lawsuit with
similar allegations against another club called Teasers.

In addition to two other lawsuits, this makes a total of three
similar lawsuits on behalf of dancers by Scott Atherton of West
Palm Beach and Chad Even Levy of Fort Lauderdale.  Their cases are
part of a growing movement nationwide to pursue Fair Labor
Standards Act cases against adult entertainment businesses.

The latest federal case in Key West is typical: The dancers
received no compensation, only tips from club patrons.  Further,
the dancers were required to pay a "house fee" to strip there, as
well as tip out the D.J., wait staff, security, and managers,
according to the lawsuit filed against Teasers.

The clubs classify the dancers as independent contractors, but
allegedly treat them like employees and pay them nothing.

"Teasers required the exotic entertainers and/or dancers to work
more than 40 hours a week while refusing to pay minimum wage or
overtime," the complaint says.

In court filings, the defendant has denied any wrongdoing.

In April 2016, a club called the Red Garter Saloon agreed to a
settlement in which it would set up a $1.2 million fund to cover
claims by close to 122 dancers who worked there between November
2010 and February 2016, with payments to range from $150 to
$9,450, depending on how long the dancers worked there.


TICC CAPITAL: NexPoint Advisors Drops Conn. & Maryland Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
TICC Capital Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that NexPoint Advisors has
voluntarily dismissed its lawsuits filed in Connecticut and in
Maryland.

The Company said, "On October 8, 2015, NexPoint Advisors L.P.
("NexPoint") brought suit in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut (the "District Court") against us, our
Board of Directors and our President (styled as NexPoint Advisors,
L.P. v. TICC Capital Corporation, et al, Civil Action No. 15-cv-
1465 (CSH) (the "Connecticut Litigation")). NexPoint alleged that
the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by making false or misleading disclosures, breached
certain legal duties, and breached our Bylaws by failing to
recognize NexPoint's director nominees. NexPoint sought (i) a
temporary restraining order prohibiting us from canceling or
rescheduling its October 27, 2015 special stockholder meeting (the
"Special Meeting") or altering the size or composition of the
Board of Directors and (ii) a preliminary injunction requiring us
to issue additional disclosures and recognize NexPoint's six
director nominees."

"Following the issuance of a temporary restraining order, on
October 23, 2015, the District Court denied NexPoint's preliminary
injunction motion insofar as it sought to require us to recognize
NexPoint's director nominees, and granted it in part with respect
to certain disclosure claims. On October 26, 2015, NexPoint filed
a motion seeking reconsideration of the denial of a preliminary
injunction requiring us to recognize NexPoint's nominees. The
relief sought by NexPoint in its motion for reconsideration was
denied on November 25, 2015.

"On December 2, 2015, we filed a supplemental proxy statement
containing court-ordered disclosures and on December 4, 2015, the
Company announced that the Special Meeting was rescheduled to
December 22, 2015. Thereafter, NexPoint filed a notice of appeal
concerning the denial of the preliminary injunction, in part, by
the District Court and sought interim relief from the United
States Court of Appeals from the Second Circuit. The Court of
Appeals denied NexPoint's motion without a hearing.

"On October 27, 2015, two stockholders of ours filed a putative
class action complaint in the District Court against us, our Board
of Directors, and our President (styled as Barnes et al. v. TICC
Capital Corp. et al., No. 15-cv-1564 (D. Ct.) (the "Class Action
Litigation"). Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the defendants
violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
breached the fiduciary duty of candor under Maryland law. The
complaint sought (i) an injunction requiring the defendants to
hold the Special Meeting only after corrective information has
been disseminated to our stockholders, and (ii) an injunction
requiring the defendants to issue additional corrective proxy
materials.

"On December 21, 2015, during the pending appeal of the
Connecticut Litigation, NexPoint brought a similar suit in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City (the "Maryland Court") against us
in a matter styled, NexPoint Advisors, L.P. v. TICC Capital
Corporation, Case No 24-C-15-007004 (the "Maryland Litigation").
NexPoint's complaint in the Maryland Litigation alleged that we
breached our Bylaws by failing to recognize NexPoint's director
nominees. NexPoint sought a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction requiring us to hold the December 22, 2015
Special Meeting (at such date or a later court-ordered date),
count votes cast at the Special Meeting in favor of NexPoint's
nominees, and retract prior statements that votes cast for
NexPoint's nominees would not be counted. On December 21, 2016,
the Maryland Court denied NexPoint's motions.

"On February 1, 2016, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
Class Action Litigation without prejudice; on February 2, 2016,
NexPoint voluntarily dismissed the Connecticut Litigation without
prejudice; and on February 3, 2016, NexPoint voluntarily dismissed
the Maryland Litigation without prejudice."

TICC Capital Corp. is a closed-end, non-diversified management
investment company that has elected to be regulated as a business
development company ("BDC") under the Investment Company Act of
1940, as amended (the "1940 Act").


TRUECAR INC: Defending "Rose" Lawsuit in Calif. Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
TrueCar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to
defend the lawsuit by Gordon Rose in California.

In December 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed by Gordon Rose in the
California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. The
complaint asserts claims for unjust enrichment, violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and violation of the
California Business and Professions Code, based in part on
allegations that the Company is operating in the State of
California as an unlicensed automobile dealer and autobroker. The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California consumers
defined as "[a]ll California consumers who purchased an automobile
by using TrueCar, Inc.'s price certificate during the applicable
statute of limitations."

On January 12, 2016, the Court entered an order staying all
proceedings in the case pending an initial status conference,
which was scheduled for April 13, 2016.

"We believe the complaint is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the Company in this matter," the Company said.

TrueCar enables users to obtain market-based pricing data on new
and used cars, and to connect with its network of TrueCar
Certified Dealers.  TrueCar also allows automobile manufacturers,
known in the industry as OEMs, to connect with TrueCar users in
the purchase process and efficiently deliver targeted incentives
to consumers.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Nov. 28 Trial Scheduled in Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Donald Trump will go to trial in
a class-action lawsuit against his now-defunct Trump University
after the presidential election but before inauguration if he wins
the White House, setting the stage for a president-elect to take
the witness stand.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel on May 6 scheduled trial for
Nov. 28 in the suit that alleges people who paid up to $35,000 for
real estate seminars got defrauded.  The likely Republican nominee
planned to attend most, if not all, of the trial and would
testify, Trump attorney Daniel Petrocelli said.

"He has very, very strong feelings about this case,"
Mr. Petrocelli told reporters.

Mr. Petrocelli asked for a trial after Inauguration Day on
Jan. 20, but the judge raised concerns about distractions if Trump
wins the election.  The attorney said the period between the
election and swearing-in is extremely hectic for a president-elect
but that it was preferable to holding a trial during the campaign.

The lawsuit is one of three that accuse Trump University of
fleecing students with unfulfilled promises to teach secrets of
success in real estate.

The San Diego suit says Trump University, which no longer operates
and was not accredited as a school, gave seminars and classes
across the country that were like infomercials, constantly
pressuring students to buy more and, in the end, failing to
deliver.

Mr. Trump, who appears on a list of defense witnesses for the
trial, has repeatedly pointed to a 98 percent satisfaction rate on
internal surveys.  But the lawsuit says students were asked to
rate the product when they believed they still had more
instruction to come and were reluctant to openly criticize their
teachers on surveys that were not anonymous.

Judge Curiel, a judicial appointee of President Barack Obama, has
been eager to get to trial and had planned for it this summer
before Mr. Trump's surge in the primaries.  The case was filed in
2010, making it the second-oldest on his docket.

Still, he expressed concern about a trial during the campaign,
partly out of concern for jurors' safety.

"Will they be able to stay clear of the media frenzy?" he asked.
"Ultimately that's my Number 1 concern."

Since the early 1980s, Mr. Trump personally has been sued at least
150 times in federal court, records show.  Only a handful of those
cases are pending, with the ones involving Trump University -- two
in California and one in New York -- being the most significant.

Mr. Trump has railed against the judge in the San Diego case,
calling him hostile and suggesting his positions may be the result
of Trump's stance on border security.  The likely GOP nominee has
noted Judge Curiel's ethnicity.

Mr. Trump said of the judge at an Arkansas rally in February: "I
believe he happens to be Spanish, which is fine.  He's Hispanic
-- which is fine."

Mr. Petrocelli said he would not ask for the judge to be removed
from the case, despite Mr. Trump's views.

"He's got very strong views about everything and he expressed his
own views," Mr. Petrocelli said.

Jury selection may begin shortly before Nov. 28, and the trial was
expected to last a month or longer, the judge said.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Uber & Lyft to Halt Operations in Austin
-----------------------------------------------------------
CNNMoney reports that Uber and Lyft spent more than $8 million and
bombarded voters with mailers, ads, phone calls and text messages.
In the end, it wasn't enough to convince residents in Austin,
Texas to vote against a new fingerprint requirement for drivers.

On May 8, Austin voted 56% to 44% against Proposition 1, which
would have allowed ride-hailing companies to continue using their
own background check systems.  The city will now go ahead with
plans to require fingerprint background checks and other
regulations.

Both Uber and Lyft have announced they will no longer operate in
the city as a result of the loss.  Uber would stop service on May
9, at 8:00 a.m.  Lyft said it will also "pause operations" on
Monday, May 9.

"Disappointment does not begin to describe how we feel about
shutting down operations in Austin," said an Uber spokesperson in
a statement.  "We hope the City Council will reconsider their
ordinance so we can work together to make the streets of Austin a
safer place for everyone."

The companies argued that fingerprinting relies on out-of-date
databases and makes it difficult to hire enough drivers in a
timely fashion.  Advocates for fingerprinting say it's more
effective at screening out potential criminals.

"The rules passed by City Council don't allow true ridesharing to
operate.  Instead, they make it harder for part-time drivers, the
heart of Lyft's peer-to-peer model, to get on the road and harder
for passengers to get a ride.  Because of this, we have to take a
stand for a long-term path forward that lets ridesharing continue
to grow across the country," a Lyft spokesperson said in a
statement.

Austin's vote was watched closely by other cities weighing
stricter background check regulations for drivers.  It's a fight
that has followed the ride-hailing industry across the U.S. They
were sued in California and have announced plans to leave Houston
over fingerprints.

The companies have followed through with threats to pull out of
other cities in the past, returning only when background check
rules were changed in their favor.  Negotiations still might be
possible in Austin.

"The people have spoken clearly.  Uber & Lyft are welcome to stay
and I invite them to the table regardless," said Austin Mayor
Steve Adler on Twitter.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Texas Suit Over "Safe Ride Fees"
---------------------------------------------------------
CHUCK CONGDON, RYAN COWDEN, ANTHONY MARTINEZ, JASON ROSENBERG, and
JORGE ZLINIGA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, RASIER, LLC, a Delaware corporation, and
RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-
02499-MEJ (N.D. Cal., May 9, 2016), alleges that Uber took its
"Safe Rides Fees" out of the fares that drivers charged riders on
minimum fare rides between April 2014 and November 2015 in breach
of written contract.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. offers ride-sharing service.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew A. August, Esq.
     BROWNS GEORGE ROSS, LLP
     l01 California Street, Suite 1225
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 391-7100
     Fax (415) 391-7198

         - and -

     John G. Crabtree, Esq.
     Charles M. Auslander, Esq.
     Brian C. Tackenberg, Esq.
     George R. Baise Jr., Esq.
     CRABTREE & ALISLANDER
     240 Crandon Boulevard, Suite 101
     Key Biscayne, FL 33149
     Phone: (305) 361-3770
     Fax: (305) 437-8118
     E-mail: aaugust@bgrfirm.com
             jcrabtree@crabtreelaw.com
             causlander@crabtreelaw.com
             btackenberg@crabtreelaw.com
             gbaise@crabtreelaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces FLSA Class Action in Chicago
-----------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that Uber is not
out of the woods yet.

Less than two weeks after striking a high-profile settlement to
end cases brought by drivers in Massachusetts and California, Uber
Technologies Inc. is already facing new suits as plaintiffs
lawyers jockey to advance the interests of drivers left out of the
deal.

On May 1, a Milwaukee plaintiffs lawyer filed a nationwide class
action against Uber in Chicago, arguing that the company has
failed to pay drivers the minimum wage and overtime in violation
of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit comes on top of a similar filing in Florida that dropped
the day after the Uber settlement was announced, and at least a
dozen other lawsuits that predate the $84 million settlement deal
in California are pending from Washington state to New York.  In
an interview on May 2, the New York plaintiffs lawyer who tried
unsuccessfully to consolidate labor litigation earlier this year
against the on-demand ride company said he is regrouping for a
second petition to the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.

The tangle of litigation against the company is a mess of its own
creation, said Brian Mahany, the Milwaukee solo who filed the case
in the Northern District of Illinois.

"They invited everyone out there to file a lawsuit," he said,
pointing the finger at Uber for failing to resolve the employee-
classification issue in the settlement.  "We would not have filed
if they had handled it differently."

Uber formalized a proposed settlement with plaintiffs lawyers
April 21 in a suit pending in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The agreement would create an $84 million
settlement fund and establish certain protections for drivers but
does not resolve the dispute over their designation as independent
contractors.

The Chicago suit appears to be the second since the peace pact was
struck.  Gerald Richman -- grichman@richmangreer.com -- of Richman
Greer in West Palm Beach, Florida, filed a similar suit against
Uber in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on April 22.

Mr. Richman said that his firm had been planning the lawsuit for
weeks but "accelerated" the filing after the settlement was
announced in anticipation of other follow-on cases.

The aim in filing expeditiously, he said in an interview, was to
position himself for a plum role if the cases are consolidated.
"There's some advantage to filing sooner rather than later,"
Mr. Richman said.

Hunter Shkolnik, a partner at New York plaintiffs firm Napoli
Shkolnik, is leading several suits against Uber in New York, North
Carolina and Tennessee, among other places.  Earlier this year,
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation rejected a bid
backed by Mr. Shkolnik to bring the pending cases together,
reasoning that the standards vary state to state for determining
whether a worker is a contractor or employee.

But Mr. Shkolnik said in an interview that in light of the
settlement and the new cases that emphasize federal issues, he may
again petition the panel to centralize drivers' claims against
Uber.  "I think we're going to see Uber II," he said.  An Uber
spokesman declined to comment on whether the company still opposed
consolidation.  Andrew Spurchise --
aspurchise@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson, who represented
Uber in those proceedings, did not respond to messages seeking
comment.

If the cases are joined for pretrial proceedings, there would
almost certainly be a clamor among plaintiffs attorneys over who
should lead the effort. "That's the next fight," Mr. Shkolnik
said.

A key piece of the settlement with the Massachusetts and
California drivers could make it harder for plaintiffs lawyers to
follow that litigation. Under the proposed deal, U.S. District
Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California would
vacate an order from December finding that Uber's latest
arbitration agreement can't be enforced until proposed class
members are provided with a new opportunity to opt out.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Trosper" Suit for FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
LORRI TROSPER, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND TRAVIS KALANICK, Defendants, Case:
1:16-cv-04842 (N.D. Ill., May 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and compensation, including overtime wages for
hours worked but not recorded or paid (off-the-clock work),
reimbursement of all expenses incurred in performing their work as
Uber drivers, and payment of all gratuities under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Uber Technologies Inc. is an American multinational online
transportation network company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian H. Mahany, Esq.
     THE MAHANY LAW FIRM
     P.O. Box 511328
     Milwaukee, WI 53202
     Phone: 414.223.0464
     Fax: 414.223.0472
     E-mail: brian@mahanylaw.com

        - and -

     JONES, GILLASPIA & LOYD, L.L.P.
     John Bruster Loyd, Esq.
     4400 Post Oak Parkway, Suite 2360
     Houston, TX 77027
     Phone: 713.225.9000
     Fax: 713.225.6126
     E-mail: bruse@jgl-law.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Cubria Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA CUBRIA, PLAINTIFF v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DEFENDANT,
Case 1:16-cv-00544 (W.D. Tex., May 4, 2016), alleges that Uber has
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
robo-texting thousands of unwanted text messages to the cell
phones of thousands of Uber users in Austin, Texas.

Uber Technologies, Inc. provides a smartphone application that
connects drivers with people who need a ride.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     L. Lee Thweatt, Esq.
     Joseph D. Terry, Esq.
     TERRY & THWEATT, P.C.
     One Greenway Plaza, Suite 100
     Houston, TX 77046-0102
     Phone: (713) 600-4710
     Fax: (713) 600-4706
     E-mail: lthweatt@terrythweatt.com
             jterry@terrythweatt.com


UNITED FOOD: Faces Ill. Lawsuit for ERISA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, by John Doe, her father and next friend,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNIONS AND
EMPLOYERS MIDWEST HEALTH BENEFIT FUND, Defendant, Case: 1:16-cv-
04947 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

Headquartered in Rosemont, Illinois, Defendant United Food and
Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefit
Fund provide group health care coverage for employees of retail
food stores, meat markets, nursing homes and similar industries
who are members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union in
the midwest region.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     George F. Galland, Jr., Esq.
     David Baltmanis, Esq.
     MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND, P.C.
     325 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 350
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.751.1170


WAL-MART: Shareholder Suit Over Bribery Allegations Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
Randall Chase, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
judge has dismissed a shareholder lawsuit over alleged bribery
involving Wal-Mart's operations in Mexico.

The judge ruled on May 13 that a shareholder lawsuit in Delaware
must be dismissed because an Arkansas judge had previously
dismissed a similar complaint.  Chancellor Andre Bouchard said the
Arkansas ruling precluded shareholders from pursuing the Delaware
lawsuit.

The lawsuits were prompted by allegations that Wal-Mart's Mexican
unit paid millions of dollars in bribes to speed building permits
and gain other favors.  The allegations spurred federal
investigations in the U.S. and Mexico, and a global anti-
corruption compliance review by Wal-Mart.

The Arkansas judge said plaintiffs failed to show it would have
been futile to demand that Wal-Mart's board address the alleged
misconduct before they sued.


WEST PUBLISHING: 9th Cir. Rules on Atty. Fees in Bar Prep Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that lawyers who secured a $9.5 million settlement in a conspiracy
case involving bar exam review courses will get a second chance to
seek $2 million in attorneys' fees, the Ninth Circuit ruled May 11
in Pasadena, Calif.

Lead plaintiff Stephen Stetson sued West Publishing, which offers
BarBri prep courses, and Kaplan in 2008, claiming the two colluded
to block competition in the market for bar review courses.

When he approved a $9.5 million settlement in 2013, U.S. District
Judge Manuel Real slashed the attorneys' $1.9 million request for
fees by 70 percent, finding they charged higher than market rates
and billed for duplicative work.

Writing for a three-judge panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Milan Smith
Jr. on May 11, found Real failed to specify the kind of rates he
relied on or why he reduced the attorneys' billable hours by 241.2
"as opposed to any other number of hours."

Lead class counsel D. Alan Harris of Harris & Ruble in Glendale,
Calif., said the class attorneys were "gratified" with the Ninth
Circuit's ruling.

"After nearly eight years of litigation, the Stetson case has
achieved its principal goal: today, in each of the fifty states,
Kaplan offers law school graduates bar exam preparation courses in
competition with BarBri," Harris said.

Taking on a case of this magnitude involving nationwide antitrust
conduct presents a substantial risk, Harris said, adding lawyers
who take such risks should be entitled to just compensation.

In the 16-page ruling, Smith found awarding the attorneys $585,000
was "such a large disparity" compared to the $1.9 million request
that it "requires a relatively specific articulation of the
court's reasoning."

The attorneys sought reimbursement for hourly rates ranging from
$125 to $800 per hour.

Real had concluded that $450 per hour was the reasonable rate for
attorneys litigating the antitrust class action in Los Angeles at
the time, but he didn't say whether that figure was based on
current or historic rates.

Additionally, the district court judge never considered whether
the attorneys were entitled to a risk multiplier or weighed the
factors identified in the 1975 Ninth Circuit ruling Kerr v. Screen
Extras Guild to inform his decision.

"Class counsel provided a detailed analysis of these factors,"
Smith wrote. "The district court briefly mentioned the factors and
then, without any analysis, dismissed them."

Real also reduced the attorneys' $50,000 request for cost
reimbursement to $20,500 based on "clearly erroneous findings of
fact," Smith wrote.

Real said the attorneys failed to support their claim for expert
fees, but the Ninth Circuit panel found counsel provided "almost
two full pages" explaining how the experts' input was crucial and
indispensable to their case.

Smith said the Ninth Circuit has reversed Real's denials and
reductions of attorneys' fees three times in a related case.
Because of that, the panel ordered that the case be assigned to a
different judge on remand.

"In light of the history of this case and related litigation, it
is clear to us that the district judge would have 'substantial
difficulty in putting out of his . . . mind' his previously
expressed erroneous findings and conclusions and that
'reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of
justice,'" Smith wrote.

Because the panel vacated the judge's ruling on attorneys' fees,
it also denied a separate appeal by six objectors to the
settlement, who sought their own attorneys' fees for getting class
counsel fees reduced and increasing the award for class
members."On remand, if the district court again reduces class
counsel's fee award, it can determine -- with specificity -- the
extent to which the objectors' arguments influenced its decision,"
Smith wrote.


WESTERN RANGE: Faces "Castillo" Suit Seeking Redress Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abel Cantaro Castillo, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. WESTERN RANGE ASSOCIATION, MELCHOR GRAGIRENA; and EL TEJON
SHEEP COMPANY, Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-00237-MMD-VPC (D. Nev.,
May 3, 2016), seeks damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

El Tejon transacts business in Nevada by, among other things,
employing shepherds such as Mr. Cantaro, who spend part of the
year grazing sheep.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alexander Hood, Esq.
     Dermot Lynch, Esq.
     TOWARDS JUSTICE
     1535 High St., Suite 300
     Denver, CO 80218
     Phone: 720-239-2606
     Fax: 303-957-2289
     E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org
             dermot@towardsjustice.org


WILLBROS GROUP: Still Defends Suit Over Earnings Restatement
------------------------------------------------------------
Willbros Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to
defend a class action lawsuit related to the Company's October 21,
2014 press release announcing the restatement of condensed
consolidated financial statements for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014.

After the Company announced it would be restating its Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas ("USDC") on October 28,
2014 seeking class action status on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock and alleging damages on their behalf arising from
the matters that led to the restatement. The original defendants
in the case were the Company, its former chief executive officer,
Robert R. Harl, and its current chief financial officer.

On January 31, 2015, the court named two employee retirement
systems as Lead Plaintiffs. On March 31, 2015, a consolidated
complaint was filed in which John T. McNabb, II, the chief
executive officer who succeeded Mr. Harl, was added as a
defendant. On June 15, 2015, a second amended consolidated
complaint was filed. The complaint in the case, now entitled In re
Willbros Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, arising out of the restatements of the Company's first
and second quarter 2014 financial statements, its statements
regarding debt compliance and liquidity, the decision to shut down
the regional business, the delay in filing the 2014 10-K, and the
determination that a material weakness existed as of December 31,
2014, and seeks unspecified damages.

On July 27, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case,
which is still pending. The Company is not able at this time to
determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this
matter. The Company believes the claims are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously.

Willbros is a specialty energy infrastructure contractor serving
the oil and gas and power industries with offerings that primarily
include construction, maintenance and facilities development
services.


WILLIS TOWERS: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in Meriter Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in an exhibit to
its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 10, 2016, that Meriter Health Services has
filed a Third Amended Complaint in its class action lawsuit.

On January 12, 2015, Towers Watson Delaware Inc. ("TWDE"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, was served with a Summons
and Complaint (the "Complaint") on behalf of Meriter Health
Services, Inc. ("Meriter"), plan sponsor of the Meriter Health
Services Employee Retirement Plan (the "Plan"). The Complaint was
filed in Wisconsin State Court in Dane County; on February 12,
2015, the Complaint was removed to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. On March 10, 2015,
Meriter filed a Motion to Remand, seeking to transfer the
Complaint back to Wisconsin State Court in Dane County. On
November 20, 2015, the district court granted Meriter's motion and
remanded the case back to the Circuit Court of Dane County,
Wisconsin.

On July 24, 2015, Meriter filed an Amended Complaint, to which
TWDE and other defendants filed answers on August 10, 2015.
Meriter filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 29, 2015.
Meriter filed a Third Amended Complaint on March 1, 2016.

In the Third Amended Complaint, Meriter alleges that Towers,
Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc. ("TPFC") and Davis, Conder, Enderle
& Sloan, Inc. ("DCES"), and other entities and individuals, acted
negligently concerning the benefits consulting advice provided to
Meriter, including TPFC's involvement in the Plan design and
drafting of the Plan document in 1987, and DCES' Plan review in
2001, Plan redesign, Plan amendment, and drafting of ERISA section
204(h) notices. Additionally, Meriter asserts that TPFC and DCES,
and other entities and individuals, breached alleged fiduciary
duties to advise Meriter regarding the competency of Meriter's
then ERISA counsel.  Meriter also has asserted causes of action
for contribution, indemnity, and equitable subrogation related to
amounts paid to settle a class action lawsuit related to the Plan
that was filed by Plan participants against Meriter in 2010,
alleging a number of ERISA violations and related claims. Meriter
settled that lawsuit in 2015 for $82 million. In its initial
disclosures, Meriter indicated that it seeks damages in the amount
of $135 million, which include amounts it claims to have paid to
settle and defend the class action litigation, and amounts it
claims to have incurred as a result of "improper plan design."
Meriter seeks to recover these alleged damages from TWDE.

On January 12, 2016, TWDE and the other defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Meriter's negligence and
breach of fiduciary duty claims.

Based on all of the information to date, and given the stage of
the matter, TWDE is currently unable to provide an estimate of the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss. TWDE disputes the
allegations, and intends to defend the matter vigorously.

Towers Watson & Co. is a global professional services company that
helps organizations improve performance through effective people,
risk and financial management.


WILLIS TOWERS: Bid to Dismiss Merger Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in an exhibit to
its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 10, 2016, that a motion to dismiss the
complaint in the case, In re Towers Watson & Co. Stockholders
Litigation, remains pending.

Five putative class action complaints challenging the Merger were
filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware,
captioned New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund v.
Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11270-CB (filed on July 9,
2015), Stein v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11271-CB
(filed on July 9, 2015), City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension
Fund v. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 11275-CB (filed on July 10, 2015),
Cordell v. Haley, et al., C.A. No. 11358-CB (filed on July 31,
2015), and Mills v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11423-CB
(filed on August 24, 2015).  The Stein action was voluntarily
dismissed on July 28, 2015.

These complaints were filed by purported stockholders of Towers
Watson on behalf of a putative class comprised of all Towers
Watson stockholders. The complaints sought, among other things, to
enjoin the Merger, and generally alleged that Towers Watson's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Towers Watson
stockholders by agreeing to merge Towers Watson with Willis
through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate
and unfair consideration, and by agreeing to unfair deal
protection devices.  The complaints also alleged that Willis and
the Merger Sub formed for purposes of consummating the Merger
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by
Towers Watson directors.

On August 17, 2015, the court consolidated the New Jersey Building
Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund, City of Atlanta Firefighters'
Pension Fund, and Cordell actions (the Mills action had not yet
been filed) and any other actions then pending or thereafter filed
arising out of the same issues of fact under the caption In re
Towers Watson & Co. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
11270-CB.

On September 9, 2015, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
and in Mills filed a consolidated amended complaint, which, among
other things, added claims for alleged misstatements and omissions
from a preliminary proxy statement and prospectus for the Merger
dated August 27, 2015.

On September 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
proceedings and a motion for a preliminary injunction, which
motions plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew on October 19, 2015.  On
December 14, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

Based on all of the information to date, the Company is currently
unable to provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss.  The Towers Watson defendants intend to vigorously
defend the lawsuit.

Towers Watson & Co. is a global professional services company that
helps organizations improve performance through effective people,
risk and financial management.



XOMA CORPORATION: Faruqi Appointed as Lead Counsel
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., appoints Joseph Tarzia as
the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Xoma Corp.
and its executives.  Mr. Tarzia's his attorneys, Faruqi & Faruqi
LLP, are named lead counsel.

The Court sets a further case management conference for May 24,
2016, at 2:00 p.m. to discuss the status of action and an
appropriate scheduling order.

Four movants sought appointment as lead plaintiff:

     (1) Joseph Tarzia, on behalf of himself, his wife, his
         three children, his sister, his sister's trust, and his
         cousin;

     (2) Xoma Group, a group comprised of a married couple and
         two unrelated individuals;

     (3) Nicholas and Kellie Exarhos; and

     (4) a group comprised of a married couple and three
         unrelated individuals.

XOMA said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015, that on July 24, 2015, a purported securities
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, captioned Markette v.
XOMA Corp., et al. (Case No. 3:15-cv-3425-HSG) against the
Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Medical
Officer.  The complaint asserts that all defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially
false or misleading statements regarding the Company's EYEGUARD-B
study between November 6, 2014 and July 21, 2015. The plaintiff
also alleges that Messrs. Varian and Rubin violated Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiff seeks class certification, an
award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Based on a review of the allegations, the Company believes that
the plaintiff's allegations are without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims.

Currently, the Company does not believe that the outcome of this
matter will have a material adverse effect on its business or
financial condition, although an unfavorable outcome could have a
material adverse effect on its results of operations for the
period in which such a loss is recognized. The Company cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may
arise from this lawsuit.

A copy of the Court's May 13 Order is available at
https://is.gd/lJn9ts from Leagle.com.

Joseph Tarzia is represented by Barbara Ann Rohr --
brohr@faruqilaw.com -- Katherine M. Lenahan --
klenahan@faruqilaw.com -- Megan M Sullivan --
msullivan@faruqilaw.com -- Nadeem Faruqi -- nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
-- and Richard W. Gonnello -- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP.

Xoma Group, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- and Phillip C Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com
-- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice.

Movants Cliff M Claycomb, Dwayne Leroy Davis, Lanae Davis, Douglas
S Reynolds, Movant, and Jason Wileman are represented by:

     Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
     Goldberg Law PC
     1999 Avenue of the Stars Ste. 1100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067

Joseph F. Markette, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Punzalan --
markp@punzalanlaw.com -- Punzalan Law, P.C.  Movants Nicholas
Exarhos and Kellie Exarhos are also represented by Punzalan Law,
P.C.

Defendants XOMA Corporation, John Varian, and Paul D. Rubin are
represented by Amanda Alison Main -- amain@cooley.com -- Brett Hom
De Jarnette -- bjarnette@cooley.com -- Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria  -- jsantamaria@cooley.com -- and John C. Dwyer  --
jdwyer@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

XOMA Corporation ("XOMA"), a Delaware corporation, is a
development stage biotechnology company with a portfolio of
therapeutic antibodies.


* June 12 Deadline for Comments on CFPB's Arbitration Proposals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erin E. Arvedlund, writing for The Inquirer, reports that the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) unveiled a proposal
that could allow U.S. consumers to sue rather than be subject to
mandatory arbitration. The agency is seeking comments from the
public until June 12

The outcome could be a win for the consumer, advocates say.

"We applaud the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for proposing
a strong rule to prevent lawbreaking financial institutions from
using 'fine print' arbitration clauses to ban class actions," said
Joanne Doroshow, executive director of the Center for Justice and
Democracy.

"Class actions are critical for holding companies accountable in
court," she said.  "Since most cases are too expensive and
difficult to bring individually, these ripoff clauses result in
the disappearance of claims and immunity for the wrongdoer.  The
CFPB has taken an important step to ensure corporate
accountability and protect consumer rights."

In announcing the proposed rule on May 5, CFPB director
Richard Cordray said, "Signing up for a credit card or opening a
bank account can often mean signing away your right to take the
company to court if things go wrong.  Many banks and financial
companies avoid accountability by putting arbitration clauses in
their contracts that block groups of their customers from suing
them."

But changing the rule could be devastating for small businesses,
according to a December report by the Small Business Review Panel.

One business owner believed he would lose a line of credit without
arbitration agreements to block class actions.  Another said that
the proposal would increase her business' borrowing costs, and
that drawing on its credit to pay litigation costs related to a
class action would raise warning signs for her lender.  Still
another stated that "mere exposure to class-action liability would
cause his business' lender to 'raise an eyebrow,' " the report
said.

Sylvia Aparicio, senior vice president of First Community Bank of
Texas, wrote: "One case could wipe out or seriously harm the
economic well-being of the bank, as well as its reputation.  You
don't have to be wrong to be put out of business."

As currently written, said Craig Wells, president and CEO of Cash
Plus, the CFPB's proposal "favors class-action lawyers' interest
above all others."

"The average consumer in the bureau's study collected only $16.87
in relief, while class counsel collected $97 million.  Consumers
will suffer by losing access to credit and other services when
financial service centers such as Cash Plus shut down due to
inevitable class litigation costs," he said.

Where did this CFPB rule-making come from?

In the 1990s, some financial-services providers began including
arbitration clauses in their form consumer agreements.

They could be used to block class-action litigation, and often
class arbitration as well.  When sued in a class action, companies
could use the agreements to dismiss or stay the class action in
favor of arbitration.

Discover, for instance, disclosed that it relied on arbitration
agreements for the express purpose of shielding itself from class-
action suits by credit-card holders, according to CFPB.

Then in 2006, Congress passed the Military Lending Act, which
prohibited the use of arbitration in loans and credit to active
service members, and their spouses and dependents.  In 2010,
Congress also got rid of arbitration for mortgages and home-equity
loans.  And the Dodd-Frank reform act itself called for CFPB to
get to work studying the arbitration issue and possibly spell out
new rules.

Comment on the proposal, using Docket No. CFPB-2016-0020, by any
of the following methods:

Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.

By email, via FederalRegisterComments@cfpb.gov. Include Docket No.
CFPB-2016-0020 in the subject line of the message.

By mail, to Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary,
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G St. N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20552.


* Plaintiffs Lawyers Benefit More From No-Injury Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Williams-Alvarez, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports
that so-called no-injury class actions, in which class members
can't show a clear-cut harm, primarily line the pockets of
plaintiffs lawyers, according to a recent empirical study.  As
you'd expect, plaintiffs lawyers and defense lawyers have very
different reactions to the study's findings.

The report, authored by Emory University School of Law professor
Joanna Shepherd, aimed to find out if no-injury class action
lawsuits are achieving the goal of compensating class members.
Shepherd and a team of researchers combed through thousands of
cases and, using certain criteria, identified a sample of 432
no-injury class actions resolved between 2005-15.

Of the roughly $4 billion in settlements and awards, about 60
percent (or roughly $2.4 billion) was made available to class
members, Ms. Shepherd estimates.  The problem is that much of that
likely went unclaimed by class members, she writes.  "Although 60
percent of total award may be available to class members, in
reality they typically receive less than 9 percent of the total.
In comparison, class counsel receives an average of 37.9 percent
of available funds--over four times the funds distributed to the
class."

In recent years, there has been an explosion of these no-injury
class action cases, in which plaintiffs often allege hyper-
technical violations of consumer protection statutes, such as the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which cracks down on
robocalling and spam messaging, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Defendants in these cases often argue that the plaintiffs can't
show an actual injury.

For James Beck, a defense attorney at Reed Smith, Shepherd's study
provides support for his belief that such cases do little to
benefit the public.  "If anything," he says, "I think the study
underestimates the degree to which these no-injury class actions
are just for the lawyer rather than anybody else."
Asked whether there's any benefit to class members from these
suits, Mr. Beck says, "other than maybe some kind of metaphysical
deterrence effect, no."

Not surprisingly, lawyers who bring these type of lawsuits tell a
different story.  Michael Caddell, senior partner at Caddell &
Chapman, a class action litigation firm in Texas, says it's
"demonstrably a false statement that lawyers get most of the money
in these cases."  What's more, he says, Shepherd has an agenda and
her research is "an example of a paid-for study by big
corporations."  Mr. Caddell points out that Lawyers for Civil
Justice, a group of defense lawyers, provided financial support
for the coding used to create the study's sample cases.

Ms. Shepherd's methodology is flawed, Mr. Caddell adds, because it
doesn't account for injunctive relief.  "Most class actions are
about two things: penalizing the defendant so that they will stop
[a certain] practice and injunctive relief to change the practice
going forward," he says.  "Shepherd is misrepresenting the
settlements and using that to make the point that she's already
decided she wants to make."

While some no-injury class actions might be brought in bad faith,
that's the exception to the rule, Mr. Caddell says.  "Of course,
there are bad, abusive class actions," he says, "but there are
also good class actions."  And more important, he says, "class
actions are a real force for correcting injustice."

Ms. Shepherd wrote in an email that she's "not surprised that a
class action lawyer would disagree with the results.  However, my
results are consistent with the results of several other empirical
studies."

And as for help from LCJ, "[I]t is standard for large coding
projects that require significant man-hours to gather data to
receive outside financial support," she told us. "[R]egardless of
the source of funds, no outside group has any control over my data
findings or any editorial discretion on what I say in my reports.
I'm an academic, not a paid consultant with an agenda."
Shepherd's findings add fuel to a long-simmering debate over
whether no-injury class actions should even be allowed, a debate
where there are clear lines in the sand. Critics argue that
without an actual injury, there is no standing because there is no
"case or controversy" as required by Article III of the
Constitution.  Plaintiffs counter that, even without a showing of
economic loss, these cases involve injuries and corporate
wrongdoing that the law is meant to redress. (The U.S. Supreme
Court will soon weigh in on the standing issue in a FCRA case,
Spokeo v. Robins.  But after Justice Antonin Scalia's death a 4-4
split appears likely.)

Ms. Shepherd says she's not taking sides in this debate, so much
as pointing out that these lawsuits only fulfill their purpose if
class members are actually compensated.  "A result in which
plaintiffs recover less than 10 percent of the award, with the
rest going to lawyers or unrelated groups, clearly does not
achieve the compensatory goals of class actions," she wrote in the
report.


* Retail Industry Faces Deceptive-Pricing Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Forshee, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that the
list reads like a who's who of the retail fashion world.  But it's
not the kind of list that companies are fighting to get on. J.
Crew Group Inc., Coach Inc., Burberry Group Inc., Tommy Hilfiger,
Calvin Klein, Carter's Inc. and OshKosh are among the latest to
find themselves named as defendants in separate deceptive-pricing
class action lawsuits filed this year.  They join at least 30
retailers, including Macy's Inc., Gap Inc. and Kate Spade, among
others, that have faced similar class actions.
And plaintiffs aren't asking for chump change.  One judge ordered
a retailer to pay $6.8 million, while another shopping chain
agreed to settle for up to $50 million.

Customers who once got a thrill out of paying only $29 for an item
with a price tag that states "Compare At" or "Originally Sold For"
$79 are now claiming that this marketing practice is deceptive.
They argue that certain items were never sold for the higher
price, and they would not have purchased the products were it not
for deep discounts.  These lawsuits have found their way into
courtrooms in California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.

Retailers started seeing scattered deceptive-pricing suits about
five years ago, when customers began claiming that factory outlet
stores were deceiving customers with their marketing tactics.  But
in more recent years, the lawsuits began to hit off-price
retailers such as Saks Off 5th and Nordstrom Rack.  They even
spread to online retailers such as Amazon.com and Overstock.com.
It was in 2014, though, that the landscape began to change.  Four
members of Congress wrote a letter to the Federal Trade
Commission, urging that it demand more transparency in outlet and
discount stores' pricing models.  The agency issued updated
guidance, but that was it.

James Kohm, associate director of the FTC Enforcement Division for
consumers, says the commission has had guidelines about fair
pricing since 1964. It has "used its authority in this area
cautiously," he adds, because it doesn't want "to do more harm
than good."  If the FTC did strictly enforce reference-price
advertising, Mr. Kohm explains, retailers would have to sell
merchandise at the higher price for a certain length of time, and
customers could miss out on discounts.

In the absence of regulatory enforcement, action heated up in the
courts.  In February 2014, a California judge ordered
Overstock.com to pay $6.8 million after he found that the Salt
Lake City-based online retailer "consistently used [advertised
reference prices] in a manner designed to overstate the amount of
savings to be enjoyed by shopping on the Overstock site."
In 2015, J.C. Penney agreed to settle a suit brought in California
for up to $50 million, and Michael Kors settled a
New York suit for $4.8 million. In each case the companies agreed
to change the language they used for comparison prices.

Much of the action has been in California.  The law there
generally requires that reference prices must have been sold at
the "prevailing market price" during the 90 days preceding the
sale offer, which is particularly favorable for plaintiffs. (Other
states that specify a time frame require far less.) And the judge
in the Overstock.com case ruled that plaintiffs did not have to
prove that they suffered harm beyond being misled.
Not all the lawsuits have succeeded--even in California.

Plaintiffs there sued Amazon.com in late 2014, but a judge
dismissed the suit since Amazon customers agree to arbitration
when they create an Amazon account before their first purchase. In
Massachusetts, suits brought against Kohl's and Nordstrom Rack
were tossed.  The judges ruled that consumers had not truly
suffered losses.  Judges in other cases ruled that plaintiffs had
failed to provide sufficient evidence that the advertising was
deceptive.

Still, the wave of filings isn't expected to slow down.  Perkins
Coie attorney Jason Howell -- JHowell@perkinscoie.com -- expects
that the pace will depend in part on how courts rule on the
pending cases, and how transparent advertisers are in setting
their prices.

Mr. Howell anticipates that more are likely to settle "given the
general expense, uncertainty and disruption of litigation."  But
they might not "if [companies] feel good about their legal
arguments, pricing rationale and litigation budget, and want to
set defendant-favorable precedent, at least in part to dissuade
copycat lawsuits."

Coach is one company that didn't expect to be facing this kind of
lawsuit.  In an interview in January, the luxury handbag
retailer's GC, Todd Kahn, expressed confidence in the company's
pricing. Coach customers are sophisticated and know if there is
value in a $200 handbag, he said, adding, "We are very proud of
what we offer."  But that didn't stop plaintiffs from suing in
California in mid-February. (Kahn declined to comment on the
suit.)

Gonzalo Mon -- gmon@kelleydrye.com -- a defense attorney with
Kelley Drye & Warren, believes there is a good argument that
consumers aren't injured by the practices being challenged.  His
firm represented Kohl's in its Massachusetts case. In February,
the judge in that case wrote: "There is no sum that could be
awarded to [the plaintiff] that could compensate her without
providing a windfall."


* Testosterone Replacement Therapy Study May Impact Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Balca, writing for CTVNews.ca, reports that a newly released
study suggests that prolonged treatment may be the key to reducing
the serious health risks commonly associated with testosterone
replacement therapy.

The controversial treatment is aimed at increasing testosterone
levels among men who are lacking the hormone.  The supplements can
be administered as skin patches, gels, implants or injections.

But the safety of hormone replacement therapy has come into
question in recent years, with several studies suggesting sudden
spikes in testosterone levels may increase the risk of heart
attack, stroke and prostate cancer.

In March of 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
agency placed heart attack and stroke warning label warnings on
testosterone supplements.

But the new study, authored by Dr. Robert Nam at the Sunnybrook
Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, suggests the length of the
treatment -- and not the drugs themselves -- may be the key to
making it safe.

Nam's study followed 38,000 men with low testosterone.  It found
that those who had got the lowest doses of the hormone showed
higher rates of heart attacks and strokes in their first two to
three months of treatment.  The therapy, however, had the opposite
effect on those who continued to receive the treatment for three
to five years.

"Men on it for at least five years have that protective effect, so
it is important to take it for a long time," Dr. Nam said.

The study could help men who would benefit from testosterone
replacement by abating some of their worries about the
controversial treatment.

And men like Stephen -- a patient who says his hormone deficiency
was making him sluggish -- have seen the benefits of the treatment
first-hand.

"More men will feel better," he said.  "It's not going to make you
superman, but it sure helps."

Dr. Nam said the study will help doctors determine whether
testosterone replacement therapy is appropriate for their
patients.

It also emphasizes the need to closely monitor patients who have
just started the treatment.

But the findings may also compromise a number of class-action
lawsuits launched throughout Canada and the United States by men
who claim they're been harmed by the treatment.

But lawyer Jill S. McCartney said: "There's constantly more
questions being answered, more research to be done," she said.
"It's a moving target."

Low testosterone affects about 20 per cent of men over the age of
60 and about half of men over 80.

The study was conducted by a group of physicians from Ontario
healthcare facilities, including Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
and Mount Sinai Hospital, and highlighted at a American Urological
Association meeting in San Diego.  The study was funded by the
Physicians' Services Incorporated Foundation and Ajmera Family
Chair in Urologic Oncology.


                            *********

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  * * *