CAR_Public/160523.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, May 23, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 102



                            Headlines


ADVANCED MICRO: Court Denies Request for 28 Fact Depositions
AFFYMETRIX INC: Deal Reached in "Cheah", Deadlines Adjourned
ALBERTSONS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive BOGO Deal
ALGONQUIN COLLEGE: Law Firm Launches Privacy Breach Class Action
AMEDISYS INC: Securities Action Set for June 21 Mediation

AMEDISYS INC: Final Settlement in Conn. Wage & Hour Case Okayed
AMEDISYS INC: Illinois Wage and Hour Suit Settled for $0.8-Mil.
ANCHOR BANCORP: "Parshall" Stayed Thru June 14 Pending Talks
ANGIE'S LIST: $2,350,000 Settlement Reached in "Moore" Case
ANGIE'S LIST: "Glick" Plaintiff to Seek Stay of Action

ANGIE'S LIST: "Williams" and "Crabtree" Actions Filed
APPLIED MACHINERY: Certification of Rig Welders Class Sought
ARDOIN INC: Conditional Certification of "Greer" Class Granted
ASCENSION PARISH, LA: Expedited Discovery Bid in "Williams" Denied
BIOGEN INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Pending

BROADCOM LIMITED: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Varjabedian"
BROADCOM LIMITED: Del. Suits Over PLX Acquisition Still Pending
BRONX, NY: Faces Class Action Over Misdemeanor Backlog
CALIFORNIA: Class Action Challenges "Fire Prevention Fee"
CANADA: Court of Appeal Upholds Ruling in G20 Class Action

CANADIAN SOLAR: Ontario Class Suit Moves to Merits Stage
CARIBOU COFFEE: Faces TCPA Class Action in Wisconsin
CHEMICAL AND MINING: Briefing on Dismissal Bid Incomplete
CHEVIOT FINANCIAL: Faces "Neiheisel" and "Bushansky" Suits
CHINA CERAMICS: Class Action Deal Awaits Final Court Approval

CODE REBEL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
CODE REBEL: Investor Files Securities Class Action
COMFORT CONTROL: Compressor Eng'g Seeks Certification of Class
COMTECH TELECOM: To Seek Dismissal of Anne Arundel County Suits
CONVERSE INC: Chavez Seeks Certification of Retail Store Classes

CRYPTSY: Class Action Over Collapse Ongoing
DIODES INCORPORATED: Class Action Dismissal Upheld
DISH NETWORK: 2nd Phase of Trial in "Do Not Call" Suit in October
DOLLAR TREE: Answer to "Snipes" Suit Due June 19
DOMINO'S: Faces Class Action Over Minimum Wage Violations

ECOLAB INC: Bid to File Oversized Brief in "Schneider" Suit OK'd
EL POLLO LOCO: Finalizing Settlement in Employee Suit
EL POLLO LOCO: To Defend Against Consolidated Calif. Suit
ELBIT IMAGING: Reached Settlement in "Gadish" Case
ELECTRONIC DATA: Class Cert. Bid Denied in "Karlbom" Suit

ENDOCYTE INC: Appeal in Shareholder Class Action Dismissed
ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: S.D. Fla. Class Action Remains Pending
FIRST AMERICAN: Updates on Class Action Lawsuits
FITCHBURG GAS: Still Defends "Bellerman" Action
FTD COMPANIES: No Hearing Date on Final Settlement Approval Bid

FUSION AUTOPLEX: Rodney Allen Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
FUTUREDONTICS INC: Court Terminates Charles Shulruff Class Suit
FXCM INC: Defending Against Class Suit by IUOE Local 478
GENERAL MOTORS: 122 Class Actions Pending through April 15
GENERAL MOTORS: Hearing This Year on Canada Dealers' Claim Appeal

GEO GROUP: EEOC's Pre-suit Conciliation Efforts Sufficient
GERON CORPORATION: Securities Actions Remain Pending in Calif.
GOOGLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Free Range Content Suit
HCP INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
HEWLETT PACKARD: Hearing on Motion to Decertify Reset to June  16

IMAX CORPORATION: Settlement in IMAX Chicago Case Approved
INDOFF INC: Old Town Pizza Seeks Certification of Class in Ill.
INVENTURE FOODS: Faces Securities Class Action in Arizona
INVENTURE FOODS: Complied with "Lilly" Settlement Requirements
ITURAN LOCATION: Defending Against Class Suit in Tel-Aviv

JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: $5.05-Mil. Class Action Settlement Approved
JONES FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Appeal in Securities Case Pending
JP MORGAN: "Stikas" Suit Over Foreclosure Fees Dismissed
KRAFT HEINZ: May 26 Oral Argument on Parmesan MDL Petitions
KRAFT HEINZ: "Brahler" Suit Stayed Pending MDL Petitions

KROGER CO: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Hardesty" Suit
LABORATORY CORPORATION: "Berk" Class Action Closed
LECOM INC: Court Narrows Claims, Grants Conditional Cert.
LIFE CARE: Certification of BOMs Class Sought in "Robinson" Suit
LIFE PROTECT: Primack Seeks Certification of TCPA Class in Ill.

LOS GATOS-SARATOGA: Illegally Uses Athletic Fields, Suit Says
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Contributes to Class Action Settlement Fund
LUXOTTICA SUN: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
LYFT: Offers to Settle Driver Class Action for $27 Million
MANPOWER INC: Sued Over Failure to Provide Payroll Records

MANPOWER INC: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MARKIT LTD: $45-Mil. CDS Case Settlement Subject to Court OK
MATTSON TECHNOLOGY: Reviewing Merger Class Action Complaints
MDX MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Amended "Shulruff" Suit Due on May 27
MEDTOX SCIENTIFIC: 8th Cir. Reinstates Claims in Fax Ads Suit

MENARD CORRECTIONAL: "English" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
MICHIGAN: Judge Allows Class Action Against UIA to Proceed
MICROSOFT CORP: Trial in British Columbia Case to Begin in 2016
MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Not Yet Active
MICROSOFT CORP: Proceedings in US Cell Phone Case Stayed

MILLER AND STEENO: Bid to Certify Class Hearing Set for July 18
MISSION BAY: Court Wants Executed Amended Settlement Filed
MONEY RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Corey" Action Claims
MOTEL 6: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Occupancy Contract Violation
MURRIETA, CA: Wins Bid to Strike Class Claims in "Fenaroli" Suit

NETFLIX INC: 9th Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Securities Suit
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Claims Against Sheriff Dismissed
NEW YORK: Sued Over Failure to Pay Fraud Investigators Overtime
NL INDUSTRIES: Appeal Remains Pending in Pigment Case
NL INDUSTRIES: Still Defends Suit Over Blood Lead Levels Testing

NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY HEALTH: Faces Property Tax Class Action
NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Jurisdictional Concerns Raised in "Edwards"
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Securities Class Suits Underway
OCEAN POWER: Settles Securities Class Action
ORGANO GOLD: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Ganoderma Coffee

OXY RECKITT: Humidifier Disinfectant Victims Await Compensation
PACIFIC GUARDIAN: Court Dismissed "King" Class Action
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Dismissal of Antitrust Actions Sought
PINNACLE: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Avenue Deal
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Faces Criminal Charges Over Oil Spill

PLATINUM AFFAIRS: Suit Seeks to Recover Retained Gratuities
PONTIAC CORRECTIONAL: Court Severs Claims in "Merritt" Suit
PREMIER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Criddell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PUBLIC STORAGE: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
RAYMOND JAMES: Sued in Florida Over Unlawful Financial Structure

RECOLOGY LOS ANGELES: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Says
RESORT MARKETING: Class Certification Sought in "Charvat" Suit
SAFE-GUARD PRODUCTS: Class Certification Sought in "Hinkle" Suit
SEI INVESTMENTS: Claims in East Baton Rouge Class Suit Pending
SINGING RIVER: Court Quashes Subpoenas in "Jones"

SOUTH AFRICA: Trade Union Files Class Action Against Pension Fund
SPOTIFY USA: Misleading Class Members, Plaintiff Claims
STAAR SURGICAL: "Todd" Class Suit Sent to Private Mediator
STRAIGHT PATH: Lead Plaintiff Must File Amended Suit in June
SUNRISE PROPANE: No Compensation Yet for Plant Explosion Victims

SWEPI LP: Bid to Amend Class Definition in "Walney" Suit Denied
TARGET CORPORATION: Appeal in Consumer Data Breach Suit Ongoing
TARGET CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing in 2nd Quarter
TARGET CORPORATION: Data Breach Suit Pending in Canada
TD BANK: "Feinman" Class Suit Removed to S. District New York

TD BANK: "Luce" Class Suit Removed to District New Jersey
TERANET: Court Dismisses Land Surveyors' Copyright Class Action
TIDAL: May Opt for Quick Resolution of Class Action
TMK IPSCO: Employee Files Class Action Over Unlawful Termination
TRICO BANCSHARES: Ex-Banker's Suit in Calif. Goes to Mediation

TRICO BANCSHARES: Mediation Eyed in Current Banker's Suit
TRXADE GROUP: Class Suit in Preliminary Stage, No Discovery Yet
TYSON FOODS: High Court Affirms $2.9MM FLSA Class Action Judgment
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Waiver Unenforceable in Calif.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Lose Out More Than $700M in Settlement

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers File FLSA Class Action in Miami
UNION PACIFIC: Briefs Filed Addressing Tyson Foods Decision
UNITED SERVICES: June 10 Hearing Set for Attorney Sanctions
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Cold-FX Claims
WEST PUBLISHING: Judge Real Removed From Barbri Class Action

WISCONSIN: Police Can Disclose Accident Report Driver Info
WYNDHAM HOTELS: October 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
XOLLE LLC: Faces "Aguirre" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
XOMA CORP: Case Management Conference on May 24
XTO ENERGY: Trust Updates on Class Suits

* Accounting Securities Class Actions Hit Record High in 2015
* Appeals Court Revives Class Action Against Three Hospitals
* CFPB Proposals to Expose Banks to More Class Actions
* Judge Awards $1.5MM in Attorney Fees in Fen-Phen Cases
* UCCL Well-Matched to Class Action Commonality Requirements


                            *********


ADVANCED MICRO: Court Denies Request for 28 Fact Depositions
------------------------------------------------------------
In the securities fraud class action, BABAK HATAMIAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 14-cv-00226-YGR (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Plaintiffs contend
that AMD made misrepresentations regarding the launch of its
"Llano" microprocessor, and in particular, misstatements regarding
the Llano manufacturing plant's chip yield.

Pending before the Court is the parties' joint letter brief
regarding a discovery dispute.  Specifically, Plaintiffs seek an
order increasing the presumptive limitation of 10 fact depositions
per party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A) to 28
fact depositions per party. Defendant proposes a more modest
increase of 15 total fact depositions per side.

According to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, Plaintiffs
have taken only three of their ten noticed fact depositions to
date, and Defendant has already agreed to increase the number of
depositions to 15. While this case is complex, Plaintiffs have not
met their burden of showing a particularized need for more than 15
depositions at this time.

Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiffs'
request for 28 fact depositions. Each party may take up to 15 fact
depositions. Plaintiffs may renew their request for additional
depositions after taking the first 15 and establishing a
particularized need for more depositions in light of those
witnesses' testimony.

A copy of the Court's May 16, 2016 Order is available at
https://is.gd/HrEffM from Leagle.com.

Babak Hatamian, Lussu Dennj Salvatore, Plaintiffs, represented by
Joy Ann Kruse -- jkruse@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Rory P. Read, Thomas J. Seifert,
Lisa T. Su, Richard A. Bergman, Defendants, represented by Patrick
Edward Gibbs -- pgibbs@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Jason C. Hegt --
jason.hegt@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Kala Sherman-Presser --
kala.sherman-presser@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP, Matthew
Rawlinson -- matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP,
Melanie Marilyn Blunschi -- melanie.blunschi@lw.com -- Latham and
Watkins LLP & Ming M Zhu -- ming.zhu@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins
LLP.

KBC Asset Management NV, Movant, represented by Carol C. Villegas
-- cvillegas@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Michael J
Pendell -- mpendell@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Sharon
Maine Lee -- slee@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein,
William S. Norton -- bnorton@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC,
James Michael Hughes -- jhughes@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC,
Joy Ann Kruse -- jkruse@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Katherine Collinge Lubin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Max Nikolaus Gruetzmacher --
mgruetzmacher@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Meredith B.
Miller -- mbmiller@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, William H.
Narwold -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC & Jonathan
Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP.

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Movant,
represented by Michael M. Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Movant, represented by Alec T
Coquin -- acoquin@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Carol C.
Villegas, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Jonathan Gardner, Labaton Sucharow
LLP, Paul J Scarlato, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Sharon Maine Lee,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Yah E. Demann --
ydemann@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Katherine Collinge
Lubin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicole Catherine
Lavallee -- nlavallee@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio &
William S. Norton, Motley Rice LLC.

Christopher Hamilton, David Hamilton, Movants, represented by
Willem F. Jonckheer -- wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com -- Schubert
Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP.

Jake Ha, Movant, represented by Avraham Noam Wagner --
avi@thewagnerfirm.com -- The Wagner Firm & Kara M Wolke --
kwolke@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.


AFFYMETRIX INC: Deal Reached in "Cheah", Deadlines Adjourned
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY S. L. CHEAH, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AFFYMETRIX, INC.,
JAMI DOVER NACHTSHEIM, FRANK WITNEY, NELSON C. CHAN, GARY S.
GUTHART, RICCARDO PIGLIUCCI, MERILEE RAINES, ROBERT H. TRICE,
THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC, INC. and WHITE BIRCH MERGER CO.,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-01253-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Initial Case
Management Conference will be adjourned until August 23, 2016.

The Parties have reached a preliminary settlement agreement and
are currently conducting confirmatory discovery.  The Parties
agreed to adjourn the deadline for any response to the Complaint
as well as the Initial Case Management Conference until after the
conclusion of confirmatory discovery.

In the event that confirmatory discovery has not been completed by
that date, the parties shall state in their Joint Case Management
Statement the specifics concerning the discovery completed and the
anticipated discovery that remains.

Defendants' deadline to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise
respond to the Complaint shall be adjourned indefinitely, with the
parties to confer on a new deadline in the event that the
settlement is not consummated.

On March 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint
captioned Cheah v. Affymetrix, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-01253-
WHO in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California for violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C.
Sections 78n(a), 78t(a), and SEC Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9,
and breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
merger between Affymetrix, Inc. and Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
The Defendants' Answers to the Complaint are due on May 27, 2016.
The Initial Case Management Conference was originally set for June
14, 2016.

A copy of District Judge William H. Orrick's May 16, 2016 Order is
available at https://is.gd/73djqr from Leagle.com.

Jeffrey S. L. Cheah, Plaintiff, is represented by Leigh Anne
Parker -- lparker@weisslawllp.com -- and Richard A. Acocelli --
racocelli@weisslawllp.com -- Weisslaw LLP.

Defendants Affymetrix, Inc., et al. are represented by Neal Alan
Potischman -- neal.potischman@davispolk.com -- Andrew David Yaphe
-- andrew.yaphe@davispolk.com -- Jayeeta Kundu --
jayeeta.kundu@davispolk.com -- Micah Galvin Block --
micah.block@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP.  The
other defendants are Jami Dover Nachtsheim, Frank Witney, Nelson
C. Chan, Riccardo Pigliucci, Merilee Raines, Robert H. Trice, and
Gary S. Guthart.


ALBERTSONS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive BOGO Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Angie Koehle, writing for ABC15, reports that a lawsuit filed in
Multnomah County, Oregon court accuses Albertsons and Safeway of
deceiving customers into believing they're getting a deal.

In the court documents dated May 4 and posted on The Oregonian's
website, Schearon Stewart and Jason Stewart are listed as
plaintiffs and filed the class action suit "individually and on
behalf of all other similarly-situated persons".

The suit accuses Albertsons and Safeway of hiking the prices on
meat so when customers take advantage of a buy one get one free
(BOGO) deal, they're actually paying for the free item.  Safeway
and Albertsons have the same parent company.

"They are paying more per pound than regularly-priced meat, and
they are buying more meat in order to obtain the illusory "free"
product.  These "free" sales constitute unfair and deceptive
practices," the suit reads.

For example, the lawsuit states boneless pork chops were typically
$4.49 per lb.  Under the BOGO promotion, they pumped the price to
$12.99 per lb.

Petite sirloin, beef bottom round, beef eye of round, boneless
pork chops, boneless skinless chicken breasts and chicken 6
quarters (leg and thigh) were all part of the various BOGO
promotions.

However, the suit is only on behalf of customers who bought meat
at Oregon Albertsons grocery stores or Oregon Safeway grocery
stores, using the Safeway Club Card at Safeway Stores and coupons
at Albertsons grocery stores.


ALGONQUIN COLLEGE: Law Firm Launches Privacy Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Sandor, writing for cfra, reports that a Toronto law firm
is considering launching a class action lawsuit against Algonquin
College following a privacy breach earlier this year, when the
test results of more than 1,400 prospective health program
students were sent out to 40 prospective students in a mass email.

The email included names, email addresses, student numbers,
program choices and test scores of the students.

Flaherty McCarthy Litigation Council is consulting with some of
the affected students and anticipated commencing the suit, seeking
$100-million in damages.


AMEDISYS INC: Securities Action Set for June 21 Mediation
---------------------------------------------------------
Mediation is scheduled to occur on June 21, 2016, among the
parties in a consolidated securities class action in Louisiana
against Amedisys, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On June 10, 2010, a putative securities class
action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana (the "District Court") against
the Company and certain of our current and former senior
executives. Additional putative securities class actions were
filed in the District Court on July 14, July 16, and July 28,
2010."

"On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended,
consolidated class action complaint (the "Securities Complaint")
which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action
complaints. The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material facts about our business, financial condition, operations
and prospects, particularly relating to our policies and practices
regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home health
prospective payment system and the related alleged impact on our
business, financial condition, operations and prospects. The
Securities Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be
maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities between August 2, 2005 and
September 28, 2010 and an unspecified amount of damages.

"All defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On June
28, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Securities Complaint. On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District
Court denied on April 9, 2013.

"On May 3, 2013, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of
the Securities Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit (the "Fifth Circuit"). On October 2, 2014, a
three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit issued a decision reversing
the District Court's dismissal of the Securities Complaint.

"On October 16, 2014, all defendants filed a petition with the
Fifth Circuit to review the three-judge panel's decision en banc,
or as a whole court. On December 29, 2014, the Fifth Circuit
denied the defendants' motion for en banc review of the Fifth
Circuit panel's decision reversing the District Court's dismissal
of the Securities Complaint. The case then returned to the
District Court for further proceedings.

"On March 30, 2015, the defendants filed a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari (the "Petition") with the United States Supreme Court
asking the Supreme Court to consider whether the Fifth Circuit
erred in reversing the District Court's dismissal of the
Securities Complaint. The Supreme Court denied the Petition on
June 29, 2015, which did not affect the ongoing proceedings before
the District Court, including the District Court's consideration
of a motion filed on April 3, 2015, by the Co-Lead Plaintiffs for
leave to amend the Securities Complaint, which motion was granted
by the District Court.

"On December 15, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the Co-Lead Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Complaint. All
discovery in the case is currently stayed pursuant to federal law.

"The parties have agreed to explore the possibility of a mediated
settlement of this matter, and a mediation is scheduled to occur
on June 21, 2016. No assurances can be given about the timing or
outcome of this matter."


AMEDISYS INC: Final Settlement in Conn. Wage & Hour Case Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a Connecticut court
has approved the final settlement of a wage and hour class action
in that court.

The Company said, "On July 25, 2012, a putative collective and
class action complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut against us in which three
former employees allege wage and hour law violations. The former
employees claim that they were not paid overtime for all hours
worked over 40 hours in violation of the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act. More specifically, they allege they were paid on both a per-
visit and an hourly basis, and that such a pay scheme resulted in
their misclassification as exempt employees, thereby denying them
overtime pay.

"Moreover, in response to a Company motion arguing that
plaintiffs' complaint was deficient in that it was ambiguous and
failed to provide fair notice of the claims asserted and
plaintiffs' opposition thereto, the Court, on April 8, 2013, held
that the complaint adequately raises general allegations that the
plaintiffs were not paid overtime for all hours worked in a week
over 40, which may include claims for unpaid overtime under other
theories of liability, such as alleged off-the-clock work, in
addition to plaintiffs' more clearly stated allegations based on
misclassification.

"On behalf of themselves and a class of current and former
employees they allege are similarly situated, plaintiffs seek
attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back
three years under the FLSA and three years under the Pennsylvania
statute. On October 8, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for equitable tolling requesting that the statute of limitations
for claims under the FLSA for plaintiffs who opt-in to the lawsuit
be tolled from September 24, 2012, the date upon which plaintiffs
filed their original motion for conditional certification, until
90 days after any notice of this lawsuit is issued following
conditional certification.

"Following a motion for reconsideration filed by the Company, on
December 3, 2013, the Court modified this order, holding that
putative class members' FLSA claims are tolled from October 29,
2012 through the date of the Court's order on plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification. On January 13, 2014, the Court
granted plaintiffs' July 10, 2013 motion for conditional
certification of their FLSA claims and authorized issuance of
notice to putative class members to provide them an opportunity to
opt in to the action. On April 17, 2014, that notice was mailed to
putative class members. The period within which putative class
members were permitted to opt into the action expired on July 16,
2014.

"On September 10, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Connecticut case
filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add a new
claim under the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act ("KWHA") alleging that
the Company did not pay certain home health clinicians working in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky all of the overtime wages they were
owed, either because the Company misclassified them as exempt from
overtime or, while treating them as overtime eligible, did not
properly pay them overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a week.
On behalf of themselves and a class of current and former
employees they allege are similarly situated, plaintiffs seek
attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back five
years before the filing of their original complaint under the
KWHA.

"On October 1, 2014, the Company filed an opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion to amend. On October 15, 2014, plaintiffs filed
a reply brief in support of their motion. On December 12, 2014,
the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to
add the claims under the KWHA. The Company and the plaintiffs
agreed to explore the possibility of a mediated settlement of the
Connecticut case, and on February 23, 2015 filed a joint motion to
stay proceedings for six months to pursue that process, which was
granted by the Court on February 24, 2015.

"On June 10, 2015, the Company and plaintiffs participated in a
mediation whereby they agreed to fully resolve all of plaintiffs'
claims in the lawsuit for $8.0 million, subject to approval by the
Court. The settlement agreement will be submitted to the Court for
preliminary approval and plaintiffs will request certification of
Pennsylvania and Kentucky classes for the sole purpose of this
proposed settlement. If the Court grants preliminary approval,
notice will be issued to members of the settlement classes to
provide them with an opportunity to object to the settlement and,
in the case of members of the Pennsylvania and Kentucky classes,
opt out of the settlement. Following this notice period, the Court
will hold a final fairness hearing for the purpose of considering
objections and deciding whether to grant final approval of the
settlement.

"As of September 30, 2015, we had an accrual of $8.0 million for
this matter.

"On January 29, 2016, the Court approved the final settlement of
this case. The settlement became effective on February 26, 2016.

"As a result of the final amount calculated by the settlement
administrator based on claims timely submitted, we reduced our
accrual to $5.3 million as of December 31, 2015; this amount was
paid during the three-month period ended March 31, 2016."


AMEDISYS INC: Illinois Wage and Hour Suit Settled for $0.8-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in an
Illinois wage and hour class action have agreed to settle the case
for $0.8 million, subject to court approval.

The Company said, "On September 13, 2012, a putative collective
and class action complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us in which a
former employee alleges wage and hour law violations. The former
employee claims she was paid on both a per-visit and an hourly
basis, and that such a pay scheme resulted in her
misclassification as an exempt employee, thereby denying her
overtime. The plaintiff alleges violations of federal and state
law and seeks damages under the FLSA and the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law. Plaintiff seeks class certification of similar employees who
were or are employed in Illinois and seeks attorneys' fees, back
wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA
and three years under the Illinois statute."

"On May 28, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to stay
the case pending resolution of class certification issues and
dispositive motions in the earlier-filed Connecticut case.  On
December 23, 2015, the parties agreed to explore the possibility
of a mediated settlement of the Illinois case, and a mediation
occurred on April 18, 2016. The parties agreed to settle the case
for $0.8 million, subject to court approval, which we have accrued
as of March 31, 2016."


ANCHOR BANCORP: "Parshall" Stayed Thru June 14 Pending Talks
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Parshall, Paul v. Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin, Inc. et
al, Case No. 3:16-cv-00120 (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D Peterson
granted the parties' stipulation and motion for a stay.  The case
is stayed until June 14, 2016, pending the parties' settlement
talks.  If the parties have not filed their definitive settlement
agreement by that date, then the stay is lifted and defendants'
time to answer or otherwise respond starts to run on June 15,
2016. Regardless when or how defendants respond, the parties'
joint Rule 26(f) report must be filed not later than July 15,
2016. The court will hold a telephonic preliminary pretrial
conference on July 21, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. Using the court's
calendaring template for class actions, the parties should
anticipate the court setting jury selection and trial for mid-
January 2018.

Anchor Bancorp Wisconsin Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on February 25,
2016, a plaintiff filed a purported class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
on behalf of himself and other Company stockholders against the
Company, its Board, and Old National in connection with a proposed
transaction between the Company and Old National, pursuant to
which the Company will be acquired by Old National.  The lawsuit
is captioned Parshall v. Anchor Bancorp Wisconsin, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 16-CV-120 (W.D. Wis.), and alleges state law breach of
fiduciary duty claims against the Company's Board for, among other
things, seeking to sell the Company through an allegedly defective
process, for an unfair price and on unfair terms.  The lawsuit
seeks, among other things, to enjoin the consummation of the
transaction and damages.  The complaint alleges that Old National
aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
complaint also brings state and federal law claims alleging that
the Form S-4 Registration Statement that was filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2016 for the
transaction, omitted certain material information.

In April 2016, shareholders of Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin approved
the deal with Old National Bancorp, with 80.7% of the outstanding
shares in support.

Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc. is a savings and loan holding
company formed in 1992 to be the holding company for AnchorBank,
fsb (the "Bank" or "AnchorBank").


ANGIE'S LIST: $2,350,000 Settlement Reached in "Moore" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has
reached a $2,350,000 settlement in the case, Moore v. Angie's
List, Inc., 2:15cv-01243-SD.

On March 11, 2015, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit alleges claims for breaches
of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud
and fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and violation of
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
premised on the allegations that the Company does not disclose
that it accepts advertising payments from service providers or
that the payments allegedly will impact the service provider
letter grade ratings, the content and availability of reviews
about the provider and the provider's place in search result
rankings. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 13, 2015,
which was granted in part on August 7, 2015.

In particular, the plaintiff's claims for breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment were
dismissed from the action. The parties proceeded to exchange
extensive written and document discovery and have conducted
depositions.

Pursuant to the court's recently amended scheduling order, the
deadline to complete discovery passed on April 14, 2016 with
summary judgment motions due by April 25, 2016.

Certain other cases with similar allegations also were filed by
some of the same plaintiffs' counsel in federal court in
California and New Jersey. The Company has not been served with
the summons and complaint in the California matter, and no action
is currently necessary as a result.

Following mediation sessions held on April 4, 2016 and April 12,
2016, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU")
on April 19, 2016 to settle the claims on a class-wide basis.
Among other relief, the settlement provides for a cash payment of
up to $2,350,000 to create a fund for the payment of cash to
settlement class members and for the payment of attorneys' fees
and costs to plaintiffs' counsel as approved by the court.
Settlement class members will have the option of sharing in the
cash fund or selecting a free period of membership of up to four
months depending on the date and length of their membership with
Angie's List.

The settlement also provides certain prospective relief in the
form of enhanced explanations in the Company's Membership
Agreement and in responses to Frequently Asked Questions
concerning, among other things, the advertising revenue earned
from service providers. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company
recorded a $3,500,000 contingent liability related to this matter,
and this amount includes the cost of the cash fund described above
as well as the payment of reasonable notice and administration
costs, attorneys' fees and an assumption of revenue the Company
will forego as a result of certain class members selecting the
option for a free period of membership. Pursuant to the MOU, the
Company and plaintiffs' counsel will seek to stay all remaining
pending deadlines to allow the parties to confer in drafting a
definitive settlement agreement and to facilitate the court-
approval process. The California plaintiff also has agreed to
contact the California court to seek a further stay of the action
pending the anticipated approval proceedings in the Moore
litigation.

Angie's List operates a national local services consumer review
service and marketplace where consumers can research, shop for and
purchase local services for critical needs, such as home, health
and automotive services, as well as rate and review the providers
of these services across 253 markets in the United States.


ANGIE'S LIST: "Glick" Plaintiff to Seek Stay of Action
------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case, Glick v.
Angie's List, Inc., 2:16-cv-00546, the plaintiff shall seek a
further stay of the Glick action pending the anticipated approval
proceedings in the Moore litigation.

On February 1, 2016, Gary Glick, an Angie's List member, filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiff alleges that the
Company deceives its consumers by representing that service
providers "can't pay" or "don't pay" to be on Angie's List, while
concealing that service providers pay advertising fees to
influence their search result ranking, and further asserts other
claims substantially similar to those alleged in the Moore
litigation. The plaintiff's complaint includes claims for breach
of contract and for a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act.

Glick served the summons and complaint on February 23, 2016, and
the parties have filed a joint stipulation to extend the response
deadline by 75 days as the outcome of the Moore litigation could
moot further proceedings in the Glick action. The court approved
the stipulation on March 9, 2016, setting the Company's response
deadline for May 31, 2016. Pursuant to the Memorandum of
Understanding to settle these actions, the plaintiff shall seek a
further stay of the Glick action pending the anticipated approval
proceedings in the Moore litigation.

Angie's List operates a national local services consumer review
service and marketplace where consumers can research, shop for and
purchase local services for critical needs, such as home, health
and automotive services, as well as rate and review the providers
of these services across 253 markets in the United States.


ANGIE'S LIST: "Williams" and "Crabtree" Actions Filed
-----------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on April 20, 2016, a
group of former sales representatives filed separate lawsuits in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana. The lawsuits allege that we failed to pay (i) wages
earned in a timely manner as required under Indiana Wage Payment
Statutes and (ii) overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 206-07) and is requesting
payment of all damages, including unpaid wages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other charges. The Company is currently unable
to determine the likely outcome or reasonably estimate the amount
or range of potential liability, if any, related to these matters,
and accordingly, has not established any reserves for these
matters.

Williams v. Angie's List, Inc. 1:16-cv-878; Crabtree v. Angie's
List, Inc. 1:16-cv-877.

Angie's List operates a national local services consumer review
service and marketplace where consumers can research, shop for and
purchase local services for critical needs, such as home, health
and automotive services, as well as rate and review the providers
of these services across 253 markets in the United States.


APPLIED MACHINERY: Certification of Rig Welders Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuit entitled RODOLFO DIAZ,
et al. v. APPLIED MACHINERY CORPORATION, et al. Case No. 4:15-cv-
01282 (S.D. Tex.), filed with the Court their partially opposed
motion for class certification and expedited discovery.

Rodolfo Diaz, Plaintiff, filed a putative collective action
lawsuit against Applied Machinery on May 13, 2015, alleging that
the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 by,
among other things, failing to pay him and others similarly
situated overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
After the complaint was filed, seven other individuals consented
in writing to become parties to the lawsuit.  On November 20,
2015, a related case was consolidated into this lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs ask that the Court conditionally certify this
class:

     All current and former "rig welders" who worked for Applied
     Machinery Corporation and/or Nabors Industries, Inc., its
     parents, subsidiaries or affiliates during the last three
     years.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1VF3g5WM

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ross A. Sears, II, Esq.
          WILLIAMSON, SEARS & RUSNAK, L.L.P.
          4310 Yoakum Boulevard
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 223-3333
          Facsimile: (713) 223-3331

               - and -

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


ARDOIN INC: Conditional Certification of "Greer" Class Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Nelva Gonzales Ramos granted in part the Plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification and notice in the lawsuit
captioned SHANE GREER, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ARDOIN, INC. D/B/A SOUTHERN TECHNICAL
CONTROL, JASON ARDOIN and ALICIA K. ARDOIN, Case No. 2:15-cv-00415
(S.D. Tex.).

The Court orders that a class is conditionally certified as:

     "All Field/ Mechanical Technicians Who Worked for Ardoin,
      Inc. d/ b / a Southern Technical Control, Jason Ardoin
      and/or Alicia K. Ardoin ("Defendants") At Any Time During
      the Period [insert date notice is sent} 2013, to the
      Present, And Were Paid Hourly."

The Court also approves the proposed Notice and Consent form and
further orders that the parties comply with certain deadlines and
terms.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4qhyh5vE


ASCENSION PARISH, LA: Expedited Discovery Bid in "Williams" Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, v. MARILYN M. LAMBERT, in her
official capacity as Judge of Ascension Parish Court, et al.,
Civil Action No. 16-251-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), Magistrate Judge
Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., ruled that:

     -- Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Discovery is denied.

     -- defendant Bridge Hanna's motion for extension of time to
        respond and defendant Sherman Jackson's motion for
        extension of time to respond are denied as moot.

Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint alleges that the defendants are
engaged in a "financial arrangement that requires the Ascension
Parish Judge to collect a Conviction Fee each time she convicts a
defendant or accepts a guilty plea," which incentivizes the Parish
Judge, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, to find criminal defendants to be
guilty.  Plaintiff has moved for a preliminary injunction,
arguing, among other things, that "Plaintiff and other members of
the putative class will suffer irreparable harm through the
inherent injury in being forced to undergo biased criminal
proceedings that violate due process requirements."

Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery seeks an order allowing
Plaintiff to conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition "of the Ascension
Parish Court on the topic of the Court's budget, revenue,
finances, and expenditures."  Plaintiff argues that this requested
pre-service discovery is "required because men and women regularly
are convicted of criminal charges by the Parish Judge, and an
injunction is necessary to ensure that convictions going forward
are free of financial bias."

The Court said Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for
discovery to be conducted prior to a Rule 26(f) conference.
Foremost, Plaintiff filed the motion, and sought the relief
requested in the motion, prior to service of the Complaint on any
of the named defendants. The defendants would be unduly prejudiced
by allowing such discovery to be conducted prior to their
knowledge of the lawsuit, much less an opportunity to oppose the
relief requested. Furthermore, Plaintiff seeks expedited discovery
for the sole purpose of gathering information in support of his
motion for an anticipated hearing on Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiff has not demonstrated,
through the motion, that he would suffer any irreparable harm
should the Court not allow him to proceed the requested
deposition.

A copy of the Court's May 18, 2016 Order is available at
https://is.gd/k5AzYJ from Leagle.com.

Richard Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Katharine Murphy
Schwartzmann, Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center, David
M. Shapiro, III, Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center,
pro hac vice & Eric Andrew Foley, MacArthur Justice Center.

Marilyn M. Lambert, Defendant, represented by David Glen Sanders,
Louisiana Department of Justice & Deidre D. Robert, Louisiana
Department of Justice.

Sherman Jackson, Defendant, represented by Robert Ryland Percy,
III, Percy, Lanoux, & Mumphrey & Miranda Mayer Mumphrey, Percy,
Lanoux & Mumphrey.

Bridget Hanna, Defendant, represented by Edmond Wade Shows, Shows,
Cali & Walsh, LLp & Grant Joseph Guillot, Shows, Cali & Walsh,
L.L.P.


BIOGEN INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Biogen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2016, that "We and certain current and
former officers are defendants in In re Biogen Inc. Securities
Litigation, filed by a shareholder on August 18, 2015 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The amended
complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws under 15
U.S.C. Sec.78j(b) and Sec.78t(a) and 17 C.F.R. Sec.240.10b-5. The
lead plaintiff seeks a declaration of the action as a class
action, certification as a representative of the class and its
counsel as class counsel, and an award of damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees. We have filed a motion to dismiss, which is
pending. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot
be made at this time."


BROADCOM LIMITED: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Varjabedian"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The court's dismissal of the first amended complaint in the case
related to Broadcom Limited's acquisition of Emulex Corp., is
under appeal, Broadcom Limited 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.

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on January 15, 2016. The appeal is
captioned Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al.,
No. 16-55088.

Broadcom Limited, a company organized under the laws of the
Republic of Singapore, is the successor to Avago Technologies
Limited, or Avago.

On March 3, 2015, two putative shareholder class action complaints
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against Emulex Corporation, or Emulex, its directors, Avago
Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., or AT Wireless,
and Emerald Merger Sub, Inc., or Merger Sub, captioned as follows:
James Tullman v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10743-VCL
(Del. Ch.); Moshe Silver ACF/Yehudit Silver U/NY/UTMA v. Emulex
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10744-VCL (Del. Ch.). On March 11,
2015, a third complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, captioned Hoai Vu v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case
No. 10776-VCL (Del. Ch.).

The complaints alleged, among other things, that Emulex's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 25, 2015, by and
among AT Wireless, Merger Sub and Emulex, or the Merger Agreement,
and that AT Wireless and Merger Sub aided and abetted these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints sought, among
other things, either to enjoin the transaction or to rescind it
following its completion, as well as damages, including attorneys'
and experts' fees.

The Delaware Court of Chancery has entered an order consolidating
the three Delaware actions under the caption In re Emulex
Corporation Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10743-
VCL.

"On May 5, 2015, we completed our acquisition of Emulex. On June
5, 2015, the Court of Chancery dismissed the consolidated action
without prejudice," the Company said.

On April 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, entitled Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex
Corporation, et al., No. 8:15-cv-554-CJC-JCG. The complaint names
as defendants Emulex, its directors, AT Wireless and Merger Sub,
and purported to assert claims under Sections 14(d), 14(e) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleged, among other
things, that the board of directors of Emulex failed to provide
material information and/or omitted material information from the
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed with
the SEC on April 7, 2015 by Emulex, together with the exhibits and
annexes thereto. The complaint sought to enjoin the tender offer
to purchase all of the outstanding shares of Emulex common stock,
as well as certain other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On July 28, 2015, the court issued an order appointing the lead
plaintiff and approving lead counsel for the putative class. On
September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
seeking rescission of the merger, unspecified money damages, other
equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 13, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the first amended
complaint, which the court granted with prejudice on January 13,
2016.


BROADCOM LIMITED: Del. Suits Over PLX Acquisition Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Limited 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 The Delaware class
litigation relating to the acquisition of PLX Technologies is on-
going.

Broadcom Limited, a company organized under the laws of the
Republic of Singapore, is the successor to Avago Technologies
Limited, or Avago.

In June and July 2014, four lawsuits were filed in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara
challenging our acquisition of PLX. On July 22, 2014, the court
consolidated these California actions under the caption In re PLX
Technology, Inc. S'holder Litig., Lead Case No. 1-14-CV-267079
(Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara) and appointed lead counsel. That
same day, the court also stayed the consolidated action, pending
resolution of related actions filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

Also in June and July 2014, five similar lawsuits were filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery. On July 21, 2014, the court
consolidated these Delaware actions under the caption In re PLX
Technology, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 9880-
VCL (Del. Ch.), appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and
designated an operative complaint for the consolidated action.

On July 31, 2014, counsel for lead plaintiffs in Delaware informed
the court that they would not seek a preliminary injunction, but
intend to seek damages and pursue monetary remedies through post-
closing litigation.  Broadcom's acquisition of PLX closed on
August 12, 2014.

On October 31, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. This complaint alleges, among other things, that PLX's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to PLX's stockholders by
seeking to sell PLX for an inadequate price, pursuant to an unfair
process, and by agreeing to preclusive deal protections in the
merger agreement. Plaintiffs also allege that Potomac Capital
Partners II, L.P., Deutsche Bank Securities, AT Wireless, and
Pluto Merger Sub, Inc., the acquisition subsidiary, aided and
abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches. Plaintiffs also allege
that PLX's Solicitation/Recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-
9, as filed with the SEC, contained false and misleading
statements and/or omitted material information necessary to inform
the shareholder vote. The plaintiffs seek, among other things,
monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 3, 2015, the court granted motions to dismiss filed
by AT Wireless, the acquisition subsidiary and two PLX directors,
and denied motions to dismiss filed by several other PLX
directors, Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P. and Deutsche Bank
Securities.

The Delaware class litigation is on-going.


BRONX, NY: Faces Class Action Over Misdemeanor Backlog
------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Keshner, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
lengthy delays, congestion and backlogs in Bronx Criminal Court
have produced a systemic deprivation of rights for borough
residents charged with misdemeanors, according to a federal suit
filed on May 10 against the state court system.

The sluggish pace of adjudication has "fatally undermined the
right to trial and the right to a speedy trial for the tens of
thousands of people charged with low-level offenses in the Bronx,"
said the putative class action, Trowbridge v. Cuomo, 16-cv-3455.

"The system more closely resembles punishment than due process,"
according to the suit, whose name plaintiffs saw their cases wend
through the court for years before they were resolved.

One plaintiff, Michael Torres, had 14 court appearances, which
cost him his job due to missed time.  The case was ultimately
dismissed -- 877 days after his arraignment.

The plaintiffs, who are also suing Gov. Andrew Cuomo, are
represented by the Bronx Defenders and pro bono counsel at Emery
Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady and Morrison & Foerster.

The parties are pressing claims of due process violations under
the Fourteenth Amendment and speedy trial violations under the
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment.

The case has been assigned to Southern District Judge George
Daniels.

Court spokesman Lucian Chalfen declined to comment on the suit.
But in a statement, he said "the issue of case backlogs and delays
in the state's courts, particularly the Bronx, are an absolute top
priority."

From the start of Chief Judge Janet DiFiore's administration in
January, Mr. Chalfen said backlogs and delays "have been directly
addressed" in DiFiore's Excellence Initiative, which she called an
"objective, self-critical analysis" of the system (NYLJ,
Feb. 9).

On May 10, Mr. Chalfen said Judge DiFiore "and senior court
administrators are actively engaged in working on resolving the
problem to the expectations and standards that we expect from our
state court system."

According to court statistics, the number of pending misdemeanors
declined to 14,633 as of April, compared to 17,127 at the end of
2013.  But the complaint noted the wait for cases on the trial
track; Bronx misdemeanor defendants must wait about 642 days on
average for a bench trial and 827 days for a jury case.
The lawsuit charges that court officials are familiar with the
problems it alleges.

"Defendants in this case have long been aware of the systemic and
pervasive court delays in Bronx Criminal Court and its effect on
due process, the right to trial, and the right to a speedy trial.
Yet they have repeatedly failed to remedy the violations,"
Trowbridge alleged.

The suit noted that as of December 2013, the last time citywide
data was available, Brooklyn had 657 misdemeanors pending for more
than a year; Manhattan had 594 such cases; Queens had more than
300 and Staten Island had roughly 275.


CALIFORNIA: Class Action Challenges "Fire Prevention Fee"
---------------------------------------------------------
AgAlert's Jon Coup and The California Farm Bureau Federation
report that by now, most rural homeowners have become accustomed
to receiving an annual bill of $150 -- or higher -- for what is
euphemistically called a "fire prevention fee."  However, this
familiarity does not make writing out the check to the State Board
of Equalization any more palatable.  Many property owners, who are
receiving no additional fire protection services, recognize this
as the rip-off that it is.

"It is hard to believe that those in the Legislature, who created
this tax in 2011 with a simple majority vote while calling it a
fee, did so with a straight face.  Even Gov. Brown questioned its
legality while signing it into law.  And we at the Howard Jarvis
Taxpayers Association saw clearly that it was not a fee -- which
requires that a specific service be provided in return for the
payment -- but a tax, which under Proposition 13 requires a two-
thirds vote of each house of the Legislature," Mr. Coupal said.

Of course, the "fee" was established, not so more money could be
provided to the Department of Forestry, the stated beneficiary of
the new revenue, but to allow lawmakers to divert money previously
spent for this purpose to pet projects.  Basically it was a
switcheroo, with the new money being used to backfill for the
money diverted to other programs.

In response, HJTA filed a class action lawsuit to provide relief
to nearly 1 million California property owners who received bills
for the illegal "fire prevention fee."  The complaint was filed
against the California Department of Forestry and the Board of
Equalization, which is the collection agency for the "fee."

The class action complaint seeks to overturn the fire "fee," which
costs property owners an extra $150 per year charge for each
habitable structure.  It challenges the constitutionality of the
fee on the grounds it is really a tax that needed a two-thirds
vote of the Legislature, but garnered a bare majority and
therefore should never have become law.

On the legal front, progress has been slow, although there has
been progress.

The delay in reaching a resolution is primarily due to two
reasons: First, the California courts are struggling with a
backlog of cases.  But the biggest problem has been a powerful
opponent, the state of California, which is determined to hang on
to every ill-gotten nickel.

State bureaucrats, fearing that a successful class action suit
would require refunds to those taxpayers who filed a protest, used
delaying tactics.  State attorneys filed repeated motions to
postpone trial, including motions to dismiss the case and motions
challenging the "class action" status of the suit.

"After HJTA responded to each of the state's challenges -- nearly
four years of legal work -- the court ruled that the case may
proceed as a class action.  We have just completed the public
notification process that a class action suit requires.  It is our
hope and intention that the legal process will now proceed
rapidly," Mr. Coupal said.

Some will ask, "If the fire tax is illegal, should I pay it?"
Although HJTA attorneys are confident of the eventual outcome, we
strongly urge homeowners to pay the bill.  Property owners have 30
days from the mailing of the bill to pay it.  If you are late,
there is a 20 percent penalty, plus interest.  For every 30 days
after that, another 20 percent penalty is added, plus interest.
The fee is a lien on property, and failure to pay can result in
foreclosure.

If the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association lawsuit is successful,
the court may order refunds to people who have filed a Petition
for Redetermination.  For instructions on how to file this form,
go to www.hjta.org and click on the Fire Tax Protest banner.  Once
there, you can also sign up for free informational bulletins on
progress of the suit against the fire tax.

Rural property owners have been paying this illegal tax for years,
but we remain optimistic that a court will ultimately grant relief
from this unconstitutional money grab.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
in Sacramento.


CANADA: Court of Appeal Upholds Ruling in G20 Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Eberdt, writing for Now Toronto, reports that on the weekend
of June 26, 2010, Toronto was held hostage by the G20 summit,
literally.  Six years have passed.  Since then, there have been a
series of precedent-setting decisions which hold the police
accountable for their actions that weekend.  Perhaps the most
significant of them was released in April.

On April 6, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of our
Divisional Court in the case of Good v. Toronto Police Services
Board.  It is the first class action lawsuit dealing with use of
the "kettling" technique, where police surrounded and detained
hundreds of people and, in many cases, took them to jail.

The primary issue in the Court of Appeal's decision was whether
Good's case could proceed as a class action, as opposed to an
ordinary civil action involving only her. The benefit of the
former is that it enables anyone who was detained in the various
"kettling" incidents described in the claim to join the action
without hiring their own lawyer and commencing separate lawsuits.
The court's decision will significantly increase any damages award
made against the police.  Good's lawyers estimate this is in
excess of 1,000 people.  Many of these people were merely walking
the streets of the city when they were detained -- they weren't
even part of a protest.

Like any class action lawsuit, the case involves a "representative
plaintiff," Sherry Good, who represents the interests of the group
(i.e. the "class").  Her statement to the court is compelling:

"At Queen and Spadina that afternoon, during a peaceful protest,
with no warning, we were surrounded by hundreds of police in riot
gear, fully armed.  We could not leave.  They kept us standing in
one of the worst rain storms of the year for over four hours with
no information disseminated to us, no food, no water, no toilets.
Sometimes the police charged into the crown, picking out people
indiscriminately for arrest, and dragging them away."

Good goes on to describe having a panic attack afterwards and
losing trust in the police.

Because the Court of Appeal is the most authoritative court in the
province, its decision is likely to set the course for similar
cases in the future, both within and beyond Ontario. Justice Hoy,
who wrote the decision for the court, emphasized the importance of
the case proceeding as a class action by contrasting it with the
recommendations that have been made since the G20:

"The reports regarding police conduct during the G20 summit make
non-binding recommendations.  In my view, the remedies sought by
the plaintiffs, which include a declaration that class members'
Charter rights have been violated and an award of damages, would
be stronger instruments of [police] behaviour modification."

Eric Gillespie, one of Ms. Good's lawyers, said, "This is actually
about much more than just one event.  This class action will help
protect the basic freedoms of all Canadians."

Good's case is one of several that have been decided in favor of
people who were mistreated by the police during the G20.
Klippensteins, one of the law firms representing her, also
represented Paul Figueiras, who was walking down University that
weekend when he was told by a police sergeant that he would not be
allowed to walk further unless he subjected himself to a search.
Mr. Figueiras brought a civil action, not for money, but for a
declaration that his Charter rights had been violated. He lost at
the Superior Court, but the decision was overturned by the Court
of Appeal on March 30, 2015.

On August 15, 2015, Superintendent Mark Fenton -- the officer in
charge of the police who were responsible for two of the
"kettling" incidents -- was found guilty of one count of
discreditable conduct and two counts of unlawful arrest after a
disciplinary hearing.

The fact that courts have reprimanded the conduct of the police
during that weekend is an important step towards correcting the
injustices that occurred during the G20 weekend.  However, none of
this conduct should have occurred in the first place.

Brian Eberdt is a criminal defense lawyer with Lockyer Campbell
Posner.  In the interest of full disclosure, his law firm has
represented individuals who were charged during the G20 Summit.
Reasonable Doubt appears on Mondays.


CANADIAN SOLAR: Ontario Class Suit Moves to Merits Stage
--------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Solar Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Ontario class action
has moved to the merits stage.

The Company said, "Our company and certain of our directors and
executive officers were named as defendants in class action
lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada alleging that our financial
disclosures during 2009 and early 2010 were false or misleading
and in violation of U.S. federal securities laws and Ontario
securities laws, respectively. The lawsuits in the U.S. were
consolidated into one class action, which was dismissed with
prejudice by the district court in March 2013, and subsequently
affirmed by the circuit court in December 2013. The lawsuit in
Canada continues."

"As a preliminary matter, we challenged the Ontario Court's
jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claim, but this motion was
unsuccessful. In September 2014, the plaintiff obtained an order
granting him leave to assert the statutory cause of action under
the Ontario Securities Act for certain of his misrepresentation
claims. In January 2015, the plaintiff obtained an order for class
certification in respect of the claims for which he obtained leave
to assert the statutory cause of action under the Ontario
Securities Act, for certain negligent misrepresentation claims and
for oppression remedy claims advanced under the Canada Business
Corporations Act, or CBCA. The Court dismissed CSI's application
for leave to appeal. The class action has moved to the merits
stage.

"We believe the Ontario action is without merit and we are
defending it vigorously."


CARIBOU COFFEE: Faces TCPA Class Action in Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq. -- dklein@kleinmoynihan.com -- of Klein
Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin on May 5, alleging that
Caribou Coffee Company, Inc. ("Caribou") violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending unsolicited text
message advertisements without obtaining the prior express written
consent to do so.  The TCPA class action complaint seeks to
certify a class of:

All persons within the United States who received an SMS text
message from Caribou Coffee Company, Inc. and/or an affiliate,
subsidiary, or agent of Caribou Coffee Company, Inc. to a cellular
telephone through the use of an automatic dialing system and who
did not provide prior express written consent to receive such SMS
text messages.

How is Caribou Alleged to Have Violated the TCPA?

TCPA Class Action Allegations Against Caribou

According to the complaint, the class action representative
plaintiff began receiving unsolicited text message advertisements
on her cellular telephone from Caribou in or about March 2016. The
TCPA class action complaint specifically alleges that "[t]he
source of each of the unsolicited SMS text messages sent by
[Caribou] to the [plaintiff's cellular telephone] number was
'65017', which is an SMS short code leased by [Caribou] or
[Caribou's] agent(s) or affiliate(s), and is used for operating
[Caribou's] text message marketing program."  The complaint
further alleges that Caribou necessarily used an automated
telephone dialing system to send the unsolicited commercial text
message advertisements because the texts "were sent from '65017',
which is a short code telephone number used to message consumers
en masse."  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary
damages.

Caribou has not yet been served with process.


CHEMICAL AND MINING: Briefing on Dismissal Bid Incomplete
---------------------------------------------------------
Chemical and Mining Company of Chile Inc. said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
21, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
briefing on the motion to dismiss a consolidated class action
lawsuit is not yet complete.

The Company said, "On October 14, 2015, two class action
complaints then pending against the Company, our former CEO and
current CEO and CFO, alleging violations of the U.S. securities
laws in connection with the subject matter of the investigations
described above, were consolidated into a single action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. On November, 13, 2015, our former CEO and current CEO and
CFO were voluntarily dismissed from the case without prejudice."

"On January 15, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
class action complaint exclusively against the Company. The
consolidated complaint alleges that certain statements made by the
Company between June 30, 2010 and June 18, 2015, principally in
the Company's SEC filings and press releases, were materially
false and/or misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the consolidated complaint
challenges certain of the Company's statements concerning its
compliance with applicable laws and regulations; the effectiveness
of its internal controls; its adoption of a code of ethics
consistent with SEC requirements; its revenues and taxes owed; and
its compliance with applicable accounting standards. The
consolidated complaint also alleges that the Company made
inadequate disclosures concerning the status of the Corfo
litigation. The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class
consisting of all persons who purchased SQM ADSs between June 30,
2010 and June 18, 2015, and seeks damages of an undetermined
amount to recover the economic losses allegedly suffered by the
class as a result of the challenged statements. On March 30, 2016,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
under the doctrine of forum non conveniens or, alternatively,
pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for failure to state a claim under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act. The briefing on that motion to dismiss is not yet
complete."


CHEVIOT FINANCIAL: Faces "Neiheisel" and "Bushansky" Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Cheviot Financial Corp. is facing class action complaints over its
planned merger with MainSource Financial Group, Inc., Cheviot said
in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2015.

On November 23, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with MainSource Financial
Group, Inc., an Indiana corporation ("MainSource"), pursuant to
which the Company will merge with and into MainSource, whereupon
the separate corporate existence of the Company will cease and
MainSource will survive (the "Merger").  It is anticipated that
immediately after the Merger, the Bank will merge with and into
MainSource Bank, an Indiana chartered commercial bank and wholly-
owned subsidiary of MainSource, with MainSource Bank as the
surviving bank.

On January 15, 2016, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed by Raymond J. Neiheisel against the Company, the
Company's directors and MainSource in the Court of Common Pleas,
Hamilton County, Ohio, Civil Division (the "Neiheisel Action"). In
the Neiheisel Action, the plaintiff alleges that the directors of
the Company breached their fiduciary duties of due care,
independence, good faith and fair dealing to the shareholders of
the Company, that the consideration to be received by the
shareholders is inadequate and undervalues the Company, that the
Merger Agreement includes improper deal-protection devices that
purportedly lock up the Merger and may operate to prevent other
bidders from making successful competing offers for the Company,
that the deal protection devices unreasonably inhibit the ability
of the directors of the Company to act with respect to
investigating and pursuing superior proposals and alternatives and
that the Merger Agreement involves conflicts of interests.

The complaint further alleges that the Company and MainSource
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the
directors of the Company. The complaint was amended on February
29, 2016 to also allege that the Registration Statement of which
the proxy statement/prospectus is a part, provides materially
misleading and incomplete information rendering the stockholders
of the Company unable to make an informed decision with respect to
the Merger. The amended complaint contains both direct class
action claims as well as indirect shareholder derivative claims.

On February 16, 2016, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed by Stephen Bushansky against the Company, the Company's
directors and MainSource in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton
County, Ohio, Civil Division (the "Bushansky Action"). In the
Bushansky Action, the plaintiff alleges that the directors of the
Company breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith and
due care to the shareholders of the Company, that the
consideration to be received by the shareholders is unfair and
inadequate, that the Merger Agreement includes improper deal-
protection devices that purportedly lock up the Merger and may
operate to prevent other bidders from providing the Company's
shareholders with a premium for their shares. The complaint
further alleges that MainSource aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of the Company. The
plaintiff seeks an order that the matter may be maintained as a
class action, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
including enjoining or rescinding the Merger, and an award of
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other relief.

The outcome of these actions and their impact on any party or the
Merger cannot be predicted with certainty. A preliminary
injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger,
and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could
indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger. Additional lawsuits
arising out of or relating to the Merger Agreement or the Merger
may be filed in the future. Cheviot, Cheviot's directors and
MainSource believe that the claims asserted in these actions are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits. The complaint was amended on February 29, 2016 to also
allege that the Registration Statement of which the proxy
statement/prospectus is a part, provides materially misleading and
incomplete information rendering the stockholders of the Company
unable to make an informed decision with respect to the Merger.
The amended complaint contains both direct class action claims as
well as indirect shareholder derivative claims.


CHINA CERAMICS: Class Action Deal Awaits Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
China Ceramics Co., Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a final hearing was held
on January 6, 2016, but the Court has not yet issued a final order
approving the settlement.

On June 6, 2014, a putative class action complaint (the "Pollock
Complaint") was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against us and various current and
former directors and officers asserting claims of violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all
defendants, and asserting claims for violations of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants; and
pursuing remedies under the Exchange Act. The complaint is
captioned Robert Pollock, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Huang Jia Dong, Su Pei Zhi, Hen Man Edmund,
Ding Wei Dong, Paul K. Kelly, Cheng Yan Davis, William L.
Stulginsky, Su Wei Feng, Shen Cheng Liang, Jianwei Liu, And China
Ceramics Co., Ltd. (Case No. 14-cv-4100).

On June 16, 2014, a putative class action complaint (the "Artinoff
Complaint") was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against us and various current and
former directors and officers asserting claims of violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all
defendants, and asserting claims for violations of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants; and
pursuing remedies under the Exchange Act. The complaint is
captioned Roger Artinoff, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated v. China Ceramics Co. Ltd., Huang Jia Dong, Su
Pei Zhi, Hen Man Edmund, Ding Wei Dong, Paul K. Kelly, Cheng Yan
Davis, William L. Stulginsky And Su Wei Feng. (Case No. 14-cv-
4312).

On July 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint (the "Finlayson
Complaint") was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against us and various current and
former directors and officers asserting claims for violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against all defendants, and claims for violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants; and pursuing remedies under the Exchange Act. The
complaint is captioned Richard Finlayson, Individually and On
Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Huang Jia Dong, Su Pei
Zhi, Hen Man Edmund, Ding Wei Dong, Paul K. Kelly, Cheng Yan
Davis, William L. Stulginsky, Su Wei Feng, Shen Cheng Liang,
Jianwei Liu, and China Ceramics Co., Ltd. (Case No. 14-cv-4997).

"On February 6, 2015, we and the individual defendants reached an
agreement in principle to settle the above-described cases as
against all defendants and us in consideration of the payment by
us of $850,000, consisting of a combination of cash and our common
stock," the Company said.  "The settlement is subject to the
execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement and the
approval of the settlement by the Court. A Stipulation of
Settlement and related documents were subsequently filed with the
court, and were revised on July 22, 2015. The settlement is
subject to approval by the court."

"On September 1, 2015, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued a preliminary approval order
that among other things preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement of the class action litigation. A final hearing was
held on January 6, 2016, but the Court has not yet issued a final
order approving the settlement."


CODE REBEL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 10
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Code Rebel Corporation securities from August 17,
2015 through May 5, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Code Rebel
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Code Rebel class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-896.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for more information
on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Code Rebel's financial statements contained
errors concerning its assets and financial condition; and (2) as a
result of the foregoing, Code Rebel's public statements were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis
at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
July 11, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  If
you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-896.htmlfor more information. You
may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


CODE REBEL: Investor Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Gallagher, writing for Pacific Business News, reports
that an investor has filed a class action lawsuit in federal court
against Maui software developer Code Rebel Corp., which, along
with an investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, could lead to three possible negative outcomes for the
startup, according to Mike Purpura, a partner at the Honolulu law
firm Carlsmith Ball.

On May 10, investor Robert Springer filed a lawsuit in U.S.
District Court in New York against Code Rebel seeking monetary
damages for investments they claim were made based on false and/or
misleading statements.

The lawsuit, filed by the New York-based Rosen Law Firm, is
seeking class action status on behalf of anyone who purchased Code
Rebel securities between Aug. 17, 2015, and May 5, 2016.

Code Rebel may file a motion to dismiss the case, according to Mr.
Purpura, who practices litigation and white-collar criminal
defense, including securities enforcement matters, and has handled
class actions.  The case will be heard first and be based on the
allegation and complaint.

"It will take a while to work through the system," said
Mr. Purpura.  "It will depend on the court's schedule, but it
could take several months or up to year [before a decision is
made]."

The company's stock was suspended from trading by the SEC because
of a "lack of accurate information" about the company's
securities.  The suspension will end on May 20.

"It is severe action for the SEC to stop trading on the
securities, it is unusual," confirmed Mr. Purpura.  "The SEC will
evaluate the situation over the next several days, and the stock
can resume trading or they have the power to extend the ban."

The class action lawsuit and the SEC investigation are on "two
separate tracks," the attorney explained.  Things could get worse
for the company, as sometimes when the SEC conducts
investigations, it finds content that is criminal and so refers
the case to the U.S. attorney's office, he said.  These are the
"three potential avenues that this could take," Mr. Purpura said.


COMFORT CONTROL: Compressor Eng'g Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff filed with the Court a "placeholder" motion for class
certification in the lawsuit styled COMPRESSOR ENGINEERING
CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. COMFORT
CONTROL SUPPLY CO., INC. d/b/a JOHNSTONE SUPPLY, CHESTER LIMITED
INC., Michigan corporations, CHESTER LIMITED IV, LLC, a Michigan
limited liability company, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-
11726-NGE-SDD (E.D. Mich.).

The plaintiff asserts that it files the "placeholder" motion for
class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off"
attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt
to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class
certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims
by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.

The Plaintiff proposes this class definition:

     All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
     filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
     messages of material advertising the commercial availability
     or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on
     behalf of Defendants, and (3) which Defendants did not have
     prior express permission or invitation, or (4) which did not
     display a proper opt-out notice.

The Plaintiff also asks that, following discovery and further
briefing, the Court certify the class, appoint the Plaintiff as
the class representative, and appoint the Plaintiff's attorneys as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zHLDdq6r

Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com


COMTECH TELECOM: To Seek Dismissal of Anne Arundel County Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
ComTech Telecommunications Corp. 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 the
Company intends to seek dismissal of the Anne Arundel County
actions following receipt of the decision by the Baltimore City
court dismissing the actions pending there.

On December 9, 2015, a putative class action, Stanley Magee v.
TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., was commenced by the filing of a
complaint in Maryland state court, in the Circuit Court for Anne
Arundel County, against TCS, members of the TCS Board of
Directors, Comtech and a wholly owned subsidiary of Comtech formed
to effect the acquisition, Typhoon Acquisition Corp. ("Acquisition
Corp."). Three other complaints were filed on December 15, 2015:
James Morakis v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., in the same
Circuit Court; and Rafal Sawicz v. TeleCommunication Systems,
Inc., and Wesley Shaffron v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., both
filed in Maryland state court in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
County.

All of the complaints raise similar putative class claims against
TCS, members of the TCS Board, Comtech and Acquisition Corp., in
challenging (i) the process undertaken by TCS leading up to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated
November 22, 2015, among TCS, the Company and Acquisition Corp.,
(ii) the consideration to be received by TCS stockholders and
(iii) the disclosures made in connection with the tender offer
made pursuant to the Merger Agreement. The complaints generally
allege breaches of fiduciary duty by members of the TCS Board in
connection with the Merger Agreement, and allege that some or all
of TCS, Comtech and Acquisition Corp. aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek
equitable and injunctive relief, including an order enjoining the
defendants from having completed the Acquisition, rescission of
any consummated transaction, unspecified damages and attorneys'
fees.

In the actions pending in Baltimore City, the defendants moved to
dismiss the complaints and the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary
injunction against completion of the acquisition. A hearing on
these motions was held on January 18, 2016. The court in Baltimore
City, however, did not rule on the preliminary injunction motion
prior to the expiration of the tender offer or the closing of the
acquisition which actually occurred on February 23, 2016.

On February 29, 2016, the court in Baltimore City issued a
"Memorandum to Counsel" stating that the court had determined to
grant defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints in the actions
pending in that court and would issue a decision within seven to
ten days. With respect to the two actions pending in Anne Arundel
County, on February 10, 2016, the court consolidated the two
actions. There has been no further activity in that court with
respect to those actions. The Company intends to seek dismissal of
the Anne Arundel County actions following receipt of the decision
by the Baltimore City court dismissing the actions pending there.

"On February 23, 2016, we completed our acquisition of TCS,
pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November
22, 2015 (the "Merger Agreement"), among Comtech, TCS and Typhoon
Acquisition Corp., a Maryland corporation and a direct, wholly
owned subsidiary of Comtech ("Merger Sub")," the Company said.

TCS is a provider of commercial solutions such as public safety
systems and enterprise application technologies and government
solutions such as command control (also known as Command, Control,
Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance ("C4ISR") applications).

ComTech designs, develops, produces and markets innovative
products, systems and services for advanced communications
solutions.


CONVERSE INC: Chavez Seeks Certification of Retail Store Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ERIC CHAVEZ, as an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONVERSE, INC.,
an Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 5:15-cv-03746-NC (N.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify the
following Class and Subclass:

     (a) All current and former non-exempt retail store employees
         of Defendant who worked in California during the period
         from July 10, 2011 to the present (the "Class"); and

     (b) All current and former non-exempt retail store employees
         of Defendant who worked in California during the period
         from July 10, 2011 to the present, and who received
         overtime and additional non-discretionary remuneration
         (the "Regular Rate Sub-Class").

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to determine that he is an
adequate representative and to certify him as the class
representative, and to find his counsel as adequate class counsel
and certify them as class counsel.

A hearing on the Motion will be held on August 17, 2016, at 1:00
p.m.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
          E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com

               - and -

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          550 S. Hope St., Suite 2655
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com


CRYPTSY: Class Action Over Collapse Ongoing
-------------------------------------------
Stan Higgins, writing for CoinDesk, reports that one month after a
Florida court first appointed a receiver in charge of troubled
digital currency exchange Cryptsy, the representative has filed a
report detailing efforts to retain information about the
whereabouts of Cryptsy assets, as well as CEO Paul Vernon.

Entered by receiver James Sallah, the filing comes months after
users first began voicing concerns about their inability to
withdraw funds from the exchange or receive clarity from its
management on the status of such services.

Back in January, two Florida law firms filed suit against Project
Investors, the company that oversaw the exchange's operation, just
prior to the emergence of claims that Cryptsy had been hacked and
robbed nearly a year and a half prior.  At the time, Cryptsy
claimed that it owed its customers millions in various digital
currencies, denominated primarily in bitcoin.

Claims about the hack, widely disputed by both customers and
critics, were kept hidden at the time to avoid a panic, Vernon
told CoinDesk in January, but that dwindling income brought the
extent of the exchange's insolvency to the fore.

Court documents later revealed that the exchange's failure was
predicted weeks before its insolvency was publicly revealed.
Vernon is currently believed to be residing in China, and
according to recent reports, played a role in the creation of an
altcoin exchange in that region.

In the wake of that collapse, according to the receiver's report,
is a lack of clarity regarding the location of customer funds --
though some former users have been tracing transactions tied to
Cryptsy and Vernon -- as well as an apparent lack of communication
or cooperation between Vernon and plaintiffs in the class action.

The report states:

"As of this First Report, I have not received any cooperation from
Mr. Vernon, so my job has been made much more difficult regarding
every issue involving Cryptsy, especially wallet and investor
information.  From my investigation, accessing the servers will be
critical to determine current and past account, wallet, investor
and financial information and records."

Mr. Vernon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Cryptsy is currently offline.

Investigation details

Despite the reported lack of cooperation between the two sides,
court documents suggest that the plaintiffs have been pursuing
avenues of restitution for former customers involved in an ongoing
class action.

Notably, the report asserts that a Florida residential property
tied to a recent divorce case involving Vernon was indeed
purchased with funds tied to Cryptsy.  Lori Ann Nettles,
Mr. Vernon's former spouse, was also named as a defendant in the
class action lawsuit.

"I have also confirmed that the million-dollar plus property
currently in Ms. Nettles' name . . . was derived from Cryptsy and
should be receivership property," the report states, going on to
say that the house is currently on the market.

Mr. Sallah further indicated that he could file a separate lawsuit
seeking possession of the home.

The report includes details on the exchange's financial
infrastructure, supported by bank accounts provided by TD Bank and
SunTrust Bank, as well as digital currency accounts held by
Coinbase and Bittrex, both of which have reportedly frozen funds
tied to Cryptsy.  Bittrex, for example, is said to have frozen an
amount worth at least $100,000.

Mr. Sallah also detailed efforts to secure access to the Cryptsy
servers, said to be hosted by a company called Vault Networks in
Miami.  According to the report, following court action
Mr. Sallah was able to obtain a commitment to secure access as of
May 6.

Uncertain road ahead

As the report asserts, outstanding questions about the contents of
the Cryptsy web servers and the extent to which funds left the
exchange prior to its collapse remain unanswered.

"My overall investigation is still in its infancy and will be
ongoing," Mr. Sallah wrote.  "I will continue to search for and
attempt to secur[e] funds, cryptocurrencies, accounts and wallets
in Cryptsy's name or derived from Cryptsy."

Speaking to CoinDesk, attorney David Silver of the Silver Law
Group reiterated a past call for Vernon to cooperate with
plaintiffs and said that efforts to gain control of assets and
client funds remain ongoing.

"While we are trying to do everything we can to protect our
clients' interests, we are limited in what we can do," he said.
"Members of the Cryptsy community have been actively following
this case, and any help or information they can provide is much
appreciated.


DIODES INCORPORATED: Class Action Dismissal Upheld
--------------------------------------------------
Diodes Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the dismissal of a class
action lawsuit has been affirmed.

On September 15, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas issued an order regarding the putative
securities class action entitled Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators
and Pavers Pension Trust Fund v. Diodes, Inc., Civil Action No.
6:13-cv-00247 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 15, 2013) (the "Class
Action"), granting defendants' motion to dismiss the Class Action
with prejudice.

On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
order dismissing the Class Action to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 13, 2016, the Court of
Appeals issued an order and opinion affirming the dismissal of the
Class Action with prejudice.  Plaintiffs-appellants had until
April 12, 2016 to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the
United States Supreme Court.  Defendants-respondents intend to
continue defend this action vigorously.

Diodes is a global manufacturer and supplier of high-quality,
application-specific standard products within the broad discrete,
logic, analog and mixed-signal semiconductor markets, serving the
consumer electronics, computing, communications, industrial and
automotive markets.


DISH NETWORK: 2nd Phase of Trial in "Do Not Call" Suit in October
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a second phase of
bench trial has been set for October 2016, in the Do Not Call
Litigation.

The Company said, "On March 25, 2009, our wholly-owned subsidiary
DISH Network L.L.C. was sued in a civil action by the United
States Attorney General and several states in the United States
District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the
Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), as well as analogous state
statutes and state consumer protection laws.  The plaintiffs
allege that we, directly and through certain independent third-
party retailers and their affiliates, committed certain
telemarketing violations."

"On December 23, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment, which indicated for the first time that the state
plaintiffs were seeking civil penalties and damages of
approximately $270 million and that the federal plaintiff was
seeking an unspecified amount of civil penalties (which could
substantially exceed the civil penalties and damages being sought
by the state plaintiffs).  The plaintiffs were also seeking
injunctive relief that if granted would, among other things,
enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectly
through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party
retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to market
or promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISH
Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from certain
existing independent third-party retailers and from certain new
independent third-party retailers, except under certain
circumstances.

"We also filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of
all claims.  On December 12, 2014, the Court issued its opinion
with respect to the parties' summary judgment motions.  The Court
found that DISH Network L.L.C. is entitled to partial summary
judgment with respect to one claim in the action.  In addition,
the Court found that the plaintiffs are entitled to partial
summary judgment with respect to ten claims in the action, which
includes, among other things, findings by the Court establishing
DISH Network L.L.C.'s liability for a substantial amount of the
alleged outbound telemarketing calls by DISH Network L.L.C. and
certain of its independent third-party retailers that were the
subject of the plaintiffs' motion.  The Court did not issue any
injunctive relief and did not make any determination on civil
penalties or damages, ruling instead that the scope of any
injunctive relief and the amount of any civil penalties or damages
are questions for trial.

"In pre-trial disclosures, the federal plaintiff indicated that it
intended to seek up to $900 million in alleged civil penalties,
and the state plaintiffs indicated that they intended to seek as
much as $23.5 billion in alleged civil penalties and damages.  The
plaintiffs also modified their request for injunctive relief.
Their requested injunction, if granted, would enjoin DISH Network
L.L.C. from placing outbound telemarketing calls unless and until:
(i) DISH Network L.L.C. hires a third-party consulting
organization to perform a review of its call center operations;
(ii) such third-party consulting organization submits a
telemarketing compliance plan to the Court and the federal
plaintiff; (iii) the Court holds a hearing on the adequacy of the
plan; (iv) if the Court approves the plan, DISH Network L.L.C.
implements the plan and verifies to the Court that it has
implemented the plan; and (v) the Court issues an order permitting
DISH Network L.L.C. to resume placing outbound telemarketing
calls.   The plaintiffs' modified request for injunctive relief,
if granted, would also enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting
customer orders solicited by certain independent third-party
retailers unless and until a similar third-party review and Court
approval process was followed with respect to the telemarketing
activities of its independent third-party retailer base to ensure
compliance with the TSR.

"The first phase of the bench trial took place January 19, 2016
through February 11, 2016.  In closing briefs, the federal
plaintiff indicated that it still is seeking $900 million in
alleged civil penalties;  the California state plaintiff indicated
that it is seeking $100 million in alleged civil penalties and
damages for its state law claims (in addition to any amounts
sought on its federal law claims); the Ohio state plaintiff
indicated that it is seeking approximately $10 million in alleged
civil penalties and damages for its state law claims (in addition
to any amounts sought on its federal law claims); and the Illinois
and North Carolina state plaintiffs did not state the specific
alleged civil penalties and damages that they are seeking; but the
state plaintiffs have taken the general position that any damages
award less than $1.0 billion (presumably for both federal and
state law claims) would not raise constitutional concerns.  Under
the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, excessive fines may
not be imposed.

"The Court scheduled a second phase of the bench trial for October
2016, which is planned to cover the plaintiffs' requested
injunctive relief, as well as DISH Network L.L.C.'s response to
certain evidence that the state plaintiffs presented in the first
phase.  However, the federal plaintiff subsequently filed a motion
with the Court seeking to cancel the separate hearing on the
plaintiffs' requested injunctive relief and asking the Court to
rule on those matters based on the current trial record.

"We may also from time to time be subject to private civil
litigation alleging telemarketing violations.  For example, a
portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent
third-party retailer at issue in the case described in the
previous paragraph are also the subject of a certified class
action filed against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

"We intend to vigorously defend these cases.  We cannot predict
with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or
determine the extent of any potential liability or damages."


DOLLAR TREE: Answer to "Snipes" Suit Due June 19
------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERRY T. SNIPES, SR., an individual, residing in San
Joaquin County, California, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR TREE
DISTRIBUTION, INC., A Virginia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-00878-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.),
District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., said Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint is deemed filed and the Defendant is directed to
file and serve its Answer to the Second Amended Complaint within
30 days.

A copy of the Court's May 16, 2016 Order is available at
https://is.gd/bO3aWp from Leagle.com.

Terry T. Snipes, Plaintiff, represented by S. Brett Sutton --
brett@suttonhague.com -- Jared Hague -- jared@suttonhague.com --
and Joseph Vidal Macias -- joseph@suttonhague.com -- at Sutton
Hague Law Corporation, PC.

Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
J. Mann -- jmann@littler.com -- Kurt R. Bockes --
kbockes@littler.com -- Lindbergh Porter, Jr. --
lporter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson and Steven Woodrow Moore
-- smoore@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete LLP.


DOMINO'S: Faces Class Action Over Minimum Wage Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Courier-Post, reports that a pizza
deliveryman has sued the operators of 26 Domino's outlets in South
Jersey and Pennsylvania, contending the company  effectively pays
workers less than the minimum wage.

The proposed class-action suit contends workers are not reimbursed
for the full cost of using personal vehicles to deliver Domino's
products to customers.

It also asserts drivers are required to pay for their Domino's
jackets.

As a result of those unreimbursed expenses, the suit claims,
delivery workers' net wages "fall below the federal and New Jersey
minimum wage during some or all workweeks."

The suit -- brought in the name of Kais Jabrani, a five-year
employee at a Burlington City Domino's -- seeks to represent past
and present employees of two Haddonfield-based franchisees, Miles
Enterprises Inc. and JMRMJ Pizza LLC.

Representatives of the franchisees could not be reached for
comment.

Domino's spokesman Tim McIntrye declined to comment on the
lawsuit, saying only the franchisees are "independent businesses."

The lawsuit represents the latest legal challenge to pay policies
at Domino's, a Michigan-based company with U.S. sales of almost $5
billion last year.  The pizza producer has about 5,100 stores
nationwide, with all but a few hundred run by franchisees.

Another suit, filed in April, in federal court in New York City,
said Domino's franchisees "in the last few years . . . have been
required to pay nearly $3 million" after state and federal
investigations into alleged unlawful pay practices and
mistreatment of employees.

In one of those settlements, New York State Attorney General Eric
T. Schneiderman in 2014 said six Domino's franchisees with 23
stores were paying almost $450,000 to settle claims they'd
underpaid workers. The money was distributed among some 750
workers.

In the local suit, Mr. Jabrani said he is reimbursed about 90
cents per delivery -- or about 18 cents a mile for an average trip
covering about five miles.

It says the IRS business mileage reimbursement rate, in contrast,
"has ranged between (54 cents) and (57.5 cents) per mile."

The suit says Mr. Jabrani typically has averaged about two
deliveries per hour, and contends that means he's "consistently
'kicked back'" about $3.60 per hour in unreimbursed costs for an
"effective hourly wage rate of about $4.78."

The minimum wage is $7.25 at the federal level and $8.38 in New
Jersey.

The suit adds Mr. Jabrani's wages were reduced by a requirement
that he buy a jacket with the company logo for $25.

The suit seeks to represent employees who have worked for the
Domino's franchisees over the past two years.


ECOLAB INC: Bid to File Oversized Brief in "Schneider" Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 16, 2016, in the case entitled
Steven Schneider v. Ecolab Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01044 (N.D.
Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Edmond E.
Chang.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's motion to file
oversized brief in support of class certification is granted; the
brief is accepted.  On the Plaintiff's motion to file under seal,
Local Rule 26.2 requires the contemporaneous filing of the under-
seal filing (along with the redacted version).  The redacted
version was filed, but not the under-seal version, which the Court
says makes it difficult to make even a preliminary assessment of
the propriety of sealing.  Having said that, Judge Chang says, the
Court grants the motion to seal, but provisionally, subject to
further review when assessing the underlying motion on its merit.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=izQwd5LY


EL POLLO LOCO: Finalizing Settlement in Employee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 30, 2015, that the Company is
working on a deal to settle a class action lawsiut by a former
employee.

On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, against EPL on behalf of all putative class members (all
hourly employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain
violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay
overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest
breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The
putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory
and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No specific amount of
damages sought was specified in the complaint.

"We have executed a Memorandum of Understanding outlining an
agreement in principle between the parties to settle the claims on
a class-wide basis.  The parties are working to memorialize the
settlement and secure the required court approval," the Company
said.

El Pollo Loco is a differentiated and growing restaurant concept
that specializes in fire-grilling citrus-marinated chicken and
operates in the limited service restaurant ("LSR") segment.


EL POLLO LOCO: To Defend Against Consolidated Calif. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 30, 2015, that the Defendants
intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in a
consolidated class action lawsuit in California.

Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 8:15-cv-01343) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015,
and Ron Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 8:15-cv-01710) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on October 22, 2015.
The two lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs
and class counsel.

A consolidated complaint was filed on January 29, 2016, on behalf
of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly situated, alleging
violations of federal securities laws in connection with Holdings
common stock purchased or otherwise acquired and the purchase of
call options or the sale of put options, between May 1, 2015 and
August 13, 2015 (the "Class Period").

The named defendants are Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance
Roberts, and Edward J. Valle (collectively, the "Individual
Defendants"); and Trimaran Pollo Partners, L.L.C., Trimaran
Capital Partners, and Freeman Spogli & Co. (collectively, the
"Controlling Shareholder Defendants"). Among other things,
Plaintiffs allege that, in 2014 and early 2015, Holdings suffered
losses due to rising labor costs in California and, in an attempt
to mitigate the effects of such rising costs, removed a $5 value
option from our menu, which resulted in a decrease in value-
conscious store traffic.

Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings
and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false
and misleading statements that concealed the effect that these
factors were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings
stock continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices. As
a result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class
allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of
Holdings' stock during the Class Period. In addition, Plaintiffs
allege that the Individual Defendants and Controlling Shareholder
Defendants had direct involvement in, and responsibility over, the
operations of Holdings, and are presumed to have had, among other
things, the power to control or influence the transactions giving
rise to the alleged securities law violations. In both cases,
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs
and expenses (including attorneys' fees).

Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims
asserted.

El Pollo Loco is a differentiated and growing restaurant concept
that specializes in fire-grilling citrus-marinated chicken and
operates in the limited service restaurant ("LSR") segment.


ELBIT IMAGING: Reached Settlement in "Gadish" Case
--------------------------------------------------
Elbit Imaging Ltd., in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, said, "On April 6, 2016, we
announced that we and some other defendants (i.e: our and
Elscint's former directors and officers) entered into a settlement
agreement with the Plaintiffs in class action #1318/99 (Gadish v.
Elscint et al.) The settlement generally provides that in
consideration of a total payment of NIS 46 million (approximately
$11.9 million) (a) the Hotels & Marina Transactions cause of
action (as well as any other cause of action that is -- or may be
-- directed against us and our former directors and officers and
to Elscint and its former directors and officers) shall be
exhausted with respect to all of the defendants; and (b) all other
causes of action shall be exhausted with respect to us and our
former directors and officers as well as with respect to Elscint
and its former directors and officers. Our share in the
aforementioned compensation is NIS 4 million (approximately $1
million) and the rest will be financed by our D&O Insurance. The
Settlement is subject to the court's approval and additional
preconditions fulfillment as determined in the settlement
agreement, including, but not limited to the right of the insurer
to terminate the settlement under certain circumstances."


ELECTRONIC DATA: Class Cert. Bid Denied in "Karlbom" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company 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 a
court has denied a motion for class certification in the case,
Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise is involved in several pre-separation
lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime
compensation and other damages based on allegations that various
employees of Electronic Data Systems Corporation ("EDS") or HP
Inc. have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and/or in violation of the
California Labor Code or other state laws.

Those matters include Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, a class action filed on March 16, 2009 in California
Superior Court alleging that certain information technology
employees allegedly involved in installing and/or maintaining
computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt
employees. On October 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify a Rule 23 state class of all California-based EDS
employees in the Infrastructure Associate, Infrastructure Analyst,
Infrastructure Specialist, and Infrastructure Specialist Senior
job codes from March 16, 2005 through October 31, 2009 that they
claim were improperly classified as exempt from overtime under
state law. On January 22, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.


ENDOCYTE INC: Appeal in Shareholder Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Endocyte, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the United States
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a final order with
mandate to dismiss the shareholder class action lawsuit filed in
2014 against Endocyte Inc., a leader in developing small molecule
drug conjugates, and certain of its officers, directors and
underwriters in connection with the events leading up to cessation
of the PROCEED Phase 3 clinical trial.

On June 24, 2014, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company and one of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana under the following caption: Tony Nguyen, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Endocyte,
Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Nguyen Litigation"). On July 13, 2014,
a nearly identical complaint in a securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company and one of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana under the following caption: Vivian Oh
Revocable Trust, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Oh
Litigation").

On September 22, 2014, the court named a lead plaintiff ("Lead
Plaintiff") and consolidated the Nguyen Litigation and the Oh
Litigation under the following caption: Gopichand Vallabhaneni v.
Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Vallabhaneni Litigation").

On November 17, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
securities class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint")
against the Company, P. Ron Ellis, Beth Taylor, Michael A.
Sherman, John C. Aplin, Philip S. Low, Keith E. Brauer, Ann F.
Hanham, Marc Kozin, Peter D. Meldrum, Fred A. Middleton, Lesley
Russell (the "Individual Defendants" and collectively with the
Company, the "Endocyte Defendants"), and Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (the "Underwriter
Defendants"). Lead Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
Endocyte Defendants made false and misleading statements relating
to the efficacy of vintafolide and violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act. The putative class related to these
allegations consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's securities between March 21, 2014 and May
2, 2014.

Lead Plaintiff also alleged in the Amended Complaint that the
Endocyte Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants violated
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act"), by, among other things, making or allowing the
Company to make false and misleading statements regarding positive
opinions about vintafolide issued by the European Medicines
Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use in the
Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on March 25,
2014, preliminary prospectus filed on March 26, 2014, and final
prospectus filed on March 28, 2014. The putative class related to
these allegations consists of all those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's securities pursuant to or traceable to the
Company's April 2, 2014 public offering.

Lead Plaintiff sought the designation of the Vallabhaneni
Litigation as a class action, an award of unspecified damages,
interest, costs, expert fees and attorneys' fees, and
equitable/injunctive relief or other relief as the court may deem
just and proper.

Pursuant to a December 9, 2014 order, all Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on March 6, 2015. Lead Plaintiff filed a motion
in opposition on April 6, 2015 to which Defendants replied on
April 20, 2015.

The court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice on January 4,
2016, but granted Lead Plaintiff until February 1, 2016 to
demonstrate sufficient facts to justify an amended pleading. Lead
Plaintiff did not respond, and on February 2, 2016, the court
amended the dismissal to be with prejudice and a final order was
so entered.

Lead Plaintiff appealed the final judgment on March 1, 2016. On
March 31, 2016, the appeal was voluntarily dismissed, with
prejudice. No payments or other consideration of any kind were
offered or provided to Lead Plaintiff in exchange for dismissal of
the appeal.


ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: S.D. Fla. Class Action Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
ERBA Diagnostics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, that one
class action lawsuit remains pending in Florida.

In December 2015, two purported class actions were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
against the Company and four of its current or former executive
officers. The defendants in both actions are the Company, Mohan
Gopalkrishnan, Ernesina Scala, Sanjiv Suri and Prakash Patel. Both
Complaints allege generally that during the purported class period
of April 15, 2014 through November 20, 2015, the Company and the
named executive officers knowingly and/or recklessly disseminated
or approved statements about the Company's business operation and
prospects that were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. Both Complaints seek to assert claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and seek unspecified damages.

On February 9, 2016, one of the Complaints was voluntarily
dismissed.

The Company has been advised by ERBA Diagnostics Mannheim GmbH,
the Company's principal stockholder ("ERBA Mannheim"), that ERBA
Mannheim will not be joining this purported class action and will
not be bringing a claim against the Company.

The litigation is in the preliminary stages. The Company believes
the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend
the actions.

ERBA Diagnostics, Inc. (NYSE MKT: ERB), is a fully integrated in
vitro diagnostics company, offering a comprehensive suite of
clinical testing products throughout the U.S. and emerging
markets. The Company serves as a one-stop shop for the testing
needs of the growing number of smaller hospitals, reference labs,
and physician clinics. ERBA Diagnostics' line of proprietary and
automated instruments, test kits, and reagents provide customers
with autoimmune, infectious diseases, clinical chemistry,
hematology, and diabetes testing. www.erbadiagnostics.com


FIRST AMERICAN: Updates on Class Action Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation, in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, provided
updates on several lawsuits pending against the Company.

The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to a number of non-
ordinary course lawsuits. These lawsuits frequently are similar in
nature to other lawsuits pending against the Company's
competitors.

For those non-ordinary course lawsuits where the Company has
determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable,
a liability representing the best estimate of the Company's
financial exposure based on known facts has been recorded. Actual
losses may materially differ from the amounts recorded.

For a substantial majority of these lawsuits, however, it is not
possible to assess the probability of loss. Most of these lawsuits
are putative class actions which require a plaintiff to satisfy a
number of procedural requirements before proceeding to trial.
These requirements include, among others, demonstration to a court
that the law proscribes in some manner the Company's activities,
the making of factual allegations sufficient to suggest that the
Company's activities exceeded the limits of the law and a
determination by the court -- known as class certification -- that
the law permits a group of individuals to pursue the case together
as a class. In certain instances the Company may also be able to
compel the plaintiff to arbitrate its claim on an individual
basis. If these procedural requirements are not met, either the
lawsuit cannot proceed or, as is the case with class certification
or compelled arbitration, the plaintiffs lose the financial
incentive to proceed with the case (or the amount at issue
effectively becomes de minimis). Frequently, a court's
determination as to these procedural requirements is subject to
appeal to a higher court. As a result of, among other factors,
ambiguities and inconsistencies in the myriad laws applicable to
the Company's business and the uniqueness of the factual issues
presented in any given lawsuit, the Company often cannot determine
the probability of loss until a court has finally determined that
a plaintiff has satisfied applicable procedural requirements.

Furthermore, because most of these lawsuits are putative class
actions, it is often impossible to estimate the possible loss or a
range of loss amounts, even where the Company has determined that
a loss is reasonably possible. Generally class actions involve a
large number of people and the effort to determine which people
satisfy the requirements to become plaintiffs -- or class members
-- is often time consuming and burdensome. Moreover, these
lawsuits raise complex factual issues which result in uncertainty
as to their outcome and, ultimately, make it difficult for the
Company to estimate the amount of damages which a plaintiff might
successfully prove. In addition, many of the Company's businesses
are regulated by various federal, state, local and foreign
governmental agencies and are subject to numerous statutory
guidelines. These regulations and statutory guidelines often are
complex, inconsistent or ambiguous, which results in additional
uncertainty as to the outcome of a given lawsuit -- including the
amount of damages a plaintiff might be afforded -- or makes it
difficult to analogize experience in one case or jurisdiction to
another case or jurisdiction.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,
among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the
Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents:

   --- charged an improper rate for title insurance in a refinance
transaction, including

       * Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
November 28, 2006 and pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho.

A court has granted class certification in Lewis. For the reasons
stated above, the Company has been unable to assess the
probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of
loss.

   --- purchased minority interests in title insurance agents as
an inducement to refer title insurance underwriting business to
the Company or gave items of value to title insurance agents and
others for referrals of business in violation of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, including

       * Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on
June 12, 2007 and pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.

In Edwards a narrow class has been certified.  The Company
believes the estimate of the possible loss or range of loss is not
material to the condensed consolidated financial statements as a
whole.

   --- misclassified certain employees, including

       * Cruz v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on November 25, 2015 and pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Orange,

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

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

These lawsuits are putative class actions for which a class has
not been certified. For the reasons described above, as well as
the applicability of certain indemnification rights the Company
may have, the Company has not yet been able to assess the
probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of
loss.

   --- overcharged or improperly charged fees for products and
services, denied home warranty claims, failed to timely file
certain documents, and gave items of value to developers,
builders, brokers and others as inducements to refer business in
violation of certain laws, such as consumer protection laws and
laws generally prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain
obligations, including

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

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

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

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

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

      * Nichols v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on February 26, 2016 and pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California,

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

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

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

All of these lawsuits, except Kaufman and Kirk, are putative class
actions for which a class has not been certified. In Kaufman a
class was certified but that certification was subsequently
vacated. A trial of the Kirk matter has concluded and the
plaintiff's appeal and the Company's cross appeal are pending. For
the reasons described above, the Company has not yet been able to
assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or
the range of loss or, where the Company has been able to make an
estimate, the Company believes the amount is not material to the
condensed consolidated financial statements as a whole.

While some of the lawsuits described above may be material to the
Company's operating results in any particular period if an
unfavorable outcome results, the Company does not believe that any
of these lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's overall financial condition or liquidity.


FITCHBURG GAS: Still Defends "Bellerman" Action
-----------------------------------------------
Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the case, Bellermann et al v. Fitchburg Gas and
Electric Light Company.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against
Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in Massachusetts'
Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned Bellermann et
al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of
temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and
physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly
incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric
service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in
December 2008. The Town of Lunenburg has filed a separate action
in the Court arising out of the December 2008 ice storm.

The Company continues to believe that both of these suits are
without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously. The
Company believes, based upon information furnished by counsel and
others, that the ultimate resolution of these suits will not have
a material impact on its financial position, operating results or
cash flows.

Unitil Corporation (Unitil or the Company) is a public utility
holding company headquartered in Hampton, New Hampshire. Unitil is
subject to regulation as a holding company system by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the Energy Policy Act of
2005.


FTD COMPANIES: No Hearing Date on Final Settlement Approval Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
FTD Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has not yet set
the hearing date for the pending final settlement approval motion.

Commencing on August 19, 2009, the first of a series of consumer
class action lawsuits was brought against Provide Commerce, Inc.
and co-defendant Regent Group, Inc. d/b/a Encore Marketing
International ("EMI"). Various cases were ultimately consolidated
during the next three years into Case No. 09 CV 2094 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
under the title In re EasySaver Rewards Litigation. Plaintiffs'
claims arise from their online enrollment in subscription based
membership programs known as EasySaver Rewards, RedEnvelope
Rewards, and Preferred Buyers Pass (collectively the "Membership
Programs") offered and administered by EMI. Plaintiffs claim that
their enrollment was allegedly deceptive and therefore the charges
to their credit or debit card accounts for membership fees for the
Membership Programs were unauthorized.

On February 22, 2010, Provide Commerce and EMI respectively filed
motions to dismiss. On August 13, 2010, the court entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the motions.

Between August 13, 2010 and December 2011, plaintiffs filed
various amended complaints and added or dismissed certain named
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed the fourth amended complaint on
December 14, 2011. The fourth amended complaint is the operative
complaint. Plaintiffs assert ten claims against Provide Commerce
and EMI in the fourth amended complaint: (1) breach of contract
(against Provide Commerce only); (2) breach of contract (against
EMI only); (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; (4) fraud; (5) violations of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) violation of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act (against EMI only); (8) invasion of
privacy; (9) negligence; and (10) violations of the Unfair
Competition Law. Plaintiffs assert their claims individually and
on behalf of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs sought
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Provide Commerce and EMI
filed motions to dismiss the claims of plaintiffs Lawler, Walters,
Cox, and Dickey on January 24, 2012. The motions to dismiss were
fully briefed as of February 23, 2012, but the court had not yet
conducted a hearing or ruled on the motions. The parties
participated in numerous settlement conferences and mediations
throughout the case in an effort to resolve this matter.

On April 9, 2012, the parties reached an agreement on the high
level terms of a settlement, conditioned on the parties
negotiating and executing a complete written agreement. In the
weeks following April 9, 2012, the parties negotiated a formal
written settlement agreement ("Settlement"). Upon reaching the
Settlement, the hearing on the motions to dismiss was vacated, and
Provide Commerce and EMI have not answered the fourth amended
complaint in light of the Settlement. The court granted the
plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
Settlement on June 13, 2012. After notice to the class and
briefing by the parties, the court conducted a final approval
hearing (also known as a fairness hearing) on January 28, 2013,
and took the matter under submission at the conclusion of the
hearing.

On February 4, 2013, the court entered its final order approving
class action settlement, granting plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards, and overruling
objections filed by a single objector to the Settlement. The court
entered judgment on the settlement on February 21, 2013. The
objector filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals on March 4, 2013.

After the completion of briefing, the Ninth Circuit set oral
argument on the appeal for February 2, 2015. But on January 29,
2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order deferring argument and
resolution of the appeal pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in a
matter captioned Frank v.  Netflix, No. 12 15705+. The Ninth
Circuit issued its opinion in Frank v.  Netflix, No. 12 15705+ on
February 27, 2015, affirming the district court's approval of a
settlement between Walmart and a class of Netflix DVD subscribers.

On March 19, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order vacating the
judgment in this matter and remanding it to the district court for
further proceedings consistent with Frank v. Netflix. On April 23,
2015, the district court entered an order reopening the case and
ordering the parties to jointly submit a memorandum summarizing
the import of the Frank v. Netflix decision and stating their
intentions going forward.

On May 4, 2015, such memorandum was filed by the parties and the
objector also filed his own memorandum regarding these same topics
on such date. After receiving the parties and objector's
memoranda, the district court ordered supplemental briefing on the
issue of final settlement approval on May 21, 2015. The parties
filed their respective opening supplemental briefs on June 18,
2015, the objector filed his opposition supplemental brief on July
2, 2015, and the parties filed their respective reply supplemental
briefs on July 16, 2015. The district court has not yet set the
hearing date for the pending final settlement approval motion.

FTD Companies, Inc., is a premier floral and gifting company with
a vision to be the leading and most trusted floral and gifting
company in the world.


FUSION AUTOPLEX: Rodney Allen Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled RODNEY ALLEN, CEDRICK
CALLEGARI, KERMECIA FAULKNER, and BERNADETTE GREEN v. FUSION
AUTOPLEX, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00833 (S.D. Tex.), moves the Court
for conditional certification.  They also seek permission to send
Court-supervised notice to employees of their opt-in rights.

The lawsuit was filed on March 29, 2016, as a proposed collective
action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act concerning
overtime wages allegedly owed to the Plaintiffs.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nr5zl6QV

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
          THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
          3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
          Houston, TX 77054
          Telephone: (832) 778-8182
          Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
          E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


FUTUREDONTICS INC: Court Terminates Charles Shulruff Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 16, 2016, in the case titled
Charles Shulruff, D.D.S. v. Futuredontics, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-00980 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Jorge L. Alonso

The minute entry states that a stipulation to dismiss has been
filed.  The Plaintiff's individual claims are dismissed with
prejudice, and with each party bearing its own costs.  The
Plaintiff's class claims are dismissed without prejudice and with
each party bearing its own costs.  The status hearing date of
May 25, 2016 is stricken, and the Case is terminated.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M94JhJtk


FXCM INC: Defending Against Class Suit by IUOE Local 478
--------------------------------------------------------
FXCM Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the International Union of Operating
Engineers Local No. 478 Pension Fund filed on May 8, 2015, a
complaint against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, individually and on behalf of
all purchasers of the Company's common stock between June 11, 2013
and January 20, 2015. The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated certain provisions of the federal securities laws and
seeks compensatory damages as well as reasonable costs and
expenses. An amended and consolidated complaint was filed on
January 11, 2016. The Company intends to vigorously defend the
allegations in the complaint.

FXCM is an online provider of foreign exchange ("FX") trading and
related services to over 175,000 active retail accounts globally.


GENERAL MOTORS: 122 Class Actions Pending through April 15
----------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that through April 15,
2016, the Company was aware of 101 putative class actions pending
against GM in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S.
and 21 putative class actions pending in various Provincial Courts
in Canada alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles
manufactured by GM or General Motors Corporation had been
economically harmed by one or more of the recalls announced in
2014 and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated with
those recalls (economic-loss cases). In general, these economic-
loss cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, such
as alleged diminution in value of the vehicles, as well as
punitive damages, injunctive relief and other relief. There are
also two civil actions brought by state governmental entities
relating to the 2014 recalls that seek injunctive relief as well
as economic damages and attorneys' fees for alleged violations of
state consumer protection statutes.

"Through April 15, 2016 we were aware of 270 actions pending in
various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. and 14 actions
pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada alleging injury or
death as a result of defects that may be the subject of recalls
announced in 2014 (personal injury cases). In general, these
personal injury cases seek recovery for purported compensatory
damages, punitive damages and other relief," the Company said.

"Since June 2014 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPML) has issued orders from time to time directing
that certain pending economic-loss and personal injury federal
lawsuits involving faulty or allegedly faulty ignition switches or
other defects that may be related to the recalls announced in 2014
be transferred to, and consolidated in, a single federal court,
the Southern District of New York (the multidistrict litigation).
Through April 15, 2016 the JPML has transferred 289 pending cases
to, and consolidated them with, the multidistrict litigation. At
the court's suggestion, the parties to the multidistrict
litigation engage from time to time in discussions of possible
mechanisms to resolve pending litigation. As described below, on
September 17, 2015 we announced that we had reached a memorandum
of understanding with certain personal injury claimants regarding
possible settlement of their claims.

"In order to facilitate the resolution of the multidistrict
litigation, the Southern District of New York scheduled six
bellwether trials (i.e., trials designed to be representative of
the group of personal injury cases in the multidistrict
litigation). Through April 15, 2016 two of the cases set for
bellwether trials were dismissed with prejudice by plaintiffs. In
a third bellwether trial, a jury concluded that GM was not liable
to plaintiffs. In a fourth case set for a bellwether trial, GM and
the plaintiff entered into a confidential settlement term sheet.
Each bellwether trial will be tried on its facts and the result of
any subsequent bellwether trial may be different from the
preceding trials. It is also possible that the court will schedule
one or more additional bellwether trials.

"Because many plaintiffs in the actions described in the above
paragraphs are suing over the conduct of General Motors
Corporation or vehicles manufactured by that entity for
liabilities not expressly assumed by GM, we moved to enforce the
terms of the July 2009 Sale Order and Injunction issued by the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New
York (Bankruptcy Court) to preclude claims from being asserted
against us for, among other things, personal injuries based on
pre-sale accidents, any economic-loss claims based on acts or
conduct of General Motors Corporation and claims asserting
successor liability for obligations owed by General Motors
Corporation (successor liability claims).

"On April 15, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued a Decision
precluding claims against us based upon pre-sale accidents, claims
based upon the acts or conduct by General Motors Corporation and
successor liability claims, except for claims asserting
liabilities that had been expressly assumed by us in the July 2009
Sale Agreement and claims that could be asserted against us only
if they were otherwise viable and arose solely out of our own
independent post-closing acts and did not in any way rely on acts
or conduct by General Motors Corporation. Plaintiffs have appealed
the Bankruptcy Court's decision and we have cross appealed with
respect to certain issues to preserve our rights. The United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit)
heard oral argument on the appeals on March 15, 2016. In addition
on December 4, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued a judgment
regarding certain issues left unresolved by its April 15, 2015
decision including the extent to which punitive damages could be
asserted against GM based on claims involving vehicles
manufactured by General Motors Corporation. Various groups of
plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the district court
overseeing the multidistrict litigation.

"In the putative shareholder class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
(Shareholder Class Action), the court appointed the New York State
Teachers' Retirement System as the lead plaintiff. On January 15,
2015 the New York State Teachers' Retirement System filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint against GM and several current
and former officers and employees (Defendants) on behalf of
purchasers of our common stock from November 17, 2010 to July 24,
2014. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleges that
Defendants made material misstatements and omissions relating to
problems with the ignition switch and other matters in SEC filings
and other public statements."

On September 17, 2015 GM announced that it had entered into a
binding term sheet regarding settlement of this matter.


GENERAL MOTORS: Hearing This Year on Canada Dealers' Claim Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company
anticipates that the appeal related to the GM Canada Dealers'
Claim will be heard in the year ending December 31, 2016.

On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Company (GM
Canada) on behalf of a purported class of over 200 former GM
Canada dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into
wind-down agreements with GM Canada.

In May 2009 in the context of the global restructuring of GM's
business and the possibility that GM Canada might be required to
initiate insolvency proceedings, GM Canada offered the Plaintiff
Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist with their exit from
the GM Canada dealer network and to facilitate winding down their
operations in an orderly fashion. The Plaintiff Dealers allege
that their Dealer Sales and Service Agreements were wrongly
terminated by GM Canada and that GM Canada failed to comply with
certain disclosure obligations, breached its statutory duty of
fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers'
statutory right to associate in an attempt to coerce the Plaintiff
Dealers into accepting the wind-down agreements. The Plaintiff
Dealers seek damages and assert that the wind-down agreements are
rescindable. The Plaintiff Dealers' initial pleading makes
reference to a claim "not exceeding" Canadian Dollar $750 million,
without explanation of any specific measure of damages.

On March 1, 2011 the court approved certification of a class for
the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues. A
number of former dealers opted out of participation in the
litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the certified class. On July 8,
2015 the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the Plaintiff Dealers'
claim against GM Canada. The court also dismissed GM Canada's
counterclaim against the Plaintiff Dealers for repayment of the
wind-down payments made to them by GM Canada as well as for other
relief. All parties have filed notices of appeal.

"We anticipate that the appeal will be heard in the year ending
December 31, 2016," the Company said.


GEO GROUP: EEOC's Pre-suit Conciliation Efforts Sufficient
----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony J Oncidi, Esq., of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for
The National Law Review, reports that Alice Hancock was employed
by Geo as a correctional officer at the Arizona State Prison.  Geo
contracts with the Arizona Department of Corrections to maintain
and operate two facilities in the state. Hancock filed a charge of
discrimination and harassment based on sex and also alleging
retaliation.  After concluding its investigation, the Arizona
Civil Rights Division and the EEOC issued a reasonable cause
determination, substantiating Hancock's allegations, and
subsequently filed a class action lawsuit.  The district court
granted summary judgment to the employer, but the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, relying upon Mach
Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct. 1645 (2015) and holding that the
EEOC's pre-suit conciliation efforts are subject to limited
judicial review and were sufficient.

The Court held that the EEOC is not required to conciliate on an
individual basis prior to bringing a class action and that the
proper starting date of the class action was 300 days prior to the
filing of Hancock's charge (not the date of the filing of the
reasonable cause determination).  The Court also held that the
district court had improperly dismissed another employee's (Sofia
Hines) claims of a hostile environment, which allegedly included
unwanted comments about her breasts, the grabbing of her breast on
one occasion, an unwanted "spanking on her butt," and several
unwanted sexually explicit comments directed at her.

The case is Arizona ex rel. Horne v. The Geo Group, 2016 WL 945634
(9th Cir. 2016)


GERON CORPORATION: Securities Actions Remain Pending in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Geron Corporation continues to defend a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit in Calfornia, 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 March 14, 2014, a purported class action
securities lawsuit was commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, or the California
District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our
officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 2 trial of
imetelstat in patients with ET or PV. The plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that we failed to disclose facts related to the
occurrence of persistent low-grade LFT abnormalities observed in
our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in ET or PV patients and the
potential risk of chronic liver injury following long-term
exposure to imetelstat. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award
of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees."

"On March 28, 2014, a second purported class action securities
lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, naming as
defendants us and certain of our officers. This lawsuit, which is
based on the same factual background as the purported class action
securities lawsuit that commenced on March 14, 2014, also alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks
damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.

"On June 30, 2014, both of the foregoing lawsuits, or the Class
Action Lawsuits, were consolidated for all purposes, and a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed by the California
District Court. On July 21, 2014, the California District Court
ordered the lead plaintiff to file its consolidated amended
complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits, which was filed on
September 19, 2014.

"We filed our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on November 18, 2014. On April 10, 2015, the California District
Court granted our motion to dismiss with respect to some of the
allegedly false and misleading statements made by us and denied
our motion to dismiss with respect to other allegedly false and
misleading statements made by us.  On May 22, 2015, we filed our
answer to the consolidated amended complaint in the Class Action
Lawsuits.

"On June 6, 2014, a securities lawsuit, not styled as a class
action, was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi, or the Mississippi District
Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. This
lawsuit, which is based on the same factual background as the
Class Action Lawsuits, also alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks damages and an award of reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

"On August 11, 2014, we filed a motion to transfer the securities
lawsuit filed in the Mississippi District Court to the California
District Court so it could be consolidated with the Class Action
Lawsuits. On November 4, 2014, the Mississippi District Court
granted our motion and transferred the case to the California
District Court, and the transferred case has been consolidated by
the California District Court with the Class Action Lawsuits filed
in the California District Court.

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

Geron Corp. is a biopharmaceutical company that currently supports
the clinical stage development of a telomerase inhibitor,
imetelstat, in hematologic myeloid malignancies, by Janssen
Biotech, Inc.


GOOGLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Free Range Content Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned FREE RANGE CONTENT, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-02329-BLF
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted in part and denied,
in part, the defendant's motion to dismiss without leave to amend.

The plaintiffs, former AdSense publishers, brought the purported
class action to challenge Google for allegedly terminating their
accounts without cause and unlawfully withholding revenue they had
accrued over their last one to two months as publishers.  The
Court previously dismissed the case with leave to amend.  Google
then asked the Court to dismiss the action with prejudice.

Judge Freeman granted the motion without leave to amend with
regard to:

          1. Plaintiffs' force majeure theory of excuse;
          2. any payment-related claims by Taylor Chose and
             Matthew Simpson;
          3. Plaintiffs' claim of breach of the implied covenant
             of good faith and fair dealing to the extent that it
             relies on allegations of termination or payments
             withheld under the Terms and Competitions;
          4. Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim; and
          5. Plaintiffs' fraudulent Unfair Competition
             Law (UCL) claim.

The Motion was denied with regard to:

          1. Plaintiffs' section 1671(b) claim;
          2. Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, except as
             outlined above regarding payment-related claims by
             Ms. Chose and Mr. Simpson and Plaintiffs' force
             majeure theory;
          3. Plaintiffs' breach of the implied covenant of good
             faith and fair dealing claim to the extent that it
             relies on allegations of payments withheld under the
             Terms of Service;
          4. Plaintiffs' unlawful and unfair UCL claims; and
          5. Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief.

A full-text copy of Judge Freeman's May 13, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/a0RfKi from Leagle.com.

Free Range Content, Inc., Coconut Island Software, Inc., Taylor
Chose, Matthew Simpson, Plaintiffs, represented by Patrick Howard
-- phoward@smbb.com -- Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, pro
hac vice, Robert F Lopez -- robl@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Simon Bahne Paris --
sparis@smbb.com -- Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett and Bendesky, Steve W.
Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice & Jeff D Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Google Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Gutkin --
jgutkin@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Kyle Christopher Wong --
kwong@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Michael Graham Rhodes --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

Super Cray Inc., Interested Party, represented by Randolph Gaw --
rgaw@gawpoe.com -- Gaw, Poe LLP.


HCP INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") on May 10
disclosed that on May 9, 2016, it filed a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of its client Boynton Beach Firefighters'
Pension Fund ("Boynton Beach Fire") against HCP, Inc. ("HCP"), HCR
ManorCare, Inc. ("ManorCare"), and certain of their senior
executives (collectively "Defendants").  The action, which is
captioned Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc.,
et al., No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH (N.D. Ohio) asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5, on
behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired HCP common
stock during the period from March 30, 2015 through February 8,
2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
violated provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing false and
misleading press releases, financial statements, filings with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), and statements
during investor conference calls.  HCP is a real estate investment
trust ("REIT") focused on the healthcare industry.  Throughout the
Class Period, HCP was highly dependent upon the operations of
ManorCare, a nursing home operator, which served as HCP's most
significant client.

Prior to the start of the Class Period, HCP invested directly in
ManorCare, purchasing substantially all of ManorCare's real estate
facilities (which were then leased back to ManorCare) and taking a
10% equity stake in ManorCare.  As a result of that transaction,
ManorCare had a significant impact on several aspects of HCP's
operations and was highly important to HCP investors.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented ManorCare's
financial performance, the value of HCP's ManorCare assets, and
that HCP's revenue stream from ManorCare leases was secure.
Moreover, HCP and ManorCare represented that ManorCare had "a long
history of compliance with regulations," and that ManorCare's
billing practices had been "audited" in the past and were "to the
standard one would want."  As a result of these
misrepresentations, HCP common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

In truth, Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that ManorCare
was engaged in rampant billing fraud, which allegedly generated
false claims for "reimbursement" submitted to government programs.
ManorCare's billing fraud was the subject of multiple
whistleblower lawsuits, and an investigation by the United States
Department of Justice ("DOJ").

On April 21, 2015, HCP disclosed that the DOJ had intervened in
the whistleblower lawsuits and filed a consolidated complaint.
Then, on May 5, 2015, HCP disclosed that it had recorded a
non-cash impairment charge of $478 million related to certain of
its lease arrangements with ManorCare.  Finally, on February 9,
2016, HCP disclosed that its equity stake in ManorCare had been
written down to zero, and that it had taken an $836 million non-
cash impairment on its ManorCare lease assets and placed all of
its ManorCare real estate assets on a "Watch List."

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than July 11, 2016, which is
the first business day on which the District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio is open that is 60 days after the
May 10, 2016 publication date of this notice.  Any member of the
proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain a member of the proposed class.

Boynton Beach Fire is represented by BLB&G, a firm of over 100
attorneys with offices in New York, California, Louisiana, and
Illinois.  If you wish to discuss this Action or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-
mail at avi@blbglaw.com

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com--
specializes in securities fraud, corporate governance,
shareholders' rights, employment discrimination, and civil rights
litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and
private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients
worldwide.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Hearing on Motion to Decertify Reset to June  16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 5:13-
cv-00119 (N.D. Cal.), the clerk of court reset the hearing on
these motions to June 16, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.:

     -- Motion to Decertify FLSA Collective Action filed by
        Hewlett-Packard Company; and

     -- Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant's First Amended
        Counterclaims.

The hearing on HP Inc's motion to decertify the FLSA collective
action was originally scheduled for May 5, 2016.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company 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
Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported class action
filed on January 10, 2013 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California alleging that certain
technical support employees allegedly involved in installing,
maintaining and/or supporting computer software and/or hardware
for HP Inc. were misclassified as exempt employees under the FLSA.
The plaintiff has also alleged that HP Inc. violated California
law by, among other things, allegedly improperly classifying these
employees as exempt.

On February 13, 2014, the court granted plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification. On May 7, 2015, plaintiff filed a
motion to certify a Rule 23 state class of certain Technical
Solutions Consultants in California, Massachusetts, and Colorado
that they claim were improperly classified as exempt from overtime
under state law.

On July 30, 2015, the court dismissed the Technology Consultant
and certain Field Technical Support Consultant opt-ins from the
conditionally certified FLSA collective action. The class
certification hearing on plaintiff's motion to certify a Rule 23
class was held on February 18, 2016.

Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reported on April 8 that the
federal court has refused to certify three classes of ex-HP
technical support consultants in California, Colorado and
Massachusetts, after conditionally certifying a national opt-in
class of roughly 10,000 workers in the unpaid-overtime collective
action.  U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March 28, ruling
that they failed to provide enough evidence to show that the three
state classes met the predominance requirement under Fed.R.Civ.P.
23.


IMAX CORPORATION: Settlement in IMAX Chicago Case Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
IMAX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a Court has issued an
order finally approving the Settlement Agreement and dismissing
the action against IMAX Chicago.

On November 4, 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (the "Court") against IMAX Chicago Theatre LLC ("IMAX
Chicago Theatre"), a subsidiary of the Company. The plaintiff,
Scott Redman, alleged that IMAX Chicago Theatre provided certain
credit card and debit card receipts to customers that were
purportedly not in compliance with the applicable truncation
requirements of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act,
which IMAX Chicago Theatre denies. The plaintiff did not allege
actual damages but sought statutory damages individually and on
behalf of a putative class.

On October 26, 2015, the parties filed with the Court a class
action settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") and
proposed form of class notice, and on March 4, 2016, the Court
issued an order finally approving the Settlement Agreement and
dismissing the action. Under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, members of the class who did not opt out of the
settlement released IMAX Chicago Theatre and its affiliates from
liability for all claims that were alleged or could have been
alleged in this action or any other proceeding relating to the
subject matter of this action.

As part of the settlement and in exchange for the release, IMAX
Chicago Theatre paid a total of $0.4 million to a settlement fund,
which has been distributed to the class (after deducting certain
fees and other expenses).


INDOFF INC: Old Town Pizza Seeks Certification of Class in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled OLD TOWN PIZZA OF LOMBARD,
INC., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. INDOFF,
INCORPORATED and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-05254 (N.D.
Ill.), asks the Court to certify its proposed class, appoint the
Plaintiff as the class representative, appoint its attorneys as
class counsel, and hold a status conference on the Motion.

The Plaintiff proposes this class:

     All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
     filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
     messages of material advertising the commercial availability
     or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on
     behalf of Defendants, and (3) which Defendants did not have
     prior express permission or invitation, or (4) which did not
     display a proper opt-out notice.

Old Town submits its Motion pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire
Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011).  The Plaintiff
anticipates that the proposed class definition will change after
discovery defines the precise contours of the class and the
advertisements that were sent.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8fs3aY7L

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


INVENTURE FOODS: Faces Securities Class Action in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
Barrack Rodos & Bacine on May 11 disclosed that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed in the Superior Court of the State
of Arizona on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
Inventure Foods, Inc. ("SNAK" or the "Company").  While this
lawsuit is limited to investors who purchased SNAK common stock in
or traceable to the Company's September 17, 2014 stock offering,
Barrack Rodos & Bacine is also investigating whether the Company
and its senior executives violated the federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements during the
period from January 1, 2013 through April 24, 2015.

Barrack Rodos & Bacine has four decades of experience prosecuting
securities class actions and has achieved some of the largest
recoveries in the history of such litigation.  If you purchased
SNAK stock from January 1, 2013 through April 24, 2015 (including
but not limited to in the September 2014 offering), suffered
losses from your transactions in the stock, and wish to discuss
your rights, please contact Barrack Rodos & Bacine at the
following toll-free number: 877-386-3304, or via e-mail to Jeffrey
W. Golan (jgolan@barrack.com), Robert A. Hoffman
(rhoffman@barrack.com) or Samuel Ward (sward@barrack.com).

SNAK, which is headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, is a marketer
and manufacturer of healthy/natural and indulgent specialty snack
food brands.  It has manufacturing plants in Arizona, Georgia,
Indiana, Oregon and Washington.  The lawsuit alleges that the
Company's manufacturing facility in Jefferson, Georgia, was in
need of capital improvements to address unsanitary conditions that
are known to foster the growth of dangerous bacteria.  The
complaint also alleges that in late 2014 to early 2015, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Food Safety Division found unsafe and
unsanitary conditions at the Jefferson facility, which were the
subject of a March 2015 complaint filed with the United States
Food and Drug Administration.  On April 23, 2015, SNAK issued a
press release announcing that it had initiated a recall of certain
products due to the Jefferson facility testing positive for
listeria.  As a result of these developments, the price of SNAK
stock declined significantly, closing at $8.71 per share on April
24, 2015 (a $2.88 drop in the stock's price from the closing price
before the recall announcement).


INVENTURE FOODS: Complied with "Lilly" Settlement Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, 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 has complied
with the requirements of the settlement in the "Lilly" class
action lawsuit against Jamba Juice Company and the case has been
dismissed.

The Company said, "Under our license agreement with the Jamba
Juice Company ("Jamba Juice"), we are obligated and have agreed to
indemnify and defend Jamba Juice in the two matters identified
below, and Jamba Juice has tendered defense of these matters to
us."

"In March 2012, we learned that Jamba Juice was named as a
defendant in a putative class action filed in the Federal Court
for the North District of California and captioned Anderson v.
Jamba Juice Company (the "Anderson Matter").  The plaintiff
purports to represent a class of individuals who purchased make-
at-home smoothie kits from Jamba Juice, and alleges that such
smoothie kits contain unnaturally processed, synthetic and/or non-
natural ingredients and that use of the words "All Natural" on the
labels of these smoothie kits is unfair and fraudulent and
violates various false advertising and unfair competition laws.
The Anderson Matter is one of several "all natural" lawsuits
recently brought against various food manufacturers and
distributors in California.

"In an amended complaint, the plaintiff also alleged violations of
the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which were dismissed by
the court in August 2012.  In a second amended complaint filed in
September 2012, we were added as a defendant.  Pursuant to the
parties' stipulation, on September 3, 2013 the court dismissed the
Anderson Matter.

"On June 28, 2013, a class action complaint against Jamba Juice
and the Company, captioned Lilly v. Jamba Juice Company et al (the
"Lilly Matter"), was filed in the Federal Court for the Northern
District of California, with nearly identical allegations as those
made in the Anderson Matter, except that the complaint also
alleges that the smoothie kits contain two additional allegedly
non-natural ingredients.  The plaintiffs in this new action are
represented by the same counsel that represented the plaintiff in
the Anderson Matter.  While we currently believe the "all natural"
statement on the smoothie kits are not misleading and in full
compliance with FDA guidelines, we are investigating the claims
asserted in the Lilly Matter, and intend to vigorously defend
against them.

"On September 17, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss, seeking to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims as to gelatin and the Orange Dream
Machine smoothie kit.  Our motion was denied in November 2013.
On February 3, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class of all persons in California who bought certain Jamba Juice
smoothie kits.

"On September 18, 2014, the court issued an order granting class
certification solely for purposes of determining liability and
denying certification for purposes of damages.  The court
requested further briefing on the question of whether it has
jurisdiction to certify a class for purposes of granting
injunctive relief.   Following mediation, the basic terms of a
proposed class settlement were reached.  The parties signed a
definitive agreement that was filed with the court for approval on
December 1, 2014.

"The court's ruling on a motion for preliminary approval is
pending and will be followed by a subsequent final approval
hearing.  If approved by the court, a settlement class will be
certified for injunctive relief only, requiring the Company to (i)
remove the "all natural" designation on the labels of the
challenged products and (ii) pay $5,000 to each of the two
individual plaintiffs and up to $425,000 to plaintiffs' counsel
for fees and costs. The Company would pay no damages to class
members, although there would be no release by class members of
any individual damage claims they might have related to the Lilly
Matter.  The Company has complied with the requirements of the
settlement and the case has been dismissed."


ITURAN LOCATION: Defending Against Class Suit in Tel-Aviv
---------------------------------------------------------
Ituran Location And Control Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company is defending against a purported class action lawsuit
which was filed against the Company in the District Court of
Central Region in Tel-Aviv.

The Company said, "On July 13, 2015 we received a purported class
action lawsuit which was filed against the Company in the District
Court of Central Region in Tel-Aviv, by one plaintiff who is a
subscriber of the Company, alleging that the Company, which was
declared a monopoly under the Israeli Restrictive Trade Practices
Law, 1988, unlawfully abused its power as a monopoly and
discriminated between its customers. The plaintiff claims that the
alleged discrimination resulted from the Company charging higher
monthly subscription fees from customers who are obliged by
insurance company requirements to install location and recovery
systems in their vehicles than the monthly subscription fees that
are charged from customers who are not required by insurance
companies to install location and recovery systems in their
vehicles."

"In addition, the plaintiff claims that the Company offers to
customers who are not required by insurance companies to install
location and recovery systems in their vehicles, a discounted
warrantee service to their location and recovery systems. The
plaintiff claims in addition to the above, that such actions raise
additional causes of action against the Company such as
negotiations without good faith, executing contract without good
faith, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of consumer
protection laws, tort laws, and breach of statutory duty.

"The lawsuit is yet to be approved as a class action. The total
amount claimed if the lawsuit is approved as a class action was
estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 300 million
(approximately USD 78 million).

"Our defense against the approval of the class action lawsuit was
filed on January 3, 2016. The plaintiff has responded to our
defense on February 29, 2016.

"A class action lawsuit based on similar claims, against the
Company, which was filed on form 6-K on March 22, 2011, was
dismissed by the court on the request of both parties, on March 5,
2012 for a small compensation to the plaintiff and his attorneys,
in a total amount of NIS 30,000 (approximately USD 7,900). Such
dismissal of a similar class action lawsuit may have a positive
effect on the Company's defense against the current lawsuit.

"Based on an opinion of its legal counsels, at this preliminary
stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's chances of
success, however based on the documents of the claim, the Company
has good defense arguments in respect of claims made by the
plaintiff and that the chances that the lawsuit will not be
approved as a class action lawsuit are higher than it will be
approved. While we cannot predict the outcome of this case, if we
are not successful in defending our claim, we could be subject to
significant costs, adversely affecting our results of operations."

Ituran Location is mainly engaged in the area of location-based
services, consisting of stolen vehicle recovery, fleet management
services and other tracking services.  It also provides wireless
communication products used in connection with our location-based
services and various other applications.


JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: $5.05-Mil. Class Action Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a U.S. court has
entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement in a
shareholder class action lawsuit.

On October 11, 2011, JinkoSolar was named as a defendant in a
putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
captioned Marco Peters v. JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd., et al.,
Case No. 11-CV-7133 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "U.S. Securities Action"). On
June 1, 2012, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). In addition to JinkoSolar,
the Amended Complaint also named as defendants Xiande Li, Kangping
Chen, Xianhua Li, Wing Koen Siew, Haitao Jin, Zibin Li, Stephen
Markscheid, Longgen Zhang (the "Individual Defendants"), and the
underwriters of our initial public offering in May 2010. The lead
plaintiffs in the U.S. Securities Action sought to represent a
class of all purchasers and acquirers of ADSs of JinkoSolar
between May 13, 2010 and September 20, 2011, inclusive. The
plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act by making material misstatements or failing to disclose
material information regarding, among other things, JinkoSolar's
compliance with environmental regulations at its Haining facility.
The Amended Complaint also asserted claims against the Individual
Defendants for control person liability under Section 15 of the
Securities Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Amended
Complaint sought, among other things, certification of the
putative class, unspecified compensatory damages (including
interest), and costs and expenses incurred in the action.

On January 22, 2013, the District Court issued a Memorandum and
Order dismissing the Amended Complaint as against all defendants.
The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's Order to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which issued an
order on July 31, 2014 vacating the District Court's Order and
remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

On September 15, 2015, the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement, proposing a settlement of the lawsuit, subject to the
approval of the District Court. On March 11, 2016, the Court
entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement,
certifying the proposed class for settlement purposes, and
dismissing the Amended Complaint with prejudice.

Under the terms of the settlement, the members of the proposed
class will receive a settlement fund of US$5.05 million (RMB 32.7
million), less any court-approved fees, among which the Company
will contribute US$0.6 million (RMB 3.9 million), and the
remaining portion will be funded by JinkoSolar's insurers. The
Company has settled the litigation claim of US$0.6 million (RMB
3.9 million) related to this class action in cash during the year
ended December 31, 2015 and recorded a charge of US$0.6 million
(RMB 3.9 million) in general and administrative expense.


JONES FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Appeal in Securities Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an
appeal from the order approving a settlement of securities
lawsuits remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

In the past several years, there have been five cases filed
against Edward Jones (in addition to numerous other issuers and
underwriters) asserting various claims under the U.S. Securities
Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") in connection with registration
statements and prospectus supplements issued for certain mortgage-
backed certificates issued between 2005 and 2007, four of which
have appeals that are currently pending.

Three of these cases were purported class actions (David H.
Luther, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. filed
in 2007 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles; Maine State Retirement System, et al. v.
Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. filed in 2010 in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; and
Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Countrywide
Financial Corporation, et al. filed in 2010 in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles) filed against
numerous issuers and underwriters, including Edward Jones. The
plaintiffs sought compensatory damages and reasonable costs and
fees, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted final approval of a settlement for these three cases on
December 6, 2013. The approved settlement is not expected to have
a material adverse impact on the Partnership's consolidated
financial condition.

On January 14, 2014, some objectors to the settlement filed a
notice of appeal of the Court's final judgment and dismissal, and
the appeal is currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. is a registered limited
liability limited partnership organized under the Missouri Revised
Uniform Limited Partnership Act.  The Partnership's principal
operating subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., is a registered
broker-dealer in the U.S. and one of Edward Jones' subsidiaries is
a registered broker-dealer in Canada.


JP MORGAN: "Stikas" Suit Over Foreclosure Fees Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul A. Crotty granted J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s motion
for summary judgment in the case captioned MARIANNE STIKAS, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants, No.
14 Civ. 1277 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y.).  The case was dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of Judge Crotty's May 13, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/y8BLPu from Leagle.com.

Marianne Stikas sued J.P. Morgan and various unknown entities,
alleging that they breached the terms of a mortgage note by
seeking non-legal fees in a foreclosure judgment under the guise
of attorneys' fees.  Previously, the Court granted J.P. Morgan's
motion to dismiss all but Stikas' claim for breach of contract.
The Court also held that Stikas adequately pleaded standing by
alleging that "[t]he fees and charges under the Uniform Note were
paid by [P]laintiff . . . directly to or on behalf of J.P.
Morgan."

In its motion for summary judgment, J.P. Morgan argued the
undisputed proof is that Stikas never paid any legal fees and
accordingly lacks standing.

Marianne Stikas, Plaintiff, represented by Neal Arthur DeYoung,
Neal Deyoung.

J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, Defendant, represented by James Lawrence
Bernard -- jbernard@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP,
Julia Beatrice Strickland -- jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac vice & Raymond Alexander Garcia --
rgarcia@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.


KRAFT HEINZ: May 26 Oral Argument on Parmesan MDL Petitions
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOHN LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-400 AWI SAB (E.D. Cal.), is stayed
pending a ruling by the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on MDL Petitions 2705, 2707, and 2708.
The parties shall submit a joint status report to the Court within
five days of the JPML's ruling.

John Lewis filed his Class Action Complaint on March 23, 2016; and
the deadline for Kraft Heinz to respond to Plaintiff's Class
Action Complaint was May 12, 2016.

At least twenty other similar complaints have been filed against
Kraft Heinz across the country, and plaintiffs in five of those
cases filed petitions with the JPML seeking to centralize all of
the Parmesan-related lawsuits against Kraft Heinz in a common
jurisdiction.  The JPML has scheduled oral argument on those MDL
petitions, In re: 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2705; In re: Kraft 100% Grated
Parmesan Cheese Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No.
2707, as well as a related MDL petition, In re: Walmart Great
Value 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL NO. 2708, on May 26, 2016 and will likely issue
its decision regarding centralization in June 2016.

The parties in the Lewis suit are directed to file joint status
reports at least every three months.

A copy of the Stay order dated May 16, 2016 is available at
https://is.gd/zlKWxr from Leagle.com.

John Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Michael McShane, Audet &
Partners, LLP & Sean Clinton Woods, Audet & Partners, LLC.

Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kiyul
Lee -- KLee@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP.

George Brahler, Neutral, represented by Matthew J. Preusch --
mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP.


KRAFT HEINZ: "Brahler" Suit Stayed Pending MDL Petitions
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, GEORGE BRAHLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-849 KJM EFB (E.D. Cal.), is stayed
pending a ruling by the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on MDL Petitions 2705, 2707, and 2708.
The parties shall submit a joint status report to the Court within
five days of the JPML's ruling.

Brahler filed his Class Action Complaint on April 25, 2016.  The
deadline for Kraft Heinz to respond to Plaintiff's Class Action
Complaint is June 27, 2016.

At least 20 other similar complaints have been filed against Kraft
Heinz across the country, and plaintiffs in five of those cases
filed petitions with the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation seeking to centralize all of the
Parmesan-related lawsuits against Kraft Heinz in a common
jurisdiction.  The JPML has scheduled oral argument on those MDL
petitions, In re: 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2705; In re: Kraft 100% Grated
Parmesan Cheese Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No.
2707, as well as a related MDL petition, In re: Walmart Great
Value 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL NO. 2708, on May 26, 2016 and will likely issue
its decision regarding centralization in June 2016.

A copy of the Court's May 16 Order is available at
https://is.gd/0ZkA4b from Leagle.com.

Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kiyul
Lee, Esq., at Jenner & Block LLP.

George Brahler, represented by Matthew J. Preusch, Esq., at Keller
Rohrback, LLP.


KROGER CO: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Hardesty" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of the
collective action titled JOSEPH HARDESTY, et al., Individually and
on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. THE KROGER CO., et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00298-TSB (S.D. Ohio).

The Plaintiffs move for the conditional certification of their
Fair Labor Standards Act overtime claims and the claims of the
class that they seek to represent, as a collective action.  The
proposed FLSA collective action class includes all current and
former employees of Kroger, who were employed as "Recruiters" at
Kroger's Center of Recruiting Excellence in Blue Ash, Ohio.  The
Plaintiffs allege that Kroger has willfully misclassified these
Recruiters as "exempt" from the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime
requirements, and consequently has withheld overtime wages from
Recruiters for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to approve their proposed
notices to be sent to the proposed FLSA class members, and to
require Kroger to produce names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail
addresses, social security numbers, job titles, and date of hire
and date of termination for all CoRE Recruiters from the date CoRE
began its operations in Blue Ash to the present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=P7C7Kqt0

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter A. Saba, Esq.
          Joshua M. Smith, Esq.
          Sharon Sobers, Esq.
          STAGNARO, SABA & PATTERSON CO., L.P.A.
          2623 Erie Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 533-2701
          Facsimile: (513) 533-2711
          E-mail: pas@sspfirm.com
                  jms@sspfirm.com
                  sjs@sspfirm.com


LABORATORY CORPORATION: "Berk" Class Action Closed
--------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
10, 2016, that a Delaware court has approved a stipulated proposed
order providing for, among other things, the closing of the class
action lawsuit by Barry Berk.

On November 2, 2014, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings
("LabCorp") and Covance Inc. ("Covance") announced that they had
entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which
LabCorp would acquire all of the outstanding shares of Covance
common stock for per-share consideration of $75.76 in cash and
0.2686 shares of LabCorp stock (the "Merger").

On December 9, 2014, plaintiff Barry Berk ("Plaintiff") filed a
purported stockholder class action complaint (the "Complaint")
against Covance, members of the Covance Board of Directors,
LabCorp and Neon Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
LabCorp that was merged out of existence in connection with the
Merger (the "Defendants") in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the
"Court") captioned Berk v. Covance Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10440-
VCL challenging the Merger (the "Action").

The Court entered the parties' stipulated order of dismissal
dismissing the Action on December 1, 2015, and following formal
notification to the Court of the filing of this Form 8-K
concerning LabCorp's subsequent agreement to pay Plaintiff's
counsel a fee of $175,000, the Action will be closed.

The Complaint alleged, among other things, that the Covance Board
of Directors breached its fiduciary duties under Delaware law in
connection with the merger process. The Complaint also alleged
that the Proxy Statement filed by Covance on November 26, 2014,
misrepresented and failed to disclose material information
necessary for Covance's public stockholders to cast an informed
vote on the proposed transaction. Among other things, Plaintiff
alleged that the Registration Statement failed to disclose: (i)
material facts regarding the process leading to the signing of the
Merger Agreement, (ii) material information pertaining to the
analyses performed by Covance's financial advisor, and (iii)
whether Covance's financial advisor's fee was entirely contingent
on the transaction's close.

While Defendants in the Action have, at all times, completely
denied all of the allegations set forth in the Complaint, the
parties reached an agreement-in-principle with Defendants on
February 9, 2015, to settle the Action on a class-wide basis (the
"Class Settlement"). In connection therewith, Covance filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") a Form 8-K on
February 9, 2015, containing certain additional disclosures (the
"Supplemental Disclosures") to moot certain of Plaintiff's claims
and resolve the Action.

The parties subsequently decided not to pursue the Class
Settlement. On November 25, 2015, the parties filed a stipulated
proposed dismissal order with the Court providing, among other
things, for the dismissal of the Action against all Defendants,
with prejudice as to Plaintiff only. The stipulated proposed
dismissal order also stated that it was the intention of
Plaintiff's counsel to submit an application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with
the Supplemental Disclosures.

On December 1, 2015, the Court entered the stipulated order
dismissing the Action against all Defendants, with prejudice as to
Plaintiff, and retaining jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
resolving any dispute as to Plaintiff's counsel's application for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. Arms-
length discussions between Plaintiff's counsel and Defendants'
counsel followed, and LabCorp subsequently agreed to pay
Plaintiff's counsel a fee of $175,000. As a result of LabCorp's
agreement to pay this amount, the Court has not been asked to
review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment or amount of the
$175,000 fee or its reasonableness.

On February 17, 2016, the Court approved a stipulated proposed
order providing for, among other things, the closing of the Action
following formal notification to the Court of the filing of this
Form 8-K.


LECOM INC: Court Narrows Claims, Grants Conditional Cert.
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned HARRY BENION, ZACHARY GOODGALL, DAMON
FRANKLIN, and LESLIE MORGAN, Plaintiffs, v. LECOM, INCORPORATED,
and LECOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 15-14367 (E.D
Mich.), Judge David M. Lawson granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss only as to count II of the complaint, but granted the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the claim in
count I as a collective action.

Harry Benion and three others commenced an action against LeCom,
Incorporated and LeCom Communications, Inc. alleging that these
companies misclassified them as independent contractors in order
to avoid the minimum wage and overtime obligations established by
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The plaintiffs also made a
claim for unjust enrichment under Michigan common law.  The
defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  Since the case was filed, one other
plaintiff has opted in to the case, and the plaintiffs have moved
to certify the case conditionally as a collective action under 29
U.S.C. section 216(b).

Judge Lawson found that the plaintiffs have stated a viable claim
in count I of their complaint for violation of the FLSA as to the
named defendants, but have not stated a valid claim for unjust
enrichment.  The judge concluded that the plaintiffs have
established a right to conditional certification of the claim in
count I as a collective action.

A full-text copy of Judge Lawson's May 13, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/YTqGTv from Leagle.com.

Harry Benion, Zachary Goodgall, Damon Franklin, Leslie Morgan,
Plaintiffs, represented by Harold Lichten -- hlichten@llrlaw.com
-- Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC & David M. Blanchard, Blanchard &
Walker, PLLC.

LeCom, Incorporated, LeCom Communications, Inc., Defendants,
represented by James R. Andary, Andary, Andary.


LIFE CARE: Certification of BOMs Class Sought in "Robinson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves the Court to conditionally certify as a
collective action the lawsuit styled BETH ROBINSON, ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. LIFE CARE CENTERS OF
AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:15-cv-03675 (S.D. Tex.).

Ms. Robinson also asks the Court for an order allowing notice to
be sent to members of a class of all current and former Business
Office Managers employed by Life Care after January 21, 2013.  She
filed the Action on January 21, 2016, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated seeking to cease the Defendant's alleged
continued violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Zy0nCWRO

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derrick A. Reed, Esq.
          SMITH REED & ARMSTRONG, PLLC
          1920 Country Place Pkwy, Suite 350
          Pearland, TX 77584
          Telephone: (281) 519-7606
          Facsimile: (281) 506-8693
          E-mail: derrick@srapllc.com

               - and -

          Marrick Armstrong, Esq.
          SMITH REED & ARMSTRONG, PLLC
          1920 Country Place Pkwy, Suite 350
          Pearland, TX 77584
          Telephone: (281) 489-3934
          Facsimile: (281) 506-8693
          E-mail: marrick@srapllc.com


LIFE PROTECT: Primack Seeks Certification of TCPA Class in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Primack asks the Court for an order determining that the
lawsuit captioned MERRILL PRIMACK, on behalf of plaintiff and the
class defined below v. LIFE PROTECT 24/7, INC., and JOHN DOES
1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-05249 Document (N.D. Ill.), alleging claims
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, may proceed as a
class action against Life Protect.

The Plaintiff defines the classes as:

     For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
     Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, Plaintiff
     seeks to represent a class.  The class consists of (a) all
     persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the
     filing of this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658), and on or
     before a date 20 days following the filing of this action,
     (c) received calls from defendant on their cell phones, (d)
     placed using an automated dialer or a prerecorded or
     artificial voice.

     For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
     Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
     P. 23(a) and (b)(3), Plaintiff also seeks to represent a
     class.  The class consists of (a) all persons with phone
     numbers in the Illinois area codes (b) who, on or after a
     date three years prior to the filing of this action, and on
     or before a date 20 days following the filing of this
     action, (c) received calls from defendant on their cell
     phones, (d) placed using an automated dialer or a
     prerecorded or artificial voice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lNUq39KW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Dulijaza Clark, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com


LOS GATOS-SARATOGA: Illegally Uses Athletic Fields, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens for Responsible Action and Does 1 through 5, inclusive v.
Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District, and Does 6 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 16CV294909 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9, 2016),
arises out of the actions of the Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High
School District permitting the use of the Los Gatos High School
(LGHS) athletic fields for events and activities outside of school
hours and school athletic or other program practice hours, without
submitting this project for review required under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District is a school district
duly organized under the laws of the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rose M. Zoia, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROSE M. ZOIA
      50 Old Courthouse Square, Suite 401
      Santa Rosa, CA
      Telephone: (707) 526-5894
      Facsimile: (267) 381-6097
      E-mail: rzoia@sbcglobal.net


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Contributes to Class Action Settlement Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBSNews reports that Lumber Liquidators (LL) reported a wider-
than-expected first-quarter loss and sales declined for a fifth
straight quarter as the flooring company spends heavily to put
behind it damaging reports on potentially dangerous products
imported from China.

The company will contribute $26 million and a million of its
shares to a settlement fund to resolve a related class action.
That follows an announcement in April that the Toano, Virginia,
company would pay $2.5 million to settle allegations that some of
its products violated California's air-safety standards.  Last
year, it paid $13.2 million in fines and pleaded guilty to
environmental crimes for importing China-made flooring that
contained timber illegally logged in eastern Russia.

Lumber Liquidators has been doing damage control and attempting to
restore its reputation since a March 2015 airing of "60 Minutes,"
which revealed that some of the chain's Chinese-made laminate
flooring contained high levels of formaldehyde.

For the period ended March 31, Lumber Liquidators Holdings Inc.
lost $32.4 million, or $1.20 per share, for the period ended March
31. A year earlier it lost $7.8 million, or 29 cents per share.

The outsized losses far exceeded those projected by Wall Street,
which had forecast per-share losses of 27 cents, according to
analysts surveyed by Zacks Investment Research.

Shares slumped 9 percent before the opening bell on May 10.  In
the past year, the company's stock has plunged more than 50
percent.

Selling, general and administrative expenses increased to $117.2
million from $97.7 million.  This is mostly due to an
approximately $16 million charge related to its consolidated
securities class action matter.

Revenue dropped to $233.5 million from $260 million.  That's below
the $239.2 million in revenue that analysts polled by Zacks
predicted.

Sales at stores open at least a year, a key indicator of a
retailer's health, tumbled 13.9 percent.


LUXOTTICA SUN: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated v. Luxottica Sun Corp. d/b/a
Lenscrafters, Case No. 1:16-cv-21640-JAL (S.D. Fla., May 10,
2016), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Luxottica Sun Corp. owns and operates an optical retail shop in
Miami Dade, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Richard Dinin, Esq.
      SCOTT R. DININ, P.A.
      4200 NW 7th Avenue
      Miami, FL 33127
      Telephone: (786) 431-1333
      Facsimile: (786) 513-7700
      E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com


LYFT: Offers to Settle Driver Class Action for $27 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Kia Kokalitcheva, writing for Fortune, reports that ride-hailing
company Lyft is making a second try at settling a class action
lawsuit filed by drivers.  This time, it's upped its proposed
payout to $27 million, according to documents filed on May 11 in
San Francisco federal court.

In January, Lyft attempted to settle a lawsuit by former drivers
who claimed the company owed them expenses because it
misclassified them as contractors instead of employees.  In April,
a federal judge rejected a proposed $12.25 million settlement,
saying it "shortchanged" drivers.

Under the new proposal, average "casual" Lyft drivers would
receive about $131, while average "frequent drivers," who drove an
average of 700 hours, would receive about $2,000, according to
court documents.

Lyft's new settlement proposal comes after calculations ordered by
the judge showed that its California drivers would have been owed
$126 million if they were employees instead of independent
contractors.  Under the new proposal, Lyft drivers still remain
contractors.  Almost all the additional money will go to the
drivers, the company said in a press release.

"In light of Lyft's continued growth, we agreed to update the
resolution in a way that both increased monies paid to drivers and
helped preserve their flexibility to control when, where and for
how long they drive on the platform," Lyft general counsel Kristin
Sverchek said in a statement.

Rival ride-hailing company Uber is also in the middle of getting
approval for a $100 million settlement proposal for similar
lawsuits in California and Massachusetts.  Uber is also still at
risk of having to increase its settlement payout considering that
employment calculations showed that drivers would be owed $730
million if they were employees instead of contractors.


MANPOWER INC: Sued Over Failure to Provide Payroll Records
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Rodriguez, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula and Does
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 16CV294904 (Cal. Super. Ct., May
9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide
all proper payroll records of Plaintiff and class members.

Manpower, Inc. is engaged in the business of providing staffing
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 488-6555
      Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

         - and -

      William L. Marder, Esq.
      POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
      501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
      Hollister, CA 95023
      Telephone: (831) 531-4214
      Facsimile: (831) 634-0333


MANPOWER INC: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Rodriguez, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v.  Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 16CV294904 (Cal. Super.
Ct., May 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Manpower, Inc. is engaged in the business of providing staffing
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 488-6555
      Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

         - and -

      William L. Marder, Esq.
      POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
      501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
      Hollister, CA 95023
      Telephone: (831) 531-4214
      Facsimile: (831) 634-0333


MARKIT LTD: $45-Mil. CDS Case Settlement Subject to Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------
MARKIT LTD. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that a $45 million settlement in a credit
default swaps litigation awaits court approval.

Markit was named as a defendant with certain major international
investment banks (the "Dealers"), andthe International Swaps and
Derivatives Association ("ISDA") in a number of putative class
action lawsuits related to the same fact patterns that are the
subject of the EC and the DOJ civil investigations, filed
beginning in May 2013 in various U.S. courts and consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in
December 2013.

On September 30, 2015, Markit entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the consolidated antitrust
class action lawsuit. The settlement agreement provides for Markit
to pay a settlement amount of $45 million with no injunctive or
other significant non-monetary obligations and no admission of any
liability. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval,
and there can be no assurance that the court will approve the
settlement or that no members of the class will opt-out of the
settlement.

In addition, certain plaintiffs have requested to be excluded from
the settlement, and no assurance can be given that they will not
undertake additional legal proceedings or lawsuits or assert other
claims. The full amount of the settlement was reflected as an
exceptional item in our financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2015.

Exceptional items for the year ended December 31, 2015 were $48.7
million. These pertain to the agreement to settle the consolidated
U.S. antitrust class action lawsuit regarding credit derivatives
and related markets for $45.0 million and legal advisory fees of
$3.7 million associated with the antitrust class action lawsuit as
well as the related ongoing antitrust investigations by the U.S.
Department of Justice and the European Commission.


MATTSON TECHNOLOGY: Reviewing Merger Class Action Complaints
------------------------------------------------------------
Mattson Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is reviewing
class action complaints related to the merger with Beijing E-town
Dragon Semiconductor Industry Investment Center ("Parent"), and
Dragon Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub").

On December 14, 2015, a putative shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against Mattson, Mattson's Board of Directors, Beijing E-
town Dragon Semiconductor Industry Investment Center ("Parent"),
and Dragon Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), captioned Sally
Mogle v. Mattson Technology, et al., Case No. 11807 (Del. Ch.). On
December 22, 2015, a second putative shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against Mattson's Board of Directors, Parent, and Merger
Sub, captioned Philip Durgin v. Kannappan, et al., Case No. 11837
(Del. Ch.).

The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger
Agreement and that Parent and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek, among
other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to
rescind it should it be consummated, as well as unspecified
damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

On January 12, 2016, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
Alameda County against Mattson, Mattson's Board of Directors,
Parent, and Merger Sub, captioned Mary Salinas v. Mattson
Technology, et al., Case No. RG16799807. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement, and that
Mattson, Parent, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other
things, to enjoin the stockholder vote on the proposed transaction
and unspecified damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

On February 11, 2016, the plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint alleging, among other things, that Mattson's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement
and issuing an incomplete and misleading Preliminary Proxy
Statement, and that Mattson, Parent and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint
seeks, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed
transaction or to rescind it should it be consummated, as well as
unspecified damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

On February 22, 2016, a second putative shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, Alameda County against Mattson, Mattson's Board of
Directors, Parent, and Merger Sub, captioned Darrell Brown v.
Mattson Technology, et al., Case No. RG16804802. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that Mattson's directors breached
their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement and
issuing an incomplete and misleading Preliminary Proxy Statement,
and that Mattson, Parent, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among
other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to
rescind it should it be consummated, as well as unspecified
damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

On February 18, 2016, a putative shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Board, captioned
Talbert v. Mattson Technology, et al., No. 8:16-cv-00811-LHK. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that Mattson and Mattson's
Board of Directors violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially incomplete
and misleading statements and/or omitting material information
from the Preliminary Proxy Statement. The complaint seeks to
enjoin the stockholder vote on the proposed transaction,
unspecified damages, certain other equitable relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Mattson is reviewing the complaints and has not yet formally
responded to them, but believes the plaintiffs' allegations are
without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.

Mattson designs, manufactures, markets and globally supports
semiconductor wafer processing equipment used in the fabrication
of integrated circuits ("ICs" or chips).


MDX MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Amended "Shulruff" Suit Due on May 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 16, 2016, in the case entitled
Dr. Charles Shulruff, D.D.S. v. MDX Medical, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-01989 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly.

The minute entry states that:

   -- telephone status hearing held with attorneys for both
      sides;

   -- motion to dismiss original complaint is terminated as moot;

   -- motion to dismiss amended complaint is to be filed by
      May 27, 2016.  Response is due by June 24 and reply is due
      by July 11.

   -- ruling is due on August 4, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is withdrawn
      without prejudice pursuant to the parties' stipulation; and

   -- status hearing is set for August 4, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=a7VGmM9x


MEDTOX SCIENTIFIC: 8th Cir. Reinstates Claims in Fax Ads Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A recent Eighth Circuit decision reinstating class claims over
unsolicited fax ads creates a new class membership test and widens
a circuit split, a defense attorney tells Bloomberg BNA.

David Almeida -- dalmeida@sheppardmullin.com -- said the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit adopted a "circular and
essentially meaningless ascertainability requirement" by defining
the implicit test as whether class members are "clearly
ascertainable."

Mr. Almeida, a partner in Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
LLP's Chicago office who specializes in consumer class actions,
said this is a third version of the ascertainability standard,
distinct from the Third Circuit's "strict" test and the Seventh
Circuit's "weak" test.

But plaintiffs' attorney Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP in New York
and civil procedure professor Tanya Pierce tell Bloomberg BNA it
appears that the Eighth Circuit is basically adopting the Seventh
Circuit's approach.

The Eighth Circuit is rightfully reluctant to impose a stringent
test, "as ascertainability is not mentioned anywhere in the text
of Rule 23 and, indeed, runs counter to the basic principles
underlying Rule 23," Reese said in a May 5 e-mail.

Mr. Reese is a consumer protection class action attorney and an
adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School.

Sandusky Wellness Center LLC filed a class action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, alleging
MedTox Scientific Inc. sent unsolicited fax advertisements.

The Eighth Circuit told the lower court to take another look at
its denial of class certification.  It held May 3 that members of
the class could be identified through the defendant's fax records,
in Sandusky Wellness Ctr. LLC v. MedTox Scientific Inc., 8th Cir.,
No. 15-1317, 5/3/16 (see related story).

Circuit Split

Ascertainability doesn't appear in the rule that governs class
actions, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

But many courts include it as an implied prerequisite when
considering whether a class should be certified.  A circuit split
has emerged, illustrated by two false advertising suits involving
dietary supplements.

The Third Circuit required that sales records -- or other reliable
evidence of product purchases identifying class members -- be
available for a class to be found ascertainable in Carrera v.
Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013) (14 CLASS 1058, 9/13/13).

The Seventh Circuit roundly rejected the Third Circuit's Carrera
strict standard for identifying class members in its July 2015
ruling in Mullins v. Direct Digital LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir.
2015).

The Seventh Circuit held that as long as the class definition is
spelled out clearly and objectively, ascertainability is met.  The
court also endorsed class members' ability to self-identify
through affidavits when other means of identification aren't
available.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied review of that case in February (17
CLASS 249, 3/11/16).

Eighth Circuit Language

The Eighth Circuit in Sandusky acknowledged this split but said
it, "unlike most other courts of appeal, has not outlined a
requirement of ascertainability."

The appeals court went on to say, "this court adheres to a
rigorous analysis of the Rule 23 requirements, which includes that
a class 'must be adequately defined and clearly ascertainable.'"

So is this a new test? A non-test?

Defense attorney Almeida said in a May 5 e-mail that the Eighth
Circuit "goes to the left of the Seventh Circuit," creating an
even weaker test.

Because the decision "provided no meat to its analysis," he said
the district courts in the Eighth Circuit could "completely
abandon any analysis of ascertainability whatsoever."

But Professor Pierce disagreed, saying the Eighth Circuit's
approach is consistent with the Seventh Circuit's.

"Both focus on whether the class is adequately defined, rather
than whether it would be difficult to identify particular members
of an adequately defined class," she said in a May 9 e-mail.

Neither court's approach "requires plaintiffs to prove there
exists an administratively feasible mechanism to determine just
who the class members are," as the Third Circuit does, she said.

Need for SCOTUS Review?

Mr. Almeida said the Sandusky decision points to the need for the
Supreme Court to settle the split.

"We now have three different versions of ascertainability, despite
the fact that Rule 23 is supposed to be uniformly applied
throughout the federal courts," he said.

"It has gotten to the point where the same putative class will
receive wildly varying receptions depending on the Circuit in
which the case is filed."


MENARD CORRECTIONAL: "English" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle dismissed without prejudice the complaint
filed in the case captioned MARIO S. ENGLISH, JR., DONALD HARDY,
SUAVE JOHNSON, FNU MCCOY, DAVID GEHRET, and FNU BLACKMAN,
Plaintiffs, v. KIMBERLY BUTLER, and MONICA NIPPE, Defendants, Case
No. 16-cv-00395-SMY (S.D. Ill.).  The judge futher ordered as
follows:

          -- that each plaintiff shall have until June 13, 2016,
             in which to advise the Court whether he wishes the
             Court to consider him a plaintiff in the group
             action. If, by June 13, 2016, any one or more of the
             plaintiffs advises the Court that he does not wish
             to participate in the action, he will be dismissed
             from the lawsuit and will not be charged a filing
             fee.

          -- that any plaintiff who does not respond to the order
             by June 13, 2016, will be considered a party in the
             action and shall be held accountable for all
             consequences.

          -- that, in order to proceed with the action, any
             plaintiffs that choose to remain a party to the
             action are directed to submit their amended
             complaint within 35 days of the entry of the order
             (on or before June 17, 2016).  They should label the
             form First Amended Complaint, and they should use
             the case number for the action.  In drafting the
             amended complaint, the plaintiffs should state, in
             chronological order, what happened to each of them
             that constituted a deprivation of their
             constitutional rights, and who was personally
             involved.

A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's May 13, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/4BtSjA from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs Mario S. English, Jr., Donald Hardy, Suave Johnson,
FNU McCoy, David Gehret and FNU Blackman are currently
incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center.  They jointly brought
the pro se action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against Monica
Nippe, a Menard employee and Warden Kimberly Butler.


MICHIGAN: Judge Allows Class Action Against UIA to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Darren Cunningham, writing for Fox17, reports that another lawsuit
against the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency will move
forward.

Judge Cynthia Stephens' ruled that the Michigan Court of Claims
will hear the tentative class action suit in Bauserman v. Michigan
UIA.  The plaintiffs accuse the state of intercepting tax refunds
and garnishing wages without due process after accusing people of
unemployment fraud.  The plaintiffs also accuse the agency of
violating federal law by failing to give claimants the legally
prescribed time to respond to fact-finding forms.

The state Attorney General filed to dismiss the case, claiming
state courts have no jurisdiction to hear the case and that no
harm has been done.

A separate lawsuit is also moving forward in federal court.  The
AG had also filed to dismiss that suit, but that motion was also
denied.

The unemployment agency said its hosting informational seminars.

To help its customers better understand the unemployment insurance
system, Michigan's Unemployment Insurance Agency (UIA) is hosting
free Unemployed Worker Seminars at locations around the state.

Participants will have the opportunity to learn some of the ins
and outs of the claims process, how to use MiWAM, the UIA's system
for managing benefit accounts online, and much more.  The first
seminar will be held May 23 in Ann Arbor, with others scheduled
through August from Detroit to Marquette.

"The seminars will cover the areas of Michigan's unemployment
insurance system that people most often have questions about,"
said Sharon Moffett-Massey, director of the Unemployment Insurance
Agency.  "We want to make sure that our customers have every
opportunity to understand the UI system and know how to get
assistance with their claim if they need it."

The day will consist of brief presentations, with adequate time
for questions and answers on various topics including filing
claims, certification, understanding determinations, the
collections process, eligibility requirements, and more.

Attendance is free, but participants are encouraged to register
online.  Unemployed workers can link to online registration via
the UIA website at michigan.gov/uia.  Customers without Internet
access who wish to register should call the UIA Customer Service
hotline at 1-866-500-0017 or visit at a local UIA Problem
Resolution Office (PRO).


MICROSOFT CORP: Trial in British Columbia Case to Begin in 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a British Columbia
class action asserting antitrust and unfair competition claims is
now scheduled for trial beginning in 2016.

The Company said, "Three antitrust and unfair competition class
action lawsuits were filed against us in British Columbia,
Ontario, and Quebec, Canada on behalf of various classes of direct
and indirect purchasers of our PC operating system and certain
other software products between 1999 and 2005.

In 2010, the court in the British Columbia case certified it as a
class action. After the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed
the case, in 2013 the Canadian Supreme Court reversed the
appellate court and reinstated part of the British Columbia case,
which is now scheduled for trial beginning in 2016. The other two
cases are inactive.


MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Not Yet Active
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a Nokia, along with
other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant
in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia by a purported class of Canadians who have used
cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours, including a subclass of
users with brain tumors. Microsoft was served with the complaint
in June 2014 and has been substituted for the Nokia defendants.
The litigation is not yet active as several defendants remain to
be served.


MICROSOFT CORP: Proceedings in US Cell Phone Case Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that trial court
proceedings in the U.S. cell phone litigation are stayed pending
resolution of the appeal.

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network
operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits filed in the Superior
Court for the District of Columbia by individual plaintiffs who
allege that radio emissions from cellular handsets caused their
brain tumors and other adverse health effects.

"We assumed responsibility for these claims as part of the NDS
acquisition and have been substituted for the Nokia defendants,"
Microsoft said. Nine of these cases were filed in 2002 and are
consolidated for certain pre-trial proceedings; the remaining 10
cases are stayed.

In a separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from
the use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines
("FCC Guidelines") are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs
allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC
Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went
into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy
to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines.

In 2013, defendants in the consolidated cases moved to exclude
plaintiffs' expert evidence of general causation on the basis of
flawed scientific methodologies. In 2014, the court granted in
part defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation
experts. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal challenging
the standard for evaluating expert scientific evidence, which the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed to hear en banc.
Trial court proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the
appeal.


MILLER AND STEENO: Bid to Certify Class Hearing Set for July 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 16, 2016, in the case styled
Maurice Strader v. Miller and Steeno, P.C., et al., Case No. 1:16-
cv-05199 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion to continue its motion to certify the
      class is granted;

   -- no appearance is required on May 18, 2016;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is entered and
      continued to July 18, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.;

   -- status hearing set for July 18, at 9:00 a.m.;

   -- the parties are directed to meet and discuss the status of
      the case;

   -- the parties are directed to file a joint status report in
      the format described on the court's Web site at
      http://www.ilnd.uscourts.govat least 3 days prior to the
      status; and

   -- the parties are directed to discuss settlement, and whether
      they consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9WkGqyUR


MISSION BAY: Court Wants Executed Amended Settlement Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HORACIO DE VEYRA PALANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
MISSION BAY INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-05235-SI
(N.D. Cal.), District Judge Susan Illston said the Court will not
rule on the motion for preliminary approval until it receives an
executed amended settlement agreement. Plaintiffs have indicated
that they anticipate the amended agreement will be filed on May
18, 2016.  Plaintiffs are ordered to file a further amended class
notice in accordance with the Court's guidance.

On May 13, 2016, the parties appeared for a hearing on plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. On
May 17, plaintiffs filed a supplemental declaration attaching: (1)
an amended class notice to address concerns the Court raised at
the hearing and (2) an amended worksheet regarding distribution of
settlement funds to allot to class members roughly $20,000 that
was previously unallocated.

The Court has reviewed the amended class notice, and finds that
these issues remain to be corrected:

     * Page 1 reads: Contest the basis for determining your
settlement award. See section _ below. This should read, . . . See
section 23 below.

     * Page 3, Question 8 reads: The Court previously certified a
class of current and former MISSION BAY employees who were
employed in California, as care staff workers at any time from
November 12, 2009 to December 1, 2013. As discussed at the
hearing, the class period runs from November 12, 2009 to November
12, 2013. See also Docket No. 81 at 4.

     * Page 19, Question 20. Plaintiffs have deleted the third
sentence from their previously proposed class notice, Docket No.
142-2: Class members are not personally liable for any fees and
costs, and MISSION BAY will pay these fees and costs. At the
hearing, the Court discussed deleting the second sentence from
this section of the prior class notice, but did not instruct
plaintiffs to delete the third sentence. The Court finds that this
sentence is important to class members' understanding of the
settlement and should be added back to the class notice.

     * Page 7, Question 26. The time for the final approval
hearing on August 5, 2016, should be listed as 10:00 a.m., not
9:00 a.m., as discussed at the preliminary approval hearing.

Horacio De Veyra Palana et al. are represented by:

     Phung Hoang Truong, Esq.
     Huy Ngoc Tran, Esq.
     Justice at Work Law Group,
     84 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 790
     San Jose, CA 95113
     Telephone: 408.317.1100
     Facsimile: 408.351.0105

Tomas Eduardo Margain, CASA Legal, Cary S. Kletter, Trung Thi
Nguyen, Kletter Law Firm also represent Palana et al.

Mission Bay Inc., and Print It Here And Copy, Inc., are
represented by:

     Reyna Elena Macias, Esq.
     Scott A. Freedman, Esq.
     WFBM, LLP
     1 City Blvd W Fl 5
     Orange, CA 92868
     Tel: (714) 634-2522
     Fax: (714) 634-0686
     E-mail: rmacias@wfbm.com
             sfreedman@wfbm.com


MONEY RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Corey" Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Corey and Catherine Tubergen, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Money Recovery Nationwide
d/b/a Nationwide Collection Agencies, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00481
(W.D. Mich., May 9, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Money Recovery Nationwide operates a debt collection firm located
at 8155 Executive Ct #10, Lansing, MI 48917.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas Allan Reyna, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS A. REYNA PC
      528 Bridge St., Ste. 1A
      Grand Rapids, MI 49504
      Telephone: (616) 235-4444
      E-mail: nickreyna7@hotmail.com


MOTEL 6: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Occupancy Contract Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Dalton, for herself, and for all other persons similarly
situated v. Motel 6, Inc., Motel 6 Operating LP, G6 Hospitality
Property LLC Subhash Patel, Veena Patel, Prakash Patel, Frenca
Hospitality LLC and Does 1-30, Case No. RG16814857 (Cal. Super.
Ct., May 9, 2016), is brought on behalf of all persons who have
been occupants of the Defendants and who have been or are at risk
of being unlawfully forced to move from their home before the
expiration of 30 days occupancy contract.

The Defendants own and operate residential hotels in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


MURRIETA, CA: Wins Bid to Strike Class Claims in "Fenaroli" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Virginia A. Phillips grants the Defendants' motion to
strike class allegations and denies as moot the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification in the lawsuit styled Jacqueline Elise
Fenaroli v. Officer K Stickleman et al., Case No. EDCV 15-1699-VAP
(KKx) (C.D. Cal.).

On February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for
violations of her constitutional rights, including due process,
free speech, and substantive due process.  In the Motion for
Certification, the Plaintiff seeks to certify an expanded class,
which the Plaintiff calls the "damage class," which is defined as
those who sustained any damage as a result of being issued notices
to appear after January 2010 for violations of Section 38300 and
21461 of the California Vehicle Code.

The Court declines to certify the Plaintiff's class because, among
other things, the Plaintiff was never issued a notice to appear
for violating Section 21461, and the Plaintiff's evidence shows
that the Defendants stopped issuing notices to appear under
Section 38300 as of March 11, 2014.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UPFo9NZi


NETFLIX INC: 9th Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the dismissal of the
securities class action suit with prejudice.

On January 13, 2012, the first of three purported shareholder
class action lawsuits was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors. Two additional
purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the same
court on January 27, 2012 and February 29, 2012 alleging
substantially similar claims.  These lawsuits were consolidated
into In re Netflix, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:12-cv-
00225-SC, and the Court selected lead plaintiffs.

On June 26, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
which alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The Court
dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend on
February 13, 2013. Lead plaintiffs filed a first amended
consolidated complaint on March 22, 2013. The Court dismissed the
first amended consolidated complaint with prejudice on August 20,
2013, and judgment was entered on September 27, 2013. Lead
plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and
requested leave to file a second amended complaint on October 25,
2013.

On January 17, 2014, the Court denied that motion. On February 18,
2014, lead plaintiffs appealed that decision to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; oral argument occurred on
March 17, 2016. On April 11, 2016, the Ninth Circuit panel
affirmed the dismissal of the suit with prejudice.

Plaintiffs have 14 days to petition for rehearing. Management has
determined a potential loss is reasonably possible however, based
on its current knowledge, management does not believe that the
amount of such possible loss or a range of potential loss is
reasonably estimable.

Netflix is the world's leading Internet television network with
over 81 million streaming members in over 190 countries enjoying
more than 125 million hours of TV shows and movies per day,
including original series, documentaries and feature films.


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Claims Against Sheriff Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALANA CAIN, ET AL., v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,
ET AL., Civil Action No. 15-4479. Section: R(2) (E.D. La.), Judge
Sarah S. Vance granted Sheriff Gusman's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims against him.

Named plaintiffs Alana Cain, Ashton Brown, Reynaud Variste,
Reynajia Variste, Thaddeus Long, and Vanessa Maxwell filed a civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 seeking to declare the
manner in which the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court
collects post-judgment court costs from indigent debtors
unconstitutional.  According to the plaintiffs, the Criminal
District Court and other, related actors maintain a policy of
jailing criminal defendants who fail to pay their court costs
solely because of their indigence.

Sheriff Gusman sought to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against him
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  Sheriff Gusman
argued that the plaintiffs' allegations are conclusory and
unsupported by facts demonstrating that plaintiffs are entitled to
relief.  Sheriff Gusman also argued that his office is legally
required to execute the arrest warrants and enforce the bail bond
fee statutes challenged in the plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint.

A full-text copy of Judge Wright's May 13, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/uPniys from Leagle.com.

Alana Cain, Ashton Brown, Reynaud Variste, Reynajia Variste,
Thaddeus Long, Vanessa Maxwell, Plaintiffs, represented by William
Patrick Quigley -- quigley@loyno.edu -- Loyola Law School Clinic,
Alec George Karakatsanis -- alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org -- Equal
Justice Under Law, pro hac vice, Anna Lise Lellelid-Douffet, Law
Office of Anna Lellelid, LLC & Emily Faye Ratner, Emily Faye
Ratner, Attorney at Law.

Robert J. Kazik, Laurie A White, Tracey Flemings-Davillier,
Benedict Willard, Dennis Waldron, Keva Landrum-Johnson, Robin
Pittman, Byron C. Williams, Camille Buras, Karen K. Herman, Darryl
Derbigny, Arthur Hunter, Franz Zibilich, Harry E Cantrell,
Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Phayer, Burglass & Tankersley,
L.L.C., Celeste Brustowicz, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C.,
Christopher Kent Tankersley, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C. &
Elizabeth A. Doubleday, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C..

Jeff Landry, Movant, represented by Emily G Andrews, Louisiana
Department of Justice & Madeline S. Carbonette, Louisiana
Department of Justice.


NEW YORK: Sued Over Failure to Pay Fraud Investigators Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Violeta Hernandez, et al. v. The City of New York, Case No. 1:16-
cv-03445 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay Associate Fraud Investigators or a Fraud
Investigators' overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The City of New York, often called New York City or simply New
York, is the most populous city in the United States. Located at
the southern tip of the State of New York, the city is the center
of the New York metropolitan area, one of the most populous urban
agglomerations in the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
      David Ricksecker, Esq.
      Sara Faulman, Esq.
      WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY
      1101 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 1000
      Washington, DC  20005
      Telephone: (202) 833-8855
      E-mail: gkm@wmlaborlaw.com

         - and -

      Hope Pordy, Esq.
      SPIVAK LIPTON, LLP
      1700 Broadway Suite 2100
      New York, NY  10019
      Telephone: (212) 765-2100
      E-mail: hpordy@spivkalipton.com


NL INDUSTRIES: Appeal Remains Pending in Pigment Case
-----------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, 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's appeal
from a class action ruling is proceeding with the Sixth District
Court of Appeal for the State of California.

The Company said, "In April 2000 we were served with a complaint
in County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al,
(Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara,
Case No. 1-00-CV-788657) brought by a number of California
government entities against the former pigment manufacturers, the
LIA and certain paint manufacturers.  The County of Santa Clara
sought to recover compensatory damages for funds the plaintiffs
had expended or would in the future expend for medical treatment,
educational expenses, abatement or other costs due to exposure to,
or potential exposure to, lead paint, disgorgement of profit, and
punitive damages."

"In July 2003, the trial judge granted defendants' motion to
dismiss all remaining claims.  Plaintiffs appealed and the
intermediate appellate court reinstated public nuisance,
negligence, strict liability, and fraud claims in March 2006.  A
fourth amended complaint was filed in March 2011 on behalf of The
People of California by the County Attorneys of Alameda, Ventura,
Solano, San Mateo, Los Angeles and Santa Clara, and the City
Attorneys of San Francisco, San Diego and Oakland.  That complaint
alleged that the presence of lead paint created a public nuisance
in each of the prosecuting jurisdictions and sought its abatement.

"In July and August 2013, the case was tried.  In January 2014,
the Judge issued a judgment finding us, The Sherwin Williams
Company and ConAgra Grocery Products Company jointly and severally
liable for the abatement of lead paint in pre-1980 homes, and
ordered the defendants to pay an aggregate $1.15 billion to the
people of the State of California to fund such abatement.

"In February 2014, we filed a motion for a new trial, and in March
2014 the court denied the motion.  Subsequently in March 2014, we
filed a notice of appeal with the Sixth District Court of Appeal
for the State of California and the appeal is proceeding with the
appellate court.

"NL believes that this judgment is inconsistent with California
law and is unsupported by the evidence, and we will defend
vigorously against all claims.

"The Santa Clara case is unusual in that this is the second time
that an adverse verdict in the lead pigment litigation has been
entered against NL (the first adverse verdict against NL was
ultimately overturned on appeal). We have concluded that the
likelihood of a loss in this case has not reached a standard of
"probable" as contemplated by ASC 450, given (i) the substantive,
substantial and meritorious grounds on which the adverse verdict
in the Santa Clara case will be appealed, (ii) the uniqueness of
the Santa Clara verdict (i.e. no final, non-appealable verdicts
have ever been rendered against us, or any of the other former
lead pigment manufacturers, based on the public nuisance theory of
liability or otherwise), and (iii) the rejection of the public
nuisance theory of liability as it relates to lead pigment matters
in many other jurisdictions (no jurisdiction in which a plaintiff
has asserted a public nuisance theory of liability has ever
successfully been upheld).  In addition, liability that may
result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated, as NL continues to
have no basis on which an estimate of liability could be made, as
discussed above. However, as with any legal proceeding, there is
no assurance that any appeal would be successful, and it is
reasonably possible, based on the outcome of the appeals process,
that NL may in the future incur some liability resulting in the
recognition of a loss contingency accrual that could have a
material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial
position and liquidity."

NL Industries operates in the component products industry through
its majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. (NYSE MKT:
CIX).  NL operates in the chemicals industry through its
noncontrolling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.


NL INDUSTRIES: Still Defends Suit Over Blood Lead Levels Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, 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 on behalf of parents or legal
guardians of children who lived in certain "high risk" areas in
Illinois between August 18, 1995 and February 19, 2008, and
incurred an expense or liability for having their children's blood
lead levels tested.

The Company said, "In June 2000, a complaint was filed in Illinois
state court, Lewis, et al. v. Lead Industries Association, et al
(Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department,
Chancery Division, Case No. 00CH09800.)  Plaintiffs seek to
represent two classes, one consisting of minors between the ages
of six months and six years who resided in housing in Illinois
built before 1978, and another consisting of individuals between
the ages of six and twenty years who lived in Illinois housing
built before 1978 when they were between the ages of six months
and six years and who had blood lead levels of 10
micrograms/deciliter or more.  The complaint seeks damages jointly
and severally from the former pigment manufacturers and the LIA to
establish a medical screening fund for the first class to
determine blood lead levels, a medical monitoring fund for the
second class to detect the onset of latent diseases and a fund for
a public education campaign."

"In April 2008, the trial court judge certified a class of
children whose blood lead levels were screened venously between
August 1995 and February 2008 and who had incurred expenses
associated with such screening.  In March 2012, the trial court
judge decertified the class.  In June 2012, the trial court judge
granted plaintiffs the right to appeal his decertification order,
and in August 2012 the appellate court granted plaintiffs
permission to appeal.

"In March 2013, the appellate court agreed with the trial court's
rationale regarding legislative requirements to screen children's
blood lead levels and remanded the case for further proceedings in
the trial court.  In July 2013, plaintiffs moved to vacate the
decertification.  In October 2013, the judge denied plaintiffs'
motion to vacate the decertification of the class.

"In March 2014, plaintiffs filed a new class certification motion.
In April 2015, a class was certified consisting of parents or
legal guardians of children who lived in certain "high risk" areas
in Illinois between August 18, 1995 and February 19, 2008, and
incurred an expense or liability for having their children's blood
lead levels tested."

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

NL Industries operates in the component products industry through
its majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. (NYSE MKT:
CIX).  NL operates in the chemicals industry through its
noncontrolling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.


NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY HEALTH: Faces Property Tax Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that in
the wake of an Illinois appellate court decision striking down as
unconstitutional the state law allowing Illinois' nonprofit
hospitals to avoid property taxes, a Chicago real estate
investment group has filed a class action lawsuit against all
every hospital in Illinois, alleging property owners in Cook
County and elsewhere have been forced to pay higher real estate
taxes than they otherwise should have to make up for what the
plaintiffs allege the hospitals should have been paying all along.

On May 5, a business group identified as Thornmeadow Partners LP
filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against NorthShore
University Health System and what the complaint identified as a
"defendant class" of all other hospitals operating in Cook County.
NorthShore operates four Cook County hospitals, including
hospitals in Evanston, Highland Park, Glenbrook and Skokie.

The complaint does not identify who is involved in Thornmeadow
Partners.  However, the complaint said Thornmeadow owns a
residential property in the 4800 block of West Dakin on Chicago's
northwest side.  According to Cook County property tax records,
the taxes on the property were paid by a business entity
identified as Sabra Management, of Northfield.  State business
records indicate Sabra is headed by Jack Gore, a lawyer based in
Northfield.

According to the Thornmeadow complaint, NorthShore and other
hospitals throughout Illinois have long enjoyed a favored tax
exempt status they should not have.

The complaint cited a January opinion posted by a three-justice
panel of the Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court, in which
the court found a judge in downstate Champaign County had erred in
finding state law allowed the operators of Urbana's Carle
Foundation Hospital to be exempted from paying local property
taxes.

That decision came as the latest round in a long-running legal
dispute between the Carle Foundation on one side and the Illinois
Department of Revenue and a collection of local taxing bodies in
Champaign County and the city of Urbana, on the other.  The state
and local governments argued the hospital should owe property
taxes, despite their nonprofit status.

However, the hospital cited a 2012 state law which it said gave it
and other nonprofit hospitals tax exempt status, should its
services to "low-income or underserved individuals" offset its
estimated annual property tax liability.

The appellate justices, however, said the standards spelled out in
the law for granting tax exemptions to hospitals falls short under
the Illinois state constitution, which requires nonprofit
organizations to use their property primarily for "charitable
purposes" to earn a property tax exemption.  The justices said the
law effectively grants hospitals the chance to purchase a tax
exemption. Thus, the justices said the law is unconstitutional.

While the matter may yet be resolved by the Illinois Supreme
Court, the Thornmeadow group cited the Fourth Appellate District's
opinion in arguing the hospitals should be made to pay taxpayers
back for effectively forcing other taxpayers to pay higher
property tax bills to make up for what hospitals weren't paying.

The complaint asks for the court to order Illinois hospitals to
pay an amount equal to the amount they should have owed in
property taxes since 2014, with interest, to Thornmeadow and other
property taxpayers in Cook County and throughout the state.

The Thornmeadow complaint said the plaintiffs chose NorthShore
because it is based in Cook County, and because the plaintiffs
believed NorthShore "will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the Defendant Hospital Class and has no interests
that are antagonistic to, or that irreconcilably conflict, with
those of other" hospitals Illinois.

The lawsuit also named the Cook County Treasurer and Clerk's
offices as defendants in the action, as those offices are
responsible for collecting property taxes on NorthShore's property
and that owned by Thornmeadow.

The complaint alleged NorthShore and other hospitals essentially
misused public funds by using the purportedly unconstitutional tax
breaks to withhold what they should have otherwise owed to the
local governments of the communities in which their hospitals
operate.

The complaint does not make any estimates on how much any
hospitals might be made to pay, should the lawsuit succeed.

Thornmeadow is represented in the action by attorney Larry D.
Drury, of Chicago.


NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Jurisdictional Concerns Raised in "Edwards"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PAUL T. EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO.
NORTH AMERICAN POWER AND GAS, LLC, Defendant, No. 3:14-cv-1714
(VAB) (D. Conn.), Judge Victor A. Bolden directed the plaintiff to
file a new proposed amended complaint addressing the court's
concerns about its subject-matter jurisdiction within 21 days of
the date of the order.

A full-text copy of Judge Bolden's May 13, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/3K5dyh from Leagle.com.

Paul T. Edwards is a Connecticut resident who has brought a
putative class action against North American Power and Gas, LLC
("NAPG"), a Connecticut citizen.  Edwards alleged that NAPG
promised consumers low rates on electricity tied to the wholesale
market rate and subsequently charged exorbitant rates that were
unrelated to the wholesale market rate.

Edwards has filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint, seeking to add
additional legal claims and several plaintiffs who reside in
states other than Connecticut.  Before ruling on the motion,
however, Judge Bolden raised some concerns about the court's
subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

Paul T. Edwards, Plaintiff, represented by Robert A. Izard, Jr.
-- rizard@izardnobel.com -- Izard Nobel, LLP & Seth R. Klein --
sklein@izardnobel.com -- Izard Nobel PC.

North American Power & Gas, LLC, Defendant, represented by Greil
Roberts -- groberts@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP & William
E. Murray -- wmurray@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP.


NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Securities Class Suits Underway
--------------------------------------------------
United States Commodity Index Funds Trust said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a
putative class action filed in federal court for the Southern
District of New York involving six different NovaStar offerings is
presently being litigated.

It is alleged that the offering documents were materially
misleading because they failed to disclose that NovaStar, which
originated or acquired the loans backing the certificates
disregarded its lending guidelines.  The claims were initially
dismissed in 2011 and 2012, but those rulings were overturned on
appeal and all claims were reinstated by the trial court in 2015.

Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC (WCM) served as one of several
underwriters.

The United States Commodity Index Funds Trust (the "Trust") is a
Delaware statutory trust formed on December 21, 2009. The Trust is
a series trust formed pursuant to the Delaware Statutory Trust Act
and is organized into three separate series (each series, a "Trust
Series" and collectively, the "Trust Series"). As of December 31,
2015, the Trust includes the United States Commodity Index Fund
("USCI"), a commodity pool formed on April 1, 2010 and first made
available to the public on August 10, 2010, the United States
Copper Index Fund ("CPER"), a commodity pool formed on November
26, 2010 and first made available to the public on November 15,
2011 and the United States Agriculture Index Fund ("USAG"), a
commodity pool formed on November 26, 2010 and first made
available to the public on April 13, 2012.


OCEAN POWER: Settles Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. ("OPT" or "the Company") on May 11
disclosed that it has reached a settlement agreement in the class
action securities litigation, In re: Ocean Power Technologies,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 14-3799, first filed in June
2014 in US District Court in New Jersey.  The Company and the
other defendants reached a settlement agreement which, if approved
by the court, will settle claims asserted in the lawsuit by the
lead plaintiff individually and on behalf of a class that consists
of investors in the Company from January 14, 2014 through July 29,
2014, and investors who purchased the Company's securities in the
Company's April 4, 2014 offering of shares of common stock.  The
agreement will settle the class action litigation without any
admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company
or the other defendants.  The terms of the settlement are subject
to notice to the class and final approval by the Court.

George Kirby, President and Chief Executive Officer of OPT
commented, "The settlement of the securities litigation is another
significant step for OPT to finalize our strategic pivot.  We
value all of our stockholders and institutional investors, and are
pleased to be in a position to put this litigation behind us. I
want to personally thank all the parties that were involved in the
process."

The class of plaintiffs is represented by the law firm of Levi &
Korskinsky LLP, which will be responsible for the notification
process.  The Company is represented by the law firm of Dechert
LLP.

                  About Ocean Power Technologies

Headquartered in Pennington, New Jersey, Ocean Power Technologies
is a pioneer in ocean wave energy conversion.  OPT's proprietary
PowerBuoy(R) technology is based on a scalable and modular design.
OPT specializes in cost-effective and environmentally sound ocean
wave based power generation and energy storage technology.


ORGANO GOLD: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Ganoderma Coffee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Leonard P. Stark granted in part and denied, in part, Organo
Gold International, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the case captioned
MARLIN JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ORGANO GOLD INT'L, INC., a Nevada
Corporation, Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-390-LPS (D. Del.).

A full-text copy of Judge Stark's May 13, 2016 memorandum opinion
is available at https://is.gd/zxSpfP from Leagle.com.

On March 19, 2015, Marlin Johnson, currently a resident of
Delaware, filed a civil action against Organo Gold, Organo Gold
International, Inc. (a Washington Corporation), Organo Gold
International, LLC, and Organo Gold Management, Inc.
(collectively, "Organo Gold"), in the Superior Court of Delaware
in and for New Castle County.  In his complaint, Johnson alleged
that he suffered serious complications after undergoing gastric
bypass surgery, due to his consumption of Organo Gold coffee
containing a supplement called Ganoderma Lucidum.  He claimed that
the defendants failed to warn him of the dangerous side effects of
Ganoderma Lucidum and further failed to label the amount of
Ganoderma Lucidum in their product.  Consequently, in Johnson's
view, the defendants are liable for his resulting injuries.
Johnson also purported to bring a class action on behalf of over
100 individuals and entities "within the State of Delaware that
purchased Organo Gold products contain[ing] Ganoderma Lucidum."
In his complaint, Johnson asserted six counts for: (I) declaratory
relief; (II) breach of express and implied warranties; (III)
consumer fraud; (IV) negligence; (V) negligent labeling and
failing to warn; and (VI) misrepresentation.

Marlin Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Philip Thomas Edwards,
Murphy, Spadaro & Landon, John S. Spadaro, John Sheehan Spadaro,
LLC & Kelley Marie Huff, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Organo Gold Int'l Inc., Defendant, represented by Colm F. Connolly
-- colm.connolly@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Jody Barillare -- jody.barillare@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Kelly A. Costello -- joseph.costello@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.


OXY RECKITT: Humidifier Disinfectant Victims Await Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kwak Jung-soo, writing for The Hankyoreh, reports that a Missouri
court ruled on May 3 to order the company Johnson and Johnson to
pay US$55 million (around 64.3 billion won) in damages in a suit
filed by family members of a woman in her sixties who contracted
ovarian cancer after using its products.  The total amounted to
US$5 million in compensation and US$50 million in punitive
damages.

But while the death toll in South Korea's humidifier disinfectant
case had passed 500 and over five years have passed since the
problem first came to light, victims have yet to receive proper
compensation.

What accounts for the difference? Experts said the situation shows
the urgent need for South Korea to adopt class action lawsuit and
punitive damage systems that would provide an option for quickly
assigning heavy responsibility in cases involving serious
misconduct with large numbers of victims.

Under a class action system, a successful suit by some of the
victims in cases where wrongful actions by companies related in
large-scale damages results in restitution for other victims
without requiring additional legal action from them.  A punitive
damage system awards amounts far in excess of actual damages in
cases of offenses determined to be particularly severe.

"Under the current [South Korean] judicial system, a victim who
was blinded because of disinfectant user would only receive around
50 million won [US$42,800] in compensation beyond the legal
damages," attorney and Seoul Bar Association human rights
committee chairman Oh Yeong-jung explained on May 10.

The class action and punitive damage systems, Oh added, are
"implemented in places like the US because they increase the
ability of the victims [consumers], who are more vulnerable in
societal terms than the offenders [companies], which allows them
to win compensation more easily and is effective in preventing the
same violations from happening again."

People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy and 15 other civic
and social groups held a press conference at Gwanghwamun Square in
central Seoul on May 10 to declare a boycott of products by Oxy --
makers of the sterilizer in question -- and demand introduction of
the class action and punitive damage systems.

South Korea previously introduced a class action system for
securities in 2005.  But difficult conditions placed on litigation
have resulted in just six suits actually being filed to date.  A
punitive damage system was introduced in 2011 for unfair practices
by large corporations according to the Subcontracting Act, but a
reluctant judiciary has yet to apply it.

During her 2012 campaign, President Park Geun-hye pledged to
introduce both systems for cases involving collusion and other
violations of the Fair Trade Act, but failed to follow through
after meeting with objections from business interest groups.

As the opposition party in the 19th National Assembly, the Minjoo
Party of Korea (TMPK) presented several related bills.  Lawmaker
Seo Young-kyo sponsored a consumer class action suit built that
would apply the system in cases where consumers suffered damages
as a result of illegal manufacturing, advertising, price-fixing,
or sales practices by companies.  Two other lawmakers, Woo Yoon-
keun and Kim Gi-juhn, respectively sponsored a bill to insert
special class action terms in the Civil Procedure Act and an
amendment to the Securities Class Action Act that would loosen the
current system's litigation conditions.  Baek Jae-hyun proposed an
amendment to the Product Liability Act that would allow for
punitive damages of up to 12 times the compensation for cases
involving product defects.

None of the bills passed the 19th National Assembly, where it was
stymied by objections from the administration, ruling Saenuri
Party, and business community citing concerns over the increased
burden on companies and a possible proliferation of legal action.
But with the then-opposition parties now forming a new majority
after campaigning successfully on pledges to beef up both systems
in the Apr. 13 general elections, hopes for the 20th National
Assembly are higher.

"To encourage use of the class action system, we need to place the
burden of proof on the alleged offender rather than the victim and
institute mandatory disclosure by court order for evidentiary
materials possessed by the offender," suggested Economic Reform
Research Institute senior researcher Wi Pyung-ryang.

Wi also advised that the ceiling for punitive damages be raised to
up to ten times the amount of actual compensation.


PACIFIC GUARDIAN: Court Dismissed "King" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi dismissed without prejudice the
case, DONALD KING, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE,
ET AL., Defendants, Civil 16-00103 LEK-KSC (D. Haw.).

Pro se Plaintiff Donald W. King filed his "Verified Conplant[sic],
Class Action. Civil Rights Action. Jury Demand" and an application
to proceed in forma pauperis ("Application") on March 8, 2016.

Also on March 8, 2016, Chief United States District Judge J.
Michael Seabright issued an order setting the Rule 16 Scheduling
Conference for May 9, 2016 before the magistrate judge.

The District Court filed an order denying Plaintiff's Application
on March 23, 2016.  The Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the
required filing fee or file an amended application by no later
than May 9, 2016.  The Court cautioned Plaintiff that, if he
failed to pay the filing for or file an amended application, "this
action may be automatically dismissed."  The Clerk's Office sent
the 3/23/16 Order to Plaintiff at the address provided on his
Verified Complaint, but it was returned as undeliverable.
Plaintiff has not submitted a notice of a change of address, as
required by Local Rule 83.1(h).

As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has neither filed an
amended application nor paid the required filing fee. Further,
Plaintiff failed to appear at the May 9, 2016 Rule 16 Scheduling
Conference.

A copy of the Court's Order dated May 16, 2016, is available at
https://is.gd/JEOlcO from Leagle.com.


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Dismissal of Antitrust Actions Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
Benco Dental Supply Company, Henry Schein, Inc. and Patterson
Companies, Inc. are seeking dismissal of complaints filed against
them in the case, In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation,
Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB (E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs have filed a consolidated class action complaint on
March 11, 2016, a copy of which is available at
https://is.gd/FqKVok

The case is before Judge Brian M. Cogan and Magistrate Judge Gary
R. Brown.

Patterson Companies, 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 30, 2016, that beginning in January
2016, purported class action complaints were filed against
defendants Henry Schein, Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co. and
Patterson Companies, Inc. Although there were factual and legal
variations among these complaints, each alleged that defendants
conspired to foreclose and exclude competitors by boycotting
manufacturers, state dental associations, and others that deal
with defendants' competitors.

On February 9, 2016, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered all of these actions, and all
other actions filed thereafter asserting substantially similar
claims against defendants, consolidated for pre-trial purposes.

On February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was
filed by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth
Dental, Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C.,
Casey Nelson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D.,
Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D.,
P.A. (collectively, the "putative class representatives") in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
entitled In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action
No. 1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB.

Subject to certain exclusions, the putative class representatives
seek to represent all persons who purchased dental supplies or
equipment in the United States directly from any of the
defendants, or non-defendant Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc.,
since August 31, 2008. In the consolidated class action complaint,
putative class representatives allege a nationwide agreement among
Henry Schein, Benco, Patterson and Burkhart not to compete on
price. The consolidated class action complaint asserts a single
count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable
relief, compensatory and treble damages, jointly and severally,
interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees and expert fees.  Putative class representatives have not
specified a damage amount in their complaint.

"While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, we
believe the consolidated class action complaint is without merit,
and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this litigation,"
the Company said.

     Plaintiffs                           Case Number
     ----------                           -----------
Comfort Care Family Dental, PC            16-cv-282
  Rossman Endodontics
Robert W. Grodner                         16-cv-345
Bauer Dental Arts                         16-cv-355
Robert Corwin                             16-cv-442
Keith Schwartz                            16-cv-443
Stephen M. Grussmark                      16-cv-479
Stanford Dresnin, DDS                     16-cv-497
Howard M. May                             16-cv-548
Bemus Point Dental, LLC                   16-cv-560
Paul Bermudez                             16-cv-570
Kottemann Orthodontics                    16-cv-576
Nagmeh Yadegar d/b/a New Age Dental       16-cv-591
Evolution Dental Science, LLC             16-cv-596
Casey Nelson                              16-cv-609
Jim Peck                                  16-cv-616
Peter Bence                               16-cv-631
Kanellos & Kotis                          16-cv-657
Indianola Family Dentistry, PLC           16-cv-658
PJCC Dental PC                            16-cv-662
West LA Dental Health Center              16-cv-666
Omid Farahmand Dmd, Inc.                  16-cv-661
Mojdeh Shaystehfar                        16-cv-692
Indianola Family Dentistry, P.L.C.        16-cv-658

Liaison Class Counsel:

     John Radice, Esq.
     Kenneth Pickle, Esq.
     RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
     34 Sunset Blvd
     Long Beach, NJ 08008
     Tel: (646) 245-8502
     Fax: (609) 385-0745
     E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
             kpickle@radicelawfirm.com

Co-Lead Class Counsel:

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

          - and -

     Scott A. Martin, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (646) 357-1100
     Fax: (212) 202-4322
     Email: smartin@hausfeld.com

          - and -

     Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K Street, NW
     Washington, DC 20006
     Tel: (202)-540-7200
     Fax: (202)-540-7201
     Email: mcoolidge@hausfeld.com

          - and -

     Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
     Patrick Madden, Esq.
     Joshua Ripley, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     Email: ecramer@bm.net
            pmadden@bm.net
            jripley@bm.net

          - and -

     William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
     Shawn J. Rabin, Esq.
     Arun Subramanian, Esq.
     SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P
     560 Lexington Avenue, 15th Fl.
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 336-8330
     Fax: (212) 336-8340
     Email: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
            srabin@susmangodfrey.com
            asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com

          - and -

     Jonathan Jeffrey Ross, Esq.
     SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
     1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
     Houston, TX 77002
     Tel: 713-651-9366
     Fax: 713-654-6666
     Email: jross@susmangodfrey.com

          - and -

     Richard A. Koffman, Esq.
     Robert Cobbs, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500
     Washington, DC 20005
     Tel: (202) 408-4600
     Fax: (202) 408-4699
     Email: rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com
            rcobbs@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

     Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     2443 S. University Blvd., #232
     Denver, CO 80210
     Tel: (720) 583-0650
     Email: ccormier@cohenmilstein.com


PINNACLE: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Avenue Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Harrison, writing for Nashville Business Journal, reports
that just when you thought there couldn't be any more intrigue
surrounding Nashville's biggest bank deal in a decade, a class-
action shareholder suit has now been filed in Nashville court
against Avenue Bank's parent company and its board of directors.

In a complaint filed on May 9 on behalf of shareholders of
Avenue's common stock, plaintiff Stephen Bushansky alleges that
Avenue's board of directors put their personal interests ahead of
Avenue shareholders' and in the process got an inadequate sales
price for the bank.  Avenue and Pinnacle announced a $200-million-
plus deal in late January in a move that would combine two of the
city's biggest local banks.

The class-action suit -- which names Avenue, members of its
executive team and board of directors, and Pinnacle Bank's parent
company, Pinnacle Financial Financial Partners -- seeks a jury
trial in Davidson County Chancery Court.

The crux of the complaint: Avenue's board didn't ink a deal with
Pinnacle that gets as much for the bank as it could have.  The
suit also alleges Avenue's board didn't open bidding or contact
other interested parties to explore a higher sale price, a process
Mr. Bushansky argues "was materially unfair and flawed from the
outset."

Additionally, the complaint alleges Avenue's "single-bidder
process . . . catered toward Pinnacle and [Avenue] insiders" by
failing "to secure adequate value for Avenue's public shareholders
by excluding potentially value-maximizing bidders."

"Given [Avenue's] positioning for long-term growth, the merger
consideration is inadequate and significantly undervalues the
company," the class action suit argues, pointing to Avenue's
earnings performance during its first three months as a public
company.  "Pinnacle is seeking to acquire the company at a time
when the long-term prospects of Avenue are increasing, and while
its stock price is undervalued."

Pinnacle's offer for Avenue is considerably higher than the median
price paid by acquiring banks nationwide since March of last year,
based on the sales price compared to the bank's tangible book
value.

Avenue shareholders are set to vote on the pending transaction
June 21, according to a new regulatory filing.


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Faces Criminal Charges Over Oil Spill
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Melley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
Texas pipeline company responsible for spilling more than 140,000
gallons of crude oil on the California coast last year was
indicted on dozens of criminal charges in the disaster that closed
popular beaches and killed sea lions and birds, prosecutors said
on May 17.

Plains All American Pipeline and one of its employees face 46
counts of state law violations in the May 19, 2015, spill that
initially went undetected until oil began pouring onto a pristine
beach on the Santa Barbara coastline and into the ocean.

Initial investigations by federal regulators found the 2-foot-wide
underground pipeline was severely corroded where it broke on land.

Plains is charged with four felony counts of spilling oil in state
waters and could face fines of up to $2.8 million if convicted of
all the charges, prosecutors said.

"The carelessness of Plains All American harmed hundreds of
species and marine life off Refugio Beach," California Attorney
General Kamala Harris said in a statement.  "This conduct is
criminal, and [Tues]day's charges serve as a powerful reminder of
the consequences that flow from jeopardizing the well-being of our
ecosystems and public health."

Plains said in a statement that the spill was an accident and
believes no criminal behavior occurred.

"We will demonstrate that the charges have no merit and represent
an inappropriate attempt to criminalize an unfortunate accident,"
the company said.

The spill came two weeks before Memorial Day weekend last year and
forced the state to close popular beaches as an oil sheen spread
over miles of the Pacific Ocean.  More than 300 dead animals,
including pelicans and sea lions, were found in the aftermath, and
tar balls from the spill drifted more than 100 miles away to Los
Angeles beaches.

The Houston-based company faces three dozen misdemeanor counts of
harming wildlife.

A Plains employee and the company also are accused of failing to
report the spill quickly enough to state emergency officials.  An
investigation by federal regulators found that it took hours for
Plains to recognize what happened and notify officials.

Tests on the pipe had been conducted weeks before the spill, but
the results had not been analyzed when it ruptured.


PLATINUM AFFAIRS: Suit Seeks to Recover Retained Gratuities
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Membrives, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Platinum Affairs Ltd. d/b/a Continental Caterers,
Sterling Caterers Inc. d/b/a Ateres Avrohom, and Jacob Hirsch,
Case No. 603295/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,May 9, 2016), seeks to recover
unlawfully retained tips and gratuities owed to the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated persons who are presently or were
formerly employed by the Defendants.

The Defendant operates a catering business with a principal place
of business located at 75 Ross Street, Brooklyn, New York
11249.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550


PONTIAC CORRECTIONAL: Court Severs Claims in "Merritt" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KELVIN MERRITT, # B-78207, Plaintiff, v.
GONDINEZ, SHERRY BENTON, SUSAN HILL, UNKNOWN PARTY, KIM BUTLER,
SIMPSON, PHISTER, C/O MINOR, SGT. QUALLS, and LT. PAYNE,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-102-SMY (S.D. Ill.), Judge Staci M.
Yandle held that the plaintiff's claims in Counts 2, 3, and 4,
which are unrelated to the grievance-related claims in Count 1,
are severed into a new case.  That new case shall contain the
claims against the defendants Minor, Qualls, and Payne.

A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's May 13, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/mESYw3 from Leagle.com.

Kelvin Merritt, currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional
Center, brought the pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. section 1983.  He claimed that the defendants Gondinez,
Benton, Hill, Butler, Simpson, Phister and the Unknown Party
Grievance Officer failed to provide him with access to the prison
grievance process and/or refused to consider or answer his
grievances.  Some of the defendants are officials at Pontiac and
others are at Menard Correctional Center, where Merritt was
confined beginning in June 2014. Additionally, the Menard
defendants Minor, Qualls and Payne allegedly retaliated against
Merritt for his litigation and grievance activity, subjected him
to excessive force and falsely charged him with disciplinary
violations that resulted in Merritt's confinement in segregation.


PREMIER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Criddell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mylinda Criddell, individually and on behalf of all others persons
similarly situated v. Premier Healthcare Services, LLC, Case No.
BC619824 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Premier Healthcare Services, LLC provides home care services to
its clients in various locations around California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP
      550 West C Street, Suite 1750
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 400-5822
      Facsimile: (619) 400-5832
      E-mail: lindner@stuevesiegel.com

         - and -

      George A. Hanson, Esq.
      Alexander T, Ricke, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
      E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegei.com
              ricke@stuevesiegel.com

         - and -

      Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNJCK
      11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
      St Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: markp@wp-attomeys.com


PUBLIC STORAGE: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Henry Meier, writing for Los Angeles Business Journal, reports
that Public Storage and its founder B. Wayne Hughes have finally
beaten back a securities class action after nearly five years of
litigation.

A group of Public Storage shareholders alleged the company and
billionaire founder breached their fiduciary duties by
undervaluing five California limited partnerships absorbed in a
$150 million transaction in August 2011.  The plaintiffs sought an
additional $41 million in compensation.

A finalized order from a judge dismissing the case post-trial was
filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, ending the legal saga.  The
plaintiffs sued Public Storage shortly after the 2011 transaction.

The bulk of the plaintiffs' claims rested on the theory that
appraisers hired by the company had undervalued the assets of the
finite-life, limited partnerships set up in the 1970s as vehicles
to fund Public Storage's growth.  Los Angeles Superior Court Judge
Jane Johnson disagreed with the plaintiffs' theory and found their
lone expert's testimony riddled with flaws.

"(Plaintiffs' expert's) trial testimony repeatedly contradicted
his prior sworn testimony and expert reports, thus requiring
direct impeachment on 14 separate occasions," Judge Johnson's
ruling in the case reads.  "These contradictions concerned
fundamental issues, including the specific bases for his opinions,
his purported analysis, and whether his opinions were
speculative."

Craig Varnen -- cvarnen@irell.com -- a partner at Irell & Manella
in Century City, represented Public Storage.  He declined to
comment on the case.

Lawrence Kolker -- kolker@whafh.com -- a partner at Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz in New York, was the lead
plaintiffs' lawyer in the case.  He did not immediately return
request for comment.


RAYMOND JAMES: Sued in Florida Over Unlawful Financial Structure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Enrique Hiller Sanchez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc.
("RJAI') and Joel Burstein, Case No. 1:16-cv-21643-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
May 9, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the
Defendants' practice of designing the financial structure for the
Jay Peak Resort of a fraudulent scheme that operated in a Ponzi-
like manner.

Raymond James & Associates, Inc. operates a diversified holding
company providing financial services to individuals, corporations
and municipalities through its subsidiary companies that engage
primarily in investment and financial planning, in addition to
investment banking and asset management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy Robert Kreines, Esq.
      BENNETT AIELLO AND COHEN
      1218 Drexel Avenue, Apartment 208
      Miami Beach, FL 33139
      Telephone: (513) 703-0610
      E-mail: kreinesj@gmail.com

         - and -

      Michael Paul Bennett, Esq.
      Paul Aiello, Esq.
      BENNETT AIELLO & COHEN
      25 SE 2nd Avenue, Eighth Floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 358-9011
      Facsimile: (305) 358-9012
      E-mail: mbennett@baclawfirm.com
              paiello@bennettaiello.com


RECOLOGY LOS ANGELES: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Alvarez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Recology Los Angeles, Crown Tear Off & Disposal, Inc., and Does
1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC619897 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay all
hours worked at minimum wage in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Recology Los Angeles provides landfill diversion and resource
recovery services to homes and businesses through collection,
recycling, and composting in California.

Crown Tear Off & Disposal, Inc. is an Aviation and Aerospace
company located in 13639 Live Oak Ln, Irwindale, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
      LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
      8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 432-0000
      Facsimile: (310) 432-0001


RESORT MARKETING: Class Certification Sought in "Charvat" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Philip Charvat, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated v. Elizabeth Valente,
Resort Marketing Group, Inc., Carnival Corporation & PLC, Royal
Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., and NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., Case No. 1:12-
cv-05746 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to certify a class of 388,966
putative class members, who all received the exact same pre-
recorded calls from RMG promoting the products of the Cruise
Defendants, on the same dates on which he received those exact
same calls.

Mr. Charvat filed the Action in July of 2012, seeking to hold the
Defendants accountable for massive violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com
                  dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P.MCCUE
          1 South Ave., Third Floor
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          BRODERICK &PARONICH, P.C.
          99 High St., Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com


SAFE-GUARD PRODUCTS: Class Certification Sought in "Hinkle" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned ROBIN L. HINKLE,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. CASEY
JOE MATTHEWS, TIMOTHY MAY and CONNIE MAY, husband and wife,
SANTANDER CONSUMER, USA, INC., an Illinois corporation; SAFE-GUARD
PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company;
and JOHNNY HINKLE, Case No. 2:15-cv-13856 (S.D. W.Va.), asks the
Court to certify this class of similarly situated persons:

     All West Virginia consumers who purchased a "Gap Contract
     Insurance Policy" issued by Defendant Safe-Guard Products
     International and were charged a premium.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-2205
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Howard M. Persinger, III, Esq.
          PERSINGER & PERSINGER, L.C.
          101 Dickenson Street
          Williamson, WV 25661
          Telephone: (304) 235-2000
          Facsimile: (304) 235-3018
          E-mail: hmp3@persingerlaw.com

Defendant Safe-Guard Products International, LLC, is represented
by:

          Jeffrey D. Van Volkenburg, Esq.
          MCNEER, HIGHLAND, MCMUNN & VARNER, L.C.
          Post Office Box 2040
          Clarksburg, WV 26302
          Telephone: (304) 626-1100
          E-mail: jdvanvolkenburg@wvlawyers.com

Defendant Santander Consumer, USA, Inc., is represented by:

          Daniel J. Konrad, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL
          611 Third Avenue
          Huntington, WV 25701
          Telephone: (304) 691-8396
          Facsimile: (304) 522-4312
          E-mail: daniel.konrad@dinsmore.com


SEI INVESTMENTS: Claims in East Baton Rouge Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in a class action
lawsuit in East Baton Rouge, the only claims of plaintiffs still
pending before the District Court are plaintiffs' claims for
secondary liability against SEI and SPTC under Section 714(B) of
the Louisiana Securities Law.

SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana. Five
lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge. One of the five actions purports to
set forth claims on behalf of a class and also names SPTC as a
defendant. Two of the other actions also name SPTC as a defendant.
All five actions name various defendants in addition to SEI, and,
in all five actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of
action against SEI and/or SPTC under the Louisiana Securities Act.

Two of the five actions include claims for violations of the
Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy. In addition,
another group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial
District Court for the Parish of Ascension against SEI and SPTC
and other defendants, asserting claims of negligence, breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform
fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental
reliance, violations of the Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana
Racketeering Act, and conspiracy. The underlying allegations in
all actions relate to the purported role of SPTC in providing
back-office services to Stanford Trust Company. The petitions
allege that SEI and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise
participated in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by
Stanford International Bank.

The case filed in Ascension Parish was removed to federal court
and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas. The schedule for responding to that petition has not yet
been established.

The plaintiffs in two of the cases filed in East Baton Rouge have
granted SEI and SPTC an indefinite extension to respond to the
petitions.

In a third East Baton Rouge action, brought as a class action, SEI
and SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part,
dismissing the claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices
Act. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for class certification, and
SEI and SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment.

The Court deferred the motion for summary judgment, stating that
the motion would not be set for hearing until after the hearing on
class certification. After the Court held a hearing on class
certification, it certified a class composed of persons who
purchased or renewed any Stanford International Bank certificates
of deposit (SIB CDs) in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and
February 13, 2009 or any person for whom the Stanford Trust
Company purchased SIB CDs in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and
February 13, 2009.

SEI and SPTC filed motions for appeal from the class certification
judgments. On February 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for
Leave to File a First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition
in which they asked the Court to allow them to amend the petition
and add claims against certain of SEI's insurance carriers.

On February 5, 2013, the Court granted two of the motions for
appeal and the motion for leave to amend. On February 28, 2013,
SEI responded to the First Amended and Restated Class Action
Petition by seeking dismissal of the action. On March 11, 2013,
the newly-added insurance carrier defendants removed the case to
the Middle District of Louisiana.

SEI notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)
of this case as a potential tag-along action. Plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand the action to state court.  On March 25, 2013,
SEI filed a motion requesting that the federal court decline to
adopt the state court's order regarding class certification, which
the court dismissed without prejudice to renew upon a
determination of the jurisdictional issue.

On August 7, 2013, the MDL Panel transferred the matter against
SEI to the Northern District of Texas. On October 1, 2014, SEI
filed a renewed motion to dismiss in the Northern District of
Texas, and on October 6, 2014, the District Court denied
plaintiffs' motion to remand.

On June 17, 2015, the Court denied the motion to dismiss, and on
June 24, 2015 set a briefing schedule for SEI and SPTC's motion
challenging the Louisiana court's decision to certify a class,
which motion was filed on July 15, 2015. SEI and SPTC filed their
answer on July 1, 2015, and this case is now pending in the
Northern District of Texas.

On July 15, 2015, SEI and SPTC also filed motions seeking
reconsideration of the District Court's June 17 denial of the
motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, seeking leave to pursue
an interlocutory appeal of certain elements of the denial, as well
as a motion seeking partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) with respect to claims
brought under Section 712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law.

On September 22, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's
motion for reconsideration of the June 17 denial of the motion to
dismiss and dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 714(A) of
the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to dismiss, or certify
for interlocutory appeal, plaintiffs' claims under Section 714(B)
of the Louisiana Securities Law. On November 4, 2015, the District
Court granted SEI and SPTC's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims
under Section 712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law.
Consequently, the only claims of plaintiffs still pending before
the District Court are plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability
against SEI and SPTC under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana
Securities Law.

In the two other cases filed in East Baton Rouge, brought by the
same counsel who filed the class action, virtually all of the
litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate
litigation regarding the existence of federal subjection matter
jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act (SLUSA). After the matter was removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that
court dismissed the action under SLUSA. The Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and the Supreme Court of
the United States affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment on
February 26, 2014. The matter was remanded to state court and no
material activity has taken place since that date.

While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early
phase, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.
Because of the uncertainty of the make-up of the classes, the
specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for
summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the lack of
discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other
aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not
reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with
respect to the foregoing lawsuits.


SINGING RIVER: Court Quashes Subpoenas in "Jones"
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned THOMAS JONES, et al., on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SINGING
RIVER HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., Defendants, Cause No. 1:14CV447-LG-
RHW, CONSOLIDATED WITH 1:15CV1-LG-RHW, CONSOLIDATED WITH 1:15CV44-
LG-RHW (S.D. Miss.), Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. granted the
following motions:

          (1) Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by the Cobb
              plaintiffs as to the subpoena issued to one of
              their attorneys, Dustin Thomas;

          (2) Motion to Quash Subpoenas filed by Jackson County
              Supervisors Barry Cumbest and Melton Harris, Jr.,
              and the Jackson County Chancery Clerk, Joshua
              Eldridge; and

          (3) Motion to Quash filed by former Jackson County
              Supervisor John McKay.

The objectors to the proposed class action settlement in the
lawsuit served the subpoenas at issue, seeking to compel the
attendance of these individuals at the Fairness Hearing presently
scheduled for May 16, 2016.

Judge Guirola explained that the purpose of a fairness hearing is
to "create a record sufficient to determine whether a proposed
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the class and to
support findings of fact and conclusions of law."  The judge found
that the subpoenas are untimely, and that the objectors have not
demonstrated that these witnesses will provided useful testimony
on the relevant issues before the court.

A full-text copy of Judge Guirola's May 13, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/rh4Rnd from Leagle.com.

Thomas Jones, Joseph Charles Lohfink, Sue Beavers, Rodolfoa Rel,
Hazel Reed Thomas, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David G. Wirtes, Jr.,
CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, George W. Finkbohner, III --
gwf@cunninghambounds.com -- CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, pro hac vice,
James R. Reeves, Jr., LUMPKIN, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC, Lucy
Elizabeth Tufts -- let@cunninghambounds.com -- CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS,
LLC, pro hac vice, Steven L. Nicholas -- sln@cunninghambounds.com
-- CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, pro hac vice, Matthew G. Mestayer,
REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC & Thomas W. Busby, LUMPKIN, REEVES &
MESTAYER, PLLC.

Martha Ezell Lowe, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated employees, Consol Plaintiff, represented by
Angelique M. Cooper, A. COOPER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC, pro hac
vice, Joe R. Whatley, Jr. -- jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- WHATLEY
KALLAS, LLP, Richard P. Rouco, QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES &
ROUCO, LLP, pro hac vice & Roger K. Doolittle, ROGER K. DOOLITTLE,
ATTORNEY.

Regina Cobb, Phyllis Denmark, Susan Creel, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by
Douglas L. Tynes, Jr., TYNES LAW FIRM, PA, Dustin N. Thomas, LAW
OFFICES OF DUSTIN N. THOMAS, PLLC, J. Gerard Stranch, IV --
gerards@bsjfirm.com -- BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC, pro
hac vice & Robert Keith Miller, MILLER & MILLER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
PLLC.

Singing River Health Services Foundation, Singing River Hospital
System Foundation, Inc., Singing River Hospital System Employee
Benefit Fund, Inc., Singing River Hospital System, Michael J.
Heidelberg, Tommy Leonard, Morris G. Strickland, Ira Polk,
Defendants, represented by Brett K. Williams, WILKINSON, WILLIAMS,
KINARD, SMITH & EDWARDS, Carly D. Duvall --
carly.duvall@dentons.com -- DENTONS US, LLP, pro hac vice, Jason
R. Scheiderer -- jason.scheiderer@dentons.com -- DENTONS US, LLP,
pro hac vice, Alexander Kelly Sessoms, III --
ksessoms@dwwattorneys.com -- DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC & Hanson D.
Horn -- hhorn@dwwattorneys.com -- DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC.

Singing River Health System Foundation, Singing River Health
System, Defendants, represented by Brett K. Williams, WILKINSON,
WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH & EDWARDS, Carly D. Duvall, DENTONS US,
LLP, pro hac vice, Jason R. Scheiderer, DENTONS US, LLP, pro hac
vice, Alexander Kelly Sessoms, III, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC,
Catherine C. Servati, WEBB, SANDERS & WILLIAMS, PLLC, Dan W. Webb,
WEBB, SANDERS & WILLIAMS, PLLC, Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON,
PLLC, Jessie Wayne Doss, Webb, Sanders & Williams, PLLC &
Roechelle R. Morgan, WEBB, SANDERS & WILLIAMS, PLLC.

Transamerica Retirement Solutions Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Marianne Hogan -- marianne.hogan@morganlewis.com --
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, pro hac vice, William J. Delany --
william.delany@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP,
pro hac vice & Ashley Eley Cannady -- acannady@balch.com -- BALCH
& BINGHAM, LLP.

KPMG, LLP, Defendant, represented by Amelia Toy Rudolph,
SOUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN, LLP, pro hac vice, Patricia Anne
Gorham, SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN, LLP, pro hac vice, R. David
Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Taylor B.
McNeel, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.

Gary C. Anderson, Defendant, represented by Roy D. Campbell, III,
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP.

Stephanie Barnes Taylor, Defendant, represented by Pieter
Teeuwissen, PIETER TEEUWISSEN, PLLC.

Michael Crews, Defendant, represented by Brett K. Williams,
WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH & EDWARDS, Carly D. Duvall,
DENTONS US, LLP, pro hac vice, Donald C. Dornan, Jr., DORNAN LAW
OFFICE, PLLC,Alexander Kelly Sessoms, III, DOGAN & WILKINSON,
PLLC, Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC & Lauren R. Hillery,
DORNAN LAW OFFICE, PLLC.

Allen Cronier, Defendant, represented by Carly D. Duvall, DENTONS
US, LLP & Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC.

Marva Fairley-Tanner, Grayson Carter, Jr., Defendant, represented
by Brett K. Williams, WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH &
EDWARDS, Jason R. Scheiderer, DENTONS US, LLP, pro hac vice, Carly
D. Duvall, DENTONS US, LLP &Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON,
PLLC.

Board of Trustees for the Singing River Health System, Consol
Defendant, Kevin Holland, Consol Defendant, represented by
Alexander Kelly Sessoms, III, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC,Brett K.
Williams, WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH & EDWARDS,Hanson D.
Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC & Jason R. Scheiderer, DENTONS US,
LLP, pro hac vice.

Martin D. Bydalek, Consol Defendant, represented by Calen J.
Wills, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, Jessica B.
McNeel, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, John A.
Banahan, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN &Hanson
D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC.

William C. Descher, Consol Defendant, represented by John A.
Banahan, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, Calen J.
Wills, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, Hanson D.
Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC & Jessica B. McNeel, BRYAN, NELSON,
SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN.

Stephen Nunenmacher, Joseph P. Vice, Eric D. Washington, Consol
Defendant, represented by John A. Banahan, BRYAN, NELSON,
SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, Calen J. Wills, BRYAN, NELSON,
SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN & Jessica B. McNeel, BRYAN,
NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN.

Hugo Quintana, Consol Defendant, represented by Mary Winter Van
Slyke, PAGE, MANNINO, PERESICH & MCDERMOTT, PLLC & Stephen G.
Peresich, PAGE, MANNINO, PERESICH & MCDERMOTT.

Jessie Carl Beasley, Sr., 123 Spruce Pine Drive Lucedale, MS 39452
228-872-1855 Individually and as Administrator, Personal
Representative, Heir and Beneficiary of Roberta Clarissa Moesch
Beasley, Deceased, and as Guardian for the Use and Benefit of CMB,
Minor Child, Heir and Beneficiary of Deceased and Beneficiaries,
Interested Party, represented by John G. Corlew, CORLEW MUNFORD &
SMITH, PLLC & Matthew G. Lyons, MATT G. LYONS, ATTORNEY.

Cynthia N. Almond, Interested Party, represented by W. Harvey
Barton, BARTON LAW FIRM, PLLC & Earl L. Denham, DENHAM LAW FIRM,
PLLC.

Francisco C Aguilar, Kitty Patricia Aguilar, Tanya R Ardoin, Ray
J. Barbour, Gail Bass, Marie Baylis, Robert G Baylis, Wilma C
Beasley, Nancy L Beech, Sheila E Bishop, Mechelle Bivens, Howard
Bosarge, Sandra J Bourgeois, Donna M Boutwell, Patti L. Boutwell,
Withee A Brabston, Michael J Brewster, Ann Brumfield, Tammy L
Buckley, Gary Burkett, Margaret A Butler, Douglas M. Butler, Ella
Byrd, Angel Caillavet, Elizabeth G Carpenter, Harold A Carter,
Carol A Carter, Anne B Chatman, Agnes Faye Cherry, Louverta O
Cherry, Willie B Chestnut, Barbara B Chestnut, Johnnie M Clausell,
Betty J Coles, Eloise Collins, Thomas A Crawford, Patricia A
Crawford, Marinell Cumbest, Temesha Cunningham, Susan C Cutrer,
Irma J Daniels-Doss, Nesta D Dees, Pamela Denson, Katherine A
Douglas, Yulonda S Drake, Phillip W Drake, Ralph Drury, June
Drury, Patricia A Dubois, Allen J Dubois, Billie M Dugger, Brenda
Jean Eiland, Wanda J Ellisor, Judith C Ellzey, Ronald Ellzey,
Walter D Forman, John Furr, Pablo Garcia, Mary J Garrett, Delores
M Gowder, Dorothy J Gray, Stephanie A Green, Jo Ann Green, David N
Gress, Annie Lushell Griffin, Rosie M Griffin, Alma Erlyne
Griffin, Gloria E Hall, Mary E. Hall, Edward G. Hall, Susan
Hamilton, Gary W Hamilton, Deloris M Harvey, Joseph Haydock, Alice
Haydock, John W Hayes, Joe A. Herrington, David H Hill, Ethel
Hill, Constance Hill, Jennie L Hoda, Rose Loquita Holliman, Keely
J Horn, Beatrice I Housley, Michael Daniel Housley, Stephen Ray
Howard, Deborah C Howard, John G Hyland, Jackie Ingram, Margie
Jacobson, Karen R Jenkins, Evelyn Johnson, Ruby Lee Johnson,
William C. Jones, Eula Jones, Dewey Kennedy, Jerald A Keyes, Peggy
Kinard, Gloria Jo King, Patricia Louise Krebs, Joseph krystosek,
Deloris A Larsen, Herman Lee, Leslie Alan Lety, Sandra Locke,
Bobbie Jean Lowe, David Anthony Lowery, Evelin Rebecca Lyon,
Leslie Lyons, Melva J Manning, Minnie Marshall, Debra A. Martin,
Daisy McCann, Edna McDaniel, Laura McKenzie, Wayne McKenzie,
Janice McMahan, Russell McMahan, Betty McMillian, Paulette
McLemore, Virginia Lee McNease, Willie Frank Molden, Chantel
Molden, Willie Ruth Molden, Stella Monroe, Dolly Ann Montgomery,
Gaye Noel Moore, Homa Moradmand, Moses Monroe, Lillie M Mosley,
Brunetta Murray, Trudy R Nelson, Patricia Nelson, Rodney Nichols,
Kerry Sue Nichols, Elnora Oaddams, Mary M Odoms, James Oubre,
Barbara Ann Parker, Clinton Parrett, Kimberly Lynn Patterson,
Betty J Phelps, David Thomas Pinter, Don Pittman, Karen Poole,
Maggie Jewel Rasco, Burton Redmond, Francis Carol Redmond, Karen
Reeves, Michael Wayne Reeves, Melba Richardson, June M Ricks,
Cynthia K Roberts, Ramona Roberts, Wreatha Robinson, Sharron Lynn
Rouse, Joann Russell, Barbara W Sabino, Flora Sanders, Fredia
Scott, James W. Scott, Joann Elizabeth Shorkley, Brenda Darnetta
Shutz, Barbara J sistrunk, Joyce Mae Skelton, Warren T Skelton,
Berthena Smith, Windy M Smith-Taylor, Rosemary Sontoyo, Barbara
Stacy, Debra A Stebye, Wanda Street, Donna L Stringer, Sherry
Teer, Marvin Teer, Marjorie P Thara, Delia F. Thomas, Victoria
Thomas- Poole, Maury Glenn Thompson, Lillian R Thompson, Irby A
Tillman, Dorothy L Tillman, Jennifer Toney, Parma Ann Trusler, Iva
Nell Vaughan, Vergil Lewis Vaughan, Linda Carolyn Verbeck, Pamela
Vice, Gerald Vice, Marian L Waldrop, Mary A Waltman, Beverly
Watson, John Watson, Shirley M. Wells, Rickey E White, Bonnie E
Wien, Steven G Wien, Kathy Wiggins, Sylvia A Williams, Terry P
Wise, Beverly Wise, Darlene Wixon, Rita Womble, Interested
Parties, represented by Earl L. Denham, DENHAM LAW FIRM, PLLC & W.
Harvey Barton, BARTON LAW FIRM, PLLC.

Barry Cumbest, Melton Harris, Jr., Joshua Eldridge, John McKay,
Interested Parties, represented by William Lee Guice, III, RUSHING
& GUICE, PLLC.

Cobb Plaintiffs, Movant, represented by Dustin N. Thomas, LAW
OFFICES OF DUSTIN N. THOMAS, PLLC & Matthew G. Mestayer, REEVES &
MESTAYER, PLLC.


SOUTH AFRICA: Trade Union Files Class Action Against Pension Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Gernetzky, writing for BDlive, reports that trade union
Solidarity said on May 11 it had filed court papers seeking
certification for a class action lawsuit against the Government
Employees Pension Fund (GEPF).

The union argues that since April 2015 civil servants who have or
sought to resign have been prejudiced by a unilateral decision to
change a formula determining payouts, made without following the
legislated requirement to consult labor.

Speaking at a briefing in Pretoria, Solidarity deputy CE
Johan Kruger said the union had filed papers on May 11 seeking
certification for a class action that could affect 1.2-million
active fund members, after the fund admitted its mistake but
refused to rectify it.

"The fund has admitted to breaking its own rules but sees the
costs involved in rectifying it as too costly.  They indicated the
process is too cumbersome to go back to the previous formula," he
said.

The union could not provide details on what new actuarial interest
formulae had been used, nor the total financial effect of the
decision.

However, citing the case of one of its members who sought to
resign in 2015, Solidarity said the difference of the payout using
the old available formula and that offered to the member was
R170,000, or 7%.

The union would be seeking relief compelling the fund to revert to
the old formula and make any necessary back payments required and
asking that interest on back-payment be attached at a rate of
10.25% a year.

Solidarity, which currently represents 7,000 of the affected
public servants, does not meet the 50,000 member threshold for
entrance to the Public Service Co-ordinating Bargaining Council,
and on May 11 said attempts to raise the issue there did not yield
results.

The formula in contention had been implemented and the route to
proceed with was a judicial review, the union said.


SPOTIFY USA: Misleading Class Members, Plaintiff Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer L Jones, Esq. -- jljones@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer
Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that
in a putative class action alleging widespread copyright
infringement commenced in December 2015 against Spotify,
Plaintiff, the lead singer for the bands Cracker and Camper Van
Beethoven, recently moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(d) to monitor -- and possibly prevent -- Spotify USA,
Inc. ("Spotify") from engaging in communications with individuals
who fall within the Complaint's definition of class members.
Lowery v. Spotify USA, Inc.  The communications at issue concern
Spotify's estimated $30 million settlement with the National Music
Publishers Association ("NMPA"), which is not a party to the
litigation.  The dispute raises an interesting question regarding
the appropriate role for the court to play in refereeing class
action settlement politics when class counsel has extra-judicial
competition in seeking to represent the class.

The litigation alleges that Spotify infringed putative class
members' mechanical rights for registered musical compositions by
unlawfully reproducing and distributing copyrighted musical
compositions to its users through music streaming and other
services without payment or notice. Amended Complaint 2.

Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of "[a]ll owners of mechanical
distribution and reproduction rights in musical compositions
registered under United States federal law, which compositions
were reproduced or distributed by Spotify first obtaining a
voluntary or compulsory license, since December 28, 2012." Id. 42.
In other words, Plaintiff seeks to represent certain copyright
holders whom Spotify may not have adequately compensated or
obtained licenses from when it streamed their songs.

Spotify dealt a major blow to the future of Plaintiff's class
action when it announced in March that it had reached a settlement
with the NMPA, a trade organization representing many of the same
individuals Plaintiff seeks to represent in his class.  Plaintiff
now seeks to insert himself into that settlement by suggesting
something nefarious has transpired in the exchange between Spotify
and the NMPA, whom Plaintiff accuses of "acting in concert with
Spotify" to consummate the settlement. And though Plaintiff admits
he personally had not seen any of the communications (at least as
of the time he moved for relief), he wasted no time accusing
Spotify of using "slanted communications" and "disparaging
remarks" on the basis of news reports, and suggesting that Spotify
was misleading class members as a result of Spotify's obvious
interest in promoting the NMPA settlement over the Lowery lawsuit
-- a notable accusation, considering Plaintiff's and his counsel's
own obvious bias in favor of convincing putative class members to
refuse the NMPA settlement in favor of pursuing continued
litigation.

The news reports attached to Plaintiff's motion do not appear to
include any misleading statements toward putative class members.
To the contrary, in one of the articles, Spotify's CEO is clear to
point out that "anyone who does not opt in to our settlement is
free to pursue their right in any way that they chose, including
class action.  Each right owner should make the decision that is
the best for them about their own rights.  This settlement -- and
this is very important -- does not compromise anyone's right who
does not opt in." Docket 46-1, Exhibit D, page 108.  And another
article includes statements from Plaintiffs' counsel warning of
the consequences of the NMPA settlement. Id. Exhibit E, page 111.
Ironically, Plaintiff's chief concern regarding these
communications appears to be a statement made -- not by Spotify,
but by the NMPA -- in response to certain public statements made
by Plaintiff's counsel encouraging opt out from the NMPA
settlement.  Moreover, none of the authority relied on by
Plaintiffs addresses the unique factual scenario here: the
putative class members essentially have dual representation from
their trade association in trying to resolve the dispute, and the
complained of statements were issued not by the defendant but by
the competing representative, who is not before the Court.
Certainly, it is these kinds of situations which generally can be
avoided through coordination and consolidation of putative class
actions and the appointment of lead counsel.  But in this case,
the NMPA settlement negotiations began prior to the lawsuit being
filed and did not arise out of a pending litigation.  So at
present, no court has jurisdiction over the NMPA or its attempts
to reach resolution with Spotify.  Plaintiff apparently seeks to
deal with this issue by targeting its proposed order not just at
Spotify, but also those "acting in concert or participation with
Spotify", presumably including the NMPA, despite the obvious fact
that Spotify and the NMPA reached the settlement from opposite
sides of the bargaining table.

Even if we assume that the NMPA's statements rise to the level of
threatening a "serious abuse" needed to prevent "serious
misconduct" that is necessary under the First Amendment
jurisprudence to curb such statements, can or should the Court
prevent the NMPA of such conduct by issuing an Order against
Spotify, which is not accused of the same conduct? That strikes us
an overreach of the judiciary's power pursuant to FRCP 23(d). Add
that under the present circumstances, the NMPA's statements don't
appear to rise to such level but are instead consistent with the
court's goal in bringing parties to resolution rather than
extending litigation, and we think this round should go to
Spotify.


STAAR SURGICAL: "Todd" Class Suit Sent to Private Mediator
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald sends the case, Edward Todd v. Staar
Surgical Company et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-05263 (C.D. Cal.), to a
private mediator. The ADR proceeding is to be completed no later
than October 27, 2017.

Staar Surgical Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 1, 2016, that on July 8, 2014, a
putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by Edward Todd
against STAAR and three officers in the federal court located in
Los Angeles, California. The plaintiff claims that STAAR made
misleading statements to and omitted material information from our
investors between February 27, 2013 and June 30, 2014 about
alleged regulatory violations at STAAR's Monrovia manufacturing
facility. On October 20, 2014, plaintiff amended its complaint,
dismissed two Company officers, added one other officer, reduced
the alleged Class Period to November 1, 2013 through June 30,
2014, and demanded compensatory damages and fees.

On September 21, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On November 16, 2015, the court issued a
tentative ruling rejecting the motion to dismiss.

Although the ultimate outcome of this action cannot be determined
with certainty, the Company believes that the allegations in the
Complaint are without merit. The Company intends to vigorously
defend itself against this lawsuit.

STAAR Surgical Company designs, develops, manufactures and sells
implantable lenses for the eye and delivery systems used to
deliver the lenses into the eye.


STRAIGHT PATH: Lead Plaintiff Must File Amended Suit in June
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Zacharia v. Straight Path Communications, Inc. et
al,. Case No. 2:15-cv-08051 (D. N.J.), Judge John Michael Vazquez
on April 11, 2016, appointed:

     -- Charles Frischer to serve as Lead Plaintiff,
     -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Lead Counsel for the
        Class, and
     -- Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP is appointed as
        Liaison Counsel for the Class.

Meanwhile, Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on April 18 entered a
scheduling ordere:

     -- Lead Plaintiff will have to file an amended class action
        Complaint no later than 60 days following the entry of
        This proposed scheduling order by the Court,

     -- Defendants shall have 60 days after the filing of the
        amended complaint to answer or otherwise respond to the
        amended complaint, and

     -- Lead Plaintiff shall have 45 days after the filing of any
        motion(s) to dismiss to file any opposition(s); etc.

Straight Path Communications Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that "On
November 13, 2015, a putative shareholder class action was filed
in the federal district court for the District of New Jersey
against Straight Path Communications Inc. (the "Company"), Davidi
Jonas, and Jonathan Rand (the "individual defendants"). The case
is captioned Zacharia v. Straight Path Communications, Inc. et
al., No. 2:15-cv-08051-JMV-MF, and is purportedly brought on
behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired our common
stock between October 29, 2013, and November 5, 2015."

"The complaint alleges violations of (i) Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 of the Exchange Act against the Company for materially false
and misleading statements that were designed to influence the
market relating to the Company's finances and business prospects;
and (ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants for wrongful acts by controlling persons. The
allegations center on the claim that the Company made materially
false and misleading statements in its public filings and
conference calls during the relevant class period concerning the
Company's spectrum licenses and the prospects for its spectrum
business. The complaint seeks certification of a class,
unspecified damages, fees and costs. Four movants filed motions to
be appointed lead plaintiff and for their counsel to be appointed
lead counsel.

"On January 15, 2016, the court entered a stipulation and order
that the defendants shall not be required to answer or otherwise
respond to the complaint until seven days after entry of an order
appointing lead plaintiff, whereupon the parties will submit for
court approval a schedule for the filing of any proposed amended
complaint and defendants' response to the complaint or amended
complaint. Thereafter, three of the movants for lead plaintiff
subsequently withdrew their motions. The case was reassigned to
Judge John Michael Vasquez on March 3, 2016."


SUNRISE PROPANE: No Compensation Yet for Plant Explosion Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maryam Shah, writing for Toronto Sun, reports that almost eight
years after the Sunrise Propane plant exploded in the middle of
the night, Vinicio "Victor" Viani has yet to see a penny from a
class-action settlement.

"I hope they're going to look after me before I pass on," the 76-
year-old said on May 11.  "Because we did suffer quite a bit."

The deadly Aug. 10, 2008, explosion killed one young man working
at the now-defunct plant, and displaced around 6,000 people from
their homes in the Keele St.-Wilson Ave. neighborhood.

Mr. Viani was one of them.

His Murray Rd. Bungalow -- which he had lovingly bought in 1964
and raised four children in -- was destroyed in the blast.

Luckily nobody was home at the time, and home insurance covered
rebuilding his current home, he said.

In August 2014, a $23-million settlement was approved in court,
and almost $8 million was earmarked for injuries, uninsured
expenses, lost income, and inconvenience suffered by members of
the class-action suit.

A website was created -- www.sunrisepropaneclassaction.com -- for
affected people, likely numbering in the hundreds, to file their
claims, which Marsh Canada is tasked with administering.

Almost two years after the settlement was reached, Mr. Viani said
he is surprised it's taking so long to send out cheques.

"The subject is really important because I think we've been
ignored completely," he said.

Mr. Viani's not alone.  Resident Jeff Green and his parents were
also affected by the blast.  His father has since died.

"Overall, I have not been impressed, to say the least," he said of
his efforts to reach anyone with answers about why claims have not
been paid out yet.

Marsh Canada spokesman Colleen Vesci said there has been "no
delay."

The appeals stage of the claims process recently wrapped up, she
said in an email.  Final payment amounts are being calculated and
will need court approval before distribution.

Ms. Vesci could not say when court approval can be expected.

"As with any class action of this size and complexity, there are a
number of steps that must be completed to ensure funds are
distributed appropriately," she wrote.

"Class actions of this nature often take several years to resolve.
The length of time it has taken to resolve this one is really not
out of the ordinary."

Class counsel Ted Charney said the class members number in the
thousands.

"We expect to be in court within the next 30-60 days," he said.
"The distribution will take place soon after."

Councillor Maria Augimeri shared her constituents' frustration
with the process.

"We thought this was going to be taken care of two years ago," she
said.  "They were assured they would get this money two years
ago."


SWEPI LP: Bid to Amend Class Definition in "Walney" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned THOMAS J. WALNEY and RODNEY A. BEDOW, SR.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SWEPI LP and SHELL ENERGY HOLDING GP, LLC,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 13-102 Erie (W.D. Pa.), Judge Joy
Flowers Conti denied the plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Class
Definition.

The plaintiffs had argued that the class, as currently defined,
unfairly excludes certain leaseholders who should be parties to
the litigation.

A full-text copy of Judge Conti's May 13, 2016 memorandum opinion
is available at https://is.gd/0Or7cT from Leagle.com.

In the class action lawsuit, Thomas J. Walney and Rodney A. Bedow,
Sr. alleged that the defendants SWEPI LP and its general partner
and alleged alter ego, Shell Energy Holding GP, LLC breached
certain oil and gas leases by failing to pay bonus monies that
were allegedly owed to plaintiffs and similarly situated
landowners under the terms of their respective leases.

THOMAS J. WALNEY, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph E. Altomare,
The Law Office of Joseph Altomare & Richard N. Lettieri --
rlettierlaw@live.com -- Lettieri Law Firm, LLC.

RODNEY A. BEDOW, SR, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph E. Altomare,
The Law Office of Joseph Altomare.

SWEPI LP, SHELL ENERGY HOLDING GP, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Jeremy A. Mercer -- jeremy.mercer@nortonrosefulbright.com --
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP & Daniel M. McClure --
dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP.

SOUTHEAST LAND SERVICES LLC, Movant, represented by Jeremy A.
Mercer, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP.


TARGET CORPORATION: Appeal in Consumer Data Breach Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the Company believes the
settlement terms in a consumer class action lawsuit over a 2013
data breach will be maintained on appeal.

The Company said, "In the fourth quarter of 2013, we experienced a
data breach in which an intruder stole certain payment card and
other guest information from our network (the Data Breach) which
resulted in a number of claims against us, several of which have
been finally or preliminarily resolved."

"A class action suit was asserted on behalf of a class of guests
whose information was compromised in the Data Breach. This action
was settled and received Court approval during 2015, but is being
appealed by several objecting parties. We believe the settlement
terms will be maintained on appeal."


TARGET CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing in 2nd Quarter
-----------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that a hearing for final Court
approval of the settlement in the class action lawsuit by credit
card issues over a 2013 data breach is scheduled for the second
quarter of the Company's fiscal 2016.

"In the fourth quarter of 2013, we experienced a data breach in
which an intruder stole certain payment card and other guest
information from our network (the Data Breach) which resulted in a
number of claims against us, several of which have been finally or
preliminarily resolved."

A class action was asserted on behalf of financial institution
issuers of credit cards impacted by the Data Breach. This action
was settled and received preliminary Court approval in the fourth
quarter of 2015. A hearing for final Court approval of the
settlement is scheduled for the second quarter of the Company's
fiscal 2016.


TARGET CORPORATION: Data Breach Suit Pending in Canada
------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that actions related to a 2013
data breach that remain pending are: (1) one action previously
filed in Canada; (2) several putative class action suits brought
on behalf of shareholders; and (3) ongoing investigations by State
Attorneys General and the Federal Trade Commission.

The Company said that, "In the fourth quarter of 2013, we
experienced a data breach in which an intruder stole certain
payment card and other guest information from our network (the
Data Breach) which resulted in a number of claims against us,
several of which have been finally or preliminarily resolved."


TD BANK: "Feinman" Class Suit Removed to S. District New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Jeffrey Feinman v. TD Bank,
N.A., Case No. 652083/2016, was removed from the Supreme Court for
the State of New York, County of New York, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-03448 to the proceeding.

The action is removable under the Class Action Fairness Act.

TD Bank, N.A. is a national bank headquartered in Cherry Hill, New
Jersey.

Jeffrey Feinman is a pro se plaintiff.

The Defendant is represented by:

      David Sapir Lesser, Esq.
      Jamie S. Dycus, Esq.
      WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
      7 World Trade Center
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 230-8851
      Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
      E-mail: david.lesser@wilmer.com
              jamie.dycus@wilmerhale.com


TD BANK: "Luce" Class Suit Removed to District New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Nona Luce, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. T.D. Bank, N.A., Case No. L 1585
16, was removed from the Superior Court of Camden County to the
U.S. District Court District of New Jersey (Camden). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-02621-JBS-JS to the
proceeding.

T.D. Bank, N.A. is a national bank headquartered in Cherry Hill,
New Jersey.


The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas T. Booth Jr., Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS T. BOOTH, JR., LLC
      129 W. Evesham Road
      Voorhees, NJ 08043
      Telephone: (856) 354-6060
      E-mail: BoothLaw@comcast.net

The Defendant is represented by:

      Susan M. Leming, Esq.
      BROWN & CONNERY, LLP
      360 Haddon Avenue
      Westmont, NJ 08108
      Telephone: (856) 854-8900
      E-mail: sleming@brownconnery.com


TERANET: Court Dismisses Land Surveyors' Copyright Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Brown, writing for Legal Feeds, reports that a class
action launched by land surveyors who claimed copyright
infringement against Teranet -- the private sector company that
manages Ontario's land registry system -- has been dismissed.

The long-running dispute between surveyors and Teranet considered
seven common issues but it took only one -- whether the copyright
of the plans of survey belong to the province -- to decide the
case in Teranet's favor.

The class action in Keatley Surveying v. Teranet was filed in
2007, and was certified on appeal in 2015.  Both sides moved for
summary judgment on the common issues and the decision was issued
May 6 in Ontario's Superior Court.

Keatley Surveying brought the action on behalf of about 350 land
surveyors in private practice in Ontario whose surveys were
scanned and copied into Teranet's digital database and made
available online.  By copying and selling their plans online, the
surveyors claimed Teranet was breaching their copyright and
unlawfully appropriating for itself the benefit of the class
members' professional land survey work.

The class members' complaint was that a for-profit third party
inserted itself between the government and users of land
registration services and "reaps substantial profits at the
expense of class members."

Justice Edward Belobaba decided in favor of Teranet and the class
action was dismissed on common issue two, which asked whether the
copyright in the plans of survey belongs to the Province of
Ontario under s. 12 of the Copyright Act, as a result of the
registration or deposit of the plans of survey in the land
registry office.

Teranet argued the plans of survey in question were "prepared or
published by or under the direction or control" of the province
and therefore copyright belongs to the Crown.

Justice Belobaba said in his view " . . . statutory provisions
make clear that when plans of survey are registered or deposited
at the land registry office, the province takes ownership of the
property in these works which includes the right to make copies."

"In my view, s. 12 of the Copyright Act, primarily a 'term of
copyright' provision, clarifies Crown copyright but does so
'without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the [provincial]
Crown.' Thus, the provincial 'property of the Crown' provisions
already discussed, and s. 12 of the federal Copyright Act, can
live together and operate concurrently," wrote Justice Belobaba.

"In any event, the answer to Common Issue 2 is 'yes.'"

As both sides agreed that was the determinative issue then there
is no copyright infringement "and that is the end of the class
action."

The next step could be an appeal to the Court of Appeal, but
plaintiff lawyer Garth Myers -- gmyers@kmlaw.ca -- would not
comment on whether an appeal will be pursued.

"We were successful on a couple of the common issues and we're
quite pleased we succeed on the Crown copyright issue and
assignment issue.  We got caught on the second part of common
issue two, which was determinative.  We don't agree with the
judge's finding on that issue.  The issue that remains is whether
the provincial statutes provide for copying that takes away
copyright of land surveyors," said Mr. Myers, an associate with
Koskie Minsky LLP.

Justice Belobaba decided Teranet was entitled to costs and while
it would have sought $200,000, he indicated a reasonable costs
award is "probably around $125,000."

Mr. Myers said there will be submissions on costs.

Legal Feeds could not reach counsel for Teranet before
publication.


TIDAL: May Opt for Quick Resolution of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an attorney
and social media blogger says the music streaming service Tidal
would welcome a quick resolution of a class action lawsuit filed
by a disgruntled Kanye West fan.

Californian Justin Baker-Rhett earlier this month filed the
proposed class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in San
Francisco, accusing West of duping fans into buying Tidal
subscriptions.  West, the lawsuit alleges, promised that his
seventh studio album, The Life of Pablo, would be available only
on Tidal, which the lawsuit also alleges was on the verge of
failure until West made those claims.

Whatever the merits of the suit, the wealth of the named
defendants (Tidal was purchased by Jay-Z and West is part-owner)
could well influence what settlement, if any, to which might be
agreed, Carolyn Toto -- carolyn.toto@pillsburylaw.com -- an
attorney with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman in New York City,
told Legal Newsline. .

"One would hope that settlement of a case would be on the merits
and not whether a party has 'deep pockets', she said. "Practically
speaking, most cases do settle.  Whether the case settles and how
early will depend on different factors.

"Here, Tidal is a new business so we do not have a track record of
their litigiousness.  Also, as a new company, the executives would
probably prefer focusing on expanding the business and not have
the appetite to engage in a high-profile and protracted ongoing
litigation.

"These factors would favor an early resolution, especially if they
can settle for a nuisance value.  However, it is difficult to
predict at this juncture.  If the plaintiffs maintain an
unreasonable position and the company feels the need to fight to
deter other claimants, this could draw out the litigation."

Ms. Toto said the case is, at its heart, about people who feel
misled.

"Social media is speech and, just like any speech, has been the
source of false advertising and misrepresentation claims," Toto
said.

"That is essentially what plaintiffs are claiming here, that they
were misled by the representation that the album was only going to
be available on one streaming service."

Ms. Toto, who, along with her colleague Kimberly Buffington, has
blogged about the case as part of Pillsbury's Social Media & Games
Law Blog, said even if the plaintiff class proves its case,
compensation remains murky.

"The surge in memberships to Tidal does seem to suggest some
reliance on Kanye's statements," she said.  "Damages may be the
trickier issue. Plaintiffs wanted the album and got the album.

"They also have the option to cancel the service.  And as noted in
the post, many users use multiple streaming services.  The
stronger argument might be that the users shared private data with
Tidal in the sign-up process and that Tidal may use for marketing.

"However, there is the possibility that Tidal subsequently agrees
to destroy all such data."

The alleged deception occurred in February when West posted on his
Twitter account about his album's availability.  "My album will
never never never be on Apple," the tweet said.  "And it will
never be for sale . . . You can only get it on Tidal."

That, the lawsuit claims, sent a throng of fans to the music
streaming service, translating into a reported 250 million streams
of the album in its first 10 days.  Soon after, the album began to
stream at other music outlets, including Spotify and Apple Music.
The album also now is for sale on West's website.

West's deception probably saved Tidal, the lawsuit alleges.  "By
early 2016, Tidal was quietly teetering on the brink of collapse,"
the lawsuit said.  "Many industry experts predicted its imminent
demise absent a significant swell in users and a new round of
publicity."

West's declaration on Twitter did just that, the lawsuit said.
"Mr. West's unequivocal declaration of Tidal's exclusive access to
his album had a profound impact on Tidal's business," the lawsuit
said.

Mr. Baker-Rhett's class action is not unique, Ms. Toto said,
pointing to similar cases involving 50 Cent and Rolls-Royce.

"As you can see from these two cases, what one posts on social
media can implicate various legal claims from violation of privacy
to trademark infringement," Ms. Toto said.

Toto speculated the next move will be Tidal's.

"Tidal will likely file a motion to dismiss to start," she said.
"However, these motions are not often granted and plaintiffs need
only show they have a claim that is plausible on its face assuming
that all facts alleged in the complaint are true. Ultimately, the
case will probably settle as most do."


TMK IPSCO: Employee Files Class Action Over Unlawful Termination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Stonesifer, writing for The Times, reports that an employee
of TMK IPSCO has filed a class-action lawsuit against the company
in federal court, alleging officials there didn't provide enough
advanced notice of pending layoffs.

The suit, filed in April in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh,
alleged that TMK IPSCO in early February terminated 200 employees
despite not giving them a 60-day advanced notice in writing, as is
required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act.

William Birkhimer, who worked in the company's Harmony Township
location, is the employee who filed the lawsuit.  TMK IPSCO also
operates a plant in Koppel.

The lawsuit also alleges the company failed to pay wages, holiday
pay and vacation time and failed to make contributions to employee
retirement accounts or health care benefits.

Mr. Birkhimer is seeking compensation for unpaid wages and
attorneys' fees, among others.

TMK IPSCO spokeswoman Michelle Loomis said on May 11 the company
is aware of the lawsuit.

"This suit is without merit and TMK IPSCO will be filing a motion
to dismiss this suit in the near future if the plaintiff does not
agree to dismiss this case voluntarily," she said.

In addition, she said Birkhimer has returned to work at TMK IPSCO
"as market conditions have necessitated the recall of a number of
workers at this facility."

Joe Walls is one of the several hundred workers who were laid off
from the company in February, and he hasn't been recalled back to
work.

He agreed that TMK IPSCO officials didn't provide advance notice
of the layoffs, and also alleged the company refused to honor his
three weeks of vacation that were earned when he reached his 10-
year work anniversary.

"There's been so much stuff going on there that's been pushed
under the rug," Mr. Walls, of Beaver, said.  "The more it's out
there in the public eye, the better."

Mr. Walls also said he hopes the lawsuit gets approved for class-
action status, being that he could be covered by it if it does.


TRICO BANCSHARES: Ex-Banker's Suit in Calif. Goes to Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------------
TriCo Bancshares 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 parties in a class
action lawsuit by a former personal banker are in the process of
scheduling the matter for mediation in the June-July, 2016 time
period.

On September 15, 2014, a former Personal Banker at one of the
Bank's in-store branches filed a Class Action Complaint against
the Bank in Butte County Superior Court, alleging causes of action
related to the observance of meal and rest periods and seeking to
represent a class of current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt
personal bankers, or employees with the same or similar job
duties, employed by Defendants within the State of California
during the preceding four years.

On or about June 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
expanding the class definition to all current and formerly hourly-
paid or non-exempt branch employees employed by Defendant's within
the State of California at any time during the period from
September 15, 2010 to final judgment.

The Bank has responded to the First Amended Complaint, denying the
charges, and the parties have engaged in written discovery. The
parties are in the process of scheduling the matter for mediation
in the June-July, 2016 time period.


TRICO BANCSHARES: Mediation Eyed in Current Banker's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
TriCo Bancshares 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 parties in a class
action lawsuit by a current personal banker intend to mediate this
matter in a joint mediation this summer.

On January 20, 2015, a current Personal Banker at one of the
Bank's in-store branches filed a First Amended Complaint against
Tri Counties Bank and TriCo Bancshares, dba Tri Counties Bank, in
Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging causes of action
related to wage statement violations. Plaintiff seeks to represent
a class of current and former exempt and non-exempt employees who
worked for the Bank during the time period beginning October 18,
2013 through the date of the filing of this action.

The Company and the Bank have responded to the First Amended
Complaint, deny the charges, and has engaged in written discovery
with Plaintiff. The parties intend to mediate this matter in a
joint mediation this summer.


TRXADE GROUP: Class Suit in Preliminary Stage, No Discovery Yet
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trxade Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a class action
litigation is in its preliminary stages, and discovery has not yet
commenced.

On November 19, 2015, Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC filed a class-
action claim against Trxade Group, Inc. and its wholly owned
subsidiary Westminster Pharmaceutical, LLC, Inc. (Family Medicine
Pharmacy, LLC v. Trxade Group, Inc. and Westminster, Inc., Case
No.: 1:15-CV-00590-KD-B, United States District Court, Southern
District of Alabama, Mobile Division). Family Medicine has served
Trxade for allegedly utilizing a "junk fax" advertising program.
Family Medicine seeks statutory damages on behalf of a class of
similarly situated entities throughout the United States. The
litigation is in its preliminary stages, and discovery has not yet
commenced.

Although management denies any material liability and the
propriety of class certification in this lawsuit, the litigation
could have a lengthy duration, it is more likely than not that
damages and/or settlement costs will be incurred, and the ultimate
outcome cannot be predicted at this time.

Trxade, Inc. is a web based market platform that enables trade
among healthcare buyers and sellers of pharmaceuticals,
accessories and services.


TYSON FOODS: High Court Affirms $2.9MM FLSA Class Action Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony J Oncidi, Esq. -- aoncidi@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer
Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that
following a jury trial, the employees in this class/collective
action recovered $2.9 million in compensatory damages for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  The employees
alleged that they did not receive statutorily mandated overtime
pay for the time they spent donning and doffing protective
equipment at a pork processing plant in Storm Lake, Iowa.  Tyson
compensated some employees for between four and eight minutes of
donning and doffing time per shift but paid others no additional
wages.  Tyson argued that because of the variance in protective
gear that each employee wore, the employees' claims were not
sufficiently similar to be resolved on a classwide or collective
basis.

Because Tyson did not keep records of donning and doffing time,
the employees relied upon employee testimony, video recordings of
donning and doffing at the plant and a study performed by an
industrial relations expert, Dr. Kenneth Mericle.  Dr. Mericle
conducted 744 videotaped observations and analyzed the average
length that various donning and doffing activities took for
different departments.  The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor
of the employees, holding that the employees could rely upon Dr.
Mericle's sample as a permissible means of establishing hours
worked in a class action setting and rejecting the employer's
argument that use of the study represented an improper "Trial by
Formula."


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Waiver Unenforceable in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that in April, facing
what we now know to be as much as $852 million in exposure to
drivers in California and Massachusetts, the ride-sharing company
Uber agreed to a class action settlement with drivers in those
states.  At the time of the agreement, valued at between $84 and
$100 million, Uber was in the midst of appealing a series of
decisions by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco, who
held that the company's mandatory arbitration clause was
unenforceable.

Judge Chen increasingly appears to have been an outlier on that
issue.  In April, U.S. District Judge Douglas Rayes of Phoenix
expressly declined to follow Judge Chen's reasoning. He upheld
Uber's clause and sent the named plaintiff in a class of Arizona
drivers to arbitration.  And Reuters' Dan Wiessner reported,
federal judges in Baltimore and Tampa have also rejected arguments
that Uber's mandatory arbitration provision is unconscionable.
Like Judge Rayes, those courts ruled that drivers who wanted to
lead class actions must instead arbitrate their claims
individually.  "I'm sure drivers will keep fighting for their
right to bring class actions, but right now, they're losing the
war," Ms. Frankel said.

"Meanwhile, Uber's co-founder and CEO, Travis Kalanick, is
defending an antitrust class action in federal court in Manhattan
by a passenger who alleges a price-fixing conspiracy among Uber
drivers.  I told you about the company's fateful strategic
decision in that case not to invoke the mandatory arbitration
provision in its agreement with passengers.  Uber figured U.S.
District Judge Jed Rakoff would quickly dispose of the purported
class action, which posits an antitrust scheme involving hundreds
of thousands of drivers who don't even know of each others'
existence.  That thinking backfired when Judge Rakoff refused to
dismiss the class action."

And now a backup argument by Uber has also failed.  On May 9, the
judge denied Uber's motion for reconsideration, holding that
company's class action waiver provision is both entwined with the
arbitration clause and unenforceable under California law.

Uber's antitrust lawyers at Boies Schiller & Flexner argued in the
CEO's reconsideration motion that under the specific language of
its passenger agreement, riders waive the right to bring class
actions against the company in addition to agreeing to arbitrate
their disputes.  So, according to Uber, even though it did not
invoke mandatory arbitration in the case, it can still block the
named plaintiff, Spencer Meyer, from bringing classwide claims. As
precedent, Uber cited the U.S. Supreme Court's pro-arbitration
rulings in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, American Express v.
Italian Colors and DirecTV v. Imburgia.

Mr. Meyer's lawyers, Andrew Schmidt Law and Harter Secrest & Emery
responded that the class action waiver cannot be disentangled from
the arbitration clause, and since the Uber CEO didn't invoke
arbitration, he cannot separately try to block the class action.
The opposition brief also said the Supreme Court's rulings on
class action waivers have all come in cases involving mandatory
arbitration provisions.  A separate waiver of class action rights,
the brief said, would be unconscionable under California's Supreme
Court precedent that remains good law even after the U.S. Supreme
Court's pro arbitration rulings.

Judge Rakoff agreed with all of the plaintiff's arguments.  He
found that Uber's CEO isn't procedurally entitled to
reconsideration -- but even if he were, his motion would fail. The
contractual class action waiver, according to the judge, "is most
plausibly read as an explanation of the rights that the parties
are giving up in agreeing to arbitrate disputes, and not as an
independently effective waiver of the right to pursue a class
action outside the arbitration context."  Since the Uber CEO
didn't move to compel arbitration, he can't separately block the
class action, Judge Rakoff said.

And besides, according to the judge, a separate class action
waiver would be unconscionable under California's Discover Bank v.
Superior Court.  "It is clear that the Supreme Court has not
overridden the California Supreme Court's determination that class
action waivers are unconscionable except in the case of an
arbitration proceeding," the judge wrote.

He seemed to chide Uber for suggesting otherwise: "Adopting
defendant's views on the effect of Concepcion and related cases on
California's unconscionability doctrine would be, not a necessary
or inevitable result of Supreme Court precedent, but a dramatic
extension of case law on the Federal Arbitration Act into the
hitherto largely undisturbed waters of independent class action
waivers," Judge Rakoff wrote.  "Into those waters the court
declines to recklessly plunge."

"I've said before the plaintiff's lawyers in this case have pulled
some smart drafting maneuvers to get around Uber's arbitration
clause and to pique Judge Rakoff's curiosity.  They also did an
admirable job opposing Uber's reconsideration motion.  I still
doubt they're going to be able to prove an antitrust conspiracy
but they are certainly more formidable opponents than Uber seemed
to think at the beginning of this case," Ms. Frankel said.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Lose Out More Than $700M in Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Caitlin Houston, writing for MarketWatch, reports that Uber
drivers may be settling for only about 12% of the total amount
they could have received at trial.

Uber Technologies Inc. reached a $100 million settlement agreement
in April for two class-action lawsuits brought by drivers who
argued that they should be employees and were owed reimbursement.
But, according to documents, if drivers in both cases had won on
trials on a class-action basis, the total settlement amount could
have been up to $852 million.

The disparity between the two amounts could figure in the judge's
decision whether to accept the settlement -- U. S. District Judge
Edward Chen has yet to accept the agreement -- but to get the
higher amount, the plaintiffs would have to take the higher risk
of going to trial.

Using the IRS's fixed rate of reimbursement for miles, drivers
would receive $852 million altogether, according to court
documents.  With a variable rate, drivers would receive $429
million, meaning the $100 million settlement would be about 23% of
the amount.

That amount was calculated by the plaintiffs based on data from
Uber and includes car reimbursement, cellphone reimbursement and
tips owed, assuming a 20% gratuity.  Amounts differ depending on
the state, with California class-action drivers taking home the
most.

The plaintiffs in the class action-lawsuits argue that they're
misclassified as independent contractors instead of employees, and
thus are owed past expenses as employees.

As previously reported, the $100 million settlement would net the
majority of drivers about $24.  If only 50% of the eligible
drivers filed a claim for money, California drivers who drove more
than 25,000 miles could receive $8,000 apiece.

Sharon Liss-Riordan, attorney for the plaintiffs, has argued that
the settlement also includes non-monetary aspects that are more
beneficial to the drivers, including a change in Uber's
deactivation policy and the ability for drivers to post signs
telling riders they can tip.  The plaintiff's council argued in
court filings that in addition to the risk of a jury siding with
Uber, plaintiffs faced risks from Uber enforcing arbitration
clauses and which drivers could be certified as part of the class-
action.

Typically, class-action settlements win a fraction of the amount
that could have been won in trial.  But the large disparity
between the settlement and possible trial win in this case,
according to Tom Rohback -- trohback@axinn.com -- a partner at
Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider, could lead to more drivers objecting to
the amount and play into the judge's decision on whether the
settlement is "just and fair."

"It really is a very nuanced analysis that has to go on,"
Mr. Rohback said.

Lyft Inc. had attempted to settle a similar lawsuit with its
drivers for $12.25 million, but that agreement was rejected by the
judge for being insubstantial.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers File FLSA Class Action in Miami
----------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
West Palm Beach lawyer wasn't satisfied when he heard major labor
litigation with Uber Technologies Inc. ended in April with a
proposed $100 million settlement.

The settlement, which covers nearly 400,000 Uber drivers in
California and Massachusetts, allows Uber to continue treating its
drivers as contractors rather than employees.  Gerald Richman of
Richman Greer doesn't believe that's the right solution.

"The concept of Uber is a good concept, but the employees are not
being treated fairly," he said.  "They are subject under the labor
laws of the United States to benefits that they are not
receiving."

So Mr. Richman filed a lawsuit of his own in Miami federal court
along with Adam Myron -- amyron@richmangreer.com -- and
Joshua Spoont -- jspoont@richmangreer.com -- of Richman Greer,
Stephen Schultz of Slovak Baron Empey Murphy & Pinkney in
San Diego and Thomas Schultz of LSRCF Law in Miami.

The nationwide class action claims the San Francisco-based ride-
hailing service violates the Fair Labor Standards Act by not
paying its drivers minimum wage or overtime.

The argument is built on the idea that Uber drivers are employees
under IRS worker classification rules.  The tax agency lists
several factors that determine whether a company can classify its
workers as independent contractors and avoid paying federal income
tax, unemployment tax and Social Security and Medicare tax on
their wages.

The most important factor in the IRS test is how much control the
company exerts over the workers.  Mr.Richman argues Uber exerts a
lot of control, particularly when it comes to the money drivers
make per ride.

"There's all kinds of controls with regard to what they're allowed
to charge," he said.  "Uber is setting the prices.  The drivers
really have no control over that aspect of the relationship."

Uber maintains its drivers, whom it calls partners, are
independent contractors because they decide their own hours, have
no set hourly wage and are free to work for competing services
such as Lyft.

The California settlement will require Uber to give drivers an
appeals process and more notice before they are cut, and drivers
covered by the class would be able to solicit tips from riders.
The settlement is awaiting approval by U.S. District Judge Edward
Chen in San Francisco.

An Uber spokesman did not respond to a request for comment by
deadline.

The employee-vs.-contractor debate has been raging at the state
level in Florida for months.  The state Department of Economic
Opportunity determined in December that the state would treat Uber
drivers as contractors, and a former driver's appeal is pending in
the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami.

At least 12 other state labor departments have found Uber drivers
to be independent contractors.


UNION PACIFIC: Briefs Filed Addressing Tyson Foods Decision
-----------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in a
pending class action lawsuit have filed briefs addressing the
Tyson Foods decision and are now preparing to file a joint
schedule and briefing statement.

The Company said, "20 rail shippers (many of whom are represented
by the same law firms) filed virtually identical antitrust
lawsuits in various federal district courts against us and four
other Class I railroads in the U.S. Currently, UPRR and three
other Class I railroads are the named defendants in the lawsuit.
The original plaintiff filed the first of these claims in the U.S.
District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007. The number of
complaints reached a total of 30. These suits allege that the
named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing common
fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic."

"In addition to suits filed by direct purchasers of rail
transportation services, a few of the suits involved plaintiffs
alleging that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail
transportation and sought to represent a purported class of
indirect purchasers of rail transportation services that paid fuel
surcharges. These complaints added allegations under state
antitrust and consumer protection laws. On November 6, 2007, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the
rail fuel surcharge cases be transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of
the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Following
numerous hearings and rulings, Judge Friedman dismissed the
complaints of the indirect purchasers, which the indirect
purchasers appealed. On April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's ruling
dismissing the indirect purchasers' claims based on various state
laws.

"On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued a decision that certified
a class of plaintiffs with eight named plaintiff representatives.
The decision included in the class all shippers that paid a rate-
based fuel surcharge to any one of the defendant railroads for
rate-unregulated rail transportation from July 1, 2003, through
December 31, 2008. This was a procedural ruling, which did not
affirm any of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs and does not
address the ability of the railroad defendants to disprove the
allegations made by the plaintiffs. On July 5, 2012, the defendant
railroads filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia requesting that the court review the class
certification ruling. On August 28, 2012, a panel of the Circuit
Court of the District of Columbia referred the petition to a
merits panel of the court to address the issues in the petition
and to address whether the district court properly granted class
certification. The Circuit Court heard oral arguments on May 3,
2013. On August 9, 2013, the Circuit Court vacated the class
certification decision and remanded the case to the district court
to reconsider the class certification decision in light of a
recent Supreme Court case and incomplete consideration of errors
in the expert report of the plaintiffs. On October 31, 2013, Judge
Friedman approved a schedule agreed to by all parties for
consideration of the class certification issue on remand.

"On October 2, 2014, the plaintiffs informed Judge Friedman that
their economic expert had a previously undisclosed conflict of
interest. Judge Friedman ruled on November 26, 2014, that the
plaintiffs had until April 1, 2015, to file a supplemental expert
report to support their motion for class certification. The
plaintiffs filed their supplemental expert report on April 1,
2015. Judge Friedman issued a scheduling order on June 19, 2015,
scheduling a class certification hearing for November 2, 2015.
Judge Friedman then vacated the hearing date in an Order on
September 28, 2015 because of the potential impact resulting from
the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court case, Tyson Foods v.
Bouaphakeo, related to class action certification and damages,
which was heard on November 10, 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court
issued a decision in that case on March 22, 2016.  The parties
have filed briefs addressing the Tyson Foods decision and are now
preparing to file a joint schedule and briefing statement with
Judge Friedman."


UNITED SERVICES: June 10 Hearing Set for Attorney Sanctions
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.J. Kennedy, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
judge in Arkansas intends to sanction attorneys on both sides of a
class action case who he says wasted his court's time -- an
unusual but emerging trend in the law, a University of Miami law
professor says.

"It is more typical that one side is sanctioned, in part, because
the sanction is often the result of the opposing side's motion for
sanctions," said Jan L. Jacobowitz, associate director of the
school's Center for Ethics & Public Service and director of the
Professional Responsibility & Ethics Program.

"However, it has become more common for judges to take control of
cases, especially when there is a demonstrated lack of
professionalism, and sanction both sides."

P. K. Holmes, III, chief judge for the U.S. District Court of the
Western District of Arkansas, has scheduled a hearing on June 10
after which, he wrote in an April 15 ruling, he will sanction 16
lawyers because of their actions in Mark and Katherine Adams v.
United Services Automobile Association (USAA).

In the case, the Adamses accused USAA of excessive depreciation
costs figured in insurance claims.

The plaintiffs attorneys initially said they believed that
"hundreds if not thousands" of Arkansas policyholders had been
damaged by USAA's actions and asked that the case be certified as
a class action.

The case remained in federal court for 17 months when, in June
2015, lawyers for the plaintiffs and USAA voluntarily dismissed it
and filed the next day in Polk County Court.

With that transfer, the sides also submitted a settlement
agreement.  The deal was immediately approved by a state judge,
though Judge Holmes said it limited payments to claimants while
securing attorneys fees of $1.8 million.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Cold-FX Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Mundy, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a
Vancouver resident filed a lawsuit against the makers of Cold-FX
alleging fraud.

On its label, Cold-FX promises to provide "immediate relief" from
cold and flu symptoms.  This reporter has a bottle (it expired
last year but it is still half full because I didn't experience
any relief) that also claims it's an "immune booster."

"The word is out about Cold-FX and many Canadians want to be part
of this class action," says attorney John Green, a Vancouver
lawyer and leading litigator in the Cold-FX lawsuit.  "We told the
court about a study that Afexa Life Sciences sat on for years but
only came to light when the drug company was sued by a Vancouver
man."

Don Harrison in 2012 filed a claim against Valeant
Pharmaceuticals, the makers of Cold-FX, and Afexa Life Sciences
for promoting a false product.  Valeant is a giant Quebec drug
company that bought Afexa and its Cold-FX product in 2011.

Mr. Green is referring to a study that was conducted back in 2004
by Dr. Gerry Predy, a top Alberta public health official, who
confirmed it was no more effective than a placebo.  At that time,
the supplement's makers told consumers that Cold-FX would bring
fast relief from colds, flu and viruses.  But neither Dr. Predy
nor the drugmakers disclosed the study results to the public.

"If this information was disclosed, it would have shut down Afexa
Life Sciences," says Mr. Green.  And where is Health Canada in
this? Mr. Green says that, although the study results were filed
with the government, it is barred from making such proprietary
information public.  He does know that 58 adverse events have been
filed with Health Canada.  Interestingly, the medication didn't
get through the FDA's gate to sell in the United States.

"During the week of certification, the CBC aired a report on Cold-
FX and I was contacted by about 50 people.  Several people said
they got sick and one person was sick for seven weeks after taking
Cold-FX," says Green.  "We have to get this over-the-counter
medication off the market."  "After the report II was contacted by
about 50 people, several of whom said they got sick

Mr. Green had health experts look at studies that Cold-FX claims
they backed.  There was no scientific evidence that the makers
could support their claims.  Further, professors in British
Columbia and Alberta said the Predy study was "poor."

"The defendants admitted they have a statement on their box that
claims people can take Cold-FX for three days and their cold or
flu symptoms will be improved," says Mr. Green.  "The point I made
to the judge is that consumers relied on this statement. What if a
drugmaker like Afexa makes a drug called Cancer-FX and promises to
reduce chemotherapy effects? Many desperate patients would buy
into this promise, to help their cancer and boost their immune
system.  Instead they could get sicker."

Cold-FX has made about $500 million for the drug manufacturer.
Green says that, even if the certification battle is lost, "We
will fight it on punitive damages.  We want to take away all the
revenue Afexa and Valeant made on these products, so we will seek
punitive damages of $500 million because this company was --
allegedly -- built on a lie."

In British Columbia, every person who purchased Cold-FX containing
the statements the suit claims are false are in the class.  Mr.
Green says the application for certification was filed in April
and he expects to hear in the next six months or up to a year
whether the class action will go ahead.


WEST PUBLISHING: Judge Real Removed From Barbri Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal appeals court on May 11 ordered the removal of a
California judge who is overseeing an antitrust class action
against the publishers of the Barbri bar review course after his
rulings have been repeatedly reversed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated U.S.
District Judge Manuel Real's ruling on attorney fees in a case
that alleges West Publishing Corp. and Kaplan Inc. conspired to
monopolize the market for the Barbri bar review course.  In
remanding the dispute, the panel ordered the assignment of a new
judge.  Judge Real's rulings, particularly on fees, the court
noted, have been reversed three times in a separate case involving
antitrust claims against Barbri.

"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,'
" Ninth Circuit Judge Milan Smith wrote for the appeals panel.

The ruling comes nearly a decade after a $49 million settlement in
a related case spurred numerous appeals to the Ninth Circuit. That
settlement involved thousands of law students who claimed to have
overpaid for the Barbri course during the nine years after Aug. 1,
1997.

In 2009, the Ninth Circuit reversed Real's approval of the deal,
noting a "disturbing appearance of impropriety" in the way
incentive awards were tied to the settlement amount.  On March 12,
2015, the Ninth Circuit reversed Real's ruling granting $236,000
to a law firm whose objector clients claimed credit for unraveling
the deal.  The panel found the firm, Kendrick & Nutley, should
have been entitled to more than $315,000.

The May 11 ruling came in a class action brought on behalf of
people who bought the Barbri course materials from Aug. 1, 2006,
through March 21, 2011.

After Real dismissed the case in 2008, the Ninth Circuit sent the
matter to mediation. Both sides reached a settlement, which Judge
Real rejected.  A new settlement in 2013 provided $9.5 million to
class members and $1.9 million in legal fees.  Objectors
challenged the fees, and Real reduced the amount to $585,000.

Harris & Ruble and the Law Offices of Perrin F. Disner, class
counsel in the case, appealed Real's fee award.

"There are a number of areas in which the district court here
should have been more specific as to its reasoning," Judge Smith
of the Ninth Circuit wrote. Real's reduction of costs was "based
on clearly erroneous findings of fact," Judge Smith wrote.

Alan Harris, founder of Los Angeles-based Harris & Ruble, who
represented class counsel, said in an email on May 11: "Class
counsel are gratified by the Ninth Circuit decision.  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."

George Richard Baker, a solo practitioner with offices in San
Francisco and Birmingham who represented six objectors, had also
appealed Real's denial of his legal fees.  He claimed he was
entitled to fees for his role in raising red flags that
precipitated the 2013 settlement.  The Ninth Circuit remanded that
issue for a later date.

Mr. Baker's lawyer, Joseph "Josh" Tucker of Jackson & Tucker in
Birmingham, declined to comment other than to say: "We don't
disagree with the ruling."


WISCONSIN: Police Can Disclose Accident Report Driver Info
----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Vielmetti, writing for the Journal Sentinel, reports that a
federal law protecting driver's license data does not allow
Wisconsin police departments to withhold driver information from
accident reports, the Court of Appeals ruled on May 10.

But whether that law might require such redaction in other kinds
of reports would depend on what function police are serving by
releasing the records, and whether the information was obtained
directly from department of motor vehicle records, or merely
verified with that information.

The 30-page ruling will likely trigger continued litigation and
confusion over access to routine public records that Wisconsin
authorities began to restrict in light of a failed class action
2010 lawsuit in Illinois filed under the federal Drivers Privacy
Protection Act, or DPPA.

"Interpreting the agency functions exception in the manner
advocated by (the New Richmond News) -- that is, that the
exception allows unfettered disclosure of personal information in
response to public records requests -- would be inconsistent with
the manifest purpose of the DPPA and would therefore be
unreasonable," the decision reads.

But the court also called "misplaced" the City of New Richmond's
argument that the DPPA always pre-empts Wisconsin's public records
law.

The newspaper's attorney called the decision an overall win for
public access.

"Both sides may disagree with parts, but I think it's a decision
both sides can live with," said Robert Dreps.  "It substantially
reaffirms Wisconsin's commitment to open law enforcement."

Many law enforcement agencies also welcomed the ruling.

"None of us in law enforcement that redacted the information
wanted to redact it.  We felt it was information that should be
released," Wausau Police Chief Jeffrey Hardel told the USA TODAY
NETWORK-Wisconsin.

Despite assurances from Wisconsin's attorney general that the
federal law did not require wholesale redacting of information
from public records just because it might also be on driver's
license records, state municipalities' insurers advised their
customers to err on the side of secrecy to avoid being subject to
any similar class actions under the federal law.

In 2013, the newspaper sued New Richmond over the issue, and a
judge ruled that the DPPA and the Illinois federal case were never
meant to overrule the state's public records law.

The city appealed and the Court of Appeals tried to pass the case
directly to the Supreme Court, citing its importance.  But the
death of Justice Patrick Crooks resulted in a 3-3 tie on whether
to affirm the trial court decision, which sent it back to the
Court of Appeals.

In its ruling on May 10, the court reversed St. Croix County
Circuit Judge Howard Cameron's finding that complying with the
public records law was a police function that met an exception
under the DPPA.

The Court of Appeals, however, left open the possibility that a
different reason might meet the exception, and sent the case back
to Cameron for more litigation on that point.

Congress passed the Drivers Privacy Protection Act in 1994 after a
stalker got a Hollywood actress' home address through motor
vehicle records, then killed her.  The DPPA restricts use of
personal information obtained from motor vehicle departments but
lists several permissible uses, though none specifically for news
reporting.

For decades, no one dreamed it was meant to undo states' open
records laws, until lawyers and marketers began buying whole state
databases of drivers and car owners, and a few successful claims
for penalties under the DPPA prompted class-action lawyers to
explore new lawsuits.

A resident of Palatine, Ill., sued the village under the DPPA
because his personal information was on a parking ticket Palatine
police had left on his windshield in 2010.  Jason Senne wanted his
case declared a class action on behalf of all the drivers who got
tickets from Palatine.  Theoretically, that exposed the village to
$80 million in penalties -- the statutory $2,500 penalty to every
person who got a ticket since the DPPA passed.

The case was thrown out, reinstated and thrown out again by
federal courts.  But along the way, it set off a panic among
lawyers for Wisconsin's League of Wisconsin Municipalities and its
self-insurance company.  They advised clients to err on the side
of censorship.  If something as innocuous as a parking ticket
could violate the DPPA, they feared, any number of police records
could.

Police agencies all over Wisconsin suddenly began blacking out
names, addresses and ages of people in even the most routine
traffic accident reports and other records if the information was
obtained from or confirmed by driver's license and motor vehicle
records.

The redactions came even though in 2008, then-Attorney General
J.B. Van Hollen expressly said that the DPPA did not require such
redactions, and other police agencies in Illinois and Indiana, the
other states covered by the 7th Circuit, did not resort to such
practices after the Palatine cases


WYNDHAM HOTELS: October 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Keller Grover LLP and
Law Offices of Scot D. Bernstein, A Professional Corporation
regarding the Roberts v. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, LLC, et al.
Settlement.

If you are a California resident who, while physically located in
California, called one or more toll-free telephone numbers
associated with Wyndham Rewards(R), Wyndham Hotels and Resorts(R),
Wyndham Grand(R) Hotels and Resorts, Wyndham Garden(R) Hotels,
Travelodge(R), Ramada(R), Knights Inn(R), Wingate(R), Days Inn(R),
Super 8(R), Baymont(R), Hawthorn(R), Microtel(R), or Tryp(R)
between May 1, 2011 and March 23, 2012, inclusive, spoke to a
representative and were recorded without notice, you could receive
money from a Class Action Settlement.

A proposed $7,325,000 class action settlement has been reached in
a lawsuit called Joyce Roberts v. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, LLC,
et al., USDC ND CA Case No. 12-cv-05083-PSG.  The lawsuit claims
that Defendants' third party vendor recorded telephone calls of
persons calling certain toll-free reservations and customer-
service lines without telling callers that the calls may be
recorded allegedly in violation of California law. Defendants have
denied the claims.  Nonetheless, Defendants and the Class
Representatives have agreed to settle the dispute to avoid the
uncertainty and costs of litigation.  The $7,325,000 settlement
fund will pay eligible claims, notice and administration costs,
attorneys' fees and expenses, and the named plaintiff's service
award.

Who is a class member?
You are a Class Member if you are a California resident who, while
physically located in California, called one or more toll-free
telephone numbers associated with Wyndham Rewards(R), Wyndham
Hotels and Resorts(R), Wyndham Grand(R) Hotels and Resorts,
Wyndham Garden(R) Hotels, Travelodge(R), Ramada(R), Knights
Inn(R), Wingate(R), Days Inn(R), Super 8(R), Baymont(R),
Hawthorn(R), Microtel(R), or Tryp(R) between May 1, 2011 and March
23, 2012, inclusive, were routed to a call center operated by a
third-party vendor, spoke to a representative and were recorded
without notice.

What are my legal rights?
To receive a settlement payment, eligible class members must
submit a claim.  It is expected that eligible class members who
submit a timely and valid Claim Form will receive at least $150
per qualified call but no more than $5,000 per call.  The amount
of each individual settlement payment will depend on the total
number of claims filed.

Whether or not you submit a claim, if the Court approves the
settlement, and you do not take steps to exclude yourself from the
settlement, you will be bound by all of the Court's orders. This
means you will not be able to make any claims against Defendants
or other Released Parties covered by the settlement.

If you wish to submit a claim, visit
www.CARecordedCallsSettlement.com or contact the Claims
Administrator at 1-800-889-8319 to get a claim form.  The deadline
to submit claims is August 18, 2016.

If you do not wish to be a member of the settlement class, you
must submit a letter to the Claims Administrator at the address
below postmarked by August 18, 2016.  If you opt-out you cannot
submit a claim form.  Visit the settlement website for more
information.

If you wish to object to the settlement, you must do so by
submitting your objection to the Court in person or postmarked by
August 18, 2016.  Visit the settlement website for more
information.

A final hearing will be held on October 18, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. to
determine the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
proposed settlement and to award attorneys' fees and costs and
plaintiff's service award.  The motion for attorneys' fees and
costs and plaintiff's service award will be posted on the
settlement website after it is filed. You may attend the hearing,
but you do not have to.

This is only a summary.  For detailed information including, the
full text of the Settlement Agreement, the Class Notice and the
Claim Form, visit www.CARecordedCallsSettlement.com call
1-800-889-8319, or write to: Settlement Administrator at Hotels
Call Recording Settlement c/o Rust Consulting, P.O. Box 2506,
Faribault, MN 55021-9506.


XOLLE LLC: Faces "Aguirre" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Aguirre, Virgilio Escobar, Melvin Escobar, Florentino
Morales, and Carlos Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Xolle LLC, Xolle Demo LLC, Xolle Roll
Off LLC, and Menachem Roth, Case No. 1:16-cv-02324 (E.D.N.Y., May
9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in New York.

Juan Aguirre, Virgilio Escobar, Melvin Escobar, Florentino
Morales, and Carlos Ramirez are pro se plaintiffs.


XOMA CORP: Case Management Conference on May 24
-----------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., directs Richard W.
Gonnello of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP -- who was recently appointed lead
counsel to lead plaintiff Joseph Tarzia -- to appear
telephonically via CourtCall at the Case Management Conference
scheduled for May 24, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.  Counsel shall contact
CourtCall at (866) 582-6878 to make arrangements for the
telephonic appearance.

A copy of the Court's May 18 Order is available at
https://is.gd/OhudgU from Leagle.com.


XTO ENERGY: Trust Updates on Class Suits
----------------------------------------
Hugoton Royalty Trust, in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, provided updates on class
action lawsuits against XTO Energy.

XTO Energy settled the Fankhouser v. XTO Energy, Inc. royalty
class action lawsuit for $37 million. The settlement was given
final approval by the court on October 10, 2012. XTO Energy
advised the trustee that $1.4 million of the settlement was
attributable to Kansas claims, which predated the trust. The
settlement also included a new royalty calculation for future
royalty payments.

XTO Energy and the trustee arbitrated the issue of whether the
Fankhouser settlement could be charged to the Trust net proceeds
($28.5 million; $23.4 million and $5.1 million affecting the net
proceeds from Oklahoma and Kansas, respectively, in addition to a
reduction in the net profits going forward). The three panel
tribunal decided on April 21, 2014 that the settlement cannot be
charged to the Trust, including the new royalty calculation for
future royalty payments. Additionally, XTO Energy had to reimburse
$4,386,396, representing amounts withheld from the September and
October 2012 distributions and $1,985,438, representing attorney
fees, arbitration expenses and interest. The arbitration award was
entered into as a final judgment in State District Court of
Tarrant County, Texas on December 12, 2014.

In September 2008, a royalty class action lawsuit was filed
against XTO Energy styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living
Trust, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny
County, Kansas. The case was removed to federal court in Wichita,
Kansas. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken
post production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from
wells located in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Colorado; later reduced to
Kansas. The case was certified as a class action in March 2012.
XTO Energy filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals on April 11, 2012, which was granted on
June 26, 2012. The court reversed the certification of the class
and remanded the case back to the trial court for further
proceedings. The case was previously stayed pending a final
decision from the Kansas Supreme Court on the Fawcett v. OPIK
appeal. Following the decision in Fawcett, the Judge in Roderick
ordered new briefing on the pending motions. In its pleadings, the
plaintiff has alleged damages in excess of $42.5 million.

In December 2010, a royalty class action lawsuit was filed against
XTO Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in
Coal County District Court, Oklahoma. XTO Energy removed the case
to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The
plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from
royalty payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent
efforts to secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and
its constituents, and demand an accounting to determine whether
they have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests. The
case was certified as a class action in April 2012. XTO Energy
filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals on April 26, 2012, which was granted on June 26,
2012. The court reversed the certification of the class and
remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

XTO Energy has informed the trustee that it believes that XTO
Energy has strong defenses to these lawsuits and intends to
vigorously defend its position. However, XTO Energy has informed
the trustee that it is cognizant of other, similar litigation,
such as Fankhouser, and other, unrelated entities. As these cases
develop, XTO Energy will assess its legal position accordingly. If
XTO Energy ultimately makes any settlement payments or receives a
judgment against it in Chieftain or Roderick, XTO Energy has
advised the trustee that it believes that the terms of the
conveyances covering the trust's net profits interests require the
Trust to bear its 80% share of such settlement or judgment related
to production from the underlying properties. Additionally, if the
judgment or settlement increases the amount of future payments to
royalty owners, XTO Energy has informed the trustee that the Trust
would bear its proportionate share of the increased payments
through reduced net proceeds. In the event of any such settlement
or judgment, the trustee intends to review any claimed reductions
in payment to the Trust based on the facts and circumstances of
such settlement or judgment. In light of the arbitration
tribunal's decision on the treatment of the Fankhouser settlement,
to the extent that the claims in Chieftain or Roderick are similar
to those in Fankhouser, the trustee would likely object to such
claimed reductions. XTO Energy has informed the trustee that,
although the amount of any reduction in net proceeds is not
presently determinable, in its management's opinion, the amount is
not currently expected to be material to the trust's financial
position or liquidity though it could be material to the trust's
annual distributable income.

Additionally, XTO Energy has advised the trustee that any
reductions would result in costs exceeding revenues on the
properties underlying the net profit interests of the cases named
above, as applicable, for several monthly distributions, depending
on the size of the judgment or settlement, if any, and the net
proceeds being paid at that time, which would result in the net
profits interest being limited until such time that the revenues
exceed the costs for those net profit interests. If there is a
settlement or judgment and should XTO Energy and the trustee
disagree concerning the amount of the settlement or judgment to be
charged, if any, against the trust's net profits interests, the
matter will be resolved by binding arbitration through the
American Arbitration Association under the terms of the Indenture
creating the trust.

Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the laws
of Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered
into on December 1, 1998 between XTO Energy Inc. (formerly known
as Cross Timbers Oil Company), as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A.,
as trustee. Southwest Bank is now the trustee of the trust. The
principal office of the Trust is located at 2911 Turtle Creek
Blvd, Suite 850, Dallas, Texas 75219 (telephone number 855-588-
7839).


* Accounting Securities Class Actions Hit Record High in 2015
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gorman, Esq. -- gorman.tom@dorsey.com -- of Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, in an article for JDSupra Business Advisor, reports
that last year the number of securities class actions filed with
accounting allegations exceeded the average over the last ten
years.  Likewise, the number of accounting cases filed last year
alleging internal control violations was the highest since 2006,
according to a report prepared by Cornerstone Research titled
Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements, 2015 Review and
Analysis.

The 71 accounting cases filed last year is the highest since 2011
when 80 such actions were initiated.  At the same time the
percentage of securities class actions that contain accounting
allegations declined to 38% (71 of 118) compared to 41% (69 of
101) in the prior year.  The largest percentage of those
accounting cases (38%) were filed in the ninth circuit -- the
highest number of such cases filed there in ten years.  The number
of actions involving firms listed on the NASDAQ and the NYSE was
about evenly split.

The number of accounting cases filed against firms based outside
the U.S. increased to 20 or 28% of the total of these cases.  That
compares to 14, or 20% of the total, the prior year and 15, or 32%
of the total, in 2013.  The number of accounting cases filed
against firms based outside the U.S. last year is the second
highest total over the last decade.

Over half of the accounting cases were brought against firms in
the consumer non-cyclical sector were against biotechnology,
pharmaceutical and healthcare companies.  That is consistent with
historical trends.  The number of actions filed against industrial
sector firms, however, increased to twice its historical average.
In contrast, cases against firms in the financial sector declined.

Finally, last year about 30% of the accounting cases involved a
restatement.  That represents a decline from the 42% in the prior
year, 40% in 2013 and 38% in 2012.  In contrast, over the past six
years most accounting cases contain allegations regarding internal
controls.  That trend accelerated last year with 52% of the
actions containing such a claim.  Similarly, the number of
accounting case settlements containing such an allegations was the
highest in 10 years.


* Appeals Court Revives Class Action Against Three Hospitals
------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
appeals court has revived a proposed class action accusing three
Rochester, New York-area hospitals and a health information
technology company of overcharging patients for their medical
records.

In a unanimous opinion on May 10, a three-judge panel of the 2nd
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that a lower court improperly
dismissed the case on the grounds that the named plaintiffs
requested and obtained their records through their attorneys,
rather than themselves.


* CFPB Proposals to Expose Banks to More Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Carle, Esq. -- ncarle@mrllp.com -- of Michelman & Robinson,
LLP, in an article for JDSupra Business Advisor, reports that
under new rules proposed by the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau (CFPB), consumers would be handed greater ability to bring
class action lawsuits against financial institutions and consumer
financial services providers.  The proposed rules would
essentially prohibit the use of mandatory arbitration clauses that
contain class action waiver provisions in contracts for consumer
financial products and services.  The CFPB's publicized objective
is to prohibit consumer financial services providers from using
arbitration provisions to prevent consumer class action lawsuits.
Covering a range of products, from bank accounts and credit cards
to auto and student loans, the rules are ostensibly intended to
enable customers to utilize the court system to challenge
potentially deceitful practices or other improper conduct.  There
will now be a 90-day public comment period, which will surely be
contentious; the consumer finance industry immediately voiced
strong concerns with the CFPB's proposal.

In recent years, mandatory arbitration clauses have become
customary in financial products and services contracts, supported
by a series of court rulings that have affirmed the validity of
such arbitration clauses and created a strong presumption in favor
of private arbitration.  Most notably, in a landmark 2011 opinion,
AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court upheld the use of
class action waivers in arbitration provisions in consumer
contracts, and declared state law provisions hostile to such
provisions pre-empted by federal law.  While mandatory arbitration
provisions are already prohibited by the CFPB in most residential
mortgages and home equity loans, the new proposed rules will
expand such protections to cover a broad range of financial
products.  In fact, the rules would require companies providing
such products to insert language into arbitration clauses that
explicitly states that the clauses cannot be used to stop
consumers from joining a class action.  The changes would not
apply to existing accounts, though consumers would be free to pay
off existing debt and open new accounts that are covered by the
new rule.

When Congress approved the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Act in 2010, it required the CFPB to study the use of
forced arbitration clauses and take appropriate action if those
clauses contravened the public interest.  Thereafter, the CFPB
convened a large, data-driven empirical study, which it released
in March of 2015.  The study ultimately showed that pre-dispute
arbitration agreements "effectively prohibit" class litigation and
prevent consumers from obtaining remedies for harm caused by
providers of certain consumer financial products or services.
Specifically, the study revealed that more than three-quarters of
consumers surveyed in the credit card market did not know whether
there was an arbitration clause in their contracts.  Similarly,
fewer than 7% of those covered by arbitration clauses realized
that those clauses restricted their ability to sue in court.

The proposed regulation includes two significant limitations on
pre-suit arbitration agreements with respect to consumer financial
products and services: 1) Providers of covered products and
services will be prohibited from relying on any forced arbitration
agreement entered into after the effective date of the new rule
(211 days after publication of the final rule) to block customer
participation in a class action lawsuit; and 2) for any pre-
dispute arbitration agreements entered into after the effective
date, companies will be required to provide the CFPB with records
of all arbitration claims relating to consumer financial products
or services filed by or against them, including the arbitration
agreement itself, any filings, and the ultimate judgment or award
issued by the arbitrator.  The CFPB contends this will allow it to
monitor consumer finance arbitrations to ensure that the
arbitration process remains fair for consumers.  The CFPB
estimates the additional costs of the reporting requirements to be
marginal, even if passed on to consumers.

Companies would still be able to require consumers to enter
arbitration to resolve individual disputes.  However, in a letter
to the CFPB, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned that the rule
would force companies to stop using arbitration clauses
altogether, eliminating an option that is "cheaper, faster and
more effective at delivering relief to consumers."  This previews
a likely outcome of the proposed rule -- the elimination of
arbitration provisions, and the inclusion of class action waivers
in consumer contracts.  While class action waivers in connection
with arbitration provisions have been validated by the Supreme
Court, high court guidance on class action waivers outside of
arbitration provisions is not as clear. .

The next 90 days should be very interesting, as the two sides
square off. However, it is almost certain that a version of the
proposed rules will be enacted. Consumer advocates contend that it
is in the public interest for consumers to be offered a choice
when it comes to pursuing legal remedies against financial
institutions, and that mandatory arbitration provisions eliminate
or obfuscate that choice.  Banks and other financial services
businesses counter by arguing that the new rule would effectively
eliminate private arbitration in this sector, which is often less
costly and more efficient than litigation, and result in a
windfall for plaintiffs' trial attorneys while not actually
furthering the interests of individual consumers.

M&R will stay abreast of this issue as the proposed rule is
debated and enacted, periodically providing updates regarding the
implementation of this likely game-changing regulation.


* Judge Awards $1.5MM in Attorney Fees in Fen-Phen Cases
--------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge has awarded $1.5 million to a law firm
representing plaintiffs in the diet drug class action as well as
the multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Additionally, U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania authorized a roughly $13,000
reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Levin,
Fishbein, Sedran, & Berman, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs,
for out-of-pocket expenses in litigating the case.

According to Judge Bartle's memorandum, the fees were awarded for
1,305 hours -- or 168 eight-hour workdays -- of common benefit
work in the litigation from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2015.  The money
will come from the cost and fees account of the litigation
settlement fund.  There were no objections to awarding attorney
fees to the firm.

The firm is being paid $750,000 for work performed in the class
action and an additional $750,000 for work performed in the MDL.
The total amount of the settlement fund was $6.44 billion,
according to Bartle, to compensate thousands of individual class
members who took the diet-drug cocktail commonly called Fen-Phen.
The litigation commenced in 1997.

Michael Fishbein of the firm served as class counsel with respect
to the settlement agreement and co-chairman of the plaintiffs
management committee.

"We have routinely applied every year for fees, so this represents
the latest application on our part.  Most likely it'll be the last
application for the MDL side," Mr. Fishbein said.

Mr. Fishbein noted that class action claims are still being
administered so there is still work to be done on that front.
Bartle wrote that Levin Fishbein assisted 340 claimants in
receiving benefits in 2015.

The firm continued to take part in trust planning, budgeting and
operational planning in 2015, Judge Bartle said.

Also, "Levin Fishbein continues to undertake many complex matters
within this litigation," Judge Bartle said.  "We have recognized,
however, that the class action administration and MDL 1203 are in
their sunset period and that the number of individuals who
benefited from the settlement agreement in 2015 has declined
considerably when compared with earlier years."

That factor had to be taken into consideration when determining
the appropriate fee award, Judge Bartle said.

The amount of fees requested amounted to 0.0117 percent of the
total settlement fund, Judge Bartle said, and roughly 8 percent of
the $9.4 million awarded to plaintiffs in 2015, within the 4 to 15
percent attorney compensation range for fees awarded in similar
cases.

In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld
the terms of the settlement agreement to the letter.


* UCCL Well-Matched to Class Action Commonality Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher W. Carmichael, Esq. --christopher.carmichael@hklaw.com
-- of Holland & Knight LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports
that the Uniform Commercial Code appears to be well-matched to the
class actions requirements of commonality, typicality, and
predominance.  Article 2 provides a relatively uniform body of
law, with relatively minor variations.  Warranties are often
unvarying because they are provided by the product manufacturer.
See Sec. 2-313.  The implied warranties, in Article 2, are
provided to every purchaser unless disclaimed.  See Secs. 2-314 &
2-315.  Lastly, Article 2 provides for clear remedies, including
repair, replacement, and incidental and consequential damages.
See Secs. 2-710, 2-711, 2-714, 2-715, & 2-719.  As one court
summarized:  "In the present case, class members purchased similar
products and received the same standard warranty, thus, there are
common questions of law and fact."  Barden v. Hurd Millwork Co.,
Inc., 249 F.R.D. 316, 318 (E.D. Wis. 2008).

Warranty class actions are frequently filed when a product has a
defect or performance issue that decreases its value, but does not
generally injure the consumer.  For example, dozens of warranty
class actions were filed against Volkswagen for the diesel
vehicles that were equipped with the "defeat devices."  Those
actions were filed under the Uniform Commercial Code because
Article 2 provides a potential remedy for the economic losses
(reduction in value), that cannot be recovered by traditional tort
claims (which are often precluded by state law economic loss
doctrines).  See Sec. 2-714 (providing for damages of the
difference between the value of the goods accepted and the value
they would have had if they had been as warranted).

Even when a product defect or performance issue does not lead to
personal injuries (or leads to few personal injuries), the
manufacture faces significantly liability from aggregated economic
class action claims relying on Article 2 of the UCC.  And, the
cost to the company can go beyond damages awardable to the
plaintiff, and include the cost of product repair or replacement,
which can exceed the original product price by multiples.  For
example, a recent class action filed under California warranty law
demanded that Volkswagen accept return of all "non-conforming
vehicles".

Thus, in addition to regulatory penalties and paying damages,
Volkswagen could potentially be required to absorb the cost of
thousands of returned vehicles.

There are potential ways to defeat certification of a warranty
class action.  Broadly speaking, a warranty is a representation
about the qualities of a product.  See Secs. 2-314 & 2-315.
Article 2 of the UCC covers contracts for the sale of goods.  A
warranty claim is therefore a contract-based claim.  Since a
warranty is a contract, issues can arise in determining what
representations became part of the bargain.  And, for example,
some courts have concluded that determining what comprises the
warranty would require individualized proof, precluding
commonality.  See Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc., 2015
WL 5568624, at *11 (D. Mass. Sept. 22, 2015).

In addition, even where the plaintiff asserts that the
representations were all uniform, the law and the consumer's
expectations may not be identical.  Not all product purchasers may
have read or relied upon the warranty in purchasing the product.
Also, some states may not require pre-purchase reliance, while
other states may.  The dichotomy between states that require
reliance and those that do not, coupled with the individualized
nature of an inquiry into reliance, has led some courts to deny
certification.  See In re General Motors Dex-Cool Products
Liability Litigation, 241 F.R.D. 305, 319-320 (S.D. Ill. 2007).

While each product and warranty is different, a warranty class
action can be vulnerable to an attack on the uniformity of the
warranty, consumer reliance on the warranty, and variance among
the states' laws.  Some consumers may never experience performance
issues or defects; therefore, the actual number of warranty
claims, and the corresponding cost of correcting those issues,
will likely be fewer than the broad class of all purchasers in a
warranty class action.  Defeating class certification of class
action warranty claims can reduce potential legal exposure from
devastating to manageable.


                            *********

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  * * *