CAR_Public/160524.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 24, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 103



                            Headlines


1160 THIRD: "Lui" Suit in New York Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Union Class Suit in Colo. Remains Stayed
AMERICA MOVIL: Telcel Unit Facing Customer Suits in Mexico
AMERICA PIZZA CO: "Hassan" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settlement in "Kaufman" Case Under Appeal

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Dismissal of Plumbers Amended Complaint Sought
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Moved to Dismiss "Houssain" Complaint
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Arbitration of B&R Supermarket Complaint Sought
AMERICAN GENERAL: Court Refuses to Certify Ulti-Mate Suit Class
ANGLO AMERICAN: Court Allows Silicosis Class Action to Proceed

ANGLO AMERICAN: Mineworkers' Lawyer Welcomes Class Action Ruling
ANTHEM, INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Demutualization
ANTHEM, INC: 11 Actions Over OON Reimbursement Remain Pending
ANTHEM, INC: Still Defending Blue Cross Antitrust Litigation
ANTHEM, INC: Motion to Dismiss Cyber Attack Suit Underway

APOLLO COMMERCIAL: To Defend Against Merger Class Action
APPLUS VELOSI: Employee Files Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
ATCO STRUCTURES: "Griggs" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
BALTIMORE, MA: Judge Tosses Maintenance Workers' Defamation Case
BARCLAYS BANK: "Doherty" Sues Over TCPA Violation

BLITT & GAINES: Faces Class Action Over Wage Garnishments
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Six Lawsuits Lodged in Pradaxa Docket
BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Company and Officers Face New York Class Action
BUCKEYE INC: "Cook" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CABLEVISION: Begins Payouts in Set-Top Box Class Actions

CARESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
CARMAX INC: Claims Remain in "Fowler" Case in California
CASHLESS PAYMENTS: Bid to Certify "Able Home" Class Stricken
CASSWAY CONTRACTING: Faces "Redwood" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CATALINA CHANNEL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Workers Breaks

CATHOLIC HEALTH: "Chavies" Sues Over Under-funded Pension Plan
CEMEX SAB: Unit Still Faces Homeowner's Class Action
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Hampton Seeks Certification of Two Classes
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Livonia Suit
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: "Bushansky" Lawsuit Voluntarily Dismissed

CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Defending "Sciabacucchi" Action in Michigan
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Nicholl" Suit in E.D. Mich.
CHEVIOT FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in MainSource Merger Action
CHINA FINANCE: Mediation Session Scheduled for Late May 2016
CHINACACHE INTERNATIONAL: Filed First Amended Complaint

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: To Defend Against "Ong" Class Action
CHRYSLER: Recalls Jeep Grand Cherokee 2016 Models
CHRYSLER: Recalls 150 Units of RAM Promaster 2014, 2015 Trucks
CHRYSLER: Recalls 9,022 Units of RAM Promaster 2014, 2015 Trucks
DELTA AIR: Lopez Seeks Certification of Class of LAX Employees

DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
DEUTSCHE BANK: $120-Mil. Settlement of CDS Antitrust Case Pending
DEUTSCHE BANK: Bid to Dismiss TruPS Litigation Pending
E. I. DU PONT: 3,500 Drinker Water Suits Pending at March 31
EDMONTON RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL: Recalls Iobenguane I123 Injection

EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Paid $750,000 to Vathana Settlement Fund
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Tentative Deal Reached in "West" Action
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Tentative Deal Reached in "Bland" Action
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
FACEBOOK INC: Rule 23(b)(2) Class in "Campbell" Suit Certified

FACEBOOK INC: Faces Excavators Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Westchester Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report
FACEBOOK INC: Must Defend Against Suit Over Photo Tag Feature
FIRST NATIONAL: Settling Antonik & Saxe Suits for $750,000
FMA ALLIANCE: Certification of Class Sought in "Devera" Suit

FORMFACTOR, INC: Defendant in Lum v. Cascade Microtech Case
FORMFACTOR, INC: Defendant in Solak v. Cascade Microtech Case
GAZIT-GLOBE: Hearing on Motion for Documents Disclosure Deferred
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Jefferson County Sues over Overpriced Alum
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk

GOLDEN DROP: "Nobles" Suit in Cal. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
H&R BLOCK: Fails in Bid to Send "Lopez" Suit to Arbitration
H&R BLOCK: Summary Judgment, Class Cert. Bids Pending in "Perras"
HATTERAS FINANCIAL: Sued in N.C. Over Proposed Sale to Annaly
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims

HELIX ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
HILTON CINCINNATI: Faces "Morgan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HUNTER WARFIELD: Bid to Certify "Goldstein" FDCPA Class Denied
ILLINOIS, USA: Court Certifies Class of Medicaid-Eligible Kids
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Baltimore Securities Class Suit Ongoing

IMPAC MORTGAGE: "Marentes" Class Suit in Discovery Stage
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Defending 2 NY Suits Over Sale of Unit
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: No Trial Date Set in Class Suits
ITASCA: Recalls Ellipse and Tour 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk
JETT PRO LINE: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Bernier"

JPS COMPLETION: "Martinez" Seeks Recovery of Overtime Pay
KAPLAN INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Ridley" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
KINDER MORGAN: Delaware High Court Upholds Claims Dismissal
KLA-TENCOR: Preliminary Settlement Approval Hearing Set for June 3
LIAMBEN INC: Faces "Jimenez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

LIFE PROTECT: Hearing on Bid to Certify Class Continued to Aug. 2
M&T BANK CORP: "Habib" Sues Over Fund Mismanagement
MDL 2474: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Certification of Class Sought in "Oliver" Case
MINISTRY HEALTH CARE: Employees File Suit Over Unpaid Breaks

NCEP LLC: Bid to Certify Class Terminated; Hearing on June 15
NOVANT HEALTH: Judge OKs Settlement, Sept. 23 Fairness Hearing Set
NUVASIVE INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Still Pending
OCEAN POWER: Defending Securities Class Action in New Jersey
OFFICE DEPOT: Approval of "Heitzenrater" Accord Expected Mid-2016

OFFICE DEPOT: "Rivet" Class Action Ongoing in New Jersey
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: SEPTA Securities Class Action Still Ongoing
PAN ASIA: Recalls Breaded Fish Cake Products Due to Egg
PAN ASIA: Recalls Fish Sausage Products Due to Egg
PEARLAND CAPITAL: Stewart Seeks Conditional Class Certification

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Certification of Property Owners Class Sought
PHILIPS MEDICAL: Recalls Digital Diagnost
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Wants Kern County Suit Moved to D.C. Court
PIER 1: Kenney and Davie Cases Ongoing in Texas
PREMIER COURIER: Faces "Wright" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Amended Complaint Filed in Haverhill Suit
QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY: To Defend Against "Nguyen" IPO Suit
RAYMOND JAMES: Faces Two Investor Class Actions
REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Certification of Two FDCPA Classes Sought
RENFRO CANADA: Recalls Dr. Scholl's Graduated Compression

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 21 Tobacco-Related Cases Served During 2016 Q1
ROOSEVELT DISCOUNTS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Rosas" Suit Says
ROYAL OAK, MI: Residents File Class Action Over 2014 Floods
RUSHCARD: Settles Prepaid Card Class Action for $20.5MM
SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SAFETY 1ST: Recalls Child Car Seat 2015 Models
SANOFI SA: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Kickback Schemes
SE CEMETERIES: Charles Sheppard Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Hassett Class Action Dismissed
SHANDEX GROUP: Recalls Night-time Sleep Aid Liquid

SHANDEX GROUP: Recalls Life Brand Night-Time Sleep Aid Liquid
SIGMA: Net Profit Takes $8.8MM Hit from Class Action Settlement
SPARK NETWORKS: Deal Close in Werner, Wright Suits
SPARK NETWORKS: Resolves Israeli Consumer Actions
SPRINT CORPORATION: "Chowdhury" Sues Over Automated Calls

STRYKER SUSTAINABILITY: Recalls Electrophysiology Catheters
SUN OF MAY LLC: "Cortez" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend Wisconsin Suit
SUPERVALU INC: Response to Motion to Certify Due
SUPERVALU INC: Bid to Vacate Case Dismissal Tossed

SYNOVIS MICRO: Recalls GEM Flow Coupler
T-W TRANSPORT: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action
TEEKAY CORP: Company, Officers Face Class Action in Connecticut
TFI FOODS: Recalls Fish Cakes & Crab Sticks Due to Egg
TICKETMASTER: Class Action Settlement Marketing Opportunity

TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Suit by Hamilton and Macon Counties Underway
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss La Crosse Suit Granted in Part
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Defending Suit by Jackson County, MO
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: NJ Treasury Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
UNITED STATES: Beauty School Students Score Win Over Loans

URANIUM ENERGY: Dismissal of "Stephens" Action Sought
VAALCO ENERGY: Stipulation and Order of Dismissal Approved
VERIZON: Faces "Johnnidis" Suit in N.Y. Over Phone Service
VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Consolidated Class Action Dismissed
WAUPUN, WI: McKinley Bey Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class

WEATHERBY INC: Final Approval of "Fiant" Settlement Sought
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Class Action
WONDRIES FAMILY: Faces "Avila" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WOODSPRING HOTELS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Smith" Suit Says
YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell to File Motion to Overturn Verdict

YUM! BRANDS: 9th Circuit Not Yet Set Briefing Schedule


                            *********


1160 THIRD: "Lui" Suit in New York Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xiao Guang Liu, Shou De Jin, Xiao Dong Wang, Jing Bin Wang, Gang
Ren, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. 1160 Third Avenue Food Service, Inc. d/b/a Ollie's Noodle Shop
& Grille, Tsu Y. Wang, and John Doe and Jane Doe #1-10, Case No.
705635/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 11, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, overtime wages, spread of hours compensation,
damages for failure to provide wage statements, liquidated
damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the New
York Labor Law.

The Defendants used to own, operate, and control a restaurant
located at 1991 Broadway, Frnt B, New York City, NY 10023.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keli Liu, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: kliu@hanglaw.com


ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Union Class Suit in Colo. Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 19,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
securities class action lawsuit, United Food and Commercial
Workers Union v. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., No. 14-cv-
01243-CMA-KMT (U.S. District Court, D. Colo.), remains stayed.

A class action lawsuit against ADES and certain of its current and
former officers is pending in the federal court in Denver,
Colorado. This lawsuit and a companion case were originally filed
in May 2014. On February 19, 2015, the Court consolidated these
cases and appointed the United Foods and Commercial Workers Union
and Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund
as lead plaintiff and approved its selection of the law firms. The
consolidated case is now captioned United Food and Commercial
Workers Union v. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., No. 14-cv-
01243-CMA-KMT (U.S. District Court, D. Colo.).

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

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

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

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on
June 19, 2015, contending the Consolidated Complaint: 1) fails to
meet the strict pleading standards required for Section 10(b)
claims; and 2) fails to establish the primary violation required
for any claim of secondary (control person) liability. Plaintiffs
filed a response in opposition to this motion on July 2, 2015 and
Defendants filed their reply brief on July 16, 2015. On March 7,
2016 the parties filed a stipulated motion to stay the case while
the parties mediate the matter. On March 8, 2016, the motion to
stay was granted, and the Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied
without prejudice with the option to refile should mediation fail.
The case is stayed until further order of the court.


AMERICA MOVIL: Telcel Unit Facing Customer Suits in Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------
America Movil, S.A.B. De C.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Radiomovil Dipsa,
S.A. de C.V. ("Telcel") is defending against class action lawsuits
by customers.

The Federal Consumer Bureau (ProcuradurĀ”a Federal del Consumidor,
or "Profeco") initiated proceedings before Mexican courts in 2011
on behalf of customers who alleged deficiencies in the quality of
Telcel's network in 2010 and breach of customer agreements. This
proceeding is pending, and if it is resolved in favor of Profeco,
Telcel's customers would be entitled to compensation for damages.

Telcel is also subject to four class actions initiated by the
alleged affected groups with respect to quality of service and
wireless and broadband rates.

The Company does not currently have enough information on these
proceedings to determine whether any of these class actions could
have an adverse effect on the Company's business and results of
operations if they are resolved against Telcel. Consequently, the
Company has not established a provision in the accompanying
financial statements for a loss arising from these contingencies.

In July 2015, a fifth class action related to a technical
malfunction in Telcel's network was concluded pursuant to a
settlement with Profeco that recognized past compensations by
Telcel to its customers in connection with this malfunction.

America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. is a sociedad anonima bursatil de
capital variable organized under the laws of Mexico.  It was
established in September 2000 when Telefonos de Mexico, S.A.B. de
C.V. ("Telmex"), a fixed-line Mexican telecommunications operator
privatized in 1990, spun off its wireless operations in Mexico and
other countries.  In 2010, it acquired control of Telmex and
Telmex Internacional, S.A.B. de C.V. in a series of public tender
offers.


AMERICA PIZZA CO: "Hassan" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hamdi Hassan, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. America's Pizza Company, LLC, and Michael Brent
Stolzenthaler, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00418-JLG-TPK (S.D.
Ohio, May 11, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime, unlawful deductions and charge-backs, and unreimbursed
expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Constitution.

America's Pizza operates 127 Pizza Hut restaurants in Ohio,
Louisiana, Texas, North Carolina and South Carolina with
Stolzenthaler as the Chief Executive Officer. Plaintiffs worked as
delivery drivers who claim underpayment of wages and overtime as
well as non-reimbursement of business-related expense.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Beggs, Esq.
      BEGGS LAW OFFICES CO., LPA
      1675 Old Henderson Road
      Columbus, OH 43220
      Tel: 614-678-5640
      Fax: 614-448-9408
      Email: John.Beggs@BeggsLawOffices.com

           - and -

      Andrew Kimble, Esq.
      KIMBLE LAW, LLC
      1675 Old Henderson Road
      Columbus, OH 43220
      Tel: 614-983-0361
      Fax: 614-448-9408
      Email: Andrew@kimblelawoffice.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settlement in "Kaufman" Case Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that notices of appeal has
been filed in the case, Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related
Services, following final approval of a class-wide settlement.

The Company said, "We are a defendant in a class action captioned
Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related Services, which was
filed on February 14, 2007, and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs'
principal allegation is that our gift cards violated consumer
protection statutes because consumers allegedly had difficulty
spending small residual amounts on the gift cards prior to the
imposition of monthly service fees."

The Court preliminarily certified a settlement class consisting of
(with some exceptions) "all purchasers, recipients and holders of
all gift cards issued by American Express from January 1, 2002
through the date of preliminary approval of the settlement." On
March 2, 2016, the court granted final approval of the class-wide
settlement. Notices of appeal have been filed.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Dismissal of Plumbers Amended Complaint Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company moved to
dismiss the amended complaint by Plumbers and Steamfitters Local
137 Pension Fund on March 21, 2016.

The Company said, "On July 30, 2015, plaintiff Plumbers and
Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund, on behalf of themselves and
other purchasers of American Express stock, filed a suit,
captioned Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund v.
American Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault and Jeffrey C. Campbell,
for violation of federal securities law, alleging that the Company
deliberately issued false and misleading statements to, and
omitted important information from, the public relating to the
financial importance of the Costco cobrand relationship to the
Company, including, but not limited to, the decision to accelerate
negotiations to renew the cobrand agreement. The plaintiff seeks
damages and injunctive relief. The Company moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on March 21, 2016."


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Moved to Dismiss "Houssain" Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has moved
to dismiss the Houssain complaint.

On October 16, 2015, a putative class action, captioned Houssain
v. American Express Company, et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain officers of the Company under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") relating
to disclosures of the Costco cobrand relationship. The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated certain ERISA obligations by:
allowing the investment of American Express Retirement Savings
Plan ("Plan") assets in American Express common stock when
American Express common stock was not a prudent investment;
misrepresenting and failing to disclose material facts to Plan
participants in connection with the administration of the Plan;
and breaching certain fiduciary obligations. The suit seeks, among
other remedies, an unspecified amount of damages. The Company
moved to dismiss the complaint on April 20, 2016.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Arbitration of B&R Supermarket Complaint Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has filed
a motion to compel arbitration and change venue and jointly moved
with co-defendants to dismiss the B&R Supermarket complaint.

On March 8, 2016, plaintiffs B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's
Market and Grove Liquors LLC, on behalf of themselves and others,
filed a suit, captioned B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's
Market, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., for violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, California's Cartwright
Act and unjust enrichment in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, against American Express
Company, other credit and charge card networks, other issuing
banks and EMVCo, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants,
through EMVCo, conspired to shift liability for fraudulent, faulty
and otherwise rejected consumer credit card transactions from
themselves to merchants after the implementation of EMV chip
payment terminals. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief.
On April 18, 2016, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration and change venue and jointly moved with co-defendants
to dismiss the complaint.


AMERICAN GENERAL: Court Refuses to Certify Ulti-Mate Suit Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Josephine L. Staton entered an order (1) denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and (2) denying as
moot their motion for appointment of class counsel in the lawsuit
titled Ulti-Mate Connectors, Inc., et al. v. American General Life
Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-01051-JLS-JPR (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants "organized, promoted,
administered, and sold rights to participate in [VEBAs] that they
touted as offering owners of small, closely-held businesses a
valuable insurance-oriented welfare benefit with significant tax
advantages."  The Defendants undertook this activity, according to
the complaint, despite their knowledge that the voluntary
employees' beneficiary association (VEBA) plans were
"noncompliant" and, as a result, "the tax advantages they promoted
were illusory."

After careful consideration of the argument and evidence submitted
by the Parties, the Court concludes that there is a serious
potential -- and, in all likelihood, actual -- conflict between
tje Plaintiffs and certain absent class members.  Therefore, the
Court concludes that the Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the adequacy
requirement of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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


ANGLO AMERICAN: Court Allows Silicosis Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Crowley, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that a South
African court has allowed thousands of former mineworkers to
proceed with a class action seeking damages from mining companies
for lung diseases they contracted while working at their
operations.

"Class action is the only realistic option through which most
mineworkers can assert" their constitutional rights, Deputy Judge
President Phineas Mojapelo said at the South Gauteng High Court in
Johannesburg on May 13.  Otherwise, "impoverished, indigent
workers won't be able to access justice," he said.

Current and former mineworkers who contracted silicosis and
pulmonary tuberculosis and the families of employees who have died
from the diseases are eligible to join a suit, which may amount to
as many as half a million people, Mr. Mojapelo said.  The action
would sue 32 mining companies for damages caused by unsafe working
practices, lawyers for the applicants say.

Silicosis, a lung disease caused by inhaling dust from mines,
causes scar tissue in the organs, increasing vulnerability to
tuberculosis that can kill more than half of sufferers if not
properly treated.

Claims Settled

In a separate case settled in March, Anglo American Plc's South
African unit and AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. agreed to pay about 500
million rand ($33 million) to 4,365 former employees who said they
contracted dust-related lung diseases while working for the
companies.  That amounts to about 115,000 rand per person.

Under a scenario where 500,000 applicants for the class-action
suit won the same amount of compensation, the mining companies
would have to pay about 57.5 billion rand, or $3.8 billion.

The mining companies, which include Anglo American South Africa,
AngloGold, Sibanye Gold Ltd., African Rainbow Minerals Ltd., Gold
Fields Ltd. and Harmony Gold Mining Co., are studying the judgment
and are pursuing an out-of-court settlement, said Alan Fine, a
spokesman for the producers.

They "will decide individually whether to appeal," he said.  The
companies want "a comprehensive solution that is both fair to
past, present and future gold-mining employees, and also
sustainable for the sector," they said in a statement.

The next step for the applicants is to notify former mineworkers -
- many of whom are from rural areas of South Africa and
neighboring countries such as Mozambique -- of the case and
establish the size of the class, according to Georgina Jephson, a
lawyer for Richard Spoor Attorneys who's working on the case. That
may take as long as two years, she said.


ANGLO AMERICAN: Mineworkers' Lawyer Welcomes Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Mabuza, writing for Times LIVE, reports that a lawyer for
mineworkers suffering from diseases contracted at the mines
welcomed the judgment on May 13 which certified a class action by
mineworkers against gold mining companies in South Africa.

The Johannesburg court certified the class action brought by 69
workers against companies operating in the gold mining industry.

Few class actions have been brought in South Africa and none filed
for sick workers.

The mineworkers were represented by Richard Spoor Incorporated,
Abrahams Kiewitz Incorporated and the Legal Resources Centre
(LRC).

On May 13, the court granted certification for current and former
mineworkers who have contracted silicosis, as well as the
dependents of mineworkers who died of silicosis, who worked for
two years or more on one or more of the 82 mines owned by the
companies.

The court also granted certification for current and former
mineworkers who have tuberculosis, but who do not have silicosis,
and the dependents of miners who died of tuberculosis.

Certifying the class means that litigation may continue to the
phase which includes discovery and preparing for trial.

Mthobeli Gangatha, one of people who have been diagnosed with
silicosis, welcomed the judgment.

"As miners we were not helped and protected even though our
employers knew that we were going to get sick," said the former
gold mine worker, who lives in Lusikisiki in the Eastern Cape.  "I
am happy and relieved that the court's decision is in our favor

Mr. Spoor said a pervasive culture had existed for decades in the
mining industry that viewed these miners as disposable.

"It has been a privilege to represent them and offer a voice to
thousands who have never had one and who have been ignored by
society," Mr. Spoor said.

Charles Abrahams said the court decision was a crucial step in the
path to justice for potentially hundreds of thousands of mine
workers and the families of deceased mine workers who contracted
silicosis and TB as a result of their employment in poorly
maintained working environments of South Africa's gold mining
industry.

The LRC's Sayi Nindi-Thsiani said the organisation had been
involved in litigation since 2004 in the hope of obtaining
compensation for all sick gold miners and their families.

"Mining companies must pay for failing to protect mineworkers
against excessive levels of dust and the concomitant risks of
silicosis and tuberculosis.

"This judgment is a step in the right direction," Mr.
Nindi-Thsiani said.


ANTHEM, INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Demutualization
----------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is
defending a certified class action filed as a result of the 2001
demutualization of Anthem Insurance.

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

"A trial on liability was held in October 2014. In June 2015, the
court entered judgment for Anthem Insurance on all issues, finding
that (1) Anthem Insurance correctly determined the State of
Connecticut to be an ESM, not Plaintiffs; (2) Anthem Insurance
acted in good faith in making this determination, while Plaintiffs
failed to present sufficient evidence to override a presumption
that Anthem Insurance's ESM determination was correct; and (3)
Plaintiffs failed to prove the breach of any contractual
obligation.

"In July 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
judgment entered for Anthem Insurance. In December 2015, the
Connecticut Supreme Court decided it would hear the appeal
directly rather than the appeal going to the intermediate
appellate court. A date for argument has not been set. We intend
to vigorously seek the affirmation of the trial court's judgment;
however, the suit's ultimate outcome cannot be presently
determined."


ANTHEM, INC: 11 Actions Over OON Reimbursement Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is
currently a defendant in eleven putative class actions relating to
out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement that were consolidated into
a single multi-district lawsuit called In re WellPoint, Inc.
(n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation that is
pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.

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

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

"The only claims that remain after the court's decision are an
ERISA benefits claim relating to claims priced based on Ingenix, a
breach of contract claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, a
breach of implied covenant claim on behalf of one subscriber
plaintiff, and one subscriber plaintiff's claim under the
California Unfair Competition Law.

"The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the motion
to dismiss order, which the court granted in part and denied in
part. The court ruled that the plaintiffs adequately allege that
one Georgia provider plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted
administrative remedies regarding non-Ingenix methodologies based
on the facts alleged regarding that plaintiff. Fact discovery is
complete.

"The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November
2013 seeking six different classes. Following oral argument, the
court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
late 2014.

"The California subscriber plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a renewed motion for class certification with more narrowly
defined proposed classes, which the court denied. All but two of
the individually named subscribers and all of the providers and
medical associations dismissed their claims with prejudice.

"We filed a motion for summary judgment in March 2016. We intend
to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome
cannot be presently determined."


ANTHEM, INC: Still Defending Blue Cross Antitrust Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is a
defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed in 2012
against the BCBSA as well as Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield
licensees across the country. The cases were consolidated into a
single multi-district lawsuit called In re Blue Cross Blue Shield
Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have
engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally allocate geographic
markets through license agreements, best efforts rules (which
limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan),
restrictions on acquisitions and other arrangements in violation
of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. The cases
were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs,
health plan subscribers and providers. Subscriber and provider
plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints in July
2013.

The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was also brought on
behalf of putative state classes of health plan subscribers in
Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois,
Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,
and Texas.

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

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


ANTHEM, INC: Motion to Dismiss Cyber Attack Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's motion
to dismiss a second amended complaint filed in the litigation
related to a cyber attack incident remains pending.

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

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

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

"Although we are cooperating in these investigations, we may be
subject to fines or other obligations, which may have an adverse
effect on how we operate our business and our results of
operations. With respect to the civil actions, a motion to
transfer was filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation in February 2015 and was subsequently heard by the
Panel in May 2015.

"In June 2015, the Panel entered its order transferring the
consolidated matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. The U.S. District Court entered its case
management order in September 2015.

"We filed a motion to dismiss ten of the counts that are before
the U.S. District Court. In February 2016, the Court issued its
order granting in part and denying in part our motion, dismissing
three counts with prejudice, four counts without prejudice and
allowing three counts to proceed.

"Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in March 2016, and we
subsequently filed a second motion to dismiss. There remain a few
state court cases that are presently proceeding outside of the
Multidistrict Litigation.

"We have contingency plans and insurance coverage for certain
expenses and potential liabilities of this nature. The coverage
has been sufficient to cover the majority of claims and
liabilities incurred to date. While a loss from these matters is
reasonably possible, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of
possible losses because our investigation into the matter is
ongoing, the proceedings remain in the early stages, alleged
damages have not been specified, there is uncertainty as to the
likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the ultimate
size of any class if certified, and there are significant factual
and legal issues to be resolved."


APOLLO COMMERCIAL: To Defend Against Merger Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that
defendants intend to vigorously defend the lawsuits related to a
merger agreement.

On February 26, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Apollo Residential
Mortgage, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("AMTG"), and Arrow Merger
Sub, Inc., a Maryland corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
the Company (the "Merger Sub"), pursuant to which the Company will
acquire AMTG for an aggregate purchase price equal to 89.25% of
AMTG's book value as of a future determination date, plus the
assumption of $172,500 of AMTG's 8.0% Series A Cumulative
Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Stock (the "AMTG Preferred Stock").

After the announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement,
two putative class action lawsuits challenging the proposed
merger, captioned Aivasian v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc.,
et al., No. 24-C-16-001532 and Wiener v. Apollo Residential
Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001837, were filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on March 7 and March
21, 2016, respectively. The complaints name as defendants the
Company, Merger Sub, AMTG, the board of directors of AMTG (the
"AMTG Board"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC and allege, among
other things, that the members of the AMTG Board breached their
fiduciary duties to AMTG's stockholders. The complaints further
allege, among other things, that the proposed merger involves
inadequate consideration, was the result of an inadequate and
conflicted sales process, and includes unreasonable deal
protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers. The
complaints also allege that the Company, Merger Sub, and Apollo
Global Management, LLC aided and abetted those alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty. The complaints seek, among other things,
certification of the proposed class, declaratory relief,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including enjoining
or rescinding the mergers, unspecified damages, and an award of
other unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs.

On April 12, 2016, counsel for the parties filed with the Court a
stipulation and proposed order of consolidation and appointment of
interim lead counsel in both actions, which provides that
plaintiffs will file an amended complaint by April 20, 2016.

On April 20, 2016, counsel for the parties filed an amended
stipulation and proposed order, which provides that plaintiffs
will file an amended complaint by April 27, 2016. The defendants
believe that the claims asserted in the complaints are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuits.


APPLUS VELOSI: Employee Files Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for SE Texas Record, reports that a
welding and electrical inspector alleges his employer did not pay
him overtime wages and has filed a class-action suit.

David Erwin filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on April 21 in the Galveston Division of the Southern
District of Texas against Applus Velosi America LLC alleging
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he worked
for more than 40 hours per work week but did not receive any
overtime compensation.  The plaintiff holds Applus Velosi America
LLC responsible because the defendant allegedly misclassified its
employees in order to avoid paying them overtime compensation.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks overtime
compensation for all hours worked, liquidated damages equal to the
unpaid overtime wages, all legal fees and any other relief as this
court deems just.  He is represented by Galvin B. Kennedy of
Kennedy Hodges LLP in Houston.

Galveston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case number
3:16-cv-00105


ATCO STRUCTURES: "Griggs" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Griggs, Daniel Reyes, Cynthia Welch, Steven Crites, Joanne
Lewis, Shaina Funke and Linda Murray, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ATCO Structures
Logistics (USA) Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01331 (S.D.
Tex., May 11, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated
damages, interest and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees
for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, North Dakota
Century Code and North Dakota Minimum Wage and Work Conditions
Order.

ATCO is registered with the Texas Secretary of State as a Foreign
For-Profit Corporation with its United States Head Office at 1105
North Temple Drive, Diboll, Texas 75941. It provides workforce
housing and camp services to customers worldwide including the
Williston Lodge that houses workers in the Bakken oilfield in
North Dakota where Plaintiffs worked as cooks and claim to be
denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq.
     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
     155 2nd Street, Suite 4
     Jersey City, NJ 07302
     Tel: (201) 630-0000
     Fax: (855) 582-5297
     Email: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com
            jtb@jtblawgroup.com

           - and -

     Charles W. Branham, III, Esq.
     Corinna Chandler, Esq.
     DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP
     3900 Elm Street
     Dallas, TX 75226
     Tel: (214) 722-5990
     Fax: (214) 722-5991
     Email: tbranham@dobllp.com
            cchandler@dobllp.com


BALTIMORE, MA: Judge Tosses Maintenance Workers' Defamation Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Wenger, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that a
Baltimore Circuit Court judge on May 11 dismissed a defamation
case against women who alleged maintenance workers at public
housing units demanded sex before making repairs, according to the
women's attorney.

Lawyer Cary J. Hansel said Judge Shannon E. Avery threw out the
case in which two former Housing Authority of Baltimore City
handymen said they were wrongly fired based on false allegations
that a group of 17 women made for financial gain.

"The Circuit Court ruling stands in staunch support of these brave
women," Ms. Hansel said in a statement.  "We have full faith in
our clients and we are thrilled that the Court saw that the case
against them had absolutely no merit."

Kerrie A. Campbell, an attorney for the former maintenance men
Charles Coleman and Michael Robinson, said the men have not
decided what next step to take.  She said the case was dismissed,
not on the merits of their argument, but on a legal technicality.

"The dismissal has nothing to do with the facts of the case,"
Ms. Campbell said.

Messrs. Coleman and Robinson were seeking $6 million for
compensatory damages and $30 million from each of the defendants
for punitive damages.

Ms. Hansel said the dismissal of the case "helps to bring closure
to each of our clients."

The housing authority reached a settlement worth up to $8 million
in a class-action suit brought in September by the group of women.
The women said they were sexually abused or harassed by Mr.
Coleman, Mr. Robinson and other members of the maintenance staff
while living in Baltimore public housing complexes.

When the women did not comply with the demands, they say they were
exposed to unsafe living conditions, including lack of heat.

Mr. Coleman was hired by the housing authority in 2002 and worked
as a maintenance supervisor.  Mr. Robinson was hired in 1991 as a
maintenance mechanic.  The men claimed the women's allegations
cast them in a false light and intentionally inflicted emotional
distress.

The defamation case was filed in the city Circuit Court in late
January.  Messrs. Coleman and Robinson said the women wrongly
portrayed them "to be unprofessional and sexual predators."

As a result of the women's suit, the housing authority pledged to
make sweeping changes, including creating 50 more maintenance
positions and developing a plan to improve the housing complexes.
Coleman and Robinson were fired as a condition of the settlement.

Mr. Hansel said he is working with the housing authority to retain
a third-party administer in the class-action suit.  Other tenants
who say they, too, were sexually abused or harassed can join the
suit and share in the settlement.

Details on how additional tenants can join the suit are pending. A
notice on how they could do so might be provided as early as this
month.

"We are pressing to move things as quickly as possible,"
Mr. Hansel said.


BARCLAYS BANK: "Doherty" Sues Over TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Michael Doherty, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Barclays Bank Delaware, Defendant, Case
No. 3:16-cv-01131-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal., May 11, 2016), seeks
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant called cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff using
an autodialer without prior consent from the Plaintiff. The voice
over the phone called in to collect a credit card debt which the
Plaintiff denies was his.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas J. Campion, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION, APC
     17150 Via Del Campo, Suite 100
     San Diego, CA 92127
     Telephone: (619) 299-2091
     Facsimile: (619) 858-0034
     Email: Doug@DJCampion.com

           - and -

     Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
     Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY
     409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Telephone: (619) 222-7429
     Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
     Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com


BLITT & GAINES: Faces Class Action Over Wage Garnishments
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hadley, writing for Madison St. Clair Record, reports that
a Madison County woman has filed a class-action lawsuit against a
firm that allegedly collects wage garnishments after the
underlying actions have expired.

Vickie Lampkins filed the lawsuit May 5 in Madison County Circuit
Court against Blitt & Gaines P.C. and Credit Acceptance Corp.,
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
abuse of process and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, after an Oct. 31, 2005 ruling in
Madison County Circuit Court against Ms. Lampkins for $5,541,
Credit Acceptance Corp. requested garnishment of her wages to
settle the judgment.  Once the ruling became dormant and
unenforceable on Oct. 31, 2012, the suit says wage garnishment was
legally supposed to end.  However, the defendants continued
presenting garnishment requests to the plaintiff's employer,
allegedly in violation of the law.

Ms. Lampkins seeks punitive damages for herself and other class
members in excess of $50,000.  She is represented by attorney John
Sholar of Sholar Law in Alton.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Six Lawsuits Lodged in Pradaxa Docket
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following lawsuits were lodged in the Consolidated Pradaxa
Docket at the Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford on
April 29, 2016:

      (i) EDWARD AMMEEN, Plaintiff, vs. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AND BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL
GMBH, Defendant.

     (ii) ALEXANDRA BITTNER, INDIVIDUALLY, AS SURVIVING SPOUSE,
AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT BITTNER,
SR., Plaintiff, vs. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, Defendants.

    (iii) EMMA JOISE BLOCKER, Plaintiff, vs. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AND BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL
GmbH, Defendants.

     (iv) BETTY JEAN BOWERS, Plaintiff, vs. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL
GMBH, Defendants.

      (v) PLAINTIFF, BRIAN MOSS, AS SURVIVING CHILD AND PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF BILLY MOSS, DECEDENT,
Plaintiff, vs. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, Defendants.

     (vi) JEANETTE BRODEN, Plaintiff, vs. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AND BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL
GMBH, Defendants.

Boehringer and Boehringer International are in the business of
designing, licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling,
marketing the prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name
Pradaxa(R).

The Plaintiffs allege (1) Violation of Connecticut Product
Liability Act and (2) violation of Connecticut General Statute
against Defendants in relation to their:

   -- Over Promotion of Pradaxa(R)
   -- Failure to Warn of the Risks Associated with Pradaxa(R)
   -- Defective Design, Marketing, and Manufacturing of Pradaxa(R)
   -- Misrepresentations of the Risks Associated with Pradaxa(R)
   -- Concealment of Pradaxa(R) Claims from Plaintiff; and
   -- Resulting Injuries from the Use of Pradaxa(R)

Thus, the Plaintiffs pray for a trial by jury where the following
relief will be awarded: Judgment be entered against all Defendants
on all causes of action of this Complaint; Compensatory damages;
Punitive damages; Costs; and Such other relief the Court deems as
just and appropriate.

Plaintiff Edward Ammeen is represented by:

     Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
     URY & MOSKOW, LLC
     833 Black Rock Turnpike
     Fairfield, CT 06825
     Phone: 203-610-6393
     Fax: 203-610-6399
     E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

        - and -

     Russell T. Abney, Esq.
     FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
     2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
     Atlanta, GA 30328
     Phone: 800-521-4492
     Fax: 214-526-6026
     E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com

Plaintiff ALEXANDRA BITTNER is represented by:

     Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
     URY & MOSKOW, LLC
     833 Black Rock Turnpike
     Fairfield, CT 06825
     Phone: 203-610-6393
     Fax: 203-610-6399
     E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

        - and -

     C. Andrew Childers
     CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH, LLC
     1932 N. Druid Hills Road, Suite 100
     Atlanta, GA 30319
     Phone: 404-419-9500
     Fax: 404-419-9501
     E-mail: achilders@cssfirm.com

Plaintiff EMMA JOISE BLOCKER is represented by:

     Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
     URY & MOSKOW, LLC
     833 Black Rock Turnpike
     Fairfield, CT 06825
     Phone: 203-610-6393
     Fax: 203-610-6399
     E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

        - and -

     Russell T. Abney, Esq.
     FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
     2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
     Atlanta, GA 30328
     Phone: 800-521-4492
     Fax: 214-526-6026
     E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com

Plaintiff BETTY JEAN BOWERS is represented by:

     Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
     URY & MOSKOW, LLC
     833 Black Rock Turnpike
     Fairfield, CT 06825
     Phone: 203-610-6393
     Fax: 203-610-6399
     E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

        - and -

     C. Andrew Childers
     CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH, LLC
     1932 N. Druid Hills Road, Suite 100
     Atlanta, GA 30319
     Phone: 404-419-9500
     Fax: 404-419-9501
     E-mail: achilders@cssfirm.com

Plaintiff BRIAN MOSS is represented by:

     Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
     URY & MOSKOW, LLC
     833 Black Rock Turnpike
     Fairfield, CT 06825
     Phone: 203-610-6393
     Fax: 203-610-6399
     E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

        - and -

     Russell T. Abney, Esq.
     FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
     2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
     Atlanta, GA 30328
     Phone: 800-521-4492
     Fax: 214-526-6026
     E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com

Plaintiff JEANETTE BRODEN is represented by:

     Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
     URY & MOSKOW, LLC
     833 Black Rock Turnpike
     Fairfield, CT 06825
     Phone: 203-610-6393
     Fax: 203-610-6399
     E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

        - and -

     Russell T. Abney, Esq.
     FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
     2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
     Atlanta, GA 30328
     Phone: 800-521-4492
     Fax: 214-526-6026
     E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com


BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Company and Officers Face New York Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brixmor Property Group Inc. and Brixmor Operating Partnership LP
said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that the Company and the former officers on
March 31, 2016, were named as defendants in a putative securities
class action complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"). The
complaint, captioned Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway
Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds v. Brixmor Property Group Inc., et
al. (Case No. 16-CV-02400 (AT), asserts violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
the facts described in the Company's February 8, 2016 press
release and Form 8-K. Additional securities class action
complaints alleging the same or similar facts may be filed in the
near future, and the Company expects that all such cases will be
consolidated with the existing action pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Company believes it
has valid defenses in this action and intends to vigorously defend
itself.

Brixmor Property Group Inc. engages in the ownership, management,
leasing, acquisition and development of retail shopping centers.


BUCKEYE INC: "Cook" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
John Perry Cook, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Buckeye, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00424-LAM-GJF (D.N.M., May 11, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Cook was employed by Buckeye as a mud engineer. He claims to have
worked in excess of forty hours a week without receiving any
overtime compensation. Buckeye is an oilfield services company
doing business in New Mexico and Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Milad K. Farah, Esq.
     GUERRA & FARAH, PLLC
     1231 E Missouri Ave.
     El Paso, TX 79902
     Tel: (915) 533-0880
     Fax: (915) 533-1155
     Email: mkf@gflawoffices.com

           - and -

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

           - and -

     Richard J. Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8. Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel. 713-877-8788
     Fax. 713-877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


CABLEVISION: Begins Payouts in Set-Top Box Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Frankel, writing for FierceCable, reports that following
six years of litigation in which class-actioners successfully sued
Cablevision over their anti-trust claim that the MSO restricts
them from using cheaper third-party set-top boxes, the payouts
have finally begun.

And let's just say nobody's getting rich except -- of course --
the lawyers.

Current Cablevision customers who leased a set-top from the MSO
between April 30, 2004 and March 9, 2016 can receive service
credits valued at $50 to $140 or a one-time bill credit ranging
from $20 to $40.  Former customers who leased a box during the
eligibility window can receive a one-time cash benefit of $20 to
$40.

The settlement, which was announced in December, more than a month
before the FCC announced its "Unlock the Box" proposal, also
obligates Cablevision to open its systems to certain third-party
set-top box providers.  It's unclear as to how this mandate
proceeds, given the regulatory backdrop and the purchase of
Cablevision by Altice NV.

Cablevision also agreed to pay $9.5 million in attorneys' fees for
the six-year-old anti-trust case that involves Cablevision
customers in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.


CARESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Wilkes and Benjamin Wilkes, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Caresource Management Group Co.,
and Caresource Indiana, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00038-RL-PRC (N.D.
Ind., May 11, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message
without prior express consent of the called party.

The Defendants operate a nonprofit managed health care plan
headquartered in Dayton, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric S. Pavlack
      PAVLACK LAW, LLC
      255 N. Alabama St., Ste. 301
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 251-1100
      E-mail: Eric@PavlackLawFirm.com

         - and -

      James R. Schrier, Esq.
      REILING TEDER & SCHRIER, LLC
      Renaissance Place, Sixth Floor
      250 Main Street, Suite 601
      P.O. Box 280
      Lafayette, IN  47902-0280
      Telephone: (765) 423-5333
      E-mail: jrs@rtslawfirm.com

         - and -

      Jason R. Reese, Esq.
      Stephen M. Wagner, Esq.
      WAGNER REESE LLP
      11939 North Meridian Street
      Carmel, IN 46032
      Telephone: (317) 569-0000
      E-mail: JReese@wagnerreese.com
              SWagner@wagnerreese.com


CARMAX INC: Claims Remain in "Fowler" Case in California
--------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended February 29, 2016, that there are remaining
claims in the consolidated class action lawsuit by John Fowler.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax
Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.  Subsequently, two other
lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case.

The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to
provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2)
failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related
to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime;
(4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
provisions; (5) unfair competition; and (6) California's Labor
Code Private Attorney General Act.  The putative class consisted
of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees
who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to
the present.

On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with
respect to the sales manager putative class.  On June 16, 2009,
the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to comply
with the itemized employee wage statement provisions.  The court
also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with regard
to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales
consultant putative class.

The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales
consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and
rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay
wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest
breaks; (3) unfair competition; and (4) California's Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act.

On November 21, 2011, the court granted CarMax's motion to compel
the plaintiffs' remaining claims into arbitration on an individual
basis.  The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling and on March
26, 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial
court's order granting CarMax's motion to compel arbitration.

On October 8, 2013, CarMax filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari seeking review in the United States Supreme Court.  On
February 24, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted
CarMax's petition for certiorari, vacated the California Court of
Appeal decision and remanded the case to the California Court of
Appeal for further consideration.  The California Court of Appeal
determined that the plaintiffs' Labor Code Private Attorney
General Act claim is not subject to arbitration, but the remaining
claims are subject to arbitration on an individual basis.  CarMax
appealed this decision with respect to the Private Attorney
General Act claim on March 9, 2015 by filing a petition for review
with the California Supreme Court.

On April 22, 2015, the California Supreme Court denied the
petition for review. On August 20, 2015, CarMax filed a petition
for a writ of certiorari seeking review in the United States
Supreme Court, which was denied.

On March 30, 2016, the remaining claims asserted by Fowler were
settled for an immaterial amount. The non-Private Attorney General
Act claims asserted by Areso are subject to arbitration. Areso's
Private Attorney General Act claim is stayed in the California
state court, pending arbitration. Once the stay is removed, the
Private Attorney General Act claim, now asserted solely by Areso,
may proceed in the California state court. The Areso lawsuit seeks
compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and
statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the
recovery of attorneys' fees.

"We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or
range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in
this matter," the Company said.


CASHLESS PAYMENTS: Bid to Certify "Able Home" Class Stricken
------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 18, 2016, in the case entitled
Able Home Health, LLC v. Cashless Payments, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-04461 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan.

The minute entry states that:

   -- a status hearing was held and continued to June 22, 2016,
      at 9:00 a.m.;

   -- Defendants' request for extension of time to answer or
      otherwise plead is granted to and including June 17, 2016;
      and

   -- as stated on the record, the Plaintiff's motion for class
      certification is stricken without prejudice to reinstate a
      later date.  The Plaintiff has preserved its right.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2gYG7R57


CASSWAY CONTRACTING: Faces "Redwood" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Redwood and Eduardo Redwood,on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Cassway Contracting Corp., JS & JR
Construction Corp., James Cassidy, Jose Luis Suarez, and Jackson
Ramone, Case No. 1:16-cv-03502 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cassway Contracting Corp. operates a carpentry construction
company based out of New York.

JS & JR Construction Corp. is a New York corporation that provides
subcontracting services to Cassway.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER, & KIRSCHENBAUM
      233 Broadway, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640x2548
      Facsimile: (212) 688-5639
      E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com


CATALINA CHANNEL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Workers Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monte Beard and Rigoberto Rosales, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc. and
Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. BC620021 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide
employees with meal periods and rest breaks.

Catalina Channel Express, Inc. operates a business that provides
ferry service to customers in Long Beach, Dana Point, San Pedro,
and Catalina Island areas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip Monrad, Esq.
      LEONARD CARDER, LLP
      1330 Broadway, Suite 1450
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 272-0169
      Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
      E-mail: pmonrad@leonardcarder.com


CATHOLIC HEALTH: "Chavies" Sues Over Under-funded Pension Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albert R. Chavies and Thomas Holland, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
on behalf of the Catholic Health East Plans, Plaintiffs, v.
Catholic Health East, Anthony Camaratto, Clayton Fitzhugh and John
and Jane Does 1-20, Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01417-PJM (E.D.
Pa,., March 28, 2016) has been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland.

Plaintiffs participated in the pension plan maintained by the
Defendant. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant violated
reporting and disclosure provisions, minimum funding requirements
and trust requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

Catholic Health East is a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation
operating in 11 states. It owns and operates hospitals, health
care facilities, health/hospice agencies, assisted living
facilities, continuing care retirement communities, behavioral
health and rehabilitation facilities and numerous ambulatory and
community based health services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

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

           - and -

      Casey Preston, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLER & TOLL PLLC
      1717 Arch Street, Suite 3610
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Phone: 267-479-5700
      Fax: 267-479-5701
      Email: cpreston@cohenmilstein.com

           - and -

      Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
      Bruce F. Rinaldi, Esq.
      Monya M. Bunch, Esq.
      Matthew A. Smith, Esq.
      1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
      Suite 500, West Tower
      Washington, D.C. 20005
      Tel: (202) 408-4600
      Fax: (202) 408-4699
      Email: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com
             mbunch@cohenmilstein.com
             brinaldi@cohenmilstein.com
             msmith@cohenmilstein.com


CEMEX SAB: Unit Still Faces Homeowner's Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a unit of the Company
continues to defend a class action lawsuit filed by a homeowner.

On June 21, 2012, one of CEMEX's subsidiaries in Israel was
notified about an application for the approval of a class action
suit against it. The application, filed by a homeowner who built
his house with concrete supplied by CEMEX in October of 2010 (same
application was filed against three other companies by the same
legal representative), claims that the concrete supplied to him
did not meet with the Israeli ready-mix strength standard
requirements and that as a result CEMEX acted unlawfully toward
all of its customers who received concrete that did not comply
with such standard requirements. As per the application, the
plaintiff claims that the supply of the alleged non-conforming
concrete has caused financial and non-financial damages to those
customers, including the plaintiff. CEMEX presumes that the class
action would represent the claim of all the clients who purchased
the alleged non-conforming concrete from its subsidiary in Israel
during the past 7 years, the limitation period according to
applicable laws in Israel. The damages that could be sought amount
and equivalent to approximately US$71 (Ps1,223). CEMEX's
subsidiary submitted a formal response to the corresponding court.
The applicant requested the court to join all claims brought by
him.

In a hearing held on December 20, 2015, the preliminary proceeding
was completed and the court set dates for hearing evidence on May
8, 10 and 16, 2016. Moreover, the court decided to join together
all claims against all four companies, including CEMEX's
subsidiary in Israel, in order to simplify and shorten court
proceedings, however, the court has not formally decided to join
together all claims.

As of December 31, 2015, CEMEX's subsidiary in Israel is not able
to assess the likelihood of the class action application being
approved or, if approved, of an adverse result, such as an award
for damages in the full amount that could be sought, but if
adversely resolved CEMEX does not believe that the final
resolutions would have a material adverse impact on its results of
operations, liquidity or financial condition.


CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Hampton Seeks Certification of Two Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order determining that
the action styled NIKYAMICHA HAMPTON and MARQUINE S. WILLIAMS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-04693 (N.D.
Ill.), alleging violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, be certified as a
class action.  The Plaintiffs define the classes to be certified
as:

     All persons who worked for Defendant as telephone dedicated
     employees, however titled, who were compensated, in part or
     in full, on an hourly basis in Illinois at any time between
     April 27, 2013 and the present who did not receive the full
     amount of overtime wages earned and owed to them (the "IMWL
     Class").

     All persons who worked for Defendant as telephone dedicated
     employees, however titled, who were compensated, in part or
     in full, on an hourly basis in Illinois at any time between
     April 27, 2006 and the present whose hourly rate exceeded
     the applicable Illinois minimum wage and who did not receive
     the full amount of wages earned and owed to them (herein the
     "IWPCA Class").

The Plaintiffs further ask that their counsel be appointed counsel
for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ubp6YFHn

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575

               - and -

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 726-3400
          E-mail: tom@tomryanlaw.com


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Livonia Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the City of
Livonia plaintiff has amended its complaint related to the
Company's merger with Talmer Bancorp, Inc., to add additional
factual allegations.

On January 25, 2016, the Corporation entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Talmer Bancorp, Inc.

On February 22, 2016, two putative class action and derivative
complaints were filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County,
Michigan by individuals purporting to be a shareholder of Talmer.
The actions are styled Regina Gertel Lee v. Chemical Financial
Corporation, et. al., Case No. 2016-151642-CB and City of Livonia
Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical Financial Corporation et.
al., Case No. 2016-151641-CB.

These complaints purport to be brought derivatively on behalf of
Talmer against the individual defendants, and individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated against Talmer and
Chemical. The complaints allege, among other things, that the
directors of Talmer breached their fiduciary duties to Talmer's
shareholders in connection with the merger by approving a
transaction pursuant to an allegedly inadequate process that
undervalues Talmer and includes preclusive deal protection
provisions, and that Chemical allegedly aided and abetted the
Talmer directors in breaching their duties to Talmer's
shareholders. The complaints also allege that the individual
defendants have been unjustly enriched.

Both complaints seek various remedies on behalf of the putative
class (consisting of all shareholders of Talmer who are not
related to or affiliated with any defendant). They request, among
other things, that the Court enjoin the merger from being
consummated in accordance with its agreed-upon terms, direct the
Talmer directors to exercise their fiduciary duties, rescind the
merger agreement to the extent that it is already implemented,
award the plaintiff all costs and disbursements in each respective
action (including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees), and
grant such further relief as the court deems just and proper.

The City of Livonia plaintiff amended its complaint on April 21,
2016 to add additional factual allegations, including but not
limited to allegations that Keefe Bruyette & Woods, Inc. served as
a financial advisor for the proposed merger despite an alleged
conflict of interest, that Talmer's board acted under actual or
potential conflicts of interest, and that the defendants omitted
and/or misrepresented material information about the proposed
merger in the Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the
proposed merger.

Talmer, Chemical and the individual defendants all believe that
the claims asserted against each of them in the lawsuits are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits.


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: "Bushansky" Lawsuit Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the "Bushansky"
lawsuit has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff as to all
defendants.

On January 25, 2016, the Corporation entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Talmer Bancorp, Inc.

On March 22, 2016, a putative class action and derivative
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County,
Michigan, by an individual purporting to be a shareholder of
Talmer, styled Stephen Bushansky v. Gary Torgow et. al. Case No.
2016-152112-CB. This action contained similar allegations, claims,
and requests for relief as the complaints filed in the Lee and
City of Livonia lawsuits. The Bushansky lawsuit was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff as to all defendants, without
prejudice, on April 18, 2016.


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Defending "Sciabacucchi" Action in Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is
defending against the lawsuit by Matthew Sciabacucchi related to
the merger with Talmer Bancorp, Inc.

On January 25, 2016, the Corporation entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Talmer Bancorp, Inc.

On April 6, 2016, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by another
purported shareholder of Talmer, styled Matthew Sciabacucchi v.
Chemical Financial Corporation et. al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-11261.
Mr. Sciabacucchi purports to bring this action "on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated." This lawsuit alleges
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, naming Talmer, Chemical, and several individuals as
defendants.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendants
issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the
Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the proposed merger.
The Complaint contains requests for relief that include, among
other things, that the Court enjoin the proposed transaction,
rescind the transaction if it is consummated or award rescissory
damages, order the Talmer directors to file a revised Registration
Statement, declare that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a)
and/or Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, as well as
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, award the plaintiff all costs
associated with bringing the action (including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees), and grant such further relief as
the court deems just and proper.

Talmer, Chemical and the individual defendants all believe that
the claims asserted against each of them in this lawsuit are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against this
lawsuit.


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Nicholl" Suit in E.D. Mich.
------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is
defending against the action by Kevin Nicholl related to the
Company's merger with Talmer Bancorp, Inc.

On January 25, 2016, the Corporation entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Talmer Bancorp, Inc.

On April 25, 2016, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by another
purported shareholder of Talmer, styled Kevin Nicholl v. Chemical
Financial Corporation et. al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-11482. The
plaintiff names Talmer, Chemical, and several individuals as
defendants. This lawsuit is styled as a class action and
derivative action, and alleges breach of fiduciary duties as well
as violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties as
directors of Talmer by, among other things, entering into the
proposed merger under various alleged conflicts of interest
without regard to the fairness of the transaction to Talmer's
shareholders, using a flawed process in entering into the proposed
merger that failed to maximize value for Talmer shareholders, and
knowingly or recklessly attempting to unfairly deprive the Talmer
shareholders of the true value of their investment in Talmer. The
Complaint further alleges that the individual defendants issued
materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Form S-4
Registration Statement relating to the proposed merger, in
violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and/or
were control persons liable for these alleged violations under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

The Complaint alleges that Chemical aided and abetted the alleged
wrongdoing of the individual defendants, as described in the
Complaint. The Complaint contains requests for relief that
include, among other things, that the Court certify the action as
a class and derivative action, declare that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in entering into the
transaction, direct the individual defendants to comply with their
fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction in the best interest of
Talmer's shareholders, enjoin the proposed transaction unless an
appropriate procedure or process is implemented to provide the
best terms to Talmer's shareholders, rescind the transaction if it
is consummated, award the plaintiff the costs and disbursements of
the action (including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees),
and grant such further equitable relief as the court deems just
and proper.

Talmer, Chemical and the individual defendants all believe that
the claims asserted against each of them in this lawsuit are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against this
lawsuit.


CHEVIOT FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in MainSource Merger Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Cheviot Financial Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, that a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") has been reached regarding
the settlement of certain litigation relating to the Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of November 23,
2015, between Cheviot Financial Corp. ("Cheviot") and MainSource
Financial Group, Inc. ("MainSource"), pursuant to which Cheviot
would be merged with and into MainSource, with MainSource as the
surviving entity (the "Merger").

The MOU relates to two putative class action lawsuits filed in the
Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton, Ohio, Civil Division, challenging
the proposed merger and naming as defendants Cheviot, its
directors, and MainSource (collectively, the "defendants"). These
actions are captioned: (1) Raymond J. Neiheisel v. Cheviot
Financial Corp., et al., Case No. A1600359 (filed January 15,
2016); and (2) Stephen Bushansky v. Steven Hausfeld, et al., Case
No. A1600936 (filed February 16, 2016) (together, the "Actions").
On February 29, 2016, each plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
On March 24, 2016, the court consolidated the actions under
Raymond J. Neiheisel v. Cheviot Financial Corp., et al., Case No.
A1600359 (collectively, the "Actions"). The amended consolidated
complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of
Cheviot breached their fiduciary duties of due care, independence,
good faith and fair dealing to the stockholders of Cheviot, that
the consideration to be received by the stockholders is inadequate
and undervalues Cheviot, 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 Cheviot, that the deal protection
devices unreasonably inhibit the ability of the directors of
Cheviot to act with respect to investigating and pursuing superior
proposals and alternatives and that the Merger Agreement involves
conflicts of interest. The complaint further alleges that Cheviot
and MainSource aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty by the directors of Cheviot. The amended consolidated
complaint also alleges that the registration statement on Form S-
4, initially filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") on February 11, 2016 in connection with the Merger,
provides materially misleading and incomplete information
rendering the stockholders of Cheviot unable to make an informed
decision with respect to the Merger.

On April 21, 2016, defendants and lead plaintiffs entered into the
MOU, which provides for the settlement of the Actions. The MOU
contemplates, among other things, that Cheviot will make certain
supplemental disclosures relating to the merger. Although the
defendants deny the allegations made in the Actions (including the
amended consolidated complaint) and believe that no supplemental
disclosure is required under applicable laws, in order to avoid
the burden and expense of further litigation, Cheviot agreed to
make such supplemental disclosures pursuant to the terms of the
MOU.

The settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to confirmatory
discovery and customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Cheviot's stockholders. A hearing will be
scheduled at which the Court of Common Pleas will consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the
settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and
release all claims by stockholders of Cheviot challenging any
aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure
made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be
disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the court will approve
the settlement contemplated by the MOU. If the court does not
approve the settlement, or if the settlement is otherwise
disallowed, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may
be terminated. The proposed settlement will not affect the amount
of the merger consideration that Cheviot's stockholders are
entitled to receive in the Merger.


CHINA FINANCE: Mediation Session Scheduled for Late May 2016
------------------------------------------------------------
China Finance Online Co. Limited said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that  a
mediation session is scheduled for late May 2016 in a securities
class action.

The Company is named as a defendant in a putative securities class
action, Wang, et al., v. China Finance Online Co. Limited, 1:15-
cv-07894-RMB. The original complaint was filed on June 5, 2015 in
the Central District of California. The case was subsequently
consolidated with several other similar actions and transferred to
the Southern District of New York, where it is currently pending.
The amended consolidated complaint alleges that the Company
violated Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by failing to
disclose certain of its transactions involving Langfang Shengshi
Real Estate Development Co. Limited as related party transactions.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 8,
2016. Plaintiffs' response was due on May 6, 2016 and the
Company's reply on May 13, 2016.

The amended consolidated complaint also made claims under Exchange
Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against certain of the Company's
current officers and its current and former auditors and under
Exchange Act Section 20(a) against certain of its current officers
and former directors. The Company and plaintiffs have agreed to
submit the claims against the Company to mediation. To facilitate
that effort, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all defendants
other than the Company. A mediation session is scheduled for late
May 2016.


CHINACACHE INTERNATIONAL: Filed First Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
27, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company has filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint
in a shareholder lawsuit.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in a putative shareholder
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California filed on October 9, 2015. The
Company said, "the action -- purportedly brought on behalf of a
class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of
their trading activities related to our ADSs from March 27, 2015
to August 20, 2015 -- alleges that certain of our statements in
press releases, quarterly earnings calls, and an SEC filing
contained misstatements or omissions related to our High
Performance Cloud Cache platform and asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act."

"On January 5, 2016, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel.  On
February 19, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint. On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the First Amended Complaint."

As the action remains in its preliminary stages, the Company's
management is unable to express any opinion on the likelihood of
an unfavorable outcome or any estimate of the amount or range of
any potential loss.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: To Defend Against "Ong" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company
intends to defend Susie Ong shareholder class action.

On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of shares of the Company's common
stock between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016.  The complaint
purports to state claims against the Company, each of its co-Chief
Executive Officers and its Chief Financial Officer under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and related rules, based on
the Company's alleged failure during the claimed class period to
disclose material information about the Company's quality controls
and safeguards in relation to consumer and employee health. The
complaint asserts that those failures and related public
statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the
market price of the Company's stock was artificially inflated
during the claimed class period. The complaint seeks damages on
behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest,
and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other
costs.

The Company intends to defend this case vigorously, but it is not
possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any
potential liability from the case.


CHRYSLER: Recalls Jeep Grand Cherokee 2016 Models
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 27, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 2095
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016188TC
ID number: 2016188
Manufacturer recall number: S28

On certain vehicles, there may be an incorrect crimp on the wire
harness terminal of the brake transmission shift interlock (BTSI)
solenoid. This could result in a loss of solenoid function, which
could cause the transmission to lock in the Park or Neutral gear
without warning when the vehicle comes to a stop. Depending on the
driver's reactions and traffic conditions, this could increase the
risk of a crash resulting in injury and/or damage to property.
Correction: Dealers will replace the gear shifter assembly.

  Make       Model             Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----             ----------------------
  JEEP       GRAND CHEROKEE    2016


CHRYSLER: Recalls 150 Units of RAM Promaster 2014, 2015 Trucks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 27, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 150
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016187TC
ID number: 2016187
Manufacturer recall number: S22

Certain vehicles equipped with a trailer tow lighting control
module may not comply with the requirements of Canada Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and Retroreflective
Devices. The trailer tow lighting control module may contain a
software error that may result in inoperative trailer brake lights
after the first actuation of the brakes, which is contrary to the
standard. Towing a trailer with inoperative brake lights may
increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will replace the Trailer Tow Light
Control Module.

  Make       Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----        ----------------------
  RAM        PROMASTER    2014, 2015


CHRYSLER: Recalls 9,022 Units of RAM Promaster 2014, 2015 Trucks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 29, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Service Campaign
Mfr System: Lights And Instruments
Units affected: 9022
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016193TC
ID number: 2016193
Manufacturer recall number: S29

A safety defect may exist in some aftermarket Trailer Tow Light
Control Modules supplied by Mopar as a service replacement part.
The trailer tow lighting control module may contain a software
error that may result in inoperative trailer brake lights after
the first actuation of the brakes. Towing a trailer with
inoperative brake lights may increase the risk of a crash causing
injury and/or damage to property. Correction: FCA Canada will
notify owners who may have a suspect Trailer Tow Kit, and replace
the Trailer Tow Light Control Module if required.

  Make       Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----        ----------------------
  RAM        PROMASTER    2014, 2015


DELTA AIR: Lopez Seeks Certification of Class of LAX Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled REYNALDO LOPEZ, an
individual; EUNICE DELGADILLO, an individual; UMBERTO MENDOZA, an
individual; AVEIA TAUTOLO, an individual; and LADONA NARR, an
individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., a Georgia corporation; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-07302-SVW-SS (C.D.
Cal.), asks the Court to certify this class:

     all persons employed by Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc., as
     non-exempt employees in Departments 120 and 125 at Los
     Angeles International Airport ("LAX") at any time from
     July 1, 2011 through the date of the order granting class
     certification.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to certify these nine
subclasses:

     1. Meal Period Subclass A: All persons employed by Delta as
        non-exempt employees in Departments 120 and 125 at LAX at
        any time from July 1, 2011 until the date of the order
        granting class certification, who worked at least one
        shift over 5 hours;

     2. Meal Period Subclass B: All persons employed by Delta as
        non-exempt employees in Departments 120 and 125 at LAX at
        any time from July 1, 2011 until the date of the order
        granting class certification, who worked at least one
        shift over 10 hours;

     3. Rest Period Subclass: All persons employed by Delta as
        non-exempt employees in Departments 120 and 125 at LAX at
        any time from July 1, 2011 until the date of the order
        granting class certification, who worked at least one
        shift over 3.5 hours;

     4. UCL Subclass: All persons employed by Delta as non-exempt
        employees in Departments 120 and 125 at LAX at any time
        from July 1, 2011 until the date of the order granting
        class certification;

     5. Minimum Wage Subclass: All persons employed by Delta as
        non-exempt employees in Departments 120 and 125 at LAX at
        any time from July 1, 2011 until the date of the order
        granting class certification, who were not paid for all
        time they were clocked in, as indicated in Delta's time
        and pay records;

     6. Overtime Subclass: All persons employed by Delta as
        non-exempt employees in Departments 120 and 125 at LAX at
        any time from July 1, 2011 until the date of the order
        granting class certification, who worked over 8 hours in
        any day and/or over 40 hours in any work week and were
        not paid overtime compensation for all time they were
        clocked in, as indicated by Delta's time and pay records;

     7. Regular Rate Subclass: All persons employed by Delta as
        non-exempt employees in Departments 120 and 125 at LAX at
        any time from July 1, 2011 until the date of the order
        granting class certification, who were paid a shift
        differential and/or non-discretionary bonus during one or
        more pay periods in which they were also paid overtime;

     8. Reimbursement Subclass: All persons employed by Delta as
        non-exempt employees in Departments 120 and 125 at LAX at
        any time from July 1, 2011 until the date of the order
        granting class certification, who paid for uniform items,
        had to use their personal cell phone for work related
        purposes, and were not reimbursed by Delta for such
        costs; and

     9. Wage Statement Subclass: All persons employed by Delta as
        non-exempt employees in Departments 120 and125 at LAX at
        any time from July 1, 2011 until the date of the order
        granting class certification, who were issued wage
        statements that did not accurately show all applicable
        hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the
        corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate
        by the employee.

In the event the Court finds the class or any of the subclasses
suitable for class treatment, the Plaintiffs also seek
certification of these derivative claims: (a) failure to pay all
wages due to discharged and quitting employees; (b) failure to
maintain required records; (c) failure to furnish accurate,
itemized wage statements; and (d) unfair business practices.  The
Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint them as
representatives of the class and appoint Matern Law Group as Class
Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on August 1, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=x491uwH6

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Dalia R. Khalili, Esq.
          Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
          Serena M. Patel, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP
          1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  dkhalili@maternlawgroup.com
                  mgordon@maternlawgroup.com
                  spatel@maternlawgroup.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 12 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft
shareholders ("Deutsche Bank" or the "Company") and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 16-cv-
03539, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Deutsche Bank
securities between April 15, 2013 and April 29, 2016 inclusive
(the "Class Period").  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Deutsche Bank securities
during the Class Period, you have until July 11, 2016 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Deutsche Bank provides investment, financial, and related products
and services worldwide.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Deutsche Bank has serious and
systemic failings in its controls against financing terrorism,
money laundering, aiding against international sanctions, and
committing financial crimes; (2) Deutsche Bank's internal control
over financial reporting and its disclosure controls and
procedures were not effective; and (3) as a result, Deutsche
Bank's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On July 22, 2014, The Wall Street Journal published an article
entitled "Deutsche Bank Suffers From Litany of Reporting Problems,
Regulators Said", stating that the Federal Reserve Bank of New
York found that the Company's U.S. operations suffered from a
litany of serious financial-reporting problems that the Company
had known about for years but not fixed.

On this news, shares of Deutsche Bank fell $1.05 per share or
approximately 3% from its previous closing price to close at
$34.80 per share on July 22, 2014, damaging investors.

Over the next two years, more compliance issues at Deutsche Bank
came to light, as media outlets and the Company reported
investigations by regulators and an internal probe by Deutsche
Bank into possible money laundering by Russian clients, causing
Deutsche Bank's share price to fall and damaging investors.
Finally, on May 1, 2016, The Financial Times published an article
entitled "FCA warns Deutsche on 'serious' financial crime control
issues", stating that the United Kingdom's Financial Conduct
Authority ("FCA") sent a letter to Deutsche Bank on March 2, 2015,
accusing it of having "serious" and "systemic" failings in its
controls against financing terrorism, money laundering, aiding
against international sanctions, and committing financial crimes.
The FCA stated that its investigation uncovered, among other
things, incomplete documentations, lack of monitoring, and
influencing staff to take actions related to specific clients,
which all amounted to a "serious" and "systemic" controls failure.
On May 1, 2016, Bloomberg published a similar article entitled
"Deutsche Bank Said to Be Faulted by FCA Over Lax Client Vetting",
stating that the FCA faulted the Company for "serious" lapses in
efforts to thwart money laundering and criticized the Company's
ability to verify client's abilities and goals, or ensure that it
wasn't aiding organizations subject to international sanctions.

On this news, shares of Deutsche Bank fell $1.62 per share or
approximately 9% over the next two trading days to close at $17.34
per share on May 3, 2016, damaging investors.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


DEUTSCHE BANK: $120-Mil. Settlement of CDS Antitrust Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft 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 the
Company's $120 million settlement to resolve a Credit Default Swap
antitrust litigation in the U.S. remains pending.

On July 1, 2013, the European Commission (EC) issued a Statement
of Objections (the "SO") against Deutsche Bank, Markit Group
Limited (Markit), the International Swaps and Derivatives
Association, Inc. (ISDA), and twelve other banks alleging anti-
competitive conduct under Article 101 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 53 of the
European Economic Area Agreement (the "EEA Agreement"). The SO
alleged that attempts by certain entities to engage in exchange
trading of unfunded credit derivatives were foreclosed by improper
collective action in the period from 2006 through 2009, which
constituted a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of
the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. Deutsche Bank
contested the EC's preliminary conclusions during 2014 and on
December 4, 2015, the EC announced the closure without action of
its investigation of Deutsche Bank and the twelve other banks (but
not Markit or ISDA).

A multi-district civil class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Deutsche Bank
and numerous other credit default swap (CDS) dealer banks, as well
as Markit and ISDA. Plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
class action complaint on April 11, 2014 alleging that the banks
conspired with Markit and ISDA to prevent the establishment of
exchange-traded CDS, with the effect of raising prices for over-
the-counter CDS transactions. Plaintiffs represent a class of
individuals and entities located in the United States or abroad
who, during a period from January 1, 2008 through December 31,
2013, directly purchased CDS from or directly sold CDS to the
dealer defendants in the United States. The second amended class
action complaint did not specify the damages sought. Defendants
moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended class action
complaint on May 23, 2014. On September 4, 2014, the court granted
in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. On September 30,
2015, Deutsche Bank executed a settlement agreement to resolve the
matter for US$120 million, which is subject to court approval.

                   UBS Still Defending CDS Suits

Cavendish Futures Fund LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that UBS AG and UBS
Securities continue to defend lawsuits in the U.S. alleging that
the defendants unlawfully conspired to restrain competition in
and/or monopolize the market for Credit Default Swaps trading in
the U.S. in order to protect the dealers' profits from trading CDS
in the over-the-counter market.

Between May 2013 and November 2013, several putative class action
complaints were filed against multiple dealers, including UBS AG
and UBS Securities, as well as Markit and ISDA, alleging
violations of the U.S. Sherman Antitrust Act ("Sherman Act") and
common law. In January 2014 and April 2014, after the cases were
consolidated for pretrial purposes in U.S. federal court in New
York, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants unlawfully conspired to
restrain competition in and/or monopolize the market for CDS
trading in the U.S. in order to protect the dealers' profits from
trading CDS in the over-the-counter market. Plaintiffs assert
claims on behalf of all purchasers and sellers of CDS that
transacted directly with any of the dealer defendants since
January 1, 2008, and seek unspecified trebled compensatory damages
and other relief.

No further updates were provided in Cavendish Futures' SEC report.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Bid to Dismiss TruPS Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft 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
defendants' motion to dismiss the third consolidated amended
complaint in the Trust Preferred Securities Litigation remains
pending.

Deutsche Bank and certain of its affiliates and officers are the
subject of a consolidated putative class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, asserting claims under the federal securities laws on behalf
of persons who purchased certain trust preferred securities issued
by Deutsche Bank and its affiliates between October 2006 and May
2008.

The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' second amended
complaint with prejudice, which dismissal was affirmed by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On July 30,
2014, the plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing
en banc with the Second Circuit. On October 16, 2014, the Second
Circuit denied the petition.

In February 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari seeking review by the United States Supreme Court. On
June 8, 2015, the Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' petition,
vacated judgment, and remanded the case to the Second Circuit for
further consideration in light of its recent decision in Omnicare,
Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension
Fund.

On June 16, 2015, Deutsche Bank filed a motion with the Second
Circuit requesting leave to submit briefing on the question of
whether the Second Circuit's prior decision in this case is
consistent with the Supreme Court's Omnicare decision. On July 21,
2015, the Court of Appeals remanded the action to the district
court for further consideration in light of the Omnicare decision,
and denied Deutsche Bank's motion as moot.

Deutsche Bank renewed its motion in the district court. The
district court denied Deutsche Bank's motion as premature and
granted plaintiffs leave to file a third consolidated amended
complaint by October 15, 2015, with no further extensions. On
October 15, 2015, plaintiffs filed their third consolidated
amended complaint, wherein plaintiffs allege unquantified but
substantial losses in connection with alleged class-member
purchases of trust preferred securities. On December 14, 2015,
defendants moved to dismiss the third consolidated amended
complaint. The motion remains pending.


E. I. DU PONT: 3,500 Drinker Water Suits Pending at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that at March
31, 2016, there were approximately 3,500 drinking water lawsuits
pending in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West
Virginia. These lawsuits are consolidated in multi-district
litigation in Ohio.

DuPont used PFOA (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its
salts, including the ammonium salt), as a processing aid to
manufacture some fluoropolymer resins at various sites around the
world including its Washington Works plant in West Virginia.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking
water.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project.  The company funded a series of health
studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent
science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel). The studies were
conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available
scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as
defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and
human disease.

The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-
induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer;
testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and
diagnosed high cholesterol.

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing
of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel
recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years
after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical
panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion
of its protocol. The company is obligated to fund up to $235
million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class
members and, in addition, administrative costs associated with the
program, including class counsel fees.

In January 2012, the company established and put $1 million into
an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the
settlement agreement.

Under the settlement agreement, the balance in the escrow amount
must be at least $0.5 million; as a result, transfers of
additional funds may be required periodically.  The court
appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established the
program to implement the medical panel's recommendations and the
registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is
ongoing. Diagnostic screening and testing has begun and associated
payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow
account; at March 31, 2016, less than $1 million has been
disbursed.

In addition, under the settlement agreement, the company must
continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level
of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little
Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users.

Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont
only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel
determined a probable link exists. At March 31, 2016 and December
31, 2015, there were approximately 3,500 lawsuits pending in
various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia. These
lawsuits are consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio
federal court (MDL). About 75 percent of the lawsuits allege
personal injury claims associated only with high cholesterol
and/or thyroid disease from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. As
a result of plaintiffs' corrected pleadings and further discovery,
the company has revised downward to 30 the estimated number of
pending lawsuits alleging wrongful death.

In 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected for individual
trial. The jury awarded $1.6 milion in compensatory damages in the
first individual trial, captioned Bartlett v DuPont, which was
tried to a verdict in October 2015. The plaintiff alleged that
exposure to PFOA in drinking water had caused kidney cancer.
DuPont, through Chemours, is appealing the decision. The second
matter selected for trial, Wolf v DuPont, involved allegations
that exposure to PFOA in drinking water caused ulcerative colitis,
a confidential settlement for an inconsequential amount was
reached and substantially completed in Wolf v DuPont. Three cases
are scheduled for trial in 2016 starting in May, August and
November, respectively; the plaintiffs in each of these cases
allege exposure to PFOA in drinking water caused cancer.

In January 2016, the court determined that 40 cases in which
plaintiffs assert cancer claims, would be scheduled for trial in
2017, beginning in April of that year. Less than 10 percent of the
3,500 pending lawsuits involve claims that exposure to PFOA in
drinking water caused cancer.

DuPont, through Chemours, denies the allegations in these lawsuits
and is defending itself vigorously.


EDMONTON RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL: Recalls Iobenguane I123 Injection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 28, 2016
Posting date: May 13, 2016
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58304

Recall initiated because the product does not meet the
specification results for purity.

Depth of distribution: Hospitals (Clinic)

Affected products:
Iobenguane I123 injection
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
Not applicable
Dosage form: Liquid
Strength: Assay -63.81Mbq/ml
Lot or serial number: #12516, Rx#171256

Recalling Firm: Edmonton Radiopharmaceutical Centre
                11560 University Avenue
                Edmonton
                T6G 1Z2
                Alberta
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Not Applicable


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Paid $750,000 to Vathana Settlement Fund
------------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has paid
$750,000 to the settlement fund in the Vathana class action.

In April 2009, a putative class action entitled Vathana v.
EverBank was filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County,
California, against EverBank on behalf of all persons who invested
in certain EverBank foreign currency certificates of deposit
between April 24, 2005 and April 24, 2009, whose certificates of
deposit were closed by EverBank and who were allegedly improperly
paid the value of the account.

In May 2009, EverBank removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that EverBank breached its
contract with its customers by invoking the force majeure
provision when closing certain foreign currency certificates of
deposit, and that at the time of account closing, utilizing an
improper conversion rate.

On October 9, 2015, the parties agreed to a settlement in
principle and the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on March 18, 2016. On March 29, 2016, EverBank paid
$750,000 to the settlement fund pursuant to the settlement.
Notices were scheduled to be sent to the class members in April
2016.

EverBank Financial is a savings and loan holding company which
operates primarily through its direct subsidiary, EverBank.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Tentative Deal Reached in "West" Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is a party
to a collective action under the FLSA entitled Anthony West and
all others similarly situated under 29 USC 216(B) v. EverBank
Financial Corp filed on May 19, 2015 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The
plaintiff in this collective action suit alleges that plaintiff
and the class were (1) improperly classified as exempt under the
FLSA (2) entitled to and not paid overtime and (3) not paid
federally mandated minimum wage. The suit seeks (1) unpaid back
wages, (2) liquidated damages equal to the back pay and (3) costs
of the suit incurred by plaintiff. EverBank filed an answer to the
complaint denying the claims. On March 22, 2016 the parties
entered into a tentative settlement agreement to resolve the
claims of the 19 individual opt-in plaintiffs and are finalizing
the settlement agreements.

EverBank Financial is a savings and loan holding company which
operates primarily through its direct subsidiary, EverBank.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Tentative Deal Reached in "Bland" Action
------------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is party
to a collective action arbitration demand under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) entitled Edward Moise, James Tyrrell, John
Jahangani, Louis Andrew Doherty III, Calvin Cooper, Lemuel Bland
and all others similarly situated v. EverBank and EverBank
Financial Corp filed with the American Arbitration Association on
September 3, 2015. The plaintiffs in this collective action
arbitration allege that plaintiffs and the class were (1)
improperly classified as exempt under the FLSA (2) entitled to and
not paid overtime and (3) not paid federally mandated minimum
wage. The demand seeks (1) unpaid back wages, (2) liquidated
damages equal to the back pay and (3) costs of the suit incurred
by plaintiff. On March 23, 2016 the parties entered into a
tentative settlement agreement at mediation to resolve the claims
of the 9 individual opt-in plaintiffs and are finalizing the
settlement agreements.

EverBank Financial is a savings and loan holding company which
operates primarily through its direct subsidiary, EverBank.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on May 12 disclosed that
a class action lawsuit has filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all those
who purchased Express Scripts Holding Company ("Express Scripts"
or the "Company") securities between February 24, 2015 and March
21, 2016 (the "Class Period"), inclusive.

Shareholders who have purchased Express Scripts Holding Company
are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com
or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774.

If you purchased shares of Express Scripts Holding Company during
the Class Period and suffered a loss, you may request that the
Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class no later
than July 5, 2016.

The filed complaint focuses on whether the Company and its
executives violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose
the status of its relationship and contract with its most
important client, Anthem, Inc. ("Anthem").

Specifically, on January 12, 2016, Anthem publicly threatened to
terminate its relationship with the Company unless both parties
renegotiated an agreement that would deliver more than $3 billion
in annual savings to Anthem.  On this news, Express Scripts' share
price fell $5.89 from a closing price of $85.58 per share on
January 12, 2016 to a closing price of $79.69 on January 13, 2016,
a 6.9% drop.

On March 21, 2016, Anthem sued Express Scripts alleging that the
Company breached its contract with Anthem by failing to negotiate
drug pricing terms in good faith.  Anthem's complaint revealed a
conflict between Express Scripts and Anthem dating back to at
least February 2015, alleging that the Company was experiencing
severe operational problems that interfered with its ability to
adequately serve Anthem and exposed Anthem to increased regulatory
scrutiny.  Following this news, Express Scripts' share price fell
from a closing price of $69.34 per share on March 21, 2016 to a
closing price of $67.52 on March 22, 2016, an additional $1.82
drop.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800)
575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com  or visit our
website at www.whafh.com All e-mail correspondence should make
reference to the "Express Scripts investigation."


FACEBOOK INC: Rule 23(b)(2) Class in "Campbell" Suit Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned MATTHEW CAMPBELL, et al. v. FACEBOOK INC., Case No.
4:13-cv-05996-PJH (N.D. Cal.), ruling that the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification is denied as to the proposed Rule 23(b)(3)
class, and granted as to the proposed Rule 23(b)(2) class.

The Lawsuit is a privacy case involving the alleged scanning of
messages sent on Facebook's social media Web site.  The Plaintiffs
seek class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, under Rule 23(b)(2).

The Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend the complaint on a
limited basis, and any amended complaint must be filed no later
than June 8, 2016.  The court will conduct a case management
conference on June 30, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=K7YotoGV


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Excavators Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Excavators Union Local 731 Pension and Welfare Funds and Seafarers
Pension Plan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl K. Sandberg, Marc L.
Andreessen, Erskine B. Bowles, Susan D. Desmondhellmann, Reed
Hastings, Jan Koum, Peter Thiel, and Facebook, Inc., Case No.
12320 (Del. Ch. Ct., May 11, 2016), alleges that the Defendants
made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

The Defendants operate an online social networking service
headquartered in Menlo Park, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Christopher Lometti, Esq.
      Richard A. Speirs, Esq.
      Kenneth M. Rehns, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 838-7797
      E-mail: clometti@cohenmilstein.com
              rspeirs@cohenmilstein.com
              krehns@cohenmilstein.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Westchester Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60
Benefits Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl K. Sandberg, Marc L.
Andreessen, Erskine B. Bowles, Susan D. Desmondhellmann, Reed
Hastings, Jan Koum, Peter Thiel, and Facebook, Inc., Case No.
12319 (Del. Ch., Ct., May 11, 2016), alleges that the Defendants
made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

The Defendants operate an online social networking service
headquartered in Menlo Park, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
      Cynthia A. Calder, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      123 Justison Street
      Wilmington, DA 19801
      Telephone: (302) 622-7000
      Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
      E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com
              ccalder@gelaw.com

         - and -

      Joseph E. White III, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Stein, Esq.
      Adam Warden, Esq.
      SAXENA WHITE, P.A.
      5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
      Boca Raton, FL 33486
      Telephone: (561) 394-3399
      Facsimile: (888) 458-9055
      E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
              jstein@saxenawhite.com
              awarden@saxenawhite.com


FACEBOOK INC: Must Defend Against Suit Over Photo Tag Feature
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Facebook can't duck claims that it violated users' privacy by
analyzing and storing data on facial features from uploaded
photos, a federal judge in San Francisco has ruled.

Three plaintiffs from the Chicago area -- Nimash Patel, Adam Pezen
and Carlo Licata -- filed separate suits against the social media
giant in Illinois last year. The cases were combined and
transferred to the Northern District of California this past
summer.  The three men say Facebook's "Photo Tag Suggest"
function, which uses facial recognition software to analyze and
collect facial geometry data, violates Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

The Illinois law, enacted in 2008, prohibits collecting or
disclosing biometric data, such as an iris or retina scan,
fingerprint, voiceprint, hand scan or facial geometry, without a
person's permission.

In a May 5 ruling, U.S. District Judge James Donato refused to
dismiss the class action, finding the plaintiffs plausibly alleged
that Facebook had analyzed and stored their facial data without
their blessing.

"The court accepts as true plaintiffs' allegations that Facebook's
face recognition technology involves a scan of face geometry that
was done without plaintiffs' consent," Donato wrote in his 22-page
ruling.

Facebook had argued the Illinois law specifically excluded photos,
along with writing samples, signatures and physical descriptors
like height and weight, as items that do not qualify as biometric
information.

However, the judge found the facial geometry of individuals
derived from photo scans is considered a piece of biometric data
under BIPA.

The judge cited a 2015 Northern District of Illinois ruling,
Norberg v. Shutterfly, which denied a motion to dismiss based on
the same argument that BIPA excludes biometric identifiers
obtained from photographs.

Donato also rejected Facebook's request to have California law,
rather than Illinois law, govern the class action claims.

The judge found that all three men had agreed to Facebook's terms
of use, which require claims against it be governed by California
law. However, enforcing that provision would hamper Illinois'
interests in protecting its citizens' privacy rights, Donato
concluded.

Factors for deciding choice of law weighed more heavily toward
Illinois, in part because California lacks a similar privacy law,
Donato found.

Attorneys Paul Gellar and Shawn Williams of Robins Gellar Rudman &
Dowd in San Francisco and Boca Raton, Florida, did not immediately
return phone calls seeking comment May 12, morning.

Facebook did not immediately respond to an emailed request for
comment May 12.

Android phone users filed a similar lawsuit in March, accusing
Google of extracting biometric data from pictures uploaded to its
cloud-based photo service.

The case captioned, IN RE FACEBOOK BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY
LITIGATION., Case No. 15-cv-03747-JD (N.D. Cal.)


FIRST NATIONAL: Settling Antonik & Saxe Suits for $750,000
----------------------------------------------------------
First National Community Bancorp, 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 has reached a deal to resolve both the Antonik and Saxe
class action lawsuits for a combined $750,000, which settlement
has gained initial approval from the court.

On August 13, 2013, Steven Antonik, individually, as Administrator
of the Estate of Linda Kluska, William R. Howells, and Louise A.
Howells, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
filed a consumer protection class action against the Company and
Bank in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, seeking
equitable, injunction and monetary relief to address an alleged
pattern and practice of wrong doing by the Bank relating to the
repossession and sale of the Plaintiffs' and class members'
financed motor vehicles.

On December 17, 2015 the Honorable Margaret Moyle entered an Order
outlining the primary terms of a tentative agreement to settle
this matter, pending a finalized, more-detailed settlement
agreement, class notice and a class fairness hearing, said Order
covering both this matter and the matter involving Plaintiff
Charles Saxe, II individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated.

The primary terms of the tentative agreement to settle are:

     1) Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs' class members, which the
Defendants have stated are approximately 430 members, the total
sum of $750,000;

     2) Plaintiffs will release all claims against Defendants;

     3) Defendants will remove to vacate any judgements against
any class members arising from the vehicle loans that are the
subject of these actions;

     4) Defendants will remove the trade line on each class
member's credit report associated with the subject vehicle loans
that are at issue in these actions for Experian, Equifax and
TransUnion, providing Plaintiffs' counsel with verification of
such;

     5) Defendants will verify that the aggregate amount received
from class members by Defendants and its agents during the alleged
unjust enrichment class period does not exceed $45,000; and

     6) Defendants will waive the disputed deficiency balances
relating to the subject loans of each class member and agree not
to issue IRS Forms 1099-C in connection with these deficiency
waivers or to sell, assign, or otherwise collect on the alleged
deficiencies.

                           *     *     *

On September 17, 2013, Charles Saxe, III individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated filed a consumer class
action against the Bank in the Lackawanna County Court of Common
Pleas alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial
Code in connection with the repossession and resale of financed
vehicles.

On December 17, 2015 the Honorable Margaret Moyle entered an Order
outlining the primary terms of a tentative agreement to settle
this matter, pending a finalized, more-detailed settlement
agreement, class notice and a class fairness hearing, said Order
covering both this matter and the matter involving Plaintiffs
Steven Antonik, individually, as Administrator of the Estate of
Linda Kluska, William R. Howells, and Louise A. Howells, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated.

First National Community Bancorp, Inc., incorporated in 1997, is a
Pennsylvania business corporation and a registered bank holding
company headquartered in Dunmore, Pennsylvania.


FMA ALLIANCE: Certification of Class Sought in "Devera" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned CERILINA DEVERA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FMA
ALLIANCE, LTD., Case No. 16-cv-518 (E.D. Wisc.), moves the Court
to certify the class described in the complaint.

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

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

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

Therefore, the Plaintiff asks that the Court enter an order
certifying the proposed class in this case, appointing the
Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly,
LLP as its Counsel.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jA29QiBn

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORMFACTOR, INC: Defendant in Lum v. Cascade Microtech Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 26, 2016, that an individual
plaintiff filed on March 8, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit
on behalf of Cascade Microtech shareholders against Cascade
Microtech, its directors, FormFactor and Cardinal Merger
Subsidiary, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), in connection with Cascade
Microtech, FormFactor and Merger Sub entering into the merger
agreement. The lawsuit, captioned Lum v. Cascade Microtech, Inc.,
et al., No. 16CV07293, was filed in Washington County Circuit
Court in the State of Oregon.

The lawsuit alleges that the individual members of Cascade
Microtech's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
owed to Cascade Microtech's shareholders by approving the proposed
merger for inadequate consideration; approving the merger to
obtain unique benefits not shared equally with other Cascade
Microtech shareholders; failing to take steps to maximize the
value paid to Cascade Microtech shareholders; failing to take
steps to ensure a fair process leading up to the proposed merger;
and agreeing to preclusive deal protection devices in the merger
agreement. The lawsuit also alleges claims against FormFactor and
Merger Sub for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by the individual members of Cascade Microtech's
board of directors. The plaintiff seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief prohibiting completion of the merger, rescission
of the merger if it is completed, an accounting by defendants,
plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs, and other relief.

FormFactor believes that the claims asserted are without merit.


FORMFACTOR, INC: Defendant in Solak v. Cascade Microtech Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 26, 2016, that a putative class
action lawsuit was filed on April 8, 2016, by another individual
plaintiff. This lawsuit, captioned Solak v. Cascade Microtech,
Inc., et al., No. 16CV11809, was filed in Multnomah County Circuit
Court in the State of Oregon. This lawsuit makes similar
allegations, including that Cascade Microtech's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Cascade Microtech shareholders by
failing to perform a reasonable sale process designed to obtain
the best possible price for Cascade Microtech's shareholders,
adopting unfair deal protections and failing to disclose all
material information necessary to allow Cascade Microtech
shareholders to cast a fully informed vote on the pending
acquisition. The lawsuit additionally alleges that FormFactor and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the Cascade Microtech directors in
the breach of that fiduciary duty. The plaintiff seeks, among
other things, injunctive relief prohibiting completion of the
merger, plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs, reforming the
Merger Agreement to remove deal protection provisions and other
relief.

FormFactor believes that the claims asserted are without merit.


GAZIT-GLOBE: Hearing on Motion for Documents Disclosure Deferred
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gazit-Globe Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit against Dori Group and Dori Construction have
agreed that, at this stage, the hearing on the motion for
disclosure of documents would be deferred.

In July and August 2014, a number of lawsuits were filed with the
Economic Affairs Division of the Tel Aviv District Court
requesting class action certification against Dori Construction,
Dori Group, their directors and officers and their auditors, as
well as against Gazit Development and Gazit-Globe itself. The
motions deal with damage allegedly caused to the shareholders of
Dori Construction and/or Dori Group, respectively, as a result of
the publication of allegedly erroneous information by Dori
Construction, including in its financial statements, and as a
result of its alleged failure to report, at the required time,
material adverse information concerning the financial results and
the financial position of Dori Construction and, in turn, Dori
Group. The grounds for the claims in the aforementioned motions
include grounds under the Securities Law, 1968, among which are
the inclusion of erroneous details in the financial statements and
deficient and erroneous reporting, a tort of negligence under the
Torts Laws, breach of statutory duty (in relation to the
Securities Law and the Regulations promulgated thereunder, as well
as the Companies Law), all being with regard to the reporting of
Dori Construction. The amounts of the aforesaid claims range from
NIS 13 million to NIS 75 million (subject to quantifying the exact
damage in the course of the hearings on the lawsuits), which are
not material for the Company (including cumulatively). The
aforesaid motions have been unified into a single proceeding
(apart from three motions that have been dismissed).

The Company and the other respondents have submitted their
responses to the amended motion, subsequent to which the
petitioners filed their replies and also added and lodged a motion
for disclosure of documents in which the disclosure was sought of
documents not belonging to the Company or Gazit Development.

In December 2015, a preliminary hearing was held on the amended
motion, within the framework of which the parties agreed to
transfer the proceeding to mediation. The parties further agreed
that, at this stage, the hearing on the motion for disclosure of
documents would be deferred. At this preliminary stage of the
proceeding, the chances of the lawsuit cannot be assessed.

Moreover, two derivative actions were filed in 2014 against Dori
Construction and Dori Group and their directors and officers in
connection with a dividend distribution made by Dori Construction
to its shareholders.  With regard to the two motions to certify
derivative actions, the court has decided that a ruling with
regard to the procedural rules in these motions will be granted by
it at a later date, following the filing of the unified motion to
certify the lawsuit as a class action.


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Jefferson County Sues over Overpriced Alum
------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County, Alabama, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Frank A. Reichl, General
Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC,
Gentek, Inc., Chemtrade Logistics, Inc., Chemtrade Chemicals
Corporation, Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC, Chemtrade Solutions,
LLC, Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund, Geo Specialty Chemicals,
Inc, C&S Chemicals, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-00777-SGC (N.D. Ala., May 11, 2016) seeks permanent
enjoinment, damages, monetary relief, treble damages, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorney's fees for
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Jefferson County purchases liquid aluminum sulphate for use in the
county sewage operations.

Defendants are allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to artificially
fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of aluminum
sulfate in the United States. Plaintiff purchased liquid aluminum
sulfate directly from the defendants at allegedly excessive
prices.

Reichl was the General Manager of Water Chemicals for General
Chemical Group, Inc., a corporation existing under the laws of
Delaware, with principal place of business at 90 East Halsey Road,
Parsippany, New Jersey.

General Chemical Corporation was a corporation existing under the
laws of Delaware with principal place of business at Suite 300,
155 Gordon Baker Road, Toronto, Ontario.

General Chemical Performance Products LLC was a limited liability
company organized under the laws of Delaware with principal place
of business at 90 East Halsey Road, Parsippany, New Jersey.

GenTek Inc. was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Parsippany, New Jersey. GenTek manufactured and
supplied water treatment chemicals throughout the United States.
It owned and controlled Defendants General Chemical Performance
Products LLC and General Chemical Corporation.

Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund is a limited purpose trust under
the laws of the Province of Ontario and is headquartered in
Toronto, Canada. It manufactures and markets industrial chemicals
and other coagulants used in water treatment in Canada, the United
States and Europe.

Chemtrade Logistics Inc. is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics
Income Fund incorporated under the laws of the Province of
Ontario.

Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation is a Delaware corporation and is a
subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company and is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. is a privately held Ohio corporation
with its principal place of business at 340 Mathers Road, Ambler,
Pennsylvania. GEO Specialty manufactures, markets, and supplies
specialty chemicals, including water treatment chemicals.

C&S Chemicals, Inc. is a privately held Pennsylvania corporation
with its principal place of business at 4180 Providence Road,
Marietta, Georgia. C&S Chemicals specializes in the production of
Liquid Aluminum Sulfate and Sodium Aluminate and currently
operates six manufacturing facilities located in Florida, Georgia,
South Carolina, Illinois, and Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig L. Lowell, Esq.
      Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq.
      WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
      301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 28, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van, SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Suspension
Units affected: 432
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016190TC
ID number: 2016190
Manufacturer recall number: 42190

Certain vehicles may have been built with front upper control arms
with a poor quality weld near the control arm's bushing. If these
welds were to fail, it could cause the upper control arm to deform
or separate from the bushing, which could affect steering and
directional control of the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash
causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will
replace the left and right front upper control arms, and perform
a realignment.

  Make           Model             Model year(s) affected
  ----           -----             ----------------------
  CHEVROLET      SUBURBAN          2016
  CHEVROLET      TAHOE             2016
  GMC            YUKON             2016
  GMC            SIERRA            2016
  CHEVROLET      SILVERADO         2016
  GMC            YUKON XL          2016
  CADILLAC       ESCALADE          2016
  CADILLAC       ESCALADE ESV      2016


GOLDEN DROP: "Nobles" Suit in Cal. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Nobles, Hubert Johnson, each of them individually, on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and as representative of
other aggrieved employees v. Golden Drop Trucking, Inc. and Does
1-250 inclusive, Case No. BC620127 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages,
spread of hours compensation, damages for failure to provide wage
statements, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys'
fees.

Golden Drop Trucking, Inc. is a California corporation that
provides delivery services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP
      555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 818
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Facsimile: (562) 435-1656
      Telephone: (562) 432-8933
      E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com


H&R BLOCK: Fails in Bid to Send "Lopez" Suit to Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that an appellate court
has affirmed a trial court's order denying a motion to compel
arbitration in the Lopez Compliance Fee Litigation.

The Company said, "On April 16, 2012, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Missouri styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et
al. (Case # 1216CV12290) concerning a compliance fee charged to
retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff
seeks to represent all Missouri citizens who were charged the
compliance fee, and asserts claims of violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, money had and received, and unjust
enrichment."

"We filed a motion to compel arbitration of the 2011 claims. The
court denied the motion. We filed an appeal.

"On May 6, 2014, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District,
reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case for
further consideration of the motion.

"On March 12, 2015, the trial court denied the motion on remand.
We filed an additional appeal. On March 8, 2016, the appellate
court affirmed the decision of the trial court.

"We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is
probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this
matter."


H&R BLOCK: Summary Judgment, Class Cert. Bids Pending in "Perras"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that the Company's
summary judgment motion and the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification are pending in the case by Ronald Perras.

The Company said, "On April 19, 2012, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri styled Ronald Perras v. H&R
Block, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK) concerning a
compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012
tax seasons. The plaintiff originally sought to represent all
persons nationwide (excluding citizens of Missouri) who were
charged the compliance fee, and asserted claims of violation of
various state consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust
enrichment."

"In November 2013, the court compelled arbitration of the 2011
claims and stayed all proceedings with respect to those claims. In
June 2014, the court denied class certification of the remaining
2012 claims. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals, which was denied on June 18, 2015.

"In January 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting claims of violation of Missouri and California state
consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment,
along with a motion to certify a class of all persons (excluding
citizens of Missouri) who were charged the compliance fee in the
state of California.

"We subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on all
claims. Both motions remain pending before the court. We have not
concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have
we accrued a loss contingency related to this matter."


HATTERAS FINANCIAL: Sued in N.C. Over Proposed Sale to Annaly
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Hatteras Financial Corporation, David W. Berson,
Michael R. Hough, Benjamin M. Hough, Ira G. Kawaller, Jeffrey D.
Miller, William V. Nutt, Vicki H. Wilson-Mcelreath, Thomas D.
Wren, Case No. 1:16-cv-00445 (M.D.N.C., May 11, 2016), is brought
on behalf of all holders of the common stock of Hatteras Financial
Corp., to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Hatters by Annaly
Capital Management Inc. through a flawed process and inadequate
consideration.

Hatteras Financial Corporation is an externally managed mortgage
Real Estate Investment Trust that invests in single-residential
mortgage real estate assets.

Headquartered in New York, Annaly Capital Management Inc. operates
a real estate investment trust.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Janet Ward Black, Esq.
      WARD BLACK LAW
      208 W. Wendover Ave.
      Greensboro, NC 27401
      Telephone: (336) 273-3812
      Facsimile: (336) 379-9415
      E-mail: jwblack@wardblacklaw.com


HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Otico, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-02557-KAW
(N.D. Cal., May 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii, Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. is a
large passenger airline carrier.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
      AMARTIN LAW, PC
      600 West Broadway, Suite 700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 308-6880
      Facsimile: (619) 308-6881
      E-mail: alisa@amartinlaw.com

         - and -

      Lindsay C. David, Esq.
      SAN DIEGO COUNTY LAW OFFICES
      2173 Salk Avenue, Suite 250
      Carlsbad, CA 92011
      Telephone: (760) 206-3566
      Facsimile: (760) 888-3575


HELIX ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------
Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the lead
plaintiff in a stockholder class action has filed an amended class
action complaint.

On July 31, 2015, a purported stockholder, Parviz Izadjoo, filed a
class action lawsuit styled Parviz Izadjoo v. Owen Kratz and Helix
Energy Solutions Group, Inc. against the Company and Mr. Kratz,
our President and Chief Executive Officer, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of a
putative class of all purchasers of shares of our common stock
between October 21, 2014, and July 21, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and SEC Rule 10b-5 as to both us and Mr. Kratz, and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against Mr. Kratz based on alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public
disclosures regarding projections for 2015 dry docks of two of our
vessels working in the Gulf of Mexico that allegedly caused the
price at which putative class members bought stock during the
proposed class period to be artificially inflated.

On January 28, 2016, the judge in the case approved a motion for
the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 14,
2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint,
adding Mr. Tripodo, our Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, and Mr. Chamblee (our former Executive Vice
President and Chief Operating Officer) as individual defendants,
alleging the same types of claims made in the original complaint
(alleged violations during the Class Period of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 with respect to all
defendants, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants), but asserting that the alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public
disclosures are related to the condition of and repairs to certain
equipment aboard the Q4000 vessel. We believe this lawsuit to be
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it.


HILTON CINCINNATI: Faces "Morgan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Enisha Morgan and Christa Pettyjohn, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. Hilton
Cincinnati Netherland Plaza, Netherland Plaza Associates, Ltd.,
Cincinnati Netherland Hotel LLC, John Doe 1-10 and ABC Corporation
1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-00540-SJD (S.D. Ohio, May 11, 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 Hilton Cincinnati Netherland Plaza
in Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kristen M. Myers, Esq.
      Alison De Villiers, Esq.
      Peter L. Cassady, Esq.
      Kimberly S. Phillips, Esq.
      300 Pike Street, Suite 400
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Telephone: (513) 621-2100
      Facsimile: (513) 621-0106
      E-mail: kmyers@beckman-weil.com
              adevilliers@beckman-weil.com
              petercassady@beckman-weil.com
              kphillips@beckman-weil.com


HUNTER WARFIELD: Bid to Certify "Goldstein" FDCPA Class Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. R. Gary Klausner denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit captioned Amir J. Goldstein v. Hunter
Warfield, Inc., Case No. CV 15-09319 RGK (Ex) (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against the Defendant
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
its California analog, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.  The Plaintiff sought certification of this class:

     [A]ll persons whom Defendant's records reflect resided in
     the state of California and who were sent collection letters
     (a) bearing the Defendant's letterhead which were in
     substantially the same form as the letter(s) sent to the
     Plaintiff, (b) the collection letters were sent to consumers
     seeking payment of a consumer debt; (c) the letters
     contained violations of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e and/or
     1692g; and (d) the letters were sent within one year of the
     filing of the instant Class Action Complaint.

Alternatively, the Plaintiff asked that the Court reserve ruling
on the Motion and allow the parties to conduct discovery on class-
related issues.

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


ILLINOIS, USA: Court Certifies Class of Medicaid-Eligible Kids
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Charles P. Kocoras entered a memorandum opinion granting
the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class in the lawsuit entitled
O.B., et al., individually and on behalf of a class v. FELICIA F.
NORWOOD, in her official capacity as Director of Healthcare and
Family Services, Case No. 1:15-cv-10463 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs O.B., C.F., J.M., and S.M. bring the four-count Action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and various provisions of the
Social Security Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act; and the
Rehabilitation Act.  The Plaintiffs allege that they are Medicaid-
eligible children with disabling and chronic health conditions who
are "eligible for Medicaid-funded in-home shift nursing services,"
and that the Defendant Felicia F. Norwood, the Director of the
Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, "has failed
to arrange for adequate in-home shift nursing services" for the
Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify this class:

     All Medicaid-eligible children under the age of 21 in the
     State of Illinois who have been approved for in-home shift
     nursing services by the Defendant, but who are not receiving
     in-home shift nursing services at the level approved by the
     Defendant, including children who are enrolled in a Medicaid
     waiver program, such as the Medically Fragile Technology
     Dependent (MFTD) Waiver program, and children enrolled in
     the nonwaiver Medicaid program, commonly known as the
     Nursing and Personal Care Services (NPCS) program.

The Court denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for limited class
discovery on the issue of numerosity.  The Court also appointed as
class counsel attorneys Robert H. Farley, Jr., Esq., Thomas D.
Yates, Esq., Jane Perkins, Esq., and Sarah Somers, Esq.

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


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Baltimore Securities Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Summary judgment motions are pending in a Baltimore class action
lawsuit against Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., according to the
Company's Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2015.

On December 7, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the
Circuit Court of Baltimore City entitled Timm, v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc, et al. alleging on behalf of holders of the
Company's 9.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
(Preferred B) and 9.125% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Stock (Preferred C) who did not tender their stock in connection
with the Company's 2009 completion of its Offer to Purchase and
Consent Solicitation that the Company failed to achieve the
required consent of the Preferred B and C holders, the consents to
amend the Preferred stock were not effective because they were
given on unissued stock (after redemption), the Company tied the
tender offer with a consent requirement that constituted an
improper "vote buying" scheme, and that the tender offer was a
breach of a fiduciary duty.

The action seeks the payment of two quarterly dividends for the
Preferred B and C holders, the unwinding of the consents and
reinstatement of the cumulative dividend on the Preferred B and C
stock, and the election of two directors by the Preferred B and C
holders. The action also seeks punitive damages and legal
expenses.

The court, on January 28, 2013, dismissed all individual director
and officer defendants from the case and further dismissed three
of the six causes of action. The remaining causes of action
against the Company allege the Preferred B holders did not approve
amendments to its Articles Supplementary and the holders thereof
seek to recover two quarters of dividends and to elect two members
to the Board of Directors of the Company. On November 27, 2013,
the court denied the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the court's
January 28, 2013 order.

The Company and Plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary
judgment on the remaining claims and motions are currently
pending.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: "Marentes" Class Suit in Discovery Stage
--------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage 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 31, 2015, that a purported class
action was filed on April 30, 2012, entitled Marentes v. Impac
Mortgage Holdings, Inc., alleging that certain loan modification
activities of the Company constitute an unfair business practice,
false advertising and marketing, and that the fees charged are
improper. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution,
injunctive relief, attorney's fees and prejudgment interest. On
August 22, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding
Impac Funding Corporation as a defendant and on October 2, 2012,
the plaintiff dismissed Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., without
prejudice. Discovery is currently proceeding in this matter.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Defending 2 NY Suits Over Sale of Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation is defending two class
action lawsuits filed in New York, IBM disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

In March 2015, putative class action litigation was commenced in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York related to the company's October 2014 announcement that it
was divesting its global commercial semiconductor technology
business. The company and three of its officers are named as
defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Sections
20(a) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.

In May 2015, a related putative class action was also commenced in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York based on the same underlying facts, alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The company,
management's Retirement Plans Committee, and three current or
former IBM executives are named as defendants.

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


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: No Trial Date Set in Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 19, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that no trial date has been
set in the purported shareholder class action lawsuits filed April
26, 2013, and May 24, 2013.

On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed
against a number of the Company's current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. A substantially identical complaint,
entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365,
was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24,
2013. The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on
August 20, 2013.

On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an
amended complaint. The case has since been re-titled In re
Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013. The
amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading
statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public
statements and in the Company's filings with the SEC. On November
18, 2013, the court appointed the Employees' Retirement System of
the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
December 16, 2013, which was granted in part and denied in part on
August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs elected not to further amend their
complaint. On October 22, 2014, the court granted the Company's
motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the
court's August 21, 2014, order. The Company filed its motion for
reconsideration on November 5, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their
opposition on November 19, 2014, and the Company filed its reply
on November 26, 2014. The court denied the motion for
reconsideration on December 15, 2014.

The case is moving forward on the claims that remain, and
discovery is ongoing. The plaintiffs moved for class certification
on September 1, 2015, the Company filed its opposition on October
15, 2015, and the plaintiffs filed their reply on November 16,
2015.

On January 21, 2016, the court held a hearing on the motion, which
remains pending. No trial date has been set. Based on currently
available information, the Company does not believe the resolution
of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial position, or future results of
operations.


ITASCA: Recalls Ellipse and Tour 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 27, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 3
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016189TC
ID number: 2016189

On certain motorhomes equipped with a heavier weight adjustable
foot pedal, the brake activation signal to certain towed devices
may not deactivate when the motorhome service brakes are released.
If the brakes of a towed vehicle were to remained engaged, it
could result in a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of
a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Daimler Trucks North America authorized service facilities will
replace the torsion spring of the pedal assembly with an improved
spring.


  Make        Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----       ----------------------
  ITASCA      ELLIPSE     2014
  WINNEBAGO   TOUR        2014


JETT PRO LINE: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Bernier"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs in the
lawsuit titled Cortney Bernier, et al., Individually and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Jett
Pro Line Maintenance, Corp., Case No. 5:16-cv-11368-JEL-EAS (E.D.
Mich.), asks the Court for an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying the proposed collective FLSA
       class defined as;

       All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
       Defendant, who (i) work/worked as station manager, lead
       technician, senior line technician, and junior line
       technician; and/or (ii) whose primary job responsibilities
       include general airline maintenance, worked over 40 hours
       in any workweek during the previous three (3) years
       through the date of final disposition of this case, and
       were not paid time and half for the hours they worked over
       40 in any workweek because they were unable to take a 0.5
       hour uninterrupted meal break, but still had an automatic
       meal period deduction taken from their compensable hours
       worked.

   (2) implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
       Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail)
       to class members;

   (3) requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
       order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
       providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
       the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all
       potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for the Defendant
       at any time in any location in the United States for the
       three years immediately preceding the filing of the
       Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4oJsf9s2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Matthew B. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          6600 W. Sylvania Avenue, Suite 260
          Sylvania, OH 43560
          Telephone: (419) 824-4439
          Facsimile: (419) 932-6719
          E-mail: mbryant@bryantlegalLLC.com

               - and -

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High Street
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 704-0546
          Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalLLC.com


JPS COMPLETION: "Martinez" Seeks Recovery of Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Randy Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JPS Completion Fluids, Inc., Sergio Garza and Pedro
Gonzales, Case No. 5:16-cv-00438-DAE (W.D. Tex., May 11, 2016)
seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Martinez alleges that Defendant improperly calculated his regular
rate of pay and overtime premium when he was employed as an oil
and gas field worker.

JPS Completion Fluids, Inc. is a domestic oilfield services
provider, having its principal place of business in Mathis, San
Patricio County, Texas.

Plaintiffs represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AK 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


KAPLAN INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Ridley" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlin Ridley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kaplan International North America, LLC, Case No.
3:16-cv-02536 (N.D. Cal., May 11, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Kaplan International North America, LLC operates a facility that
helps student prepare for a variety of tests such as School
Admission Tests, Graduate Management Admission Tests, Graduate
Record Examinations, Dental Admission Tests, Medical College
Admission Tests and professional licensing exams.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
      Thomas Fowler, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
      E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
              tfowler@llrlaw.com

         - and -

      Matthew David Carlson, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      466 Geary Street, Suite 201
      San Francisco, CA 94102
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
      E-mail: mcarlson@llrlaw.com


KINDER MORGAN: Delaware High Court Upholds Claims Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the Kinder Morgan,
Inc. Corporate Reorganization Litigation, the Delaware Supreme
Court has affirmed the dismissal of all claims on appeal and this
matter is now concluded.

Certain unitholders of KMP and EPB filed five putative class
action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
in connection with the Merger Transactions, which the Court
consolidated under the caption In re Kinder Morgan, Inc. Corporate
Reorganization Litigation (Consolidated Case No. 10093-VCL). On
December 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Verified Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which purported to
assert claims on behalf of both the former EPB unitholders and the
former KMP unitholders. The EPB plaintiff alleged that (i) El Paso
Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C. (EPGP), the general partner of EPB,
and the directors of EPGP breached duties under the EPB
partnership agreement, including the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, by entering into the EPB Transaction; (ii)
EPB, E Merger Sub LLC, KMI and individual defendants aided and
abetted such breaches; and (iii) EPB, E Merger Sub LLC, KMI, and
individual defendants tortiously interfered with the EPB
partnership agreement by causing EPGP to breach its duties under
the EPB partnership agreement.

The KMP plaintiffs alleged that (i) KMR, KMGP, and individual
defendants breached duties under the KMP partnership agreement,
including the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, by
entering into the KMP Transaction and by failing to adequately
disclose material facts related to the transaction; (ii) KMI aided
and abetted such breach; and (iii) KMI, KMP, KMR, P Merger Sub
LLC, and individual defendants tortiously interfered with the
rights of the plaintiffs and the putative class under the KMP
partnership agreement by causing KMGP to breach its duties under
the KMP partnership agreement. The complaint sought declaratory
relief that the transactions were unlawful and unenforceable,
reformation, rescission, rescissory or compensatory damages,
interest, and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

On December 30, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint. On April 2, 2015, the EPB plaintiff and the defendants
submitted a stipulation and proposed order of dismissal, agreeing
to dismiss all claims brought by the EPB plaintiff with prejudice
as to the EPB lead plaintiff and without prejudice to all other
members of the putative EPB class. The Court entered such order on
April 2, 2015.

On August 24, 2015, the Court issued an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss the remaining counts of the
complaint for failure to state a claim. On September 21, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the
State of Delaware, captioned Haynes Family Trust et al. v. Kinder
Morgan G.P., Inc. et al. (Case No. 515). The plaintiffs only
appealed the dismissal of claims brought against defendants KMGP,
Ted A. Gardner, Gary L. Hultquist, and Perry M. Waughtal and not
those asserted against KMI, P. Merger Sub LLC, Richard D. Kinder,
Steven J. Kean, KMP and KMR. On March 10, 2016, the Delaware
Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of all claims on appeal and
this matter is now concluded.


KLA-TENCOR: Preliminary Settlement Approval Hearing Set for June 3
------------------------------------------------------------------
KLA-Tencor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the California
Superior Court has set a hearing for preliminary approval of the
settlement hearing for June 3, 2016.

The California Class Actions.

In connection with the October 21, 2015 announcement of the merger
transaction, four purported KLA-Tencor stockholders filed putative
class actions on behalf of all KLA-Tencor stockholders. Three
actions were filed in the California Superior Court for Santa
Clara County and are captioned, Hedgecock v. KLA-Tencor Corp., et
al., Case No. 115CV287329, Karr v. KLA-Tencor Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 115CV287331, (both filed on October 28, 2015) and Spoleto
Corp. v. Wallace, et al., Case No. 115CV289552 (filed on December
29, 2015) (collectively, the "California Class Actions").
Plaintiffs in the Hedgecock and Karr actions filed amended
complaints on December 21, 2015. The California Class Actions all
name KLA-Tencor, the members of the KLA-Tencor Board, Lam
Research, Merger Sub 1, and Merger Sub 2 (together with Merger Sub
1 and Lam Research, the "Lam Group") as defendants. The California
Class Actions allege that the members of the KLA-Tencor Board
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, causing
KLA-Tencor to agree to a merger transaction with the Lam Group at
an unfair price and pursuant to an unfair process, and by making
disclosures concerning the transaction that are materially
misleading. Plaintiffs allege that the Lam Group aided and abetted
such breaches. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin or rescind KLA-Tencor's
transaction with the Lam Group, as applicable, as well as an award
of damages and attorneys' fees, in addition to other relief.

The Delaware Chancery Court Class Action

One putative class action was filed on November 10, 2015, in the
Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware and is captioned,
Rooney v. Wallace, et al., Case No. 11700. On December 23, 2015,
plaintiff Rooney filed an amended complaint. The Rooney action was
filed against the members of the KLA-Tencor Board and similar to
the California Class Actions alleges that the members of the KLA-
Tencor Board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things, causing KLA-Tencor to agree to a merger transaction with
Lam Research at an unfair price and pursuant to an unfair process,
and by making disclosures concerning the transaction that are
materially misleading. Plaintiff Rooney seeks to enjoin or rescind
KLA-Tencor's transaction with Lam Research, as applicable, as well
as an award of attorneys' fees, in addition to other relief. KLA-
Tencor has made an accrual with respect to the Hedgecock, Spoleto
and Rooney actions.

Agreement in Principle to Resolve Merger-Related Litigation

On or about December 29, 2015, plaintiffs in all four actions
agreed to coordinate and proceed in the California Superior Court.
On February 5, 2016, an agreement in principle was reached with
the plaintiffs in the Rooney Action, Hedgecock Action, and Spoleto
Action to settle those actions. Pursuant to the agreement in
principle, as set forth in a signed memorandum of understanding,
the parties agreed to resolve disputed legal claims and KLA-Tencor
and Lam agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures regarding
the proposed merger, as set forth in the Form 8-K filed by KLA-
Tencor on February 5, 2016. None of the defendants in these
actions has admitted wrongdoing of any kind, including that there
were any inadequacies in any disclosure, any breach of any
fiduciary duty, or aiding or abetting any of the foregoing. On
February 17, 2016, the California Superior Court dismissed the
Karr action pursuant to a stipulation by the parties.

The agreement in principle is expected to be further memorialized
in a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary
terms and conditions, including court approval, and will include
an agreement by the plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of KLA-Tencor
stockholders, to provide a release of claims of KLA stockholders
against KLA-Tencor, the Lam Group and their respective officers
and directors. Following final approval of the settlement by the
court, the Hedgecock, Spoleto, and Rooney actions will be
dismissed. The settlement will not affect the merger consideration
to be paid to stockholders of KLA-Tencor in connection with the
acquisition of KLA-Tencor by Lam. The California Superior Court
has set a hearing for preliminary approval of the settlement
hearing for June 3, 2016.

KLA-Tencor has made an accrual with respect to the Hedgecock,
Spoleto and Rooney actions. KLA-Tencor has determined a potential
loss in excess of the amount accrued is reasonably possible;
however, based on its current knowledge, KLA-Tencor does not
believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of
potential loss is reasonably estimable.

KLA-Tencor Corporation is a supplier of process control and yield
management solutions for the semiconductor and related
nanoelectronics industries.


LIAMBEN INC: Faces "Jimenez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alvaro Jimenez, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Liamben, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Case
No. BC620230 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Liamben, Inc. provides automobile maintenance and repair services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
      2274 East Maple Ave
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
      Telephone: (424) 292-2350
      E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com


LIFE PROTECT: Hearing on Bid to Certify Class Continued to Aug. 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 18, 2016, in the case styled
Merrill Primack v. Life Protect 24/7, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-
cv-05249 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Jorge L. Alonso.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue Plaintiff's motion
      for class certification is granted;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and
      continued to August 2, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.;

   -- the initial status hearing is set for August 2, 2016, at
      9:30 a.m.; and

   -- the Motion hearing date of May 25, 2016, is stricken.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yhmrB3Vp


M&T BANK CORP: "Habib" Sues Over Fund Mismanagement
---------------------------------------------------
Sa'ud Habib, Beverly Williams, J. Marlene Smith, Kenneth
Sliwinski, and Russ Dixon, individually as representatives of a
class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the M&T Bank
Corporation Retirement Savings Plan, Plaintiffs, v. M&T Bank
Corporation, Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, M&T Bank
Employee Benefit Plans Committee, Wilmington Trust Investment
Advisors, Wilmington Funds Management Corporation, Wilmington
Trust Corporation, Janet Coletti, Michele Trolli, Mark Czarnecki,
Stephen Braunscheidel, Brian Hickey, Darren King, Kevin Pearson,
Michael Spychala, Brent O. Baird, C. Angela Bontempo, Robert T.
Brady, T. Jefferson Cunningham III, Gary N. Geisel, John D. Hawks,
Jr., Patrick W.E. Hodgson, Richard G. King, Melinda R. Rich,
Robert E. Sadler, Jr., Herbert L. Washington, Robert G. Wilmers,
Robert J. Bennett, Michael D. Buckley, Jorge Pereira, Colin E.
Doherty, Denis J. Salamon, Newton P.S. Merrill, and John Does 1-
20, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00375 (W.D.N.Y., May 11, 2016),
seeks disgorgement, equitable relief, enjoinment, pre-judgment
interest, attorney fees and costs and such other and further
relief for breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

M&T provided a defined-contribution for its employees, including
the Plaintiffs. It owns Wilmington Trust Investment Advisors,
Wilmington Funds Management Corporation and Wilmington Trust
Corporation.

Plaintiffs allege mismanagement of the pension fund by engaging in
unlawful self-dealing and imprudent investment decisions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kai Richter, Esq.
      Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
      Jacob Schutz, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 S 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: 612-256-3200
      Facsimile: 612-338-4878
      Email: krichter@nka.com
             cengstrom@nka.com
             jschutz@nka.com


MDL 2474: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held
------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that a Missouri court was
slated to hold a hearing May 19, 2016, to consider final approval
of the settlement reached in the Form 8863 Litigation.

The Company said, "A series of putative class action lawsuits were
filed against us in various federal courts and one state court
beginning on March 13, 2013. Taken together, the plaintiffs in
these lawsuits purport to represent certain clients nationwide who
filed Form 8863 during tax season 2013 through an H&R Block office
or using H&R Block At Home(R) online tax services or desktop tax
preparation software, and allege breach of contract, negligence
and violation of state consumer laws in connection with
transmission of the form. The plaintiffs seek damages, pre-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs."

"In August 2013, the plaintiff in the state court action
voluntarily dismissed her case without prejudice. The Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation subsequently granted our
petition to consolidate the remaining federal lawsuits for
coordinated pretrial proceedings in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri in a proceeding styled
IN RE: H&R BLOCK IRS FORM 8863 LITIGATION (MDL No. 2474/Case No.
4:13-MD-02474-FJG).

On July 11, 2014, the MDL court granted our motion to compel
arbitration for those named plaintiffs who agreed to arbitrate
their claims. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint in October 2014. We filed a motion to strike the class
allegations relating to those clients who agreed to arbitration,
which the court granted on January 7, 2015. The parties
subsequently reached an agreement to settle the remaining claims,
subject to court approval.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
January 12, 2016. A final approval hearing was set for May 19,
2016.

A portion of our loss contingency accrual is related to this
matter for the amount of loss that we consider probable and
reasonably estimable.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Certification of Class Sought in "Oliver" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled ANTHONY OLIVER, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. THE
MEN'S WEARHOUSE, a Texas corporation, Case No. 2:16-CV-01100-TJH
(C.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify a class consisting of
thousands of consumers.

The Case is brought over alleged unauthorized automated text
message calls sent to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and
the class using an automatic telephone dialing system, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

A hearing will be held on August 1, 2016, to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          212 Marine Street, Ste. 100
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          E-mail: dcparis@parisihavens.com
                  shavens@parisihavens.com

               - and -

          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com


MINISTRY HEALTH CARE: Employees File Suit Over Unpaid Breaks
------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Beck, writing for Oshkosh Northwestern, reports that Ministry
Health Care faces its third lawsuit in two years claiming that the
healthcare company fails to pay employees properly.

A class of Ministry Health Care employees claim in a lawsuit filed
on May 9 that the network expects them to stay on-call during
unpaid breaks, and doesn't pay them for work off-the-clock.
Ministry has faced two other similar suits since February 2014,
settling one last June for more than $1 million, according to
court documents.

In a complaint filed on May 9, employees claim that the healthcare
company Affinity Health System and its parent company, Ministry
Health Care, expect hourly employees that care for patients to
remain near their workplace during unpaid breaks and don't pay
employees when they are called back to work during breaks.

"During such unpaid meal periods, the affected hourly employees
are required to remain on call on the employer's premises or so
close thereto that they cannot use the time effectively for their
own purposes," the complaint said.

Lead plaintiffs Yvette Olson, of Iola, and Carin Gretzon, of
DePere, were employed at Appleton's St. Elizabeth Hospital as
surgical technologists, or members of an operating room team.  The
complaint argues that Affinity and Ministry have employed hundreds
like Ms. Olson and Ms. Gretzon.

Employees at Ministry, which has offices in Milwaukee and Stevens
Point, seek a jury trial in the case and bring the suit under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which outlines overtime pay,
minimum wage and other federal work mandates.

Representing Ms. Olson and Ms. Gretzon are Nathan Eisenberg and
Erin Dedeiros, of the Previant Law Firm in Milwaukee, and Appleton
attorney Barry Gill.  Messrs. Eisenberg and Gill did not
immediately return messages seeking comment.

Ministry has not yet filed a response or registered attorneys in
the suit.

Since early 2014, Ministry has faced two other class-action FLSA
lawsuits.

Mr. Eisenberg and the Previant Law Firm represented Ministry
employees claiming the company expected them to work unpaid during
breaks.  The company settled that lawsuit in June 2015, paying out
more than $1 million to employees and more than $300,000 in fees
and costs to attorneys Eisenberg and Gill.

In August 2015, employees at Marshfield's Ministry St. Joseph
Hospital represented by Eisenberg sued the company in August 2015
under similar unpaid work claims.  That lawsuit is still pending.


NCEP LLC: Bid to Certify Class Terminated; Hearing on June 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 18, 2016, in the case styled
Ana M. Cruz v. NCEP, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-09282 (N.D.
Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Rebecca R.
Pallmeyer.

The minute entry states that the motion to certify class is
terminated without prejudice to parties' proposed class-wide
settlement.  A status hearing is set for June 15, 2016, at 9:00
a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kqY1CPwP


NOVANT HEALTH: Judge OKs Settlement, Sept. 23 Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William Lindsay Osteen, Jr., entered a findings and order
preliminarily certifying a class for settlement purposes in the
lawsuit styled KAROLYN KRUGER, M.D., CANDACE CULTON, FRANCES
BAILLIE, EILEEN SCHNEIDER, JUDY LEWIS, LINDA CHRISTENSEN, and
TERESA POWELL, individually as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Novant Health
Retirement Plus Plan v. NOVANT HEALTH, INC., ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE OF NOVANT HEALTH, INC., NOVANT HEALTH RETIREMENT PLAN
COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-40, Case No. 1:14CV208 (M.D.N.C).  The
Court also appoints Schlichter, Bogard & Denton as Class Counsel.

The litigation arose out of claims involving alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 with respect to the Savings and Supplemental
Retirement Plan of Novant Health, Inc. and the Tax Deferred
Savings Plan of Novant Health, Inc.

Solely for the purposes of proposed settlement in this matter, the
Court preliminarily finds that the requirements of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution, the
Rules of the Court and any other applicable law have been met as
to the certification of the "Settlement Class," defined as:

     All current and former participants and beneficiaries who
     participated in any of the following retirement plans
     (herein collectively referred to as the "Plans") between
     October 1, 1998 and September 30, 2015:

     * The Savings and Supplemental Retirement Plan of Novant
       Health, Inc. and the Tax Deferred Savings Plan of Novant
       Health, Inc. (collectively, the "Retirement Plus Plan");

     * The Franklin/Upstate 401(k) Plan;

     * The Presbyterian Women's Care Corp. 401(k) Plan;

     * The Lakeside/Q-Neck 401(k) Plan;

     * The 457(b) Retirement Plan of Novant Health, Inc.; or

     * The Retirement Plus Plan Wrap Nonqualified 457(b)/457(f)
       Plan of Novant Health, Inc.

Excluded from the class are members of the Novant Health
Retirement Plan Committee, the Administrative Committee and
members of Novant Health, Inc.'s Board of Trustees since
October 1, 1998.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9je0CJqq

                $32-Mil. Settlement Has Initial OK

Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that a
federal judge approved a $32 million settlement on May 11
involving Novant Health Inc. and a class-action lawsuit targeting
its defined-compensation retirement plan.  A fairness hearing will
be held at 2:00 p.m. Sept. 23.

About $10.67 million goes to attorney fees.  Each of the six named
plaintiffs receive $25,000.  The remaining money will be
distributed among the class.

The lawsuit was filed March 12, 2014, by six current and former
employees, including Karolyn Kruger, a retired doctor who served
as chief of staff at Thomasville Medical Center.

The preliminary settlement was reached Nov. 9.  Novant's
administrative and retirement plan committees -- both in their
committee roles and as individuals -- are listed as co-defendants.

The complaint accuses Novant of breaching its fiduciary duties by
causing plan participants to pay millions of dollars in fees for
excessive record-keeping and administrative services to third-
party service providers Great West Life & Annuity Insurance Co.
and D.L. Davis & Co. of Winston-Salem.

According to the plaintiffs' law firm of Schlichter, Bogard &
Denton, there are about 25,000 affected Novant employees who had
been enrolled automatically in the retirement plan since 2009. The
lawsuit covered the period Oct. 1, 1998, to Sept. 30, 2015.
The plan's assets more than doubled from $612 million in 2008 to
$1.42 billion as of March 2014, the latest total available.

"This settlement will not only compensate Novant employees and
retirees for the past, but will also mean that they have a great
plan going forward and can build their retirement assets," said
Jerry Schlichter, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys.

Novant filed for dismissal in May 2014, saying the plaintiffs had
failed to state a claim for excessive investment fees and
excessive record-keeping fees.

"Novant offers a 'sufficient mix' of 23 different investment
options which spanned the risk/return spectrum," Novant said at
the time.

Plaintiffs argued the plan has different versions of the same
investment vehicle available with less expensive fees.

On May 12, Novant said in a statement that the preliminary
approval "is an important step toward full implementation of the
settlement, which we believe is in the best long-term interests of
our health system and our retirement plan participants.

"If finally approved in September, the settlement will allow us to
put additional money toward eligible team members' retirement
accounts, rather than spending it on a long and costly legal
battle."

The parties agreed that future "certain non-monetary terms and
affirmative relief" include hiring a plan record keeper and
investment adviser selected by Novant and approved by an
independent consultant.

In September, Judge Osteen issued an order in which he upheld
three plaintiff disloyalty and imprudence claims as to:

Excessive investment options

Excessive payment to Great West, an administrative and record-
keeping service provider

Excessive payments to D.L. Davis, a brokerage company that the
plaintiffs claim provided the plan with limited marketing and
enrollment services.

The complaint said Great West received excessive compensation of
$8.6 million between 2009 and 2012.

The complaint states D.L. Davis received a second source of
revenue in the form of "kickbacks" from the managers of the plan
investment options.  The complaint claims that D.L. Davis provided
the plan with limited marketing and enrollment services, but was
paid excessive fees up to $9.6 million from 2009 to 2012 in the
form of "commissions."

Novant said D.L. Davis "provided extensive services that go well
beyond mere limited and enrollment services."

Among the services that Novant cited are plan-design
implementation, mutual-fund selection and fees, selection of the
record keeper, and communication and educational efforts with
employees.

Novant denied allegation of kickbacks.


NUVASIVE INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Nuvasive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a motion to dismiss
the securities litigation remains pending.

On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California naming the Company and certain of its current and
former executive officers for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically relating to the purported
improper submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. The
complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from October
22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks
unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.

On February 13, 2014, the lead plaintiff ("Plaintiff") filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal
Securities Laws. The District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss the Amended Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to amend
its complaint.

Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 8, 2014,
and the District Court once again granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. On December 23, 2014,
Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, and while the Company's
motion was pending, Plaintiff sought leave to file a Fourth
Amended Complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended
Complaint.

On August 28, 2015, the District Court issued an order granting
the Company's motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint with
leave to amend. On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Fifth
Amended Complaint.

At March 31, 2016, the probable outcome of this litigation cannot
be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of potential
loss. In accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation
of loss contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual
related to this litigation.

Nuvasive is a medical device company in the global spine surgery
market, focused on developing minimally-disruptive surgical
products and procedurally-integrated solutions for spine surgery.
Its currently-marketed product portfolio is focused on
applications for spine fusion surgery, including biologics used to
aid in the spinal fusion process. For the year ended December 31,
2015, Nuvasive generated global revenues of $811.1 million,
including sales in over 30 countries.


OCEAN POWER: Defending Securities Class Action in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that the Company and
its former Chief Executive Officer Charles Dunleavy are defendants
in consolidated securities class action lawsuits, and pending in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
captioned In Re: Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 14-3799 (FLW) (LHG).

The consolidated actions are Roby v. Ocean Power Technologies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-03799-FLW-LHG (filed June 13,
2014); Chew, et al. v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. et. al.,
Case No 3:14-cv-03815 (filed June 13, 2014); Konstantinidis v.
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04015
(filed June 23, 2014); and Turner v. Ocean Power Technologies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04592 (filed July 22, 2014). On
March 17, 2015, the court entered an order appointing Five More
Special Situation Fund Ltd. as the lead plaintiff.

On October 9, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended class
action complaint which alleges claims for violations of sections
12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and for violations
of Sec.10(b) and Sec.20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
arising out of public statements relating to the Company's
technology and a now terminated agreement between Victorian Wave
Partners Pty. Ltd. (VWP) and the Australian Renewable Energy
Agency (ARENA) for the development of a wave power station (the
"VWP Project"). The third amended class action complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On November 5,
2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended class
action complaint. The lead plaintiff filed a brief in opposition
to the motion on December 7, 2015, and defendants filed a reply in
support of the motion on December 21, 2015. The Court has not yet
ruled on the motion.

Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") was incorporated in
1984 in New Jersey, commenced business operations in 1994 and re-
incorporated in Delaware in 2007. The Company is developing and is
seeking to commercialize proprietary systems that generate
electricity by harnessing the renewable energy of ocean waves. The
Company markets its PowerBuoys in the United States and
internationally. Since fiscal 2002, government agencies have
accounted for a significant portion of the Company's revenues.
These revenues were largely for the support of product development
efforts. The Company's goal is to develop a commercially viable
product and to generate revenues from the sale of products and
maintenance services, as compared to revenue to support its
product development efforts. As the Company continues to advance
its proprietary technologies, it expects to continue to have a net
decrease in cash from operating activities unless and until it
achieves positive cash flow from the planned commercialization of
products and services.


OFFICE DEPOT: Approval of "Heitzenrater" Accord Expected Mid-2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 26, 2016, that final settlement
approval and dismissal of the "Heitzenrater" case are expected by
mid-2016.

Heitzenrater v. OfficeMax North America, Inc., et al. was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of New
York in September 2012 as a putative class action alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The complaint alleges that OfficeMax misclassified its assistant
store managers ("ASMs") as exempt employees. OfficeMax vigorously
defended itself in this lawsuit and in November 2015 reached a
settlement in the amount of $3.5 million which the court
preliminarily approved on November 23, 2015. Final settlement
approval and dismissal of the case are expected by mid-2016.


OFFICE DEPOT: "Rivet" Class Action Ongoing in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 26, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the Kyle Rivet class action lawsuit.

Kyle Rivet v. Office Depot, Inc., formerly known as Constance
Gibbons v. Office Depot, Inc., a putative class action that was
instituted in May 2012, is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that
Office Depot's use of the fluctuating workweek method of pay was
unlawful because Office Depot failed to pay a fixed weekly salary
and failed to provide its ASMs with a clear and mutual
understanding notification that they would receive a fixed weekly
salary for all hours worked. The plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes in this case that adequate provisions have
been made for probable losses and such amounts are not material.
However, in light of the early stage of the case and the inherent
uncertainty of litigation, the Company is unable to estimate a
reasonably possible range of loss in this matter. Office Depot
intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit.


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: SEPTA Securities Class Action Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. continues to defend a class
action lawsuit by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority, according to 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 May 25, 2012, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority's ("SEPTA") filed a putative class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania against the Company, the Bank and certain current and
former directors and executive officers (collectively, the
"Defendants"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i)
in connection with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-
3 dated February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated
March 23, 2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of
March 24, 2010 through October 27, 2011, the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
lending practices and financial results, including misleading
statements concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's credit
practices and underwriting standards, the quality of its loan
portfolio, and the intended use of the proceeds from the Company's
March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint asserts
claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks class
certification, unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees
and equitable or injunctive relief. Under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for appointment
of Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24, 2012. SEPTA
was the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff
on August 20, 2012.

Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,
SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended
complaint and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to the
Defendant's motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013.
Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case
were stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to
dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to
address discovery and the filing of a motion for class
certification.

On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for
enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in order to
permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the amended
complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and defendants'
defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted SEPTA's motion,
mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order, and requiring
SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before January 16, 2013
or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances that require a
further enlargement of time.

On January 14, 2013, the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed
motion for enlargement of time to file an amended complaint on or
before March 22, 2013.  On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint expands the list of defendants in
the action to include the Company's independent registered public
accounting firm and the underwriters of the Company's March 2010
public offering of common stock. In addition, among other things,
the amended complaint extends the purported 1934 Exchange Act
class period from March 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012.

Pursuant to the Court's March 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on
May 28, 2013 all defendants filed their motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on July 22, 2013 SEPTA filed its "omnibus"
opposition to all of the defendants' motions to dismiss. On August
23, 2013, all defendants filed reply briefs in further support of
their motions to dismiss. On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered
oral argument on the Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint to be heard on February 7, 2014. Oral argument
on the pending motions to dismiss SEPTA's amended complaint was
held on April 29, 2014.

The Second Scheduling Order stayed all discovery in the case
pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informed the
parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address
discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification
would be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the motions to
dismiss.

On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filed
supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the United States
Supreme Court's March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v.
Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund on
defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed
without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all
defendants, finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under
either the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Court ordered that, within
30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to amend its amended complaint,
accompanied by the proposed amendment, or file a notice of its
intention to stand on the amended complaint.

On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under
Local Rule 15.1, and attached a copy of its proposed second
amended complaint to its motion. Many of the allegations of the
proposed second amended complaint are essentially the same or
similar to the allegations of the dismissed amended complaint. The
proposed second amended complaint also alleges that the Orrstown
Defendants did not publicly disclose certain alleged failures of
internal controls over loan underwriting, risk management, and
financial reporting during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation
of the federal securities laws.

On February 8, 2016, the Court granted SEPTA's motion for leave to
amend and SEPTA filed its second amended complaint that same day.
The allegations of SEPTA's proposed second amended complaint
disclosed the existence of a confidential, non-public, fact-
finding inquiry regarding the Company being conducted by the
Commission. The Commission inquiry is not an indication that the
Commission believes the Company or anyone else has violated
federal securities laws or regulations. Nor does it mean that the
Commission has a negative opinion of any person, entity, or
security. The investigation is ongoing and the Company has been
cooperating fully with the Commission.

On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order
directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March
18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants'
motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file
reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22,
2016. The Order stays all discovery and other deadlines in the
case (including the filing of SEPTA's motion for class
certification) pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss.
The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's second
amended complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself against those claims.

Given that the litigation is still in the pleading stage, it is
not possible at this time to estimate reasonably possible losses,
or even a range of reasonably possible losses, in connection with
the litigation.

The Bank was originally organized in 1919 as a state-chartered
bank. On March 8, 1988, in a bank holding company reorganization
transaction, the Company acquired 100% ownership of the Bank,
issuing 131,455 shares of the Company's common stock to the former
shareholders of the Bank.


PAN ASIA: Recalls Breaded Fish Cake Products Due to Egg
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 28, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Pan Asia Food Co.
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10566

  Brand    Common     Size     Code(s) on     UPC
  name     name       ----     product        ---
  -----    ------              ----------
  Wang     Breaded    560 g    2017.05.27     0 87703 15636 4
  Korea    Fish
           Cake


PAN ASIA: Recalls Fish Sausage Products Due to Egg
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 28, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Pan Asia Food Company
Distribution: Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Possibly National,
Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10564

Pan Asia Food Company is recalling Wang Korea brand fish sausage
products from the marketplace because they contain egg which is
not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should
not consume the recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand    Common     Size     Code(s) on     UPC
  name     name       ----     product        ---
  -----    ------              ----------
  Wang     Miss Bong  34 g     JUN.11.2016    0 87703 13085 2
  Korea    Fish
           Sausage
  Wang     Cheese     34 g     JUN.11.2016   0 87703 21273 2
  Korea    Bong Fish
           Sausage
           Cheese
           Flavor
  Wang     Kkot Gae   34 g     JUN.11.2016   0 87703 16995 1
  Korea    Bong Fish
           Sausage
           Crab
           Flavor

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/VRuGth


PEARLAND CAPITAL: Stewart Seeks Conditional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled CHASTITY STEWART, Individually
and on behalf of ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. PEARLAND CAPITAL
GROUP, LP D/B/A HILTON GARDEN INN PEARLAND, Case No. 4:16-cv-00948
(S.D. Tex.), files with the Court a motion for conditional
certification and class notice.  The Plaintiff also asks the Court
to permit Court-supervised notice to employees of their opt-in
rights.

The Lawsuit was filed on April 5, 2016, as a collective action,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, concerning overtime
wages allegedly owed to the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated by the Defendant.  According to the Motion, the affidavit
of Chastity Stewart supports a finding that the Defendant's
practice of not paying overtime wages to its guest services
agents, cleaning staff, maintenance staff, bar employees, manual
laborers and drivers is a company-wide policy and not an isolated
incident.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to require the Defendant to
produce the names, last known addresses, and phone numbers of all
such proposed opt-in class members under oath no later than 10
days from the date the Court enters an order granting the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5sbLkyQ8


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Certification of Property Owners Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CHRISTOS SOUROVELIS, DOILA
WELCH, NORYS HERNANDEZ, and NASSIR GEIGER on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; JAMES
F. KENNEY, in his official capacity as Mayor of Philadelphia;
PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; R. SETH WILLIAMS, in his
official capacity as District Attorney of Philadelphia; and
RICHARD ROSS JR., in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
Philadelphia Police Department, Case No. 2:14-cv-04687-ER (E.D.
Pa.), ask the Court to certify the Conflict of Interest claim on
behalf of a class of:

     All persons who hold legal title to or otherwise have a
     legal interest in property against which a civil-forfeiture
     petition was filed by the Philadelphia District Attorney's
     Office on or after August 11, 2012, or will in the future be
     filed, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.

On August 11, 2014, three real-property owners, Plaintiffs
Sourovelis, Welch, and Hernandez filed the putative class action
challenging six different policies and practices implementing
Philadelphia's civil-forfeiture program.

As relevant here, the Plaintiffs allege that the retention by
Defendants City of Philadelphia, Mayor James F. Kenney, Police
Commissioner Richard Ross Jr., and the Philadelphia District
Attorney's Office and District Attorney R. Seth Williams of
forfeited property and its proceeds for use by the Philadelphia
Police Department and Philadelphia D.A.'s Office violates due
process by presenting a conflict of interest.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to designate them class
representatives, and to appoint Institute for Justice and local
counsel David Rudovsky, Esq., as class counsel.  If the Court
deems that Plaintiffs' request for restitution is not appropriate
for classwide treatment, they alternatively ask that the Court
certify the Conflict of Interest claim as to liability only.\

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Nh3Rbjbz

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Darpana M. Sheth, Esq.
          Robert P. Frommer, Esq.
          Robert Peccola, Esq.
          Milad Emam, Esq.
          INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
          901 North Glebe Road, Suite 900
          Arlington, VA 22203
          Telephone: (703) 682-9320
          Facsimile: (703) 682-9321
          E-mail: dsheth@ij.org
                  rfrommer@ij.org
                  rpeccola@ij.org
                  memam@ij.org

               - and -

          David Rudovsky, Esq.
          KAIRYS, RUDOVSKY, MESSING & FEINBERG
          The Cast Iron Building
          718 Arch Street, Suite 501 South
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 925-4400
          Facsimile: (215) 925-5365
          E-mail: drudovsky@krlawphila.com

Defendants City of Philadelphia, Mayor James F. Kenney, and Police
Commissioner Richard J. Ross, Jr., are represented by:

          Michael R. Miller, Esq.
          CITY OF PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPARTMENT
          1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 683-5444
          E-mail: Michael.R.Miller@phila.gov

Defendants Philadelphia District Attorney's Office and District
Attorney R. Seth Williams are represented by:

          Elizabeth J. Graham-Rubin, Esq.
          Bryan C. Hughes, Esq.
          Douglas M. Weck, Jr., Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
          Three South Penn Square
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 686-8787
          E-mail: bj.graham-rubin@phila.gov
                  bryan.hughes@phila.gov
                  douglas.weck@phila.gov


PHILIPS MEDICAL: Recalls Digital Diagnost
-----------------------------------------
Starting date: April 27, 2016
Posting date: May 16, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58374

A firmware anomaly inside the detector (4343RC) can cause the
detector to appear ready for acquisition on very short time
intervals while it actually is not, resulting in not correctly
acquiring the x-ray image.

Affected products:
DIGITAL DIAGNOST
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: 9890 010 83904

Manufacturer: Philips Medical Systems Dmc Gmbh
              Rontgenstrabe 24
              Hamburg
              22335
              GERMANY


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Wants Kern County Suit Moved to D.C. Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Photomedex, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 7, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is seeking
to remove a class action originally filed in Kern County to the
U.S. District Court in Washington D.C.

On June 30, 2014, the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc., was
served with a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court in
the State of California, County of Kern. The suit was filed by
April Cantley, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It
alleges various violations of state business and consumer
protection codes including false and misleading advertising,
breach of express and implied warranties and breach of the
California Legal Remedies Act. The complaint seeks certification
of the class, which consists of customers in the State of
California who purchased the no!no! Hair devices. The complaint
also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees
and other costs. Radiancy has filed an Answer to this Complaint;
the case is now in the discovery phase.

On October 30, 2015, Radiancy filed to remove this action to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California; as a result of that filing, all discovery in this case
has now been stayed. That removal was granted, and the Company has
now filed to remove this case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, the district with jurisdiction over the
Mouzon litigation.

Radiancy and its officers intend to vigorously defend themselves
against this lawsuit. Discovery has now commenced in this action.
At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be
reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no
discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any
claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not
recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these
particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases
progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent
liability or reserve for these matters.


PIER 1: Kenney and Davie Cases Ongoing in Texas
-----------------------------------------------
Pier 1 Imports, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended February 27, 2016, that the Company continues to
defend the Kenney and Davie cases which have been consolidated
into a single action.

On August 28, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas - Dallas Division, captioned Kathleen Kenney, Plaintiff, v.
Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner,
Defendants (the "Kenney Case"), alleging violations under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The lawsuit was filed
on behalf of a purported putative class of investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired stock of Pier 1 Imports, Inc. between
December 19, 2013 through February 10, 2015, and seeks to recover
damages purportedly caused by the Defendants' alleged violations
of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages
plus interest and attorneys' fees.

A second related case, captioned Town of Davie Police Pension
Plan, Plaintiff, v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and
Charles H. Turner, Defendants (the "Davie Case"), was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas -
Dallas Division on October 21, 2015 making similar allegations on
behalf of a purported putative class of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired stock of Pier 1 Imports, Inc. between December
19, 2013 and September 24, 2015.

The Kenney Case and the Davie Case have been consolidated into a
single action, captioned Town of Davie Police Pension Plan,
Plaintiff, v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles
H. Turner, Defendants. The consolidated action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas -
Dallas Division.

Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted
with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without
merit and intends to defend against it vigorously.

Pier 1 Imports owns retail stores and an e-Commerce website.


PREMIER COURIER: Faces "Wright" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Wright, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Premier Courier, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00420-MHW-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio., May 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Premier Courier, Inc. is engaged in the business of delivering
packages locally and across the country for medical, payroll
processing, and banking clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      The Superior Building
      815 Superior Avenue E., Suite 1325
      Cleveland, OH  44114
      Telephone: 440-498-9100
      E-mail: jscott@ohiowagealawyers.com
              rwinters@ohiowagelaweyers.com

         - and -

      Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
      46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104
      Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
      Telephone: (440) 973-9000
      E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Amended Complaint Filed in Haverhill Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service Corporation 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 verified
amended class action and derivative complaint has been filed in
the case, Haverhill Retirement System v. Kerley.

On June 15, 2015, a putative stockholder class action derivative
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, (the "Court"), captioned Haverhill Retirement System v.
Kerley et al., C.A. No. 11149-VCL.  The complaint names Richard A.
Kerley, Kristi L. Meints, Warren S. Rustand, Christopher
Shackelton (the "Individual Defendants") and Coliseum Capital
Management, LLC ("Coliseum") as defendants, and the Company as a
nominal defendant.

The complaint purported to allege that the dividend rate increase
term originally in the Company's outstanding convertible preferred
stock was an impermissibly coercive measure that impaired the
voting rights of the Company's stockholders in connection with the
vote on the removal of certain voting and conversion caps
previously applicable to the preferred stock (the "Caps"), and
that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the dividend rate increase term and attempting to coerce
the stockholder vote relating to the Company's preferred stock,
and by failing to disclose all material information necessary to
allow the Company's stockholders to cast an informed vote on the
Caps. The complaint also purports to allege derivative claims
alleging that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company by entering into the subordinated note and
standby agreement with Coliseum, and granting Coliseum certain
stock options.

The complaint further alleges that Coliseum has aided and abetted
the Individual Defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties and
that demand on the Board is excused as futile.  The complaint
sought, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the
stockholder vote relating to the dividend rate increase, a finding
that the Individual Defendants are liable for breaching their
fiduciary duties to the Company and the Company's stockholders, a
finding that Coliseum is liable for aiding and abetting the
Individual Defendant's breaches of their fiduciary duties, a
finding that Coliseum is liable for unjust enrichment, a finding
that demand on the Board is excused as futile, a revision or
rescission of the terms of the subordinated note and preferred
stock as necessary and/or appropriate, a requirement for the
Company to reform its corporate governance profile to protect
against future misconduct similar to that alleged by the putative
stockholder class, a certification of the putative stockholder
class, compensatory damages, together with pre-and post-judgment
interest, costs and disbursements (including expenses, attorneys'
and experts' fees), and any other and further relief as is just
and equitable.

On August 31, 2015, after arms' length negotiations, the parties
reached an agreement in principle and executed a memorandum of
understanding providing for the settlement of claims concerning
the dividend rate increase term and stockholder vote and related
disclosure. The Memorandum of Understanding stated that the
Defendants have entered into the partial settlement of the
litigation solely to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense,
and potential delay of further litigation involving claims that
have been settled.

Pursuant to the partial settlement, the Company agreed to
supplement the disclosures in its definitive proxy statement on
Schedule 14A ("Definitive Proxy Statement"), Coliseum and certain
of its affiliates and the Company entered into an amendment to
that certain Series A Preferred Stock Exchange Agreement, by and
among Coliseum Capital Partners, L.P., Coliseum Capital Partners
II, L.P., Coliseum Capital Co-Invest, L.P., Blackwell Partners,
LLC, and The Providence Service Corporation dated as of February
11, 2015 described in the Definitive Proxy Statement, and the
Board of Directors of the Company agreed to adopt a policy related
to the Board's determination each quarter as to whether the
Company should pay cash dividends or allow dividends to be paid in
the form of PIK dividends on the preferred stock, as further
described in the supplemental proxy disclosures. On September 2,
2015, Providence issued supplemental disclosures through a
Supplement to the Proxy Statement. On September 16, 2015,
Providence stockholders approved the removal of the Caps.

The settlement provided for, among other things, the release of
any claims based on alleged coercion and disclosure related to the
stockholder vote on the removal of the Caps. On November 13, 2015,
the Court issued an order setting out the schedule related to
application for court approval of the proposed settlement and
plaintiffs' counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses
related to the settlement as provided for in the Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU"). The Company provided notice of the proposed
partial settlement to Providence's shareholders by December 11,
2015.

At a hearing on February 9, 2016, the court denied approval of the
settlement. The Court indicated that plaintiff's counsel could
petition the Court for a mootness fee, and that defendants would
have the opportunity to oppose any such application.

On January 12, 2016, plaintiff filed a verified amended class
action and derivative complaint. In addition to the defendants
named in the earlier complaint, the amended complaint names David
Shackelton, Coliseum Capital Partners, L.P., Coliseum Capital
Partners II, L.P., Blackwell Partners, LLC, Coliseum Capital CO-
Invest, L.P. (collectively, and together with Coliseum Capital
Management, LLC, "Coliseum") and RBC Capital Markets, LLC, ("RBC
Capital Markets") as additional defendants. The amended complaint
purports to allege direct and derivative claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against some or all of the Individual Defendants
and David Shackelton (collectively, the "Amended Individual
Defendants") regarding the approval of the subordinated note, the
rights offering, standby agreement with Coliseum, and grant to
Coliseum of certain stock options. The amended complaint also
purports to allege an additional derivative claim for unjust
enrichment against Coliseum regarding the subordinated note, the
rights offering, and standby agreement with Coliseum, and stock
options. The amended complaint further alleges that Coliseum and
RBC Capital Markets aided and abetted the Amended Individual
Defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties and that demand on
the Board is excused as futile.

The amended complaint seeks (a) findings that (i) the Amended
Individual Defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary
duties to the Company and the putative stockholder class, (ii)
Coliseum and RBC Capital are liable for aiding and abetting such
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, (iii) Coliseum is liable for
unjust enrichment, (iv) certain stock options awarded to Coliseum
were the product of waste, and (iv) demand on the Board is excused
as futile, (b) revision or rescission of the terms of the
subordinated note and preferred stock as necessary and/or
appropriate, (c) a requirement that the Company reform its
corporate governance profile to protect against future misconduct
similar to that alleged by the putative stockholder class, (d)
certification of the putative stockholder class, (e) compensatory
damages, together with pre-and post-judgment interest, costs and
disbursements (including expenses, attorneys' and experts' fees),
and (f) any other and further relief as is just and equitable.

The Providence Service Corporation (the "Company" or
"Providence"), a Delaware corporation formed in 1996, is a holding
company, whose subsidiaries provide critical healthcare and
workforce development services. The Company operates within two
key industry sectors-US healthcare and global workforce
development-through its three operating segments: Non-Emergency
Transportation Services ("NET Services"), Workforce Development
Services ("WD Services") and Health Assessment Services ("HA
Services"). NET Services coordinates non-emergency transportation
for individuals whose limited mobility and/or financial resources
would otherwise hinder them from accessing necessary healthcare
and social services. WD Services primarily provides employability
and offender rehabilitation services to eligible participants of
government sponsored programs. HA Services, provides care
optimization and delivery solutions, including comprehensive
health assessments ("CHAs") for health plans as well as in-home
care management offerings.


QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY: To Defend Against "Nguyen" IPO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Quotient 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 intends to
defend against a class action lawsuit related to its initial
public offering.

The Company said, "On March 11, 2015, a putative stockholder class
action lawsuit was filed against us, the members of our board of
directors, certain of our executive officers and the underwriters
of our IPO: Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. CGC-15-
544654 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County). The
complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act and seeks
unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class
of persons and entities who purchased stock pursuant or traceable
to the registration statement and prospectus for our IPO."

"Plaintiff Nguyen requested and obtained a dismissal without
prejudice of his San Francisco action and filed another complaint
with substantially the same allegations in the Santa Clara County
Superior Court, Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-
CV-278777 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar.
30, 2015).

"Three other complaints with substantially the same allegations
have also been filed: O'Donnell v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case
No. 1-15-CV-278399 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County)
(Mar. 20, 2015); So v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-
278774 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar. 30,
2015); and Silverberg v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-
CV-278891 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Apr. 2,
2015).

"On May 7, 2015, the Santa Clara court consolidated the Nguyen, So
and Silverberg actions with the O'Donnell action. The Court
sustained defendants' demurrer to the consolidated complaint with
leave to amend. On December 14, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint. On January 28, 2016, defendants filed a
demurrer to the amended consolidated complaint.

"We intend to defend the litigation vigorously. Based on
information currently available, we believe that the potential for
liability for the above claims is remote."


RAYMOND JAMES: Faces Two Investor Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------
Financial Advisor IQ reports that Raymond James has been named in
two related class action lawsuits alleging the firm and associated
parties deceived investors over various assets and transactions
pertaining to EB-5 immigrant visa investor projects based in
Vermont, Law360 writes.

In a complaint filed on May 9 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Carlos Enrique Hiller Sanchez and a
group of other plaintiffs are seeking to recoup $71.5 million from
Raymond James and fund manager Joel Burstein, reports Law360.

Hiller Sanchez's suit follows a similar class action filing in the
same court by another investor, Alexandre Daccache, a Brazilian
national claiming that over $350 million invested into an EB-5
program never made it into the target investments, but instead was
paid into other projects and lined the pockets of co-defendant
Ariel Quiros, the owner of Jay Peak, a ski resort in Vermont,
according to Law360.

The EB-5 visa program is designed to reward foreign nationals with
U.S. permanent residency green cards as a result of investing in
projects that create jobs.

Hiller Sanchez alleges the firm and Mr. Burstein violated the SEC
Act of 1934, and assisted in fraud and a fiduciary breach, Law360
writes.

The Hiller Sanchez suit further claims Mr. Burstein and Raymond
James participated in "duping and defrauding" the investors
through the falsification of associated business plans and limited
partnership agreements, and acted with "severe recklessness" as to
whether the representations were misleading or false, Law360
writes.

In particular, lawyers for Hiller Sanchez assert in their
complaint that Raymond James and Burstein knew funds slated for
the target investment vehicle were actually being misused, yet
instead of attempting to report or rectify the situation the
defendants instead constructed and implemented a "fraudulent
financial structure," Law360 reports.

In his suit, Mr. Daccache accuses Raymond James of providing
margin loans to Mr. Quiros, and that the loans were collateralized
with EB-5 investor assets, the Burlington Free Press reports.
Attorneys for Mr. Daccache are therefore asserting that plaintiff
funds were "misused, commingled, and stolen" by Mr. Quiros and Jay
Peak CEO William Stenger "with the assistance of Raymond James and
Burstein," the Burlington Free Press reports.

The suit also accuses the defendants of violating the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the newspaper writes.

"The members of the RICO enterprise had a common purpose: to
increase and maximize their profits by illegally diverting funds
that they knew belonged to investors for improper and unauthorized
purposes," the complaint says.  "The Defendants shared the bounty
of their enterprise by sharing the illegal profits generated by
the joint scheme."

Mr. Daccache's suit comes on the heels of an SEC fraud case
against Messrs. Quiros and Stenger.

The financial regulator has accused the pair of misappropriating
$200 million of the project funds in a "Ponzi-like fashion."

The SEC alleges Mr. Quiros used the money for personal expenses
and to cover losses in unrelated businesses, reports the
Burlington Free Press.


REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Certification of Two FDCPA Classes Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ABEL MANRIQUE, on behalf of
plaintiff and the class members described herein v. REAL TIME
RESOLUTIONS, INC.; ANSON STREET LLC; and RESURGENT CAPITAL
SERVICES L.P., Case No. 1:16-cv-02942 (N.D. Ill.), files with the
Court an amended motion for class certification.

The Action concerns attempts to collect from the Plaintiff an
alleged deficiency on a second mortgage debt incurred for
personal, family or household purposes (housing) and not for
business purposes.  Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, the Plaintiff seeks certification of two classes:

     Class A is defined as: (a) all individuals (b) to whom RTR
     (c) sent a letter offering a settlement of a debt (d)
     consisting of a loan entered into in Nevada or secured by
     Nevada real estate at the time of origination (e) where the
     last payment or activity had occurred more than six years
     prior to the letter, (e) which letter was sent on or after a
     date one year prior to the filing of this action and on or
     before a date 21 days after the filing of this action.

     Class B class consists of (a) all individuals (b) to whom a
     letter was sent on behalf of Anson or RCS (c) offering a
     settlement of a debt (d) consisting of a loan entered into
     in Nevada or secured by Nevada real estate at the time of
     origination (e) where the last payment or activity had
     occurred more than six years prior to the letter, (f) which
     letter was sent on or after a date one year prior to the
     filing of this action and on or before a date 21 days after
     the filing of this action.

The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC, be appointed counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kD33Chgl

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          Michelle A. Alyea, 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


RENFRO CANADA: Recalls Dr. Scholl's Graduated Compression
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 29, 2016
Posting date: May 16, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58412

Renfro Canada Corp. have initiated a recall for the Dr. Scholl's
for Her Comfort for Healthy Living Graduated Compression product,
due to the lack of a warning label on the packaging.

Affected products
DR. SCHOLL'S FOR HER COMFORT FOR HEALTHY LIVING GRADUATED
COMPRESSION
Lot or serial number: 042825 495982
                      042825 496019
Model or catalog number: DSL-2000-BL1-C
                         DSL-2000-BM1-C

Manufacturer: RENFRO CANADA CORP
              250 ADMIRAL BLVD
              MISSISSAUGA
              L5T 2N6
              Ontario
              CANADA


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 21 Tobacco-Related Cases Served During 2016 Q1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that during the first
quarter of 2016, 21 tobacco-related cases were served against
Reynolds Defendants. On March 31, 2016, there were 275 cases
pending against Reynolds Defendants: 258 in the United States and
17 in Canada, as compared with 180 total cases on March 31, 2015.
Of the U.S. cases pending on March 31, 2016, 29 are pending in
federal court, 228 in state court and one in tribal court,
primarily in the following states: Maryland (44 cases); Illinois
(36 cases); Florida (32 cases); New York (20 cases); Missouri (19
cases); Delaware (14 cases); and California (13 cases). The U.S.
case number excludes the approximately 564 individual smoker cases
pending in West Virginia state court as a consolidated action,
2,963 Engle Progeny cases, involving approximately 3,851
individual plaintiffs, and 2,488 Broin II cases, pending in the
United States against RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco or certain
other Reynolds Defendants.

The table lists the categories of the U.S. tobacco-related cases
pending against Reynolds Defendants as of March 31, 2016, compared
with the number of cases pending against Reynolds Defendants as of
December 31, 2015, as reported in RAI's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, filed with the SEC on
February 11, 2016, and a cross-reference to the discussion of each
case type.

                                              Change in Number
                                              of Cases Since
                        U.S. Case Numbers     December 31, 2015
  Case Type             as of March 31, 2016  Increase/(Decrease)
  -----------           --------------------  -------------------
Individual Smoking and       119                           1
Health

West Virginia IPIC             1 (approx. 564)     No change
(Number of Plaintiffs)*

Engle Progeny
(Number of Plaintiffs)**   2,963 (approx. 3,851)    (148) (195)

Broin II                   2,488                     (11)

Class Action                  33                       5

Filter Cases                  61                      (3)

Health-Care Cost Recove        2                   No change

State Settlement
Agreements -- Enforcement
and Validity; Adjustments     28                       1

Other Litigation and
Developments                  14                       3

    * Includes as one case the approximately 564 cases pending as
a consolidated action In Re: Tobacco Litigation Individual
Personal Injury Cases, sometimes referred to as West Virginia IPIC
cases, described below. The West Virginia IPIC cases have been
separated from the Individual Smoking and Health cases for
reporting purposes.

   ** The Engle Progeny cases have been separated from the
Individual Smoking and Health cases for reporting purposes. The
number of cases has decreased as the result of many of the federal
and state court cases being dismissed or duplicate actions being
consolidated.


ROOSEVELT DISCOUNTS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Rosas" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Rosas, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Roosevelt Discounts Inc. d/b/a 99 cents
Or less, Main Street Store Inc. d/b/a 99 Cents Or Less, Flushing
Discounts Inc. d/b/a 99 Cents or Less, ABC Corp. d/b/a 99 Cents or
Less, Abdul J. Sikdar a/k/a Abdul Sikder, Fatima Ali, Naima
Khatoom, Mazu "Doe" (last name unknown), Kashan "Doe" (last name
unknown), John Does and Jane Does # 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-02392
(E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a store in Queens located at 41-09
Kissena Blvd., Flushing, NY 11355.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


ROYAL OAK, MI: Residents File Class Action Over 2014 Floods
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Turk, writing for Macomb Daily, reports that Royal Oak and
Clawson residents are suing their respective cities and Oakland
County in two class action complaints after record rainfalls in
August 2014 led to flooded homes throughout southeastern Michigan.

"It wasn't a natural event, it was a man-made event, from our
investigations, that caused this flooding," said David Dubin, the
Detroit-based attorney who is representing clients in both suits.

"It's extremely sad to hear their stories.  Many people use their
basements as integral part of their lives -- as a kid's bedroom,
for family gatherings and parties -- to have that ripped from them
and destroyed, frankly, is wrong."

Mr. Dubin is representing Clawson resident Kevin Helme, Royal Oak
residents Jill Kotsis and Kevin Gallatin, and others in similar
situations.  The suits are meant to be class action, city
officials in several Southeastern Michigan cities tallied
thousands of households affected.

The lawsuit naming the City of Royal Oak was filed Monday, May 9,
in Oakland County Circuit Judge Leo Bowman's courtroom, and the
complaint against the City of Clawson was filed Tuesday, May 10,
in Judge Phyllis McMillen's courtroom.  Each is asking for a jury
trial and damages for all economic losses tied to flooded homes
and basements.

The lawsuits claim that the cities, along with Oakland County and
its Water Resources Commissioner's office, did not properly
maintain the sewers, interceptors, restrictor plates, catch basins
and retention facilities that were designed to transfer waste and
water to various locations.

Mr. Dubin said that screens at the George W. Kuhn Drainage
District Interceptor -- which is designed to direct excess flow of
wastewater to a major drain called the Red Run Drain --
malfunctioned during the heavy rainfalls of Aug. 11, 2014, causing
a hydraulic bottleneck that backed up entire sewer systems and led
to feces, wastewater and noxious odors filling residents' homes.

The downpours that hit Southeast Michigan led to closings of
several major roadways and damaged numerous homes in multiple
cities in the area.

Royal Oak, Ferndale, Berkley, Madison Heights, Oak Park and many
other cities declared states of emergency in their communities to
get relief from extreme flooding and damage caused by the rain
storm.

Oakland County also declared a local state of emergency and
requested state assistance, tallying more than $330 million in
flooding damage.

To the east, around 18,047 homes in Warren suffered damage, as
well, with property losses estimated at $1.2 billion.  The rain
and flooding also contributed to the death of two area residents.

"What it boils down to is that these entities did not properly
maintain their sewers," said Mr. Dubin, "which allowed too much
water into the sewer systems.

"The average flooding claim is tens of thousands of dollars in
economic loss.  In Royal Oak, there were over 600 households that
filed a written notice of claim and in Clawson, there were over
140.

"I hesitate to put a value on total damages sought.  My clients
are entitled to full economic loss, but what that is, we're still
in the process of evaluating."

Mr. Dubin added that "a lot goes into" design of the original
sewer system.

"This isn't Noah's Ark, where it rained 40 days and 40 nights,"
said Mr. Dubin.  "The (August 2014) storm was anticipated.  Not
every city flooded, and not every city suffered the same type of
damage as was in Oakland County. This is man-made, not just a
weather-related phenomenon."

Two similar lawsuits were filed last year in Oakland County
Circuit Court against Madison Heights and Oak Park.  Those
lawsuits are still making their way through the discovery phase,
said Mr. Dubin, who is representing residents in those cases, as
well.

Mr. Dubin added that residents in other cities plan to file suits
through his firm in the future, as well.

Royal Oak Interim City Attorney Mark Liss said he couldn't comment
on the lawsuit, as he has not been served the original complaint
against Royal Oak.  However, he said that there were about 3,000
claims filed for damage in Royal Oak following the flood event in
2014.

Clawson City Attorney Jon Kingsepp, who also was just learning
about the lawsuit, said he doesn't believe science was accurate
during the time when the sewer systems were constructed.

"How were they going to determine how the heck (the system) was
going to be developed 20, 30 or 40 years later to handle this type
of event?" Mr. Kingsepp asked.

"This is not going to be a simple case.  There's going to be a lot
of conjecture, it's going to be very complex, and it will be years
before it's resolved."

The Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner's Office said it
would not be commenting on the lawsuit until the complaint has
been fully reviewed.

Attorneys for national litigation firm Dickinson Wright, which
will be representing the county, did not immediately return calls
for comment.


RUSHCARD: Settles Prepaid Card Class Action for $20.5MM
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonnelle Marte, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
RushCard has agreed to pay a total of $20.5 million to customers
who were temporarily locked out of their prepaid card accounts
last year, according to court documents.

The preliminary settlement, which still needs court approval,
includes about $19 million to reimburse customers for fees and
other costs they faced after they lost access to their accounts
for days.  The remaining $1.5 million will go toward attorney
fees.

RushCard, a prepaid card created by hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons,
faced technical issues last October while it was transitioning to
another payment processor.  The glitch left more than 132,000
customers unable to access their accounts for several days.  Some
cardholders said they had transactions rejected or that they fell
behind on bills.

"The company recognized that their service had caused frustration
and unhappiness and damages [to cardholders]," said John
Yanchunis, the lead attorney representing the plaintiffs in the
class-action suit.

Mr. Yanchunis said he was glad that UniRush, the parent company
for RushCard, agreed to a settlement because it could have
enforced an arbitration clause that blocked consumers from the
class-action suit.

The settlement includes some of the payments and breaks that
customers have already received -- including $25 credits given to
some consumers and a "fee holiday" that waived monthly fees for
all customers between November and February.

The agreement also called for RushCard to reimburse customers for
any fees they paid from Oct. 12 to Oct. 31, the time that they
might have been locked out of their accounts.  But some customers
might qualify for additional funds.

People who faced other financial setbacks during the time they
couldn't tap into their accounts, such as overdraft charges or
late payment fees, can file a claim to be compensated for those
costs.  Customers can receive up to $100 each if they don't have
the paperwork to support their claims.  People with the
documentation to prove their losses could receive more, up to $500
each.  But in both cases, consumers would need to subtract any
other payments they may have already received from the company for
those expenses.

Prepaid cards are often used in place of a checking account by
low-income workers or people who don't have bank accounts,
according to a report from Pew Charitable Trusts.  Simmons, who
publicly apologized to customers about the issue, has said he
started the card to provide a more affordable option for people
who may have paid high fees to cash their checks.

The company hopes its latest efforts will help make customers
whole.

"We are pleased to have reached this preliminary settlement which
will resolve the claims of our cardholders," Rick Savard, the
chief executive of UniRush, said in a statement. "We believe this
settlement fairly compensates our customers who were
inconvenienced."

Consumers will receive notices in the mail after the court gives
the settlement preliminary approval, Mr. Yanchunis said, adding
that he thinks approval will be likely since the plaintiffs have
accepted the deal.  After final approval, which could come as soon
as four or five months, cardholders who qualify could start to see
checks in the mail.

News of the settlement, which was first reported by Law360, may be
welcomed by cardholders who struggled financially after losing
access to their accounts.  But it doesn't mean the company is done
answering questions about the incident.

After news spread of the technical issues, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau requested documents and other information from
RushCard so that it could investigate the cause of the outage and
find out what the company was doing to compensate consumers.
RushCard asked for more time to provide the documents, but the
agency denied that request.  On May 11, a spokesman for the CFPB
said it does not comment on ongoing or potential enforcement
activities.


SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Mladinich, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees v. Safeguard Properties, LLC and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. RG16815229 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Safeguard Properties, LLC operates a property management company
in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Arns, Esq.
      THE ARNS LAW FIRM
      515 Folsom St. 3rd Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94019
      Telephone: (415) 495-7800
      Facsimile: (415) 495-7888
      E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com


SAFETY 1ST: Recalls Child Car Seat 2015 Models
----------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 29, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Child Car Seat
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Seats And Restraints
Units affected: 15
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016194TC
ID number: 2016194

Certain child car seats that do not comply with the requirements
of the Canada Motor Vehicle Restraint Systems and Booster Seats
Safety Regulations (RSSR) may have been imported in error. Child
car seats that were certified to United States requirements may
have been mixed with Canadian certified seats during shipping.
Correction: All child car seats in non-compliance will be
exported. Note: None of the affected seats were sold to consumers.

  Make         Model             Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----             ----------------------
  SAFETY 1ST                     2015, 2015


SANOFI SA: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Kickback Schemes
----------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
has dismissed a proposed class action filed by a union health plan
accusing French drugmaker Sanofi SA of using kickback schemes to
promote its osteoarthritis and diabetes drugs.

U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty in New Jersey on May 11 ruled
that Philadelphia-based Plumbers' Local Union No. 690 Health Plan,
had not provided enough detail about how it had been harmed,
though he gave it leave to amend the complaint.


SE CEMETERIES: Charles Sheppard Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Sheppard moves the Court for conditional certification and
facilitation of Court-authorized notice in the lawsuit entitled
CHARLES SHEPPARD v. S.E. CEMETERIES OF FLORIDA, LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-21130-JEM (S.D. Fla.).

The Case is a collective action to enforce the overtime provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiff alleges that
misclassifled Grounds Supervisors like him, who worked for the
Defendants were not properly paid for each hour worked in excess
of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to direct the Defendant to
produce, in an electronic readable format, within 14 days of the
Order granting this Motion a list containing the full names, last
known addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of
putative class members, who worked for Defendants between February
2013 and the present.  The Plaintiff further asks the Court to,
among other things, authorize his counsel to send initial notice
to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the
Defendants' counsel by first-class mail.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CE7WDiMK

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler St, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-6000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
                  apetisco@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew T. Games, Esq.
          Stephen William Mooney, Esq.
          Noel Figgures Johnson, Esq.
          WEINBERG WHEELER HUDGINS GUNN & DIAL
          2601 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 455-9108
          Facsimile: (305) 455-9501
          E-mail: mgomes@wwhgd.com
                  smooney@wwhgd.com
                  njohnson@wwhgd.com


SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Hassett Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Sensata Technologies Holding N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court
has dismissed the Hassett class action lawsuit on procedural
grounds. The plaintiffs had the right to re-file, but have not
done so.

On March 19, 2015, two named plaintiffs filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan against Chrysler and Schrader-Bridgeport International,
Inc., styled Hassett v. FCA US, LLC et al., case number
2:2015cv11030 (E.D. Michigan). The lawsuit alleged that faulty
valve stems were used in Schrader tire pressure monitoring sensors
installed on Chrysler vehicles in model years 2007 through 2014.
It alleged breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations
of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and the federal Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act, and was seeking compensatory and punitive
damages. Both the size of the class and the damages sought were
unspecified. The plaintiffs, joined by an additional individual,
filed an amended complaint dated June 2, 2015.

"On July 23, 2015, along with Chrysler, we filed motions to
dismiss. The court held a hearing on these motions on December 2,
2015. On December 7, 2015, the court dismissed the complaint on
procedural grounds. The plaintiffs had the right to re-file, but
have not done so. We do not believe a loss is probable, and as of
March 31, 2016, we have not recorded an accrual related to this
matter," the Company said.

Sensata Technologies Holding is incorporated under the laws of the
Netherlands and conducts its operations through subsidiary
companies that operate business and product development centers
primarily in the United States (the "U.S."), the Netherlands,
Belgium, China, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the United
Kingdom (the "U.K."); and manufacturing operations primarily in
China, Malaysia, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Bulgaria, Poland,
France, Germany, the U.K., and the U.S.  It organizes its
operations into two businesses, Performance Sensing and Sensing
Solutions.

The Performance Sensing business is a manufacturer of pressure,
temperature, speed, and position sensors, and electromechanical
products used in subsystems of automobiles (e.g., engine, air
conditioning, and ride stabilization) and heavy on- and off-road
vehicles ("HVOR").

The Sensing Solutions business is a manufacturer of a variety of
control products used in industrial, aerospace, military,
commercial, medical device, and residential markets, and sensor
products used in aerospace and industrial applications such as
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning ("HVAC") systems and
military and commercial aircraft.


SHANDEX GROUP: Recalls Night-time Sleep Aid Liquid
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 28, 2016
Posting date: May 13, 2016
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58270

Incorrect labelling: product labelled as "Sucrose free" but
contains high fructose corn syrup.

Depth of distribution: One wholesaler, retailers all over Canada

Affected products:
Exact Brand Night-time Sleep Aid Liquid
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02427427
Dosage form: Liquid
Strength: 50 mg/30 ml
Lot or serial number: 1.6CK0420
                      2. 5MK0443

Recalling Firm: The Shandex Group
                11 Squires Beach Rd
                Pickering
                L1W 3N8
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Perrigo International
                                515 Eastern Ave
                                Allegan
                                49010-1327
                                Michigan
                                UNITED STATES


SHANDEX GROUP: Recalls Life Brand Night-Time Sleep Aid Liquid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 28, 2016
Posting date: May 13, 2016
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58272

Incorrect labelling: product labelled as "Sucrose free" but
contains high fructose corn syrup.

Depth of distribution:
One wholesaler, retailers all over Canada

Affected products: Life Brand Night-time Sleep Aid Liquid
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02427427
Dosage form: Liquid
Strength: 50 mg/30 ml
Lot or serial number: 1.6CK0420
                      2. 5MK0443

Recalling Firm: The Shandex Group
                11 Squires Beach Rd
                Pickering
                L1W 3N8
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Perrigo International
                                515 Eastern Ave
                                Allegan
                                49010-1327
                                Michigan
                                UNITED STATES


SIGMA: Net Profit Takes $8.8MM Hit from Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Conroy, writing for The Australian, reports that drug
wholesaler and chemist owner Sigma Pharmaceuticals says it will be
finally putting to bed monies outstanding from a class action
related to an overstated half-year profit in 2009.

Sigma in 2012 settled a $57.5 million class action against it in
relation to the breach, which was revealed in the wake of the
company's shock-ensuing $389m full-year loss.

Sigma said last year's guilty pleas by its former chief executive
and CFO -- Elmo De Alwis and Mark Smith -- in relation to the
breach had activated a "clawback" clause from insurers AIG who
partially cover the 2012 settlement.

"As a consequence of the guilty pleas by the former CEO and CFO
AIG has notified Sigma of its intention to exercise this right,"
Sigma said in a release to the market.

Both men last year admitted overstating Sigma's revenue for 2010
by $15.5m and its profit for the year by $9.6m.  They also pleaded
guilty to a second charge of overstating revenue by $3.5m in the
2009 half-year report.

Sigma said it had agreed to settle AIG's claim for reimbursement
for $12.5m.

"As a result, there will be a one-off $8.8m impact on Sigma's
reported net profit after tax," Sigma said, adding that the clause
had continued to be recognised as a contingent liability in
Sigma's accounts since the settlement.

For the full-year through January, Sigma booked a $50.5m net
profit after tax.

Sigma said it expected underlying earnings before interest and tax
to be up "at least 10 per cent" for the first half.

At 3.40pm (AEST), Sigma shares were up 1.31 per cent to $1.


SPARK NETWORKS: Deal Close in Werner, Wright Suits
--------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, Werner, et al. v. Spark Networks, Inc.
and Spark Networks USA, LLC and Wright, et al. v. Spark Networks,
Inc., Spark Networks USA, LLC, et al., are finalizing a signed
settlement, Spark Networks, 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.

On July 19, 2013, Aaron Werner, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class Action
Complaint (the "Werner Complaint") in the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of Los Angeles against Spark Networks,
Inc. and Spark Networks USA, LLC (collectively "Spark Networks").
The Werner Complaint alleges that Spark Networks' website
ChristianMingle.com violates California's Unruh Civil Rights Act
(the "Unruh Act") by allegedly discriminating on the basis of
sexual orientation. The Werner Complaint requests the following
relief: an injunction, statutory, general, compensatory, treble
and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment
interest, and an award for any other relief the Court deems just
and appropriate.

On December 23, 2013, Richard Wright, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class
Action Complaint (the "Wright Complaint") in the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of San Francisco against Spark
Networks, Inc. The Wright Complaint alleges that Spark Networks'
commercial dating services including ChristianMingle.com,
LDSSingles.com, CatholicMingle.com, BlackSingles.com,
MilitarySinglesConnection.com and AdventistSinglesConnection.com
violate the Unruh Act by allegedly intentionally and arbitrarily
discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The Wright
Complaint requests the following relief: a declaratory judgment, a
preliminary and permanent injunction, statutory penalties,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest, and
an award for any other relief the Court deems just and
appropriate.

"We believe the parties are now close to a final signed settlement
pursuant to which the Company would make individual settlement
payments for statutory damages and service awards, as well as
legal fees. The final settlement would need to be approved by the
court.  The parties are in process of preparing exhibits and the
necessary motions to obtain court approval. The Company has
recorded an accrual for the probable cost related to resolving
this matter of $468,000 as of December 31, 2015," the Company
said.

Spark Networks, Inc. is a leader in creating communities that help
individuals form life-long relationships with others that share
their interests and values. The Company's core properties, JDate
and ChristianMingle, are communities geared towards singles of the
Jewish and Christian faiths. Through the Company's websites and
mobile applications, the Company helps members search for and
communicate with other like-minded individuals.


SPARK NETWORKS: Resolves Israeli Consumer Actions
-------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached to resolve Israeli consumer actions,
Ben-Jacob vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd., Gever vs. Spark
Networks (Israel) Ltd. and Korland vs. Spark Networks (Israel)
Ltd., Spark Networks, 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.

Three class action law suits have been filed in Israel alleging
violations of the Israel Consumer Protection Law of 1981. Spark
was served with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify it as
a Class Action in the Ben-Jacob action on January 14, 2014. The
plaintiff alleges that Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. ("Spark
Networks") refused to cancel her subscription and provide a refund
for unused periods and claims that such a refusal is in violation
of the Consumer Protection Law. Spark Networks was served with a
Statement of Claim and a motion to Certify it as a Class Action in
the Gever action on January 21, 2014.

The plaintiff alleges that Spark Networks renewed his one month
subscription without receiving his positive agreement in advance
and claims that such renewal is prohibited under the Consumer
Protection Law. Spark Networks was served with a Statement of
Claim and a Motion to Certify it as a Class Action in the Korland
action on February 12, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that Spark
Networks refused to give her a full refund and charged her the
price of a one month subscription to the JDate website in
violation of the Consumer Protection Law. In each of these three
cases, the plaintiff is seeking personal damages and damages on
behalf of a defined group.

On May 8, 2014, the Court granted Spark Networks' motion to
consolidate all three cases. All three cases are now consolidated
and will be litigated jointly.

Spark Networks' combined response to their motions to certify the
classes was filed November 1, 2014 and the plaintiffs responded to
the combined response. The parties had a hearing before the judge
on December 24, 2014.  Following the hearing the judge ordered
that the pleadings filed by the parties be transferred to the
Israel Consumer Council ("ICC") so that the ICC can provide its
position as to the parties' allegations within 90 days.

The ICC issued its opinion on April 1, 2015.  Following the filing
of the ICC opinion, the parties filed briefs addressing the ICC
opinion. On January 7, 2016, the parties advised the Court that
they have agreed on the terms of a settlement agreement, and
jointly moved to approve the agreement and give it the effect of a
judgment. According to the terms of the settlement agreement,
clients who bought a subscription to JDate.co.il on October 12,
2008 or later will be entitled to receive certain benefits. The
settlement agreement, which provides for compensation and legal
fees, will only come into effect if the court approves it.

On January 14, 2016, the Court ordered the parties to publish the
terms of the proposed settlement agreement. The Court allowed for
the Attorney General or any person who wishes to object to the
settlement or exclude himself from the class to file their
position with the Court through March 10, 2016. As such, an
accrual for the probable cost related to resolving this matter of
$52,000 has been recorded as of December 31, 2015.

Spark Networks, Inc. is a leader in creating communities that help
individuals form life-long relationships with others that share
their interests and values. The Company's core properties, JDate
and ChristianMingle, are communities geared towards singles of the
Jewish and Christian faiths. Through the Company's websites and
mobile applications, the Company helps members search for and
communicate with other like-minded individuals.


SPRINT CORPORATION: "Chowdhury" Sues Over Automated Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
Shabbir Chowdhury, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Sprint Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-02394 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2016), seeks damages, declaratory
and injunctive relief arising from violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of making automated calls to his
cell phone without his prior consent.

Sprint Corporation is a Kansas based telecommunications company
located in 6200 Sprint Parkway, Overland Park, KS 66251.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Subhan Tariq, Esq.
      THE TARIQ LAW FIRM, PLLC
      90-52 171st Street
      Jamaica, NY 11432
      Tel: (516) 900-4529
      Fax: (516) 453-0490
      Email: subhan@tariqlaw.com


STRYKER SUSTAINABILITY: Recalls Electrophysiology Catheters
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 28, 2016
Posting date: May 16, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58390

Stryker sustainability solutions has received complaints in which
it was reported that EP Catheters were mislabeled for french size.

Affected products:
A.REPROCESSED DAIG SUPREME AND RESPONSE ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
CATHETERS
Lot or serial number: 2555866E
Model or catalog number: 401877

Manufacturer: STRYKER SUSTAINABILITY SOLUTIONS
              1810 West Drake Dr.
              Tempe, Arizona 85283
              UNITED STATES


SUN OF MAY LLC: "Cortez" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Cortes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sun of May, LLC and Anahi Angelone,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03506 (S.D. N.Y., May 11, 2016),
seeks statutory damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and
such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York
Minimum Wage Act and the New York Labor Law.

Sun of May, LLC is a New York corporation that owns and operates
the Corner Social restaurant in New York City where Cortes worked
as a bartender. He claims he was denied overtime pay and paid
below minimum wage.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum
      JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER & KIRSCHENBAUM
      233 Broadway, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 688-5640 Ext. 2548
      Fax: (212) 688-5639
      Email: maimon@jhllp.com


SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend Wisconsin Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended February 27, 2016, that a class action complaint
was filed in September 2008against the Company, as well as
International Outsourcing Services, LLC ("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.;
Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.; Carolina Coupon Clearing,
Inc. and Carolina Services in the United States District Court in
the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs in the case are
a consumer goods manufacturer, a grocery co-operative and a
retailer marketing services company that allege on behalf of a
purported class that the Company and the other defendants (i)
conspired to restrict the markets for coupon processing services
under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an illegal enterprise
to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary
damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The Company
intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit; however, all
proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the
criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS.

SUPERVALU INC., a Delaware corporation, was organized in 1925 as
the successor to two wholesale grocery firms established in the
1870s. Supervalu today is one of the largest public company
grocery wholesale distributors to independent retail customers
across the United States through its Wholesale segment, one of the
nation's largest hard discount grocery retailers by store count
through its Save-A-Lot segment and operates five regionally-based
traditional format grocery banners through its Retail segment.
Substantially all of the Company's operations are domestic.


SUPERVALU INC: Response to Motion to Certify Due
------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended February 27, 2016, that the Company's response
to the motion to certify was due May 6, 2016.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the
Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy
to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction,
the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as
part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold
certain assets of the Company to C&S that were located in New
England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed
similar complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases were
consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District
Court in Minnesota. The complaints allege that the conspiracy was
concealed and continued through the use of non-compete and non-
solicitation agreements and the closing down of the distribution
facilities that the Company and C&S purchased from each other.
Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration
agreements and plaintiffs appealed.

On July 16, 2012, the District Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification, and on January 11, 2013, the District Court
granted the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed
the case regarding the non-arbitration plaintiffs. On February 12,
2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court decision
requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to arbitrate and
remanded to the District Court.

On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court ordered
mandatory mediation, which was not successful in resolving the
matter. On May 21, 2014, a panel of the 8th Circuit (1) reversed
the District Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor
of the Company and (2) affirmed the District Court's decision
denying class certification of a class consisting of all retailers
located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery
products from the Company between December 31, 2004 and September
13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider
whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from
the Company's Champaign, Illinois distribution center and
potentially other distribution centers.

On January 16, 2015, the Company filed a Petition for Certiorari
to the United States Supreme Court seeking to appeal certain
aspects of the 8th Circuit decision, and on June 8, 2015, the
United States Supreme Court denied the Petition. On June 19, 2015,
the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an order that decided
a number of matters including granting plaintiffs' request to seek
class certification for certain Midwest Distribution Centers and
denying plaintiffs' request to add an additional New England
plaintiff and denying plaintiffs' request to seek class
certification for a group of New England retailers.

On August 20, 2015, the District Court affirmed the Magistrate
Judge's order. In September 2015, the plaintiffs appealed to the
8th Circuit the denial of the request to add an additional New
England plaintiff and to seek class certification for a group of
New England retailers. On March 1, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a
class certification motion seeking to certify five District Court
classes of retailers in the Midwest. The Company's response to the
motion to certify was due May 6, 2016.

SUPERVALU INC., a Delaware corporation, was organized in 1925 as
the successor to two wholesale grocery firms established in the
1870s. Supervalu today is one of the largest public company
grocery wholesale distributors to independent retail customers
across the United States through its Wholesale segment, one of the
nation's largest hard discount grocery retailers by store count
through its Save-A-Lot segment and operates five regionally-based
traditional format grocery banners through its Retail segment.
Substantially all of the Company's operations are domestic.


SUPERVALU INC: Bid to Vacate Case Dismissal Tossed
--------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended February 27, 2016, that in the case, In Re:
Supervalu Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, the
District Court has denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the
District Court's dismissal or in the alternative to amend the
complaint.

In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were
filed against the Company relating to the criminal intrusions into
its computer network announced by the Company in fiscal 2015 (the
"Criminal Intrusion"). The cases were centralized in the Federal
District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption In
Re: Supervalu Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. On
June 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint and the hearing took place on November 3,
2015.

On January 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the
plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they had not met their
burden of showing any compensable damages. On February 4, 2016,
the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the District Court's
dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative to conduct
discovery and file an amended complaint, and the Company filed its
response in opposition on March 4, 2016.

On April 20, 2016, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to
vacate the District Court's dismissal or in the alternative to
amend the complaint.

SUPERVALU INC., a Delaware corporation, was organized in 1925 as
the successor to two wholesale grocery firms established in the
1870s. Supervalu today is one of the largest public company
grocery wholesale distributors to independent retail customers
across the United States through its Wholesale segment, one of the
nation's largest hard discount grocery retailers by store count
through its Save-A-Lot segment and operates five regionally-based
traditional format grocery banners through its Retail segment.
Substantially all of the Company's operations are domestic.


SYNOVIS MICRO: Recalls GEM Flow Coupler
---------------------------------------
Starting date: April 28, 2016
Posting date: May 16, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Hospitals, Healthcare Professionals
Identification number: RA-58392

Synovis Micro Companies Alliance is issuing a product recall for
the potential for a puncture through the outer Tyvek lid of the
sterile flow coupler tray-in-tray package.

Affected products:
A. GEM FLOW COUPLER
Lot or serial number: SP15H05-1067843
                      SP15J15-1087744
                      SP15J22-1090024
                      SP15K02-1092807
                      SP15K05-1094463
                      SP15K05-1094466
                      SP15K10-1096021
                      SP15L02-1102423
Model or catalog number: GEM2752-FC
                         GEM2753-FC
                         GEM2754-FC

Manufacturer: SYNOVIS MICRO COMPANIES ALLIANCE INC/A SUB. OF
              SYNOVIS LIFE TECH. INC
              439 INDUSTRIAL LANE
              BIRMINGHAM
              35211
              Alabama
              UNITED STATES


T-W TRANSPORT: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a truck driver class action lawsuit against T-W
Transport, Inc. alleging that the transportation company failed to
lawfully compensate their Truck Driver employees for all their
non-driving activities, including time spent performing pre and
post trip inspections of the company's trucks.  The T-W Transport
truck driver lawsuit is currently pending in the San Diego County
Superior Court, Case No. 37-2016-000130010-CU-OE-CTL.

The lawsuit filed against T-W Transport, Inc. by the San Diego
employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
claims that trucking company did not have a business practice that
allowed their truck drivers off-duty thirty minute uninterrupted
meal periods in accordance with California law.  The T-W Transport
truck driver lawsuit claims that the failure to provide California
meal breaks is evidenced by T-W Transport's business records which
contains no evidence of meal breaks.

Further the class action lawsuit alleges that T-W Transport truck
drivers were paid on a piece-rate basis.  The lawsuit alleges that
the truck drivers were not paid all minimum wages to which they
were owed because T-W Transport allegedly only paid them for miles
driven.  The class action claims that the truck drivers should
have been paid minimum wages for their non-driving tasks, these
tasks allegedly included time spent waiting for Defendant's loads
to be ready for transport, among other non-driving tasks.


TEEKAY CORP: Company, Officers Face Class Action in Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teekay Corporation said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action complaint
was filed in March 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut against the Company and certain of its
officers.

Following the Company's announcement in December 2015 that its
Board of Directors had approved a plan to reduce the Company's
quarterly dividend to $0.055 per share, down from $0.55 per share
in the third quarter of 2015, commencing with the fourth quarter
of 2015 dividend payable in February 2016 and the subsequent
decline of the price of the Company's common stock, a class action
complaint was filed on March 1, 2016 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut against the Company and certain of
its officers. The complaint includes claims that the Company and
certain of its officers violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In
general, the complaint alleges the Company and certain of its
officers violated federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's ability
and intention to maintain a quarterly dividend of at least $0.55
per share, thereby artificially inflating the price of its common
stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages,
including reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action.

The Company plans to vigorously defend against the claim. Based on
the early stage of the claim and evaluation of the facts available
at this time, the amount or range of reasonably possible losses to
which the Company is exposed cannot be estimated and the ultimate
resolution of this matter and the associated financial impact to
the Company, if any, remains uncertain at this time. The Company
maintains a Directors and Officers Insurance policy that provides
coverage for such claims, subject to a maximum amount and a
deductible.


TFI FOODS: Recalls Fish Cakes & Crab Sticks Due to Egg
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 29, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: TFI Foods Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10507

  Brand   Common    Size     Code(s) on        UPC
  name    name      ----     product           ---
  -----   ------             ----------
  Aroy    Hot Thai  500 g    All codes where   8854241000358
  Mak     Fish               egg is not
          Cake               declared on the
                             label
  Yutaka  Hot Thai  500 g    All codes where   8854241000358
          Fish               egg is not
          Cake               declared on the
                             label
  Yutaka  Imitation 1 kg     All codes where   061391422000
          Crab               egg is not
          Stick              declared on the
          (Shredded)         label


TICKETMASTER: Class Action Settlement Marketing Opportunity
-----------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that class-action lawsuits
have long had a farcical quality because of the frequency with
which the lawyers who pursue claims take home nearly all the money
awarded in settlements, with victims receiving tiny sums, if
anything.  But the recent settlement in the Schlesinger v.
Ticketmaster case may be the most obnoxious one of all.

The case had a good cause: punishing Ticketmaster for its awful
assertion that hefty fees on tickets for sports and entertainment
events were necessary to actually provide services, not just to
pad the company's profit.  But instead of giving back money to the
millions of people scammed by Ticketmaster, the settlement gives
most victims up to 17 coupons worth $2.25 to use in new purchases
from Ticketmaster -- with two coupons the maximum per transaction.

Given the new competition that Ticketmaster faces in ticket sales,
this is no penalty.  It's a marketing opportunity, a new scam on
top of the old one.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Suit by Hamilton and Macon Counties Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the class action lawsuit by Hamilton County,
Illinois and Macon County, Illinois.

The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 26, 2014,
titled Hamilton County, Illinois and Macon County, Illinois,
Individually and on behalf of all Other Counties in the State of
Illinois vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway
Products, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-1320 (Southern District of
Illinois). This complaint was later amended to substitute St.
Clair County, Illinois for Hamilton County as a lead plaintiff and
to expand the proposed class. The case is being brought by
plaintiffs for and on behalf of themselves and the other 101
counties of the State of Illinois and on behalf of cities,
villages, incorporated towns, and township governments of the
State of Illinois. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and
Trinity Highway Products made a series of un-tested modifications
to the ET Plus and falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was
acceptable for use on the nation's highways based on federal
testing standards and approval for federal-aid reimbursement. The
plaintiffs also allege breach of implied warranties, violation of
the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust
enrichment, for which plaintiffs seek actual damages related to
purchases of the ET Plus, compensatory damages for establishing a
common fund for class members, punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, and injunctive relief. This lawsuit was previously
stayed by order of the Court. On September 30, 2015, the Court
lifted the stay on this action.

The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed February 11, 2015,
titled The Corporation of the City of Stratford and Trinity
Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity
Industries Canada, Inc., Case No. 15-2622 CP, pending in Ontario
Superior Court of Justice. The alleged class in this matter has
been identified as persons in Canada who purchased and/or used an
ET Plus guardrail end terminal. The plaintiff alleges that Trinity
Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity
Industries Canada, Inc., failed to warn of dangers associated with
undisclosed modifications to the ET Plus guardrail end terminals,
breached an implied warranty, breached a duty of care, and were
negligent. The plaintiff is seeking $400 million in compensatory
damages and $100 million in punitive damages. Alternatively, the
plaintiff claims the right to an accounting or other restitution
remedy for disgorgement of the revenues generated by the sale of
the modified ET Plus in Canada.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss La Crosse Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the class action
lawsuit by La Crosse County, the Court has partially granted
Trinity's Motion to Dismiss as to some but not all of plaintiff's
claims.

The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed February 25, 2015,
titled La Crosse County, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity
Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-117 (Western District of
Wisconsin). The case is being brought by the plaintiff for and on
behalf of itself and all other purchasers of allegedly defective
ET Pluses, including proposed statewide and nationwide classes.
The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity Highway
Products made a series of un-tested modifications to the ET Plus
and falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was acceptable for
use on the nation's highways based on federal testing standards
and approval for federal-aid reimbursement.

The plaintiff also alleges strict liability design defect, breach
of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, violation
of the Wisconsin Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust
enrichment. The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the ET
Plus is defective, actual damages related to class-wide purchases
of the ET Plus, punitive damages, statutory penalties, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief.

On March 31, 2016, the Court partially granted Trinity's Motion to
Dismiss as to some but not all of plaintiff's claims, with only
plaintiff's claims for breach of express and implied warranties,
violation of the Wisconsin Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
and unjust enrichment remaining.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Defending Suit by Jackson County, MO
--------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the class action lawsuit by Jackson County,
Missouri.

The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 5, 2015,
titled Jackson County, Missouri, individually and on behalf of a
class of others similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc.
and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 1516-CV23684 (Circuit
Court of Jackson County, Missouri). The case is being brought by
plaintiff for and on behalf of itself and all Missouri counties
with a population of 10,000 or more persons, including the City of
St. Louis, and the State of Missouri's transportation authority.
The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity Highway
Products did not disclose design changes to the ET Plus and these
allegedly undisclosed design changes made the ET Plus allegedly
defective, unsafe, and unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiff
alleges product liability negligence, product liability strict
liability, and negligently supplying dangerous instrumentality for
supplier's business purposes. The plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and in the
alternative plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the ET
Plus is defective, the Company's conduct was unlawful, and class-
wide costs and expenses associated with removing and replacing the
ET Plus throughout Missouri.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: NJ Treasury Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has appointed
the Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its
Division of Investment and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National
Pension Fund and United Association Local Union Officers &
Employees' Pension Fund as co-lead plaintiffs in the consolidated
shareholder class action.

On January 11, 2016, the previously reported cases styled Thomas
Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated
v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E.
Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) ("Nemky") and Richard J. Isolde,
Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v.
Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry,
Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) ("Isolde"), were consolidated in the
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, with all future
filings to be filed in the Isolde case. The complaints in Isolde
allege that defendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R.
Wallace, and James E. Perry violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making materially false and misleading statements and/or
by failing to disclose material facts about Trinity's ET Plus and
the FCA case styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States
of America, Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.).

On March 9, 2016, the Court appointed the Department of the
Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment
and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and United
Association Local Union Officers & Employees' Pension Fund as co-
lead plaintiffs.

On March 22, 2016, the Court entered the parties' Joint
Stipulation and Order Regarding the Schedule for the Consolidated
Complaint and Defendants' Response Thereto. Under said Order, the
Lead Plaintiffs were to file their Consolidated Amended Complaint
on or before May 11, 2016.

Trinity, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Perry deny and intend to vigorously
defend against the allegations in the Isolde case.

"Based on the information available to the Company, we currently
do not believe that a loss is probable with respect to this
shareholder class action; therefore no accrual has been included
in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Because of
the complexity of these actions as well as the current status of
certain of these actions, we are not able to estimate a range of
possible losses with respect to these matters," the Company said.


UNITED STATES: Beauty School Students Score Win Over Loans
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that former beauty school students who were saddled with student
loan debt may sue the Department of Education for not telling them
their loans were dischargeable, the Second Circuit ruled May 12.

Wilfred American Education Corporation operated beauty schools in
the 1980s and 90s that allegedly targeted low-income women in
order to secure federal financial aid but did not prepare them to
pass state cosmetology licensing exams.

Over 61,300 student loans were given to individuals to attend now-
defunct Wilfred schools, according to court records. Up until
recently, many of the students still faced thousands of dollars of
debt.

In a class-action lawsuit, former Wilfred students sued the U.S.
Department of Education (DOE) for failing to notify them of their
eligibility for a loan discharge based on the school's fraudulent
certification.

A federal judge found the claims moot now that the DOE has
discharged the named plaintiffs' debts.

But, on May 12, the Second Circuit reinstated the case on appeal.

"The text of the relevant statute directs that the DOE 'shall'
discharge a borrower's loan liability when a school has falsely
certified a student's [ability to benefit, or ATB]," Judge Gerard
Lynch said, writing for a three-judge panel.

The panel said the case is not moot under the exception for class-
action claims that are "inherently transitory."

"Legislative history strongly supports our reading of the statute
as a mandatory command to the agency, not a grant of unbridled
discretion," Lynch wrote.

Congress clearly intended that students who have been "victimized
by unscrupulous profiteers" should not be burdened by debt due to
failures of the DOE's oversight systems, the ruling states.

The panel said that the department's own action granting
discharges to Wilfred students who requested them is powerful
evidence that it had reliable information that all Wilfred
borrowers "may" be eligible for a discharge.

The case captioned, ANA SALAZAR, MARILYN MERCADO, ANA BERNARDEZ,
JEANNETTE POOLE, LISA BRYANT, CHERRYLINE STEVENS, EDNA VILLATORO,
On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v.  JOHN B. KING, JR., in his official capacity as
Secretary of the United States Department of Education, Defendant-
Appellee (2nd Cir.).


URANIUM ENERGY: Dismissal of "Stephens" Action Sought
-----------------------------------------------------
Uranium Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that Heather M. Stephens
filed on or about June 29, 2015, a class action complaint against
the Company and two of its executive officers in the United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas, with an amended class
action complaint filed on November 16, 2015, (the "Securities
Case") seeking unspecified damages and alleging the defendants
violated Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
Company has filed a motion to dismiss.

Uranium Energy is engaged in uranium mining and related
activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and
processing on uranium projects located in the United States and
Paraguay.


VAALCO ENERGY: Stipulation and Order of Dismissal Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
VAALCO Energy, Inc.  said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, that the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") approved
on April 20, 2016, a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal entered
into by the parties in the consolidated class action (the
"Action") captioned In re VAALCO Energy, Inc. Consol. S'holder
Litig., Consol. C.A. No. 11775-VCL, which was commenced on
December 7, 2015 in the Court.

Plaintiffs in the Action alleged (i) that certain provisions of
the Company's Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Second
Amended and Restated Bylaws (the "Charter and Bylaw Provisions")
were invalid under the Delaware General Corporation Law and (ii)
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Charter and
Bylaw Provisions. Defendants denied any and all allegations of
Plaintiffs that Defendants engaged in any wrongdoing. The Company
stated that it agreed to settle Plaintiffs' application for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses due to the costs of defense
of that application and litigation risk associated therewith.


VERIZON: Faces "Johnnidis" Suit in N.Y. Over Phone Service
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Verizon charges maintenance fees for its copper landlines,
but lets them degrade to upsell fiber optic, customers claim in
Manhattan federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Nicholas Johnnidis describes himself as a customer
of Verizon's "plain old telephone service (POTS), utilizing
traditional copper lines." He subscribes to Verizon's for his home
phone and dental business.

"As a medical professional, Dr. Johnnidis must be available to his
patients for emergency telephone calls. Dr. Johnnidis has relied
on the copper line telephone service of defendant is available
even when electrical service is interrupted," the complaint
states.

Johnnidis says he began having trouble with his phone lines about
two years ago.

"Specifically, when it would rain, Dr. Johnnidis' phone
connections began to have loud static in the background," the
complaint states.

When he called Verizon to complain, he says, the company
repeatedly told him he should switch to FiOS optical fiber,
because Verizon's copper lines are degrading, and it is phasing
them out.

Johnnidis says he prefers the "plain old telephone service"
because it allows him to use the phone when the power goes out.

"With Verizon's FiOS service, when electrical service to an area
is interrupted, a backup battery is necessary to provide telephone
service," according to the complaint.

"Such backup batteries provide service for around 4 to 6 hours,
after which time, a FiOS subscriber cannot use the service to make
telephone calls."

Johnnidis cites two articles published in June 2015, one by the
Huffington Post and one by The Wall Street Journal, corroborating
his claims.

The first, "Verizon Is 'Killing the Copper' and Is Now Denying
It," quotes Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam telling investors at a
private event, "I am going to be really shrinking the amount of
copper we have out there, and then I can focus the investment on
that to improve the performance of it."

The Wall Street Journal article suggests that Verizon is
purposefully allowing its landlines to degrade to upsell customers
on fiber optic lines.

Verizon says it does maintain its copper landlines, but Johnnidis
doesn't believe it.

"Verizon needs to have consumers and the public continue to
believe it is maintaining its copper telephone lines because
Verizon charges POTS customers fees for maintaining its copper
lines: fees which have been diverted from POTS maintenance and
used elsewhere by Verizon," he says in the lawsuit.

Verizon also charges landline customers a municipal franchise
fee/right of way fee for jurisdictions where it uses public right
of way to provide telecommunications services, Johnnidis says.

Fees for plain old telephone service are about $27 per line, the
complaint states. "These fees are fraudulent to all Verizon POTS
customers, because Verizon says it is providing a service it does
not in fact provide," Johnnidis says.

Johnnidis seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement of
unjust profits and damages for breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment and fraud.  He is represented by Paul Whalen in
Manhasset.

Verizon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Consolidated Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit against Vipshop Holdings
Limited has been dismissed, the Company said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company said, "We and certain of our officers and directors
were named as defendants in two putative securities class actions
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York: Heller v. Vipshop Holdings Limited et al., Civil Action No.
1:15-cv-03870-LTS (S.D.N.Y.)(filed on May 19, 2015) and Schwartz
v. Vipshop Holdings Limited et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-
05097-LTS (S.D.N.Y.)(filed on June 30, 2015). The complaints in
both putative class actions allege that certain of our financial
statements and other public disclosures contained misstatements or
omissions and assert claims under the U.S. securities laws."

"On September 15, 2015, the court consolidated the two actions,
and appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the lead plaintiff's
selection of lead counsel for the consolidated action. On November
24, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
Without Prejudice which was entered by the court, voluntarily
dismissing, without prejudice, all claims in the consolidated
action."


WAUPUN, WI: McKinley Bey Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned La Ron McKinley Bey, and
all similarly situated WCI prisoners in isolated Administrative
Confinement v. William Pollard, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00521-RTR
(E.D. Wisc.), seeks certification of class of prisoners.

Mr. Pollard is the warden of the Waupun Correctional Institution
in Wisconsin.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=510m7qOV


WEATHERBY INC: Final Approval of "Fiant" Settlement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen W. Fiant asks the Court to enter an order granting final
approval of a class settlement in the lawsuit styled STEPHEN W.
FIANT, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WEATHERBY, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 2
through 10, Case No. 2:15-CV-02991-BRO-FFM (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to certify the FLSA Settlement
Class for settlement purposes under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
He also asks the Court to appoint him as Class Representative for
settlement purposes and to appoint Hernaldo J. Baltodano, Esq.,
Roxana E. Khan, Esq., Paul K. Haines, Esq., and Fletcher W.
Schmidt, Esq., as Class Counsel for settlement purposes.

Mr. Fiant, individually and on behalf of the proposed Settlement
Classes, seeks final approval of the class action settlement on
behalf of approximately 95 non-exempt employees of Weatherby.  The
non-reversionary $500,000 common fund settlement provides for
average payments of $3,305 to the Settlement Class Members for
alleged unpaid overtime wages, meal and rest period violations,
and derivative statutory waiting time, wage statement, and Private
Attorney General Act penalties.

In exchange for the consideration being provided under the
Settlement, Class Members have agreed to a narrowly tailored
release of only those claims that were actually at issue in the
lawsuit.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 6, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QmZT5apC

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hernaldo J. Baltodano, Esq.
          Erica Flores Baltodano, Esq.
          BALTODANO & BALTODANO LLP
          733 Marsh Street, Suite 110
          San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
          Telephone: (805) 322-3412
          Facsimile: (805) 322-3413
          E-mail: hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com
                  efb@bbemploymentlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 East Maple Ave.
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fortune reports that Weight Watchers International Inc on May 11
won the dismissal of a lawsuit claiming it defrauded shareholders
about how badly enrollment declines and the proliferation of free
mobile weight loss applications were hurting its bottom line.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan said the plaintiffs
in the proposed class action failed to show that Weight Watchers
deliberately overstated its business and growth prospects and
inflated its stock price in 2012 and early 2013.

The case long predated the October 2015 announcement that talk
show host and media mogul Oprah Winfrey had taken a 10 percent
stake in the New York-based company.

Judge Kaplan said the plaintiffs failed to show that Weight
Watchers intended to hide its troubles signing up paying clients
as more rivals began offering free apps to track food intake,
exercise and weight-loss goals.

He also rejected a claim that Weight Watchers improperly concealed
how badly disruptions to a new software platform were impeding
prospective business clients from signing up.

"Even if the online business was cannibalizing customers from the
traditional business and the traditional meetings business was in
decline, plaintiffs have not here pled facts sufficient to
demonstrate that this necessarily would be inconsistent with an
optimistic growth forecast," Judge  Kaplan wrote.

The plaintiffs were led by the Oklahoma Police Pension &
Retirement System, and KBC Asset Management NV of Brussels,
Belgium.

They sued on behalf of shareholders from Feb. 14, 2012, to
Feb. 13, 2013, when Weight Watchers cited competitive threats in
projecting 2013 profit that would fall well below analyst
forecasts.  Its share price fell 17 percent the next day.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests
for comment.

Weight Watchers said it is gratified by Judge Kaplan's decision,
and always believed that the lawsuit had no merit.

The case is In re: Weight Watchers International Inc Securities
Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York,
No. 14-01997.


WONDRIES FAMILY: Faces "Avila" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Jose Avila, an individual and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated v. Wondries Family Collision Center, LLC,
Bob Wondries Ford, Kia of Alhambra, Nissan Automotive of Mission
Hills, Inc., Wondries Toyota, and Does 1-50 inclusive, Case No.
BC620186 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate facilities that provide auto
repair, including auto body repair, to members of the public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net


WOODSPRING HOTELS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Smith" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Renee Smith, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Woodspring Hotels, LLC and Woodspring Hotels Property
Management, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00489 (E.D. Tex., May 11, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants operate the Value Place Hotel located at 3210 SSW
Loop 323 in Tyler, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shane McGuire, Esq.
      THE MCGUIRE FIRM, PC
      102 N. College Ave., Suite 1030
      Tyler, TX 75702
      Telephone: (903) 630-7154
      Facsimile: (903) 630-7173
      E-mail: shane@mcguirefirm.com

         - and -

      Keith Miller, Esq.
      KEITH MILLER LAW OFFICE
      100 E. Ferguson, Suite 101
      Tyler, TX 75702
      Telephone: (903) 597-4090
      Facsimile: (903) 597-3692
      E-mail: keith@5974090.net


YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell to File Motion to Overturn Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Taco Bell denies
liability as to the underpaid meal premium class claim and intends
to file a post-trial motion to overturn a court verdict.

The Company and Taco Bell were named as defendants in a number of
putative class action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010
alleging violations of California labor laws including unpaid
overtime, failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to
pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of
meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business
expenses, wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and
unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California
Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200. Some plaintiffs also
sought penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code
under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") as well
as statutory "waiting time" penalties and alleged violations of
California's Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs sought to
represent a California state-wide class of hourly employees.

These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is
styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell
Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties'
stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action, leaving Taco
Bell as the sole defendant. Plaintiffs filed their motion for
class certification on the vacation and final pay claims in
December 2010, and on September 26, 2011 the court issued its
order denying the certification of the vacation and final pay
claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four separate meal and
rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the court rejected three
of the proposed classes but granted certification with respect to
the late meal break class. The parties thereafter agreed on a list
of putative class members, and the class notice and opt out forms
were mailed on January 21, 2014.

Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a
motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to
strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the
second amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. On that same
date, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to dismiss all but one
of the PAGA claims. On October 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion
to amend the operative complaint and a motion to amend the class
certification order. On December 16, 2014, the court partially
granted both motions, rejecting plaintiffs' proposed on-duty meal
period class but certifying a limited rest break class and
certifying an underpaid meal premium class, and allowing the
plaintiffs to amend the complaint to reflect those certifications.
On December 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed the third amended
complaint. On February 26, 2015, the court denied a motion by Taco
Bell to dismiss or strike the underpaid meal premium class.

Beginning on February 22, 2016, the late meal period class claim,
the limited rest break class claim, the underpaid meal premium
class claim, and the associated statutory "waiting time" penalty
claim were tried to a jury. On March 9, 2016, the jury returned
verdicts in favor of Taco Bell on the late meal period claim, the
limited rest break claim, and the statutory "waiting time" penalty
claim. The jury found for the plaintiffs on the underpaid meal
premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.5 million. A bench
trial was subsequently conducted with respect to the PAGA claims
and plaintiffs' Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200 claim.

On April 8, 2016, the court returned a verdict in favor of Taco
Bell on the PAGA claims and the Sec. 17200 claim. In a separate
ruling issued the same day, the court also ruled that plaintiffs
were entitled to prejudgment interest on the underpaid meal
premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.3 million.

Taco Bell denies liability as to the underpaid meal premium class
claim and intends to file a post-trial motion to overturn the
verdict.

YUM! Brands, Inc. and subsidiaries comprise primarily the
worldwide operations of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell.


YUM! BRANDS: 9th Circuit Not Yet Set Briefing Schedule
------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit has not yet set a briefing schedule on a
plaintiff's appeal concerning the a summary judgment ruling.

On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina
Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior
Court. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of current and
former California hourly restaurant employees alleging various
violations of California labor laws including failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to
provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay
all final wages, and unfair or unlawful business practices in
violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200.

This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage
and Hour Actions case. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court
and, on June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
to include a claim seeking penalties for alleged violations of
California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys
General Act. Taco Bell's motion to dismiss or stay the action in
light of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case was denied
on October 30, 2013. In April 2014 the parties stipulated to
address the sufficiency of plaintiff's legal theory as to her
discount meal break claim before conducting full discovery.

A hearing on the parties' cross-summary judgment motions was held
on October 22, 2014, and on October 23, 2014, the court granted
Taco Bell's motion for summary judgment on the discount meal break
claim and denied plaintiff's motion. Trial was set for mid-April
2016. Plaintiff ceased to actively pursue this matter and failed
to timely file the required pre-trial statement. Subsequently,
plaintiff filed a request to dismiss with prejudice all of her
remaining claims, which the court approved on March 2, 2016.
Plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal concerning the court's
summary judgment ruling. The Ninth Circuit has not yet set a
briefing schedule.

YUM! Brands, Inc. and subsidiaries comprise primarily the
worldwide operations of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell.


                            *********

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  * * *