CAR_Public/160525.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, May 25, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 104



                            Headlines


3M CO: Dentists File Class Action Over Faulty Dental Crowns
500.COM LIMITED: Class Action Parties Began Discovery
AAAA: Towing Companies File Class Action Over Breach of Contract
ADVANCED MICRO: Discovery Process Ongoing in Securities Action
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Nurse Files Wage Class Action in Chicago

AEQUITAS LAW: Cal. Ct. App. Affirms Orders in "El Monte"
AFFINION GROUP: Motion for Class Certification Pending
AFFINION GROUP: No Hearing Yet on Appeal in Connecticut Suit
AFFINION GROUP: No Hearing Yet on Appeal in California Suit
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Settlement Reached in Natural Gas Markets Suits

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Court Grants PSO's Motion to Dismiss
ATHENAHEALTH, INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing This Month
ATHENAHEALTH, INC: Still Defends St. Louis Heart Case
ATHENAHEALTH, INC: Suit by Michigan Urgent & Primary Care Tossed
AURNISH ENTERPRISES: Recalls Pork Dumpling Products

AUSTRALIA: Private Contractor Group Facilitates RSRT Class Action
AUSTRALIA: Hunter Street Retailers Mull Light Rail Class Action
BANCO DE CHILE: Faces Consumer Protection Claim
BAYFRONT: Faces Class Action Over Incorrect Hospital Billing
BB&T CORP: Faces Class Action Over 401(k) Savings Plan

BELL: Settles 911 Class Action for $1 Million, June 6 Hearing Set
BLACK DIAMOND: Recalls Index Ascenders Due to Injury Risk
BLACK DIAMOND: Recalls Camalot Climbing Devices
BOFI HOLDING: Golden and Hazan Cases Consolidated
BREG, INC: Court Sanctions "Lucas" Plaintiffs' Counsel

BRISTOL-MYERS: Wisconsin Court Dismissed AWP Litigation
BRISTOL-MYERS: Over 5,200 Plavix* Claims Filed
BRISTOL-MYERS: Has Deal in Principle with 29 Reglan* Plaintiffs
BRONX, NY: Faces Class Action Over Criminal Court Backlogs
BROOKLINE, MA: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action

CANADA: Ottawa Lawyer Mulls Class Action Over Jail Overcrowding
CANADA: Windsor & Tecumseh Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Passes
CARL KARCHER: Cal. Ct. App. Dismisses Appeal in "Cubias"
CERNER: Faces Another Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement in TWC Merger Suit Pending

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Has Yet to Respond to Suit Over A/N Deal
CHINA COMMERCIAL: Entered Into Stipulation and Agreement
COCA-COLA: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Business Combination
CONSOL ENERGY: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in Hale Litigation Pending
CONSOL ENERGY: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in Addison Suit Pending

CRACKER BARREL: Appeals to 3rd Cir. From Ruling in "Heinzl" Suit
CREDIT BUREAU: "Reynolds" Class Certified; Deal Has Final OK
CYNTHIA KOBEL: Arbitration Bid in "Jpay" Suit Partly Denied
DEVRY EDUCATION: July 12 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Summer Davenport Substituted as Lead Plaintiff

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Defending Against B&R Supermarket Action
DISNEY ONLINE: Dismissal of "Robinson" Class Suit Appealed
DOW CHEMICAL: Recognized $1.2BB Pretax Loss Related to Settlement
EILAT-ASHKELON PIPELINE: State Disputes Oil Spill Class Action
ENCORE CAPITAL: "Danley" Suit Sent to Arbitration

EPOCRATES INC: Detroit Police Retirement Sys. Deal Has Final OK
EXPERIAN DATA: Appeals "Patton" Class Suit Ruling in 9th Circuit
FIRST SOLAR: Appeal Briefing to Conclude in 3rd Quarter of 2016
FRIENDLY'S ICE CREAM: Judge Allows Wage Class Action to Proceed
G. WILLI-FOOD: 2 Class Suits in Procedural Stage

G. WILLI-FOOD: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
GENENTECH INC: Sued for Misrepresenting Herceptin Doses
GENERAL MILLS: Court Narrows Claims in "Haddix"
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert. for "Carriuolo" Suit Affirmed
GLOBAL FITNESS: Court Tackles Class Action Settlement Objections

GNC HOLDINGS: Faces 28 Personal Injury Lawsuits as of March 31
GNC HOLDINGS: Settlement of "Brewer" Case Has Preliminarily OK
GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Naranjo" Class Action
HIAX LLC: "Burleson" Suit to Recover Overtime, Minimum Pay
HILLTOP HOLDINGS: Defending Suit Related to SWS Acquisition

HUNTSMAN CORP: Bid to Dismiss Indirect Purchasers' Action Pending
ILLINOIS: Judge OKs Prison Mental Health Care Settlement
INVENTURE FOODS: Faces Securities Class Action in Arizona
IRELAND: Violates Travelers' Human Right, EU Committee Claims
ITC HOLDINGS: Defending Suits Related to Fortis Merger

KANKAKEE, IL: Dismissal of "McGrath" With Prejudice Affirmed
KLEIN TOOLS: Recalls Digital Clamp Meters Due to Burn Hazards
KPMG: More Women Join Gender Discrimination Class Action
LA QUINTA: Faces "Beisel" Class Action in New York
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Appeal in Data Privacy Litigation Pending

LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Petition to Rehear Appeal Still Pending
LENDINGCLUB CORP: July 15 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: May 31 Formal Vote on Arpaio Case Cost Set
MARK SHERIFF: Supreme Court Okays Use of Atty. Gen. Letterhead
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Bid for Rehearing En Banc Denied

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismissed Claims Against Starwood
MASTERCARD INC: Accrued $710MM Liability in Interchange Case
MASTERCARD INC: Still Defends Interchange Suits in Canada
MASTERCARD INC: ATM Non-Discrimination Plaintiffs Seek Injunction
MASTERCARD INC: Defending Against U.S. Liability Shift Litigation

MDL 2020: Aetna Still Defends Out-of-Network Benefit Cases
MERCK: July 8 Fosamax Settlement Approval Hearing Set
MEREDITH CORP: State Class Action Over Merger Still Pending
MERRILL LYNCH: Securities Fraud Suit to Remain in State Court
MIAMI, FL: Property Owners' Citrus Canker Litigation Appeal Nixed

MONSANTO: Faces Class Action Over Round Up Herbicide
MURRAY GOULBURN: Faces Investor Class Action Over 2015 Float
MURRAY GOULBURN: Slater & Gordon Scrutinizes Disclosures
NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE: "King" Suit Dismissed
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Loses Motion to Dismiss Concussion Class Actions

NAVIENT CORPORATION: Defending Class Action by Loan Borrower
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss Blyden Complaint Pending
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Motions to Appoint Lead Counsel Filed
NISSAN KOREA: Class Action Mulled Over Fabricated Emissions
NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY: Court Rules for NTTA in "Reyes" Suit

NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Unconstitutional Tax Exemption
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Adelson Has Until May 31 to Amend Suit
OIL STATES INT'L: Evaluating Settlements for Remaining' Claims
OXY RECKITT: Aware of Dangers of Humidifier Sterilizer, Data Show
OXY USA: Court Enters Protective Order for "Whisenant" Suit

PACIFIC CYCLE: Recalls Infant Bicycle Helmets Due to Choking Risk
PEP BOYS: Court Narrows Claims in "Lee" Suit Over Debt Collection
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Court Granted Motion for Class Certification
PETROCHINA COMPANY: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Suit
PFIZER INC: Finances of Prempro Case Plaintiff's Attorney Probed

PHIL&TEDS: Recalls Dash Strollers Due to Pinch Hazard
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Recalls Fully Cooked Chicken Products
POLYCOM INC: August 2016 Hearing on Final Approval of Settlement
QUESTAR CORP: 6 Lawsuits Challenging Dominion Merger Pending
REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Bid for Leave to File 3rd Amended Suit Filed

ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Recalls Bicycles Due to Injury Risk
RYANAIR: Faces Class Action Over Ticket Hidden Charges
SABRE CORPORATION: Still Defends New York Class Action
SARAFEI CARMEL: Agrees to Stop Using Benzyl Chloride Under Deal
SCOTT USA: Recalls Bicycles With Syncros Seat Posts

SCOTT USA: Recalls Bicycles With Syncros Seat Posts
SEADRILL LIMITED: Still Defends Class Action Lawsuit in N.Y.
SENTECH EMPLOYMENT: Court Keeps Count I of "John Doe" Suit
SEVERN TRENT ENVIRONMENTAL: Court Dismisses "Lowrimore"
SOCIAL SECURITY: Hill's Bid for Attorneys' Fees Denied

SPOKEO INC: Class Action May Impact TCPA, FACTA & BIPA Statues
SPRINT CORP: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
ST. PETERSBURG SURGERY: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for July 11
STARZ LLC: Court Dismissed "Theroux" Class Action
SUNRUN INC: "Brown" Securities Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Defendant in Four TCPA Class Actions
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Defendant in "Kincaid" Class Action
TARGET CORP: Recalls Menorahs Due to Fire Hazard
TELGIAN CORPORATION: Ruling in "Ramos" Class Suit Appealed
TICKETMASTER: $400MM Class Action Settlement Details Approved

TILE SHOP: Class Action in Discovery
TIME WARNER: Appeal in Set-Top Cable TV Box Action Pending
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Court Rejects Corrected Class Definition
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Removes Name from Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: $84MM Settlement Shortchanges Drivers

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Liss-Riordan Criticized Over Settlement
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Attempt to Remove Class Action Lawyer
UNUM GROUP: Court Set Final Fairness Hearing for June 2016
VIRGIN AMERICA: Reviewing "Houston" Class Action
VISA CANADA: May 25 Hearing Set in Credit Card Class Action

VIVUS INC: Purcell Investigates Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Advise Against Settlement
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Norway's Sovereign Fund Plans to Join Class Action
W.W. GRAINGER: Status Hearing in "Davies" in Late May 2016
WEST BANCORPORATION: Discovery Continuing in Class Action

WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN: Chemical Spill Class Action Trial Delayed
XTO ENERGY: Judge Tosses Motion to Dismiss Royalties Class Action

* Attorney Says New Consumer-Protection Rules to Spur Class Suits
* South African Gold Mining Companies to Face Silicosis Trial
* British Airlines Face Class Action Over "Excessive" APD Fees


                            *********


3M CO: Dentists File Class Action Over Faulty Dental Crowns
-----------------------------------------------------------
Burns Charest LLP on May 17 disclosed that dentists from Georgia
and Texas have filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in Minnesota
federal court against Minneapolis-based 3M Co., claiming that the
company's Lava Ultimate dental crowns contain defects that cause
the crowns to de-bond inside patients' mouths.  Dentists have been
forced to cover the cost of replacing the crowns, according to the
lawsuit.

Attorneys from Burns Charest LLP, a Texas and Louisiana trial
boutique, filed the lawsuit on behalf of a proposed nationwide
class of dentists seeking damages and other relief.

3M aggressively began marketing its Lava Ultimate crowns in 2011,
telling dentists that the crowns provided unmatched aesthetics and
durability for tooth restorations.  But the plaintiff dentists say
the 3M crowns failed at rates of 50 percent or more, requiring
expensive replacements.

3M pulled the Lava Ultimate products for use in restorative crowns
from the market last summer and admitted that the product was "de-
bonding at a higher-than anticipated rate."

"This suit involves hundreds of thousands of 3M Lava Ultimate
restorations performed in dental practices throughout the
country," says Burns Charest lead partner Warren T. Burns.  "Every
day, dentists are replacing Lava Ultimate crowns at great expense
to their practices and reputations -- all because 3M put a faulty
product on the market and continued to aggressively market it
despite clear evidence that it failed at remarkable rates."

Replacing 3M's de-bonded crowns can cost dentists more than $1,000
per restoration, Mr. Burns says.

The proposed class includes dentists or corporate dental practices
in the United States, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam
who purchased and/or used 3M's Lava(TM) Ultimate Restorative.

The dentists are also represented by co-lead counsel Daniel C.
Hedlund of Minneapolis' Gustafson Gluek PLLC and Charles D.
Gabriel of Atlanta-based Chalmers Pak Burch & Adams LLC.

The case is Vikram Bhatia et al v. 3M Company, Case No. 0:16-cv-
01304, in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota.

Burns Charest -- http://www.burnscharest.com-- is a Dallas and
New Orleans-based trial law firm with a national practice
representing consumers and businesses.  The firm represents
clients in large, complex class actions; antitrust claims; oil and
gas royalty disputes; environmental pollution cases; and asbestos
exposure claims.


500.COM LIMITED: Class Action Parties Began Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------
500.com Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit has begun discovery.

The Company said, "On February 27, 2015, a purported stockholder
class action lawsuit consisting of purchasers of our ADSs during
the period between November 22, 2013 and February 25, 2015,
captioned Fragala v. 500.com Limited, et al., Case No. 15-CV-1463-
MMM (E), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, or the Court, against us, certain of our
executive officers, and the underwriters for our initial public
offering, or collectively, the Defendants. The complaint alleges
that the prospectus, registration statements, and other filings
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from October 22,
2013 to February 23, 2015 contained materially false and
misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws
and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief."

"On April 20, 2015, the Court ordered that (i) Defendants need not
respond to the complaint until after a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel is approved, and lead plaintiff files an
amended complaint; (ii) within seven days of the Court's
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, counsel for
Defendants and counsel for lead plaintiff shall meet and confer
regarding scheduling; and (iii) within five days of the meet and
confer, the parties shall submit a stipulation for the Court's
approval with the parties' proposed schedule for the filing of an
amended complaint as well as the timing on the filing of a motion
to dismiss or other response to the amended complaint, and
scheduling for same.

"On July 7, 2015, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel to
represent the purported class in the litigation. On September 15,
2015, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of a
purported class consisting of purchasers of our ADSs during the
period between November 22, 2013 and March 2, 2015. The amended
complaint alleges that the our prospectus, registration statement,
and other filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
from October 22, 2013 to March 2, 2015 contained materially false
and misleading information in violation of the federal securities
laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

"On November 16, 2015, the Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On January 11, 2016, due to the judge originally
assigned to the case leaving the bench, the Court denied the
pending motions to dismiss without prejudice to refiling.

"On January 22, 2016, lead plaintiff and the underwriter
defendants stipulated to the dismissal of the underwriter
defendants with prejudice. On January 26, 2016, the remaining
Defendants re-filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

"On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling order setting
forth case management dates, including: (i) August 1, 2016 as the
last date to conduct the Court ordered settlement conference; (ii)
October 31, 2016 as the discovery cut-off date; (iii) November 7,
2016 as the last day for hearing motions; (iv) December 9, 2016 as
the pre-trial conference date; and (v) December 20, 2016 as the
beginning of trial.

"On March 15, 2016, the Court denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss, stating that the issues raised in the motion are more
appropriately resolved on a motion for summary judgment. In April
2016, the parties began discovery.

"We believe that the class action lawsuit is without merit and
intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously, however, there can be no
assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit."


AAAA: Towing Companies File Class Action Over Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Sciacca, writing for East Bay Times, reports that a class-
action suit alleges that the control AAA has wielded over its
network of contractors -- including the volume of customers and
geographic area they serve, the hiring of employees and using AAA-
branded trucks and uniforms -- is more analogous to the
relationship of an employer and employee than an organization and
independent contractor.  The suit also alleges that AAA routinely
breaches its contracts with these contractors in not paying them
what their contracts require.

AAA would not comment on the specific allegations in the lawsuit
or how roadside service response times for its 4 million members
in the NCNU region have changed over the years, but tow companies
say that with limited resources, it's difficult to provide service
to members quickly.  According to former tow truck company owner
Steve Sgarlato, the NCNU chapter of AAA, which had long been among
the top-ranked AAA clubs regarding consumer satisfaction, dropped
to the bottom of the list within two years of the "optimization"
program.

Mr. Sgarlato said he sold the company his father started decades
ago in Campbell, Dick's Towing, because of the struggles in
working under AAA.  Mr. Sgarlato also formerly chaired the
Contract Station Advisory Committee and said AAA was largely
unresponsive to pleas to negotiate.

"AAA looks forward to moving past this litigation," the agency
said in a statement.  "We are proud of our long-standing
relationship with our tow service providers, and we value the
joint commitment and vision we share to serve members."

The suit was filed in December 2013 by the Cozzitorto family in
Sacramento, which operated a tow station since 1973 in Sacramento
and worked with AAA for about 23 years until it closed up shop in
2014.

Dan Charlebois, who ran a tow station in the Sacramento area and
formerly chaired the Contract Station Advisory Committee for AAA,
said that in his area, AAA pays the contract stations about $52 to
$58 for a tow service call, while the cost of doing a tow is
closer to $62.  Other operators claim, too, that they are
subsidizing the costs of providing service calls to AAA members,
who, according to AAA's website, pay between $21 and $96 annually,
depending on the region and type of membership.

Towing is an expensive business.  Tow trucks run upward of
$125,000 a piece, and insurance premiums for a tow company can be
more than $200,000 per year because of the dangerous nature of the
work.  Drivers do not make high wages -- typically between $13 and
$15 per hour, depending on the area -- but with low rates from
AAA, operators say, those costs eat up profits.

Upward of 75 people gathered earlier this month in a Contra Costa
County courtroom, where a Superior Court judge determined that AAA
used coercive and misleading language in a settlement offer that
many of its towing partners perceived as a threat.

The judge told AAA that it would have to rewrite the language of a
contract addendum that it had issued to its network of towing
company partners in an effort to settle the suit.

Cheri Ellison Carroll, who owns Ellison Towing in Mountain View
with her husband, said at the hearing that while her station had
performed well and received incentive bonuses from AAA, they
weren't enough to compensate for the low rates and high business
expenses of the towing industry.

"We're hemorrhaging (money)," Ms. Carroll said.

The tow companies have a strong case for allegations that they are
treated more like employees than independent contractors, said
Richard Reibstein -- reibsteinr@pepperlaw.com -- a partner with
law firm Pepper Hamilton and co-head of its independent contractor
compliance group.

"Companies like AAA, who have detailed rules about how
(contractors) are to do stuff, are sowing the seeds for their own
demise for misclassification," Mr. Reibstein said.

Uber is facing misclassification lawsuits of its own, and FedEx
recently settled a long-running dispute with FedEx Ground
California drivers over misclassification for $228 million.


ADVANCED MICRO: Discovery Process Ongoing in Securities Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 26, 2016, that the discovery
process is ongoing in the securities class action.

On January 15, 2014, a class action lawsuit captioned Hatamian v.
AMD, et al., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00226 (the "Hatamian Lawsuit") was
filed against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. The complaint purports to
assert claims against the Company and certain individual officers
for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 of the
Exchange Act. The plaintiffs seek to represent a proposed class of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock during the period April 4, 2011 through October 18,
2012. The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged
materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by the
Company and the individual officers regarding the Company's 32nm
technology and "Llano" product, which statements and omissions,
the plaintiffs claim, allegedly operated to artificially inflate
the price paid for the Company's common stock during the period.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.

On July 7, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims. On March 31, 2015, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.
On May 14, 2015, the Company filed its answer to plaintiffs'
corrected amended complaint. On September 4, 2015, plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification, and on March 16, 2016,
the Court granted plaintiffs' motion. A court-ordered mediation
held in January 2016 did not result in a settlement of the
lawsuit. The discovery process is ongoing.


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Nurse Files Wage Class Action in Chicago
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that on the
heels of a settlement announced in a similar class action brought
by in-home physical therapists and other home-based health care
workers, another group of home care nurses are also taking aim at
Advocate Health, arguing the company owes them overtime pay after
allegedly improperly claiming the nurses were exempt from certain
federal and state wage laws.

On May 13, registered nurse Christy Vazquez filed a class action
complaint in Chicago federal court on behalf of Advocate's
"infusion RNs" -- people who worked as RNs providing "health care
infusion and pediatric services to patients in their homes."

Ms. Vazquez said Advocate violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Illinois Minimum Wage Law.  She argued employers can only
exempt employees from requirements of both statues if they prove
the worker's duties fall under one of the exempt categories and
also if "the employee is compensated on either a 'salary' basis or
a 'fee' basis."  Putative class members, she reported, are paid on
a hybrid hourly and per visit basis.

According to Ms. Vazquez, Advocate's pay structure for infusion
RNs includes $50 for each routine visit.  Start of care,
resumption of care and recertification visits are worth $79.  All
attempted visits are paid the nonbillable rate of $10.50 per
attempt.  Those figures are the result of Advocate's estimate for
the duration of each duty.  In addition, certain tasks are paid at
$31 per hour -- things like "time spent in staff meetings, case
conferences, continuing education training, and in-services."
Paid time off is figured at the same $31 per hour. On-call hours
are worth $3.

However, Ms. Vazquez continued, infusion RNs earn nothing "for a
multitude of other work tasks they are routinely required to
perform outside of the time spent in patients' homes, including
but not limited to, completing documentation of patient visits
('charting'), preparing for and scheduling visits, travel time
between patients' homes (under 30 minutes), coordinating care with
patients, physicians, pharmacists and other medical care providers
by email, fax, phone, voicemail, text and the Perfect Serve paging
system, completing required reports and dropping off lab specimens
and following up on lab work."

Ms. Vazquez estimated at least 40 current and former infusion
nurses who worked in such a capacity at any time in the past three
years could be part of the class of additional plaintiffs she has
asked the court to certify.

She also noted her claims "are virtually identical" to those a
larger group of home health clinicians lobbied against Advocate,
also in federal court in Chicago.  In that case, Lukas vs.
Advocate Health Care Network and Subsidiaries, the court "granted
both final FLSA collective certification and Rule 23 class
certification on their IMWL claims."

Plaintiffs in both the Lukas and Vazquez class actions were
represented by attorneys with the firm of Stephan Zouras, of
Chicago.

In that case, filed in 2014, a group of physical and occupational
therapists and home health care RNs also sued Advocate, similarly
claiming the company had underpaid them because the health system
similarly said they were exempt from the overtime provisions in
the FLSA and IMWL.

According to federal court documents, Advocate agreed to pay $4.75
million, including attorney fees, to settle that lawsuit. Of that,
the plaintiffs' attorneys were scheduled to receive $1.43 million.

A federal judge granted preliminary approval of the Lukas
settlement on March 17, federal court records indicated.

In addition to class certification and a jury trial, Ms. Vazquez
wants the court to order Advocate to supply a roster of infusion
RNs from the past three years; to pay compensatory damages of time
and a half for all overtime hours, plus 2 percent interest; pay
liquidated damages equal to the amount of unpaid overtime; and pay
attorney fees.


AEQUITAS LAW: Cal. Ct. App. Affirms Orders in "El Monte"
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EL MONTE RENTS, INC., Plaintiff and
Appellant, v. AEQUITAS LAW GROUP et al., Defendants and
Appellants; CANLAS LAW GROUP et al., Defendants and Respondents.
EL MONTE RENTS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CANLAS LAW GROUP
et al., Defendants and Respondents, Nos. B256665, B262566 (Cal.
Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Second District
affirmed the following orders of the trial court:

          -- April 7, 2014 and March 9, 2015 orders granting
             Canlas Law Group's special motion to strike and
             awarding Canlas $48,602 in attorney fees

          -- May 20, 2014 denying Aequitas Law Group's special
             motion to strike

Gustavo Villalpondo and Jessie Yanez filed class and collective
actions against their employer, El Monte Rents, Inc.  Villalpando
was represented by attorneys in two law firms, Aequitas Law Group
and Canlas Law Group.  Yanez was represented by attorneys in the
Aequitas firm only.  The attorneys at Aequitas thought they had
good claims, and wrote several letters to the attorneys for El
Monte saying so.  The attorneys for El Monte thought the claims
were meritless, and wrote several letters not only saying so, but
also threatening to sue for malicious prosecution.  It turned out
that the attorneys for El Monte had the better of the argument: El
Monte ultimately prevailed in the actions.

The attorneys for El Monte subsequently followed through on their
threats and filed a malicious prosecution action against
Villalpondo, Yanez, the Aequitas firm and several of its
attorneys, Ronald H. Bae, Joseph Cho, Travis Hodgkins, and Autumn
Love (collectively Aequitas), and the Canlas firm and its
principal, Christopher J. Canlas (collectively Canlas).  Aequitas
and Canlas filed separate special motions to strike the complaint
under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.  The trial court
granted the motion by Canlas and awarded Canlas $48,602 in
attorneys' fees, and denied the motion by Aequitas.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals of California, Second District,
affirmed all of the trial court's orders.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 17, 2016 order is available at
https://is.gd/YKyPUO from Leagle.com.

Law Office of Jeff Augustini, Jeff Augustini --
jeff@augustinilaw.com -- Law Office of Peter Sloan and Peter Sloan
for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Robie & Matthai, Edith R. Matthai -- ematthai@romalaw.com -- Klye
Kveton -- kkveton@romalaw.com -- and Natalie A. Kouyoumdjian --
nkouyoumdjian@romalaw.com -- for Defendants and Appellants.

Nemecek & Cole, Michael McCarthy -- mmccarthy@nemecek-cole.com --
and Mark Schaeffer -- mschaeffer@nemecek-cole.com -- for
Defendants and Respondents.


AFFINION GROUP: Motion for Class Certification Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the litigation
related to the sale by Trilegiant Corp. of its membership
programs, the Company does not know when the court will rule on
the motions for class certification or the motion for summary
judgment.

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

On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. On
February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion. On March
28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of appeal in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
appealing the district court's denial of their motion to compel
arbitration.

On September 7, 2012, the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of
the district court denying arbitration. While that issue was on
appeal, the matter proceeded in the district court. There was
written discovery and depositions. Previously, the court had set a
briefing schedule on class certification that called for the
completion of class certification briefing on May 18, 2012.

However, on March 28, 2012, the court suspended the briefing
schedule on the motion due to the filing of two other overlapping
class actions in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut. The first of those cases was filed on March 6,
2012, against the Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank
of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc.,
Citibank, N.A., Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com,
Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l,
Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide
Corp., People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc.,
Rakuten USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc. The
second of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the
same defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc.,
Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. These two cases assert
similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed lawsuit
in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership
programs.

On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated these three cases. The
court also set an initial status conference for May 17, 2012. At
that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file a
consolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the three
previously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the class
certification briefing schedule that had been set previously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On February 29, 2016, the Company filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment on the individual claims of the remaining named
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a response on March 21, 2016, and the
Company filed its response on April 4, 2016. The Company does not
know when the court will rule on the motion for class
certification or the motion for Summary Judgment.


AFFINION GROUP: No Hearing Yet on Appeal in Connecticut Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in a class action
lawsuit filed against Webloyalty et al. in Connecticut, the
Company's answering brief was filed on April 15, 2016 and the
Plaintiff was scheduled to file a reply brief on May 11, 2016. The
court has not scheduled a date for a hearing.

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

On November 1, 2010, the Defendants moved to dismiss the initial
complaint, which Plaintiff then amended on November 19, 2010. On
December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a second motion to dismiss
this lawsuit. On May 15, 2014, the court heard oral argument on
Plaintiff's motion to strike the Company's request for judicial
notice of the Plaintiff's membership enrollment documents filed in
support of the Company's second motion to dismiss.

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

The July 17, 2014 order indicated that the court would set a
further motion to dismiss briefing schedule following the
conclusion of this limited discovery. The Plaintiff amended his
complaint as scheduled, and the parties conducted limited
discovery as ordered.

After this limited discovery, the parties proposed a motion to
dismiss briefing schedule calling for the Defendants to file their
opening briefs on January 9, 2015. The Plaintiff filed his
opposition brief on March 24, 2015, and on April 24, 2015, the
Defendants filed their reply briefs in response to that
opposition.

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

Plaintiff's opening appeals brief was filed on February 10, 2016.
The Company's answering brief was filed on April 15, 2016 and the
Plaintiff was scheduled to file a reply brief on May 11, 2016. The
court has not scheduled a date for a hearing.


AFFINION GROUP: No Hearing Yet on Appeal in California Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court has not yet
scheduled a hearing for an appeal in a class action lawsuit filed
against Webloyalty et al. in California.

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

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

Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the court cancelled the
previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated that
it would rule based on the parties' written submissions without
the need for a hearing. On August 28, 2013, the court sua sponte
dismissed Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice with leave to
amend by September 30, 2013. The Plaintiff filed his amended
complaint on September 30, 2013, adding purported claims under the
ECPA and for unjust enrichment, money had and received,
conversion, civil theft, and invasion of privacy. On December 2,
2013, the Company moved to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint.

Plaintiff responded to the motion on January 27, 2014. On February
6, 2014, the court indicated that it would review the submissions
and issue a decision on Plaintiff's motion without oral argument.
On September 29, 2014, the court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims
on substantive grounds and/or statute of limitations grounds. The
court has allowed the Plaintiff 28 days to file a motion
demonstrating why a further amendment of the complaint would not
be futile. On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to amend the complaint and attached a proposed amended
complaint. The Company responded to the motion on November 10,
2014.

On June 22, 2015, the court entered a final order and judgment
denying Plaintiff's motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims
with prejudice, and dismissing all state claims without prejudice.
On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal
decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company
responded to the motion on November 10, 2014. On June 22, 2015,
the court entered a final order and judgment denying Plaintiff's
motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims with prejudice, and
dismissing all state claims without prejudice.

On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal
decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiff
filed his opening appeal brief on November 19, 2015, and the
Company's answering brief was filed on January 19, 2016. Plaintiff
filed a reply brief on February 2, 2016. The court has not yet
scheduled a hearing for this appeal.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Settlement Reached in Natural Gas Markets Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
American Electric Power Company, Inc., Appalachian Power Company,
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Public Service
Company of Oklahoma, and Southwestern Electric Power Company said
in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2016, that a tentative settlement has been reached in three
class action lawsuits related to natural gas markets.

In 2002, the Lieutenant Governor of California filed a lawsuit in
Los Angeles County California Superior Court against numerous
energy companies, including AEP, alleging violations of California
law through alleged fraudulent reporting of false natural gas
price and volume information with an intent to affect the market
price of natural gas and electricity.  AEP was dismissed from the
case.

A number of similar cases were also filed in California and in
state and federal courts in several states making essentially the
same allegations under federal or state laws against the same
companies.  AEP (or a subsidiary) is among the companies named as
defendants in some of these cases.  AEP settled, received summary
judgment or was dismissed from all of these cases.

The plaintiffs appealed the Nevada federal district court's
dismissal of several cases involving AEP companies to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  In April 2013, the
appellate court reversed in part, and affirmed in part, the
district court's orders in these cases.  The appellate court
reversed the district court's holding that the state antitrust
claims were preempted by the Natural Gas Act and the order
dismissing AEP from two of the cases on personal jurisdiction
grounds and affirmed the decision denying leave to the plaintiffs
to amend their complaints in two of the cases.

Defendants in these cases, including AEP, filed a petition seeking
further review with the U.S. Supreme Court on the preemption
issue. AEP also subsequently filed a separate petition with the
U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the personal jurisdiction
issue.

In July 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the defendants'
previously filed petition for further review with the U.S. Supreme
Court on the preemption issue. Oral argument occurred in January
2015. In April 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the judgment
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the
preemption issue, holding that the plaintiffs' state antitrust
claims were not preempted by the Natural Gas Act. The U.S. Supreme
Court denied AEP's petition for review of the personal
jurisdiction issue shortly thereafter. The cases were remanded to
the district court for further proceedings.

There are four pending cases, of which three are class actions and
one is a single plaintiff case. A tentative settlement has been
reached in the three class actions. This settlement, once
finalized, will be subject to court approval.

Management will continue to defend the remaining case. Management
is unable to determine the amount of potential additional loss
that is reasonably possible of occurring.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Court Grants PSO's Motion to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------
American Electric Power Company, Inc., Appalachian Power Company,
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Public Service
Company of Oklahoma, and Southwestern Electric Power Company said
in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2016, that a court has granted PSO's motion to dismiss a wage
and hours lawsuit.

In August 2013, PSO received an amended complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by 36
current and former line and warehouse employees alleging that they
were denied overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.  Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to overtime pay for
"on call" time. They allege that restrictions placed on them
during on call hours are burdensome enough that they are entitled
to compensation for these hours as hours worked.  Plaintiffs also
filed a motion to conditionally certify this action as a class
action, claiming there are an additional 70 individuals similarly
situated to plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs seek damages in the amount of
unpaid overtime over a three-year period and liquidated damages in
the same amount.

In March 2014, the federal court granted plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify the action as a class action.  Notice was
given to all potential class members and an additional 44
individuals opted in to the class, bringing the plaintiff class to
80 current and former employees. Two plaintiffs have since
dismissed their claims without prejudice, leaving 78 plaintiffs.
In February 2016, PSO filed a motion for summary judgment. In
April 2016, by opinion and order, the court granted PSO's motion
for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Management does not
believe a loss is probable. If there is an unfavorable outcome
contrary to expectations, management estimates possible losses of
up to $30 million.


ATHENAHEALTH, INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing This Month
---------------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has set a
final approval hearing for May 2016 in the case, Police and Fire
Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Epocrates, Inc. et al.

On March 1, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California captioned
Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v.
Epocrates, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-945, on behalf of a
putative class of Epocrates' stockholders against Epocrates and
its former officers and directors. The complaint asserted claims
under sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on
behalf of all stockholders that purchased Epocrates stock in its
initial public offering ("IPO") and claims under sections 10(b)
and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all
stockholders that purchased shares between February 2, 2011 (the
day after the IPO) and August 9, 2011.

On October 8, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
alleging only claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
voluntarily dismissing a number of the individual defendants.
Plaintiffs allege that Epocrates made false or misleading
statements with respect to the fact that Epocrates' pharmaceutical
clients were awaiting guidance from the Food and Drug
Administration on the use of advertising and social media, which
caused the clients to delay marketing and negatively impacted the
timing of Epocrates' sales and revenue growth. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action, compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, plaintiffs' costs, attorneys' fees, and such
other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

"On December 9, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint," the Company said.  "On June 4, 2014, the court issued
an order dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiffs leave to
amend their complaint."

"On June 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which asserts substantially similar claims as those set forth in
the first amended complaint. On July 14, 2014, we filed a motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint. On October 2, 2014, the
court granted plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint
by October 23, 2014, and denied the motion to dismiss as moot.

"Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on October 23,
2014, which asserts substantially similar claims on behalf of all
stockholders that purchased shares between February 1, 2011 and
August 9, 2011.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on
November 10, 2014, and the court denied the motion on March 13,
2015. On April 27, 2015, we filed our answer to the third amended
complaint denying the allegations in the third amended complaint.

"On September 22, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in
principle on a comprehensive settlement of all claims asserted in
the lawsuit with no admission of liability by any defendants and
with any settlement amounts being funded by insurance. The court
preliminarily approved the settlement on December 16, 2015 and set
a final approval hearing for May 2016."


ATHENAHEALTH, INC: Still Defends St. Louis Heart Case
-----------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that briefing on the
Company's motion for stay was scheduled to be completed on or
before April 28, 2016.

The Company said, "On May 21, 2015, a class action petition was
filed by St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. in the State Circuit Court
of St. Louis County, Missouri, against athenahealth. The petition
alleges we violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the
"TCPA"). Following service, we removed the case to federal court
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Case No. 4:15-cv-01215."

"On our motion, the federal court initially stayed further
proceedings (pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in
Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, No. 14-857), but lifted that stay on
February 3, 2016. We filed our Answer in the case on March 8,
2016.

"Subsequently, on March 14, 2016, we moved for an additional stay
pending a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC, No. 14-1234
regarding the validity of a regulation promulgated by the Federal
Communications Commission relating to the claims asserted in the
petition. Briefing on our motion for stay was scheduled to be
completed on or before April 28, 2016. We intend to vigorously
defend this action."


ATHENAHEALTH, INC: Suit by Michigan Urgent & Primary Care Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the lawsuit by
Michigan Urgent & Primary Care Physicians, P.C., has been
dismissed.

On September 4, 2015, a class action petition was filed by
Michigan Urgent & Primary Care Physicians, P.C., in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Case
No. 2:15-cv-13156, against athenahealth.

"The petition alleged we violated the TCPA," the Company said.
"Following service, the court initially continued further
proceedings (pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in
Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez), but on February 8, 2016, the court
entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order for the action to
go forward."

"On March 8, 2016, the parties filed a joint notice of settlement
informing the court that we have settled the named plaintiff's
claims in the case, and on March 18, 2016, the court entered a
stipulated order of dismissal that dismissed with prejudice the
plaintiff's individual claims and dismissed without prejudice the
claims of any putative class members."


AURNISH ENTERPRISES: Recalls Pork Dumpling Products
---------------------------------------------------
Aurnish Enterprises Corporation, a Woodside, N.Y. establishment,
is recalling approximately 5,616 pounds of pork dumpling products
due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products
contain monosodium glutamate (MSG), which is not declared on the
product label.

The pork dumpling items were produced and packaged on various
dates between July 6, 2014 and May 5, 2016. The following products
are subject to recall:

  --- 1.25-lb. bags containing "AURNISH ENTERPRISE CORP. PORK
      DUMPLING."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
4566" inside the USDA mark of inspection and contain case code
5960811116. These items were shipped to institutional and retail
locations in Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
and Pennsylvania.

The problem was discovered during a comprehensive FSIS Food Safety
Assessment (FSA) performed in the establishment by an FSIS
Enforcement Investigations and Analysis Officer.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Ke
Feng Ren, President, at (718) 397-0978.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


AUSTRALIA: Private Contractor Group Facilitates RSRT Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Owner Driver reports that private contractor group Independent
Contractors Australia (ICA) is facilitating a class action lawsuit
to compensate owner-drivers who lost work during the failed period
of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal's Contractor Driver
Minimum Payments Road Safety Remuneration Order 2016 (RSRO).

According to the body, the action hopes to rectify the overall
losses "in the tens of millions of dollars" felt by owner
operators.

"It's great that the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was
abolished," the ICA says.

"But we are aware that thousands of owner-drivers suffered
substantial financial losses over the last few months because of
the RSRT.  For many, these losses continue."

Being one of the leading voices in the dismissal of the RSRT and
the RSRO, the ICA took the fight to the High Court in April citing
the Whitlam Government's Prices Justification Act 1973-1974, and
the referendum rejecting federal control over pricing that led to
it, against the tribunal.

While the ICA is no longer running a High Court challenge, with
the coalition government removing the tribunal and the 2016 RSRO
in mid-April, it has turned its attention to compensation -- but
only as a connecting entity.

The class action is lawyer-driven, the ICA says, with the lawyers
running the case and the litigant funders paying the costs.

"If you joined the action, you would receive an undertaking from
the lawyers that there would be no costs to you, even if the
action was not successful," the body says.

"You would be able to withdraw from the action at any time if you
wanted, at no risk to you."

The action requires an ICA membership, which it says is priced at
$55, and the filling out of an application questionnaire.

The body says it "not be part of the action, is not running the
action, and will not receive any money if the action is
successful," but is "connecting you to this opportunity to recover
losses as part of our service to our members."

"The questionnaire will go to the lawyers who will contact you and
follow up with you from there," the ICA says.

"They will explain everything."

The federal government has already announced an inquiry into the
RSRT in an effort to understand the full extent of the RSRO's
damage to the industry.

The Labor party, who instigated the tribunal with the help of a
few independents, has confirmed its intension to resuscitate the
concept should it be re-elected in July.


AUSTRALIA: Hunter Street Retailers Mull Light Rail Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Kirkwood, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that hunter
Street retailers were considering a class action against the state
government if the proposed Hunter Street light rail damaged their
businesses, government representatives were told at a meeting in
Newcastle on May 16.

More than 30 business owners or their representatives crowded into
a room at Passmores' Business and Management College in Hunter
Street to put their concerns to Transport for NSW Newcastle co-
ordinator general Anna Zycki and UrbanGrowth project director
Michael Cassel.

The meeting was chaired by Newcastle state Labor MP Tim
Crakanthorp and almost everyone present said they feared the loss
of Hunter Street car-parking spaces to make way for the segregated
light rail would kill their businesses.

Passmores' college principal Duncan Passmore told Ms. Zycki and
Mr. Cassel that he was a chartered accountant and a specialist in
business recovery and while he had never previously said to a
client "you've got no chance, close down", that was his summation
now if the light rail went ahead down Hunter Street.

He said talks had been held on a class action against the state
government over losses to businesses caused by the light rail or
the construction period.

"But I don't think it should go in this direction," Mr. Passmore
said.  "With the government spending hundreds of millions of
dollars on this project, it should set aside maybe hundreds of
thousands . . .  to compensate these people for the losses they
are going to incur."

Ms. Zycki said there was a well-established process for
compensation in this regard, and information was available on the
Transport for NSW website.

Asked by Mr. Crakanthorp why retailers in George Street Sydney --
where light rail is being built -- were not eligible for
compensation, Ms. Zycki said businesses had to incur losses to be
compensated.

She said the government had done a lot of work on "street
activation" during the Sydney construction and business was up,
rather than down.

Ms. Zycki said Newcastle City Council and others including the
business community had asked for more time to respond to the
Review of Environmental Factors on display for the light rail, and
the time for comment had been extended by eight days to Friday,
May 27.

She said 60 submissions had been lodged and about 120 comments
left online.

East End trader Helen Humphries said she lost customers when the
heavy rail shut and she feared the loss of parking with light rail
would do more damage.

Asked if the light rail could be shifted entirely on to the heavy
rail corridor, Ms. Zycki said only the politicians could make that
decision.


BANCO DE CHILE: Faces Consumer Protection Claim
-----------------------------------------------
Banco De Chile said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Bank is defending a
Consumer Protection Claim.

On February 21, 2014, Banco de Chile was notified of a complaint
filed by the Servicio Nacional del Consumidor (the "National
Consumer Service" or "SERNAC") in the Twelfth Civil Court of
Santiago as a collective action pursuant to Law No. 19,496.  The
legal action challenges certain clauses that exists in the
Contrato Unificado de Productos de Personas (the "Person Products
Unified Agreement") regarding fees on lines of credit for
overdrafts and the validity of tacit consent to changes in fees,
charges and other conditions in consumer contracts.  The Bank has
answered the complaint and asked the court to dismiss all charges.
With regard to the same matter, on January 16, 2015 Banco de Chile
was notified of a complaint submitted by the Corporaci¢n Nacional
de Consumidores y Usuarios de Chile (the "National Corporation of
Consumers and Users of Chile" or "CONADECUS") in the Twenty-Third
Civil Court of Santiago as a collective action pursuant to Law No.
19,496.  The claims under this action are basically the same as
those alleged by SERNAC before the Twelfth Civil Court of
Santiago, mentioned above, along with a claim for the outsourcing
of certain services related to our clients' current account data.

On December 10, 2014, Banco de Chile was notified of a collective
action submitted by the Organizaci¢n de Consumidores y Usuarios de
Chile (the "National Organization of Consumers and Users of Chile"
or "ODECU") in the Fifth Civil Court of Santiago requiring the
Court to declare the invalidity of certain provisions of the
Person Products Unified Agreement which are alleged to be abusive.
These provisions refer to the use of banking cards, ID numbers and
passwords in order to execute certain services with us.  The
plaintiff alleges that, in case of phishing or pharming, the bank
and not the client should be responsible for proving the client's
diligence in the use of self-service channel services.

At this stage, the potential effects of a judgment in the claims
cannot be quantified, the Company said.


BAYFRONT: Faces Class Action Over Incorrect Hospital Billing
------------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Kelly, writing for Saint Peters Blog, reports that Bayfront
hospital is facing a class action.

In May 2015, Susan Ohle of St. Petersburg gave birth to triplets
at the cities Bayfront hospital.  The three new babies were
immediately transferred to the neonatal intensive care wing at
John Hopkins All Children's Hospital.  The babies were never
admitted to Bayfront and certainly didn't enjoy any time in the
hospital.

Later, when Ms. Ohle received her bill for the children's delivery
she noticed a strange $3,025 "Nursery Level II" charge from
Bayfront for each child, a total of $9,075.  Her babies had never
spent time in the nursery, so Ms. Ohle questioned the charge and
was shocked to learn Bayfront bills the fee to all children
delivered at the hospital, even high-risk babies, like Ms. Ohle's,
that are transferred immediately to All Children's.

Ms. Ohle decided to sue Bayfront, owned by Community Health
Systems, a publicly traded company based in Tennessee for what she
calls a "flawed and fraudulent policy."  Ms. Ohle is not alone as
the proposed class action lawsuit is seeking damages on behalf of
roughly 500 parents who received similar bills for nursery
services at the 480-bed hospital.

Ms. Ohle's attorney, Gus Centrone -- gcentrone@centroneshrader.com
-- of Centrone & Shrader who informed SPB, "What's strange is when
Miss Ohle questioned the charges, Bayfront told her she didn't owe
them but then turned around and sued her."

According to Pinellas County records Bayfront did indeed file a
small claims lawsuit against Ms. Ohle in January of this year. Mr.
Centrone also added that having spoken to other parents of babies
delivered at Bayfront, especially triplets who are a "community
amongst themselves" many were also billed for similar charges.
Bayfront informed those they were either a mistake or billed
simply as a matter of course.

"It appears Bayfront haven't got a straight story and seem unsure
of their actual policy," Mr. Centrone said.

If Bayfront knowingly billed parents incorrectly for such charges,
they could indeed be liable for over $1 million in incorrect fees.

According to Centrone Bayfront has yet to respond to the suit. SPB
contacted Alaina Mose in the public relations department at
Bayfront but as of press time have received no reply.  SPB also
contacted the parent company; Community Health Systems where a
voicemail informed us their PR representative Tommy Galen would be
out of the office until May 23rd.


BB&T CORP: Faces Class Action Over 401(k) Savings Plan
------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
BB&T Corp. and managers of its 401(k) plan are being sued by
participants who allege they are being charged excessive fees for
often underperforming proprietary mutual funds.

The lawsuit was filed by 12 named plaintiffs -- current and former
employees -- in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
N.C. on behalf of the BB&T Corp. 401(k) Savings Plan.

The number of potential class members could be as many as 30,000.
The company had 37,200 employees as of Dec. 31, according to its
fiscal 2015 report.

Plaintiffs accuse the defendants of overloading the 401(k) plan
with BB&T's proprietary mutual funds, including having no non-
proprietary mutual funds until 2009.  They claim the actions of
the plan and its fiduciaries cost participants "tens of millions
of dollars in retirement savings."

Also named as defendants are current and past board directors, the
corporation's employee benefits plan committee and two
subsidiaries associated with the mutual funds.  Record keeping has
been done by Branch Banking & Trust Co. as trustee.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the claims, but because it
is pending litigation, we cannot comment further," spokesman Brian
Davis said on May 13.

The complaint lists four counts of breach of duties of loyalty and
prudence, and one count each of failure to monitor fiduciaries,
prohibited transactions between plan and party in interest, and
prohibited transactions between plan and fiduciary.
The plaintiffs want all defendants to be held "personally liable
to make good to the plan all losses resulting from each breach of
fiduciary duties or prohibited transaction," as well as disgorge
all money gained if it is determined excessive fees were charged.
They want all fiduciaries accused of breach of duties to be
removed from the plan.

BB&T said in its dismissal request that the charges "are not
novel," but have been used in several lawsuits "against large
financial institutions related to the retirement plans those
institutions sponsor for their employees."

"The plan's investment lineup is substantially similar to the
lineups in other lawsuits where courts have dismissed" under ERISA
rules, BB&T said.  ERISA refers to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

However, Judge Catherine Eagles denied BB&T's request April 18.
"The court concludes plaintiffs have stated claims on which relief
may be granted," Judge Eagles wrote.  "The court further concludes
that this is not one of those 'relatively rare circumstances'
where dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is appropriate
on the pleadings."

BB&T argued that any claims arising before Sept. 4, 2009, were
time-barred.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs include representatives from the
St. Louis law firm of Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, which gained on
May 11 a $32 million settlement in a similar class-action defined-
compensation plan lawsuit involving Novant Health Inc.
The BB&T plan had more than $1 billion in assets at the end of
2014 within six proprietary Sterling Capital Management LLC funds.
Altogether, 63 percent of the plan's $2.93 billion in assets were
invested in proprietary BB&T options as of Dec. 31, 2014.

"These defendants chose the BB&T funds not based on their merits
as investments, or because doing so was in the interest of plan
participants," according to the complaint.  "But because these
products provided significant revenues and profits to BB&T Corp.
and its subsidiaries.

"Defendants generated profits for BB&T Corp. and its subsidiaries,
while the plan suffered losses due to excessive administrative and
investment management fees and poor performance."

That includes plan participants "paying the vast majority of these
fees through revenue sharing paid from their investments in the
plan's mutual funds," according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs compared the fees charged by the Sterling funds
with equivalent funds available from Fidelity, Brandywine, T. Rowe
Price and Harbor.  Some of the nonproprietary funds' fees were up
to 80 percent lower.  As a result, the complaint alleged
participants paid $90 to $100 per year in fees, compared with
about $30 per year for comparable funds.

"Defendants' failure to obtain competitive bids, while allowing
BB&T to receive an uncapped amount of revenue sharing, resulted in
the plan paying millions of dollars in excessive fees for record
keeping," the complaint said.

The plaintiffs said some of the most expensive funds in terms of
annual fees were also among the poorest performing funds in the
plan.

The plaintiffs also accused the defendants of not fully disclosing
the mutual funds' performance, particularly in comparison with
BB&T stock.

BB&T said the plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed "because it
is based solely on a hindsight analysis of market performance. The
courts have consistently held that the ultimate outcome of an
investment is not proof of its imprudence."

BB&T also said the plaintiffs do not take into account "the scope
and value of the services Branch Bank provided."

The bank said fiduciaries are not required to conduct a request
for proposal for record-keeping purposes, but "may fulfill its
duties by obtaining the services of a competent professional
consultant."

The bank summed up its request by saying the plaintiffs "have not
alleged a distinct injury" and that they are seeking money
damages, "which is not a form of equitable relief."


BELL: Settles 911 Class Action for $1 Million, June 6 Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cory McNutt, writing for Android Headlines, reports that the court
case, which has seemed like an eternity to father and son, James
and Samuel Anderson -- which started almost ten years ago
-- is finally over and Bell has agreed to pay $1,016,336.57.  This
amount includes interest, court costs and the Class Counsel
requested that a stipend of $5,000 be paid to the Representative
Plaintiffs, and the legal fees will not exceed 40% of the
settlement amount.  The fees and stipend will be deducted from the
settlement amount before the balance is distributed to Class
Members outlined in the agreement.  The Court must approve the
settlement before it can become effective.  If the users are in
agreement with these terms, they do not have to attend the
Settlement Approval Hearing being held on June 6, 2016.  If Class
Members do object, they should do so in writing, no later than
June 1, 2016.

The case revolves around the fact that Bell is charging their
customers $0.75 per month, or $9.00 per year, for 911 service that
does not exist in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon
communities (excluding Whitehorse.)  In fact, if you call 911 even
today you will get a recording and must dial a 7-digit local
number for emergency services.  The premise was, how can you be
charging us $9.00 per year for a service that does not exist.
Bell argued that the agreement was worded that they were entitled
to charge the fee whether they provided the service or not.  The
second overturning of Bell's appeal was in July 2015 when Justice
Jean C“t‚ stated, "In my respectful view, connecting someone to
nothing is still nothing . . . To seek to charge for that by
calling it 911 service seems to me very unreasonable.  It is like
delivering to a starving person a photograph of a turkey dinner,
and then charging him or her for a turkey dinner (or delivery of
one)."

James Anderson's lawyers are recommending that they accept the
settlement.  He said, "It's taken a lot longer than it needed to
do, although we were in it for the long term.  Had I known that
Bell would appeal every step I might have thought differently. But
it was the right thing to do."  Those that are still with Bell
will receive their portion of the settlement by way of credit on
their bill, or if the customer has left Bell, a cheque will be
sent to their last known address.  Any check not cashed within six
months will be paid to the Stanton Territorial Health Authority.


BLACK DIAMOND: Recalls Index Ascenders Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
in Black Diamond Equipment Ltd., of Salt Lake City, Utah,
announced a voluntary recall of about 2,800 Black Diamond Index
Ascenders for climbing (in addition, 300 were sold in Canada).
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The Index Ascenders' rivet holding the toothed cam can release,
allowing the Ascender to slide on the rope or become detached from
the rope, posing a risk of injury or death to climbers from a
fall.

This recall involves Black Diamond brand Index Ascenders (left and
right versions) used as rope clamps for rock climbing and
mountaineering. The metal ascenders are orange, with a black and
gray grip or silver with a black and gray grip. Index Ascenders
with a manufacturing code from 4356 to 6015 are included in the
recall. The manufacturing code is located on the frame of the
ascenders. "Black Diamond" is imprinted on both sides of the
handle.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S. and sold at
Eastern Mountain Sports, Moosejaw Mountaineering, Outdoors Inc.,
REI, Sport Chalet, and other specialty outdoor stores nationwide
and online at Backcountry.com and BlackDiamond.com and for about
$80.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ascenders and
contact Black Diamond for instructions on inspecting and returning
the product for a free replacement. Instructions for inspection
are also available at
https://warranty.bdel.com/IndexRecall/Landing. Only those
ascenders having an unformed rivet need to be returned for
replacement.


BLACK DIAMOND: Recalls Camalot Climbing Devices
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Black Diamond Equipment Ltd., of Salt Lake City, Utah, announced a
voluntary recall of about 45,500 Black Diamond Camalot climbing
devices (in addition, 5,700 units were sold in Canada). Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The camming devices can come apart during use and fail, posing a
fall hazard to the consumer.

This recall involves all sizes of Black Diamond Camalot and
Camalot Ultralight camming devices. The climbing devices are used
to secure ropes while rock climbing. The Camalots were sold in
sizes 0.3 to 6 and have manufacturing codes from 5133 to 6067. The
Camalot Ultralights were sold in sizes 0.4 to 4 and have
manufacturing codes from 5309 to 6061. Manufacturing codes are
printed on the underside of the cams.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/m5RYWa

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S. and sold at
Eastern Mountain Sports, Gear Express, Mountain Gear, REI and
other specialty outdoor recreation stores nationwide and online at
BackCountry.com and BlackDiamond.com for between $65 and $130.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled camming
devices and contact Black Diamond for inspection and replacement
instructions. Instructions for inspection are also available at
https://warranty.bdel.com/CamalotRecall/Landing. Only those
camming devices that have unformed axle ends are included in the
recall.


BOFI HOLDING: Golden and Hazan Cases Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------
BofI Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Golden and the
Hazan class action lawsuits have been consolidated.

On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al,
and brought in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Golden Case"). On November 3, 2015,
the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer were named defendants in a second putative class action
lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and also
brought in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Hazan Case").

On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were
consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (the "Class Action"), and the
Houston Municipal Employees Pension System was appointed lead
plaintiff. The Class Action complaint was amended by a certain
Consolidated Amended Class Complaint filed on April 11, 2016. The
Class Action plaintiff seeks monetary damages and other relief on
behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the
Court.

The complaints filed in the Golden Case and the Hazan Case both
allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by failing to disclose the wrongful conduct that is
alleged in a complaint that was filed in a wrongful termination of
employment lawsuit (the "Employment Matter"), and that as a result
the Company's statements regarding its internal controls, as well
as portions of its financial statements, were false and
misleading. The Company and the other named defendants dispute the
allegations advanced by the plaintiffs in the Class Action and in
the Employment Matter, as well as those plaintiffs' statement of
the underlying factual circumstances, and are vigorously defending
both cases.


BREG, INC: Court Sanctions "Lucas" Plaintiffs' Counsel
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned STACY LUCAS, an individual, TAREK ALBABA, an
individual, RIGOBERTO VINDIOLA, and individual, DAVID GAMMA, an
individual, SARAH FISHER, an individual, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiffs, v. BREG,
INC., a California corporation; GARY LOSSE, an individual; MARK
HOWARD, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-00258-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Nita
L. Stormes granted the motion for sanctions filed by the
defendants Breg, Inc. and Mark Howard.

In the putative economic injury class action, the plaintiffs and
the putative class alleged that the defendants engaged in a
"false, misleading, deceptive, fraudulent, and unlawful
advertising campaign" regarding the sale of Breg's Polar Care 500.
The Polar Care 500 is a motorized cold therapy device.  The
plaintiffs contended that they overpaid for the device because it
was unreasonably dangerous, ineffective, and slowed their recovery
from orthopedic surgery.

While the parties were engaged in class discovery, the defendants
deposed the named plaintiffs.  The defendants contended that at
those depositions, the plaintiffs' counsel Marc Stern and Chase
Stern "engaged in a pattern of obstructionist conduct that impeded
and prevented the fair examination of the plaintiffs on matters
relevant to these claims."  The defendants contended the conduct
included instructing the deponents not to answer based on improper
grounds, coaching the deponents' responses, taking over defense
counsel's line of questioning to shape the testimony, and
disruptive and time-wasting commentary directed at defense
counsel.

The defendants sought sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 30(d) due to the plaintiffs' counsels' alleged improper
conduct during the depositions.

Granting the defendants' motion, Judge Stormes admonished the
plaintiffs' counsel and ordered that if the case continues
following a ruling on class certification, the defendants will be
permitted to re-depose the four plaintiffs, Stacy Lucas, Tarek
Albaba, David Gamma, and Sarah Fisher, for no more than three
hours each.  The judge further ordered that the plaintiffs'
counsel must pay the defense's reasonable fees and costs incurred
that are associated with those re-depositions.

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

Stacy Lucas, Tarek Albaba, David Gamma, Sarah Fisher, Plaintiffs,
represented by Chase Stern -- stern@morrissullivanlaw.com --
Morris, Sullivan & Lemkul LLP, Marc O Stern, Law Offices of Marc O
Stern & William A Lemkul -- lemkul@morrissullivanlaw.com -- Morris
& Sullivan LLP.

Breg, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Jeffrey Duke --
david.duke@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke, pro hac vice,
Eden Darrell -- eden.darrell@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and
Brooke LLP, Marion V. Mauch -- marion.mauch@bowmanandbrooke.com --
Bowman & Brook LLP, Mary Novacheck --
mary.novacheck@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke LLP, pro
hac vice, Paul Gerard Cereghini --
paul.cereghini@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brook LLP,
Randall L. Christian -- randy.christian@bowmanandbrooke.com --
Bowman and Brooke LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Latane Wise --
rob.wise@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke LLP, pro hac
vice & Susan Elizabeth Burnett --
susan.burnett@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke, pro hac
vice.

Gary Losse, Defendant, represented by C. Christopher Brown --
c.christopher.brown@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

Mark Howard, Defendant, represented by David Jeffrey Duke, Bowman
and Brooke, pro hac vice, Eden Darrell, Bowman and Brooke LLP,
Marion V. Mauch, Bowman & Brook LLP, Mary Novacheck, Bowman and
Brooke LLP, pro hac vice, Randall L. Christian, Bowman and Brooke
LLP, pro hac vice,Robert Latane Wise, Bowman and Brooke LLP, pro
hac vice & Susan Elizabeth Burnett, Bowman and Brooke, pro hac
vice.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Wisconsin Court Dismissed AWP Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a Wisconsin state
court has entered a stipulation of the parties in the AWP
Litigation dismissing the case.

The Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class
actions as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of
various states. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that
defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their
products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs,
entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on
AWPs. The Company was designated as one of four defendants for
separate trials in Wisconsin in 2016. However, a settlement was
reached and in February 2016, the Wisconsin state court entered a
stipulation of the parties dismissing the case, thus concluding
this matter.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a global specialty
biopharmaceutical company.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Over 5,200 Plavix* Claims Filed
----------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company and
certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in a number of
individual lawsuits in various state and federal courts claiming
personal injury damage allegedly sustained after using Plavix*.
Currently, over 5,200 claims involving injury plaintiffs as well
as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, are filed in
state and federal courts in various states including California,
New Jersey, Delaware and New York.

In February 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted the Company and Sanofi's motion to establish a
multidistrict litigation to coordinate Federal pretrial
proceedings in Plavix* product liability and related cases in New
Jersey Federal Court. It is not possible at this time to
reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential
impact on the Company.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a global specialty
biopharmaceutical company.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Has Deal in Principle with 29 Reglan* Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has
reached a settlement in principle with 29 plaintiffs related to
Reglan*.

The Company is one of a number of defendants in numerous lawsuits,
on behalf of approximately 3,000 plaintiffs, including injury
plaintiffs claiming personal injury allegedly sustained after
using Reglan* or another brand of the generic drug metoclopramide,
a product indicated for gastroesophageal reflux and certain other
gastrointestinal disorders, as well as claims by spouses and/or
other beneficiaries. The Company, through its generic subsidiary,
Apothecon, Inc., distributed metoclopramide tablets manufactured
by another party between 1996 and 2000.

The Company has reached a settlement in principle with the 29
plaintiffs who alleged that their injury resulted from tablets
distributed by Apothecon, Inc. This agreement ends the Company's
involvement in this litigation.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a global specialty
biopharmaceutical company.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The lawsuit charges that court officials are familiar with the
problems it alleges.

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

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


BROOKLINE, MA: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
FOX25 Investigates' Crystal Haynes reports that the station
obtained a piece of evidence in a federal lawsuit alleging racism
and discrimination in the town of Brookline.

"I was pretty aggravated because I looked at this guy in a
different light," said Brookline firefighter Gerald Alston.

He said he was surprised and hurt when he started getting calls
after he was hurt on the job in 2010.

"People saying, 'they're talking about you.  They're saying you're
not really hurt," he said.

He said his superior, Paul Pender, Jr., who is white, called and
left message, calling him the N-word.

Mr. Alston filed a complaint with human resources and the town
suspended Pender for two tours, or two 24-hour shifts.

However, the town also put his promotion to captain through and a
short time later Lieutenant Pender was sent to the White House to
receive a medal of honor for bravery in an April 2008 fire.

Town administrator Mel Kleckner refused to comment, calling it a
"non-issue."

However, town counsel Joslin Murphy emailed FOX25 Investigates
that "at the time, Lieutenant Pender was [already] on the civil
service promotional list . . . (and)  was not promoted by the
Board of Selectmen to the position of Captain until May 2013."

FEDERAL LAWSUIT

Brooks Ames represents Mr. Alston in a federal class action
lawsuit against the town.

"The town of Brookline knew that this lieutenant had called Gerald
the N-word.  They still promoted him first, and then they sent him
to the White House and they had Eric Holder, the first black
Attorney General of the United States, put a medal over his head,"
said Mr. Ames.

Two Brookline police officers have since filed complaints with the
Massachusetts Commission of Discrimination and 5 other town
employees are plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit.

The suit claims Brookline has a "longstanding and well-established
policy, custom, and practice of opposing racial equality . . .
favoritism towards white residents and employees, and retaliating
against persons who protest racial discrimination."

Brookline Response

Mr. Murphy said the town has conducted a racial climate review and
sensitivity training in the fire department, stating "the town has
tried very hard to be sensitive to his (Alston's) concerns and at
the same time act responsibly toward all town employees."

The town admitted it did not have a specific racial discrimination
policy in 2010 and used their sexual harassment policy guidelines.

However since then, they have reconstructed it.  At the time,
Lieutenant Pender was on the civil service promotional list.  .
.was not promoted by the Board of Selectmen to the position of
captain until May 2013.  The town has tried very hard to be
sensitive to his concerns and at the same time act responsibly
toward all town employees," said Mr. Murphy via email.

For Mr. Alston, the trust is broken.

"Do I trust them? No," he said.  "I trusted this lieutenant . I
put my life in this lieutenant's hand and I trusted what he said."


CANADA: Ottawa Lawyer Mulls Class Action Over Jail Overcrowding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Lofaro, writing for MetroNews, reports that as a province-led
task force is in the middle of developing an action plan to fix
overcrowding problems at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, one
Ottawa lawyer says he is already planning a class-action lawsuit
against the notorious jail for its "inhumane" treatment of
inmates.

Human rights lawyer Paul Champ confirmed to Metro that an
undisclosed number of former and possibly current inmates are
getting behind a class-action suit over unjust punishment due to
overcrowding and lockdowns -- and more are being sought.

The stories he is hearing from them are of no surprise to him:
inmates sleeping next to toilets in a cell shared by two other
inmates, lack of access to medical care, and, more recently,
inmates sleeping in damp showers have all been reported before.
"It's a human rights embarrassment," he said in an interview on
May 16.

He pointed to highly publicized individual civil suits against the
province launched by Ottawa-area women Julie Bilotta and Christina
Jahn that have put the jail in the spotlight in recent years, only
to see its problems persist.

Mr. Champ said he believes a broader -- and successful -- class-
action settlement involving multiple inmates will be the driving
force behind real change.

"It's a problem that should have been solved a long time ago and I
think a class-action will bring home to the province that delays
when you're dealing with fundamental human rights (are) not
acceptable," he said.

"Having people sleep three to a cell and sleeping by a toilet
while someone's having to go to the toilet and eating in that same
room for months at a time, that's inhumane and it's not acceptable
in Canada or Ontario."

Mr. Champ has been spearheading the case since last summer and is
hoping to file the suit in about a month as talks are ongoing, he
said.

The case could argue for inmates to be awarded compensation for
being double- or triple-bunked in a cell during a lockdown on a
per day basis.  That could translate into the range of "tens of
thousands" of dollars per inmate, he said.

In a recent judgment, Superior Court Justice Douglas Gray awarded
two inmates $85,000 after he ruled that lockdowns at the
Maplehurst Correctional Complex in Milton, Ont. violated their
Charter rights of freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

"In my view, the conditions at Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre
are every bit as bad as Maplehurst and likely much worse," said
Mr. Champ.

The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services is not
saying much about Champ's plans to launch the legal case.

"Given this matter is soon to be before the court, it would be
inappropriate to provide comment," wrote spokesperson Brent Ross
in an email.

At a public forum in Ottawa on May 12, Yasir Naqvi, the minister
responsible for jails in Ontario, was criticized for his
government dragging its heels on the issue.  He told a crowd of
hundreds of people that "the status quo cannot continue" and vowed
to overhaul the correctional system in the province.



CANADA: Windsor & Tecumseh Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Passes
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that charities in Windsor-Essex can no longer opt
out of two class-action lawsuits filed on their behalf, one
against the City of Windsor and another against the Town of
Tecumseh.

The deadline to opt out was May 15.

Launched by the ALS Society of Essex County and Belle River
District Minor Hockey Association, the lawsuits allege Windsor and
Tecumseh charged excessive fees for bingo licenses for about a
decade.

Lerners LLP represents the complainants.

Windsor and Tecumseh held an aggressive public awareness campaign,
including billboards and radio ads, urging charitable
organizations to opt out of class-action lawsuits that could leave
the two communities on the hook for $70 million if a court rules
in the complainants' favor.

A representative from Lerners told CBC that due to a court order
the law firm couldn't comment or make public how many
organizations opted out of the campaign.

The City of Windsor and Town of Tecumseh had little to say about
the matter on May 16.

"The City of Windsor and Town of Tecumseh are pleased at the high
level of community engagement and discussion that has occurred
about the important issues associated with the lawsuit," the two
municipalities said in a joint statement.  "Various issues
concerning the opt-out period remain before the courts and will be
addressed by the parties in that forum in the coming weeks.

"While the courts consider the various remaining issues, the City
and Town will not be commenting until there are further
developments."

So far, the City of Windsor has spent $1,141,723.44 on legal fees
related to the bingo lawsuit.


CARL KARCHER: Cal. Ct. App. Dismisses Appeal in "Cubias"
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOSE CUBIAS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants and
Respondents, 2d Civil No. B262959 (Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of
Appeals of California, Second District dismissed an appeal from an
order denying class certification of the plaintiffs'
misclassification claims and an order decertifying the plaintiffs'
vacation pay claims.

The appeal was filed by Jose Cubias, individually, and on behalf
of other salaried general managers employed by Carl Kacher
Enterprises, Inc. and CKE Restaurants, Inc.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 16, 2016 order is available at
https://is.gd/2NACXm from Leagle.com.

In a consolidated class action complaint, Cubias, Ramona Macias,
and Belinda Pinto asserted wage and hour claims against CKE, which
operated Carl's and Carl's Jr. restaurants.

Cubias alleged that between 2005 and 2009, CKE's general managers
were misclassified as exempt from overtime pay.  Cubias also
alleged that CKE encouraged general managers to work on vacation
days to gain a $100 increase in their labor budgets and to deduct
vacation pay for scheduled vacation days on which they actually
worked.  Cubias sought class certification and civil penalties
under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) on behalf of
himself and other salaried general managers.

The trial court denied certification of the misclassification
claims, finding that misclassification could not be determined
based on common factual or legal issues.  The court initially
granted class certification of the vacation pay claims, but
decertified that class one year later when it became unmanageable.
Cubias's PAGA claims survived the adverse certification orders.

The Graves Firm, Allen Graves, Jacqueline Treu for Plaintiff and
Appellant.

Littler Mendelson, P.C., Fermin H. Llaguno -- fllaguno@littler.com
-- D. Chad Anderton -- canderton@littler.com -- for Defendants and
Respondents.


CERNER: Faces Another Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Margolies, writing for KCUR, reports that another class-action
lawsuit alleging Cerner illegally failed to pay employees overtime
wages has been filed against the health care technology company.

The latest was filed in federal court in Kansas City on behalf of
so-called AMS delivery consultants at Cerner, basically help desk
workers who offer technical support and troubleshooting
assistance.

The lawsuit says they were expected to work at least 48 hours a
week but were not paid overtime.  The suit, which was filed by
Jonathan Taylor, seeks unspecified damages under the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Missouri's overtime law.

A Cerner representative said the company does not comment on
pending litigation.  But Cerner has argued elsewhere that the
workers in question are "computer professionals" or
"administrative employees" who are exempt from overtime
requirements under FLSA.

Eric Dirks, an attorney for Mr. Taylor, said the class of affected
workers in the case probably numbers in the hundreds.

"There are multiple different job titles which we believe have
been misclassified," Mr. Dirks said.  "This is just yet another
one of the job titles and organizations that we believe is
misclassified."

Mr. Dirks along with attorneys from other firms have filed at
least two other pending overtime lawsuits against Cerner.  One, in
Jackson County, was filed on behalf of workers who configure user
settings for Cerner's hospital and other customers.  The other, in
Cass County, was filed on behalf of employees who train customers
to use Cerner's software.

A fourth case over Cerner's overtime policy is pending in federal
court in Kansas City.  That lawsuit alleges Cerner pays its
nonexempt employees -- workers who must be paid overtime for any
hours worked beyond 40 a week -- a full pay period late and fails
to include all additional compensation in their regular rate of
pay.

In March, U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr. agreed to let
the case move ahead as a "collective" action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, finding that the workers were "similarly situated."
A collective action is similar to a class action, except that
plaintiffs must actively opt in to the class. Up to 850 Cerner
employees may be eligible to opt in.

Judge Gaitan's ruling came just a few months after Cerner asked
its nearly 17,000 workers in the United States to submit labor
disputes to arbitration rather than sue it in court.  Workers who
didn't agree are not eligible for performance-based raises.  Most
of the company's employees signed the agreement.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement in TWC Merger Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the settlement
reached in the class action lawsuit related to the transactions
between TWC and Charter remains subject to approval by the New
York Supreme Court.

The Company said, "In 2014, following an announcement by Comcast
Corporation ("Comcast") and Time Warner Cable Inc. ("TWC") of
their intent to merge,  Breffni Barrett and others filed suit in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New
York against Comcast, TWC and their respective officers and
directors.  Later five similar class actions were consolidated
with this matter (the "NY Actions"). The NY Actions were settled
in July 2014, however, such settlement was terminated following
the termination of the Comcast and TWC merger in April 2015."

"In May 2015, Charter and TWC announced their intent to merge.
Subsequently, the parties in the NY Actions filed a Second
Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Second Amended
Complaint"), removing Comcast and Tango Acquisition Sub, Inc. as
defendants and naming TWC, the members of the TWC board of
directors, Charter and the merger subsidiaries as defendants. The
Second Amended Complaint generally alleges, among other things,
that the members of the TWC board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to TWC stockholders during the Charter merger
negotiations and by entering into the merger agreement and
approving the mergers, and that Charter and its subsidiaries aided
and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint
sought, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the
stockholder vote on the mergers, unspecified declaratory and
equitable relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
and costs and attorneys' fees.

"In September 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") to settle the action. Pursuant to the MOU,
the defendants issued certain supplemental disclosures relating to
the mergers on a Form 8-K, and plaintiffs agreed to release with
prejudice all claims that could have been asserted against
defendants in connection with the mergers. The settlement is
conditioned on, among other things, consummation of the
transactions between TWC and Charter, and must be approved by the
New York Supreme Court. In the event that the New York Supreme
Court does not approve the settlement, the defendants intend to
vigorously defend against any further litigation."

Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter") is a holding company
whose principal asset is a 100% common equity interest in Charter
Communications Holding Company, LLC ("Charter Holdco"). Charter
owns cable systems through its subsidiaries.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Has Yet to Respond to Suit Over A/N Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has
not yet responded to the class action lawsuit challenging the
transactions between Charter, Time Warner Cable Inc. ("TWC"),
Advance/Newhouse Partnership ("A/N"), and Liberty Broadband
announced by Charter on May 26, 2015 (collectively, the
"Transactions").

In August 2015, a purported stockholder of Charter filed a lawsuit
in the Delaware Court of Chancery, on behalf of a putative class
of Charter stockholders, challenging the transactions between
Charter, Time Warner Cable Inc. ("TWC"), Advance/Newhouse
Partnership ("A/N"), and Liberty Broadband announced by Charter on
May 26, 2015 (collectively, the "Transactions"). The lawsuit names
as defendants Liberty Broadband, Charter, the board of directors
of Charter, and New Charter. Plaintiff alleged that the
Transactions improperly benefit Liberty Broadband at the expense
of other Charter shareholders, and that Charter issued a false and
misleading proxy statement in connection with the Transactions.

Plaintiff requested, among other things, that the Delaware Court
of Chancery enjoin the September 21, 2015 special meeting of
Charter stockholders at which Charter stockholders were asked to
vote on the Transactions until the defendants disclosed certain
information relating to Charter and the Transactions. The
disclosures demanded by the plaintiff included (i) certain
unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter and (ii) a Form
of Proxy and Right of First Refusal Agreement ("Proxy") by and
among Liberty Broadband, A/N, Charter and New Charter, which was
referenced in the description of the Second Amended and Restated
Stockholders Agreement, dated May 23, 2015, among Charter, New
Charter, Liberty Broadband and A/N.

On September 9, 2015, Charter issued supplemental disclosures
containing unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter. In
return, the plaintiff agreed its disclosure claims were moot and
withdrew its application to enjoin the Charter stockholder vote on
the Transactions. Charter has not yet responded to this suit but
intends to deny any liability, believes that it has substantial
defenses, and intends to vigorously defend this suit.

Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter") is a holding company
whose principal asset is a 100% common equity interest in Charter
Communications Holding Company, LLC ("Charter Holdco"). Charter
owns cable systems through its subsidiaries.


CHINA COMMERCIAL: Entered Into Stipulation and Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------
China Commercial Credit, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016,
that on April 22, 2016, China Commercial Credit, Inc. (the
"Company") entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
(the "Stipulation") to settle the securities class action
litigation captioned In re China Commercial Credit Inc. Securities
Litigation, Docket No. 1:15-cv-00557-ALC (S.D.N.Y.) (the
"Securities Class Action"), which is pending against it in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(the "Court"). The Stipulation resolves the claims asserted
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors in the Securities Class Action without any admission
or concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the
other defendants. The Stipulation also provides, among other
things, a settlement payment by the Company of $225,000 in cash
and the issuance of 750,000 shares of its common stock (the
"Settlement Shares") to the class members. The terms of the
Stipulation are subject to approval by the Court following notice
to all class members. The issuance of the Settlement Shares is
expected to be exempt from registration pursuant to Section
3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.


COCA-COLA: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Business Combination
------------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended April 1, 2016, that the defendants have
moved to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint.

The Company said, "On August 6, 2015, we entered into agreements
with The Coca-Cola Company (TCCC), Coca-Cola Iberian Partners
(CCIP), the privately-owned Coca-Cola bottler operating primarily
in Spain and Portugal, and Coca-Cola Erfrischungsgetranke (CCEG),
the wholly-owned TCCC bottler operating in Germany, under which:

   * The parties agreed to combine their respective businesses by
combining CCE, CCIP, and CCEG. The combination (the Merger) will
be effected through the contribution of CCIP and CCEG to a newly
created entity, Coca-Cola European Partners, plc (CCEP), and the
merger of CCE with and into a newly formed indirect U.S.
subsidiary of CCEP (MergeCo), with MergeCo continuing as the
surviving entity. Upon completion of the Merger, CCEP will consist
of businesses involved in the marketing, production, and
distribution of beverages in Andorra, Belgium, France, Germany,
Great Britain, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway,
Portugal, Spain, and Sweden.

   * At the effective time of the Merger, each outstanding share
of common stock of CCE will be converted into the right to receive
one ordinary share of CCEP and a cash payment of $14.50. At
closing, on a fully diluted basis CCIP and TCCC will own 34
percent and 18 percent of CCEP, respectively, with CCE shareowners
owning 48 percent.

   * Following the Merger, CCEP will directly and indirectly
wholly-own all contributed assets and liabilities of CCE, CCIP,
and CCEG.

   * At the time of the Merger, CCEP's ordinary shares are
expected to be listed for trading on the New York Stock Exchange,
Euronext Amsterdam Stock Exchange, and Euronext London Stock
Exchange. In addition, listings on the Barcelona, Bilbao, Madrid,
and Valencia Stock Exchanges for trading through the Spanish
Automated Quotation System is being pursued."

"In connection with the agreements entered into between us, TCCC,
CCIP, and CCEG on August 6, 2015, three putative class action
lawsuits were filed in Delaware Chancery Court between the
announcement date and the present. The lawsuits are similar and
assert claims on behalf of our shareholders for various alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Merger. The
lawsuits name us, our Board of Directors, CCIP, CCEG, CCEP, and
TCCC as defendants. Plaintiffs in each case seek to enjoin the
transaction, to rescind the Merger if it is consummated and allow
termination damages, and to recover other damages, attorneys'
fees, and litigation expenses. By consent order dated January 7,
2016, the court consolidated these cases.

"On March 2, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint, making similar allegations regarding the
Merger and adding allegations that the registration statement on
Form F-4 and amendment No. 1 thereto, filed with the SEC on
December 15, 2015 and January 28, 2016, and as declared effective
on April 11, 2016 contain misstatements and omissions in their
disclosures regarding the Merger. The defendants have moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint. We
believe this matter to be without merit and intend to defend it
vigorously."


CONSOL ENERGY: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in Hale Litigation Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the Hale
litigation, Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification
remains pending.

This class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010 in the
U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class
consists of forced-pooled unleased gas owners whose ownership of
the coalbed methane (CBM) gas was declared to be in conflict with
rights of others. The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of
ownership of the CBM and damages based on allegations CNX Gas
Company failed to either pay royalties due to conflicting
claimants or deemed lessors or paid them less than required
because of the alleged practice of improper below market sales
and/or taking alleged improper post-production deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 19, 2014, the
Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas Company, reversed the Order
certifying the class and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with the decision.

On April 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, and on June 23, 2015 CNX Gas Company filed its
Opposition to same. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on
September 18, 2015 and has not yet ruled.

CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action cannot properly
proceed as a class action in any form, believes the case has
meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it vigorously. The
Company has established an accrual to cover its estimated
liability for this case. This accrual is immaterial to the overall
financial position of CONSOL Energy.


CONSOL ENERGY: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in Addison Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the Addison
litigation, Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification
remains pending.

This class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in the
United States District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative
class consists of gas lessors whose gas ownership is in conflict.
The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of the CBM
and damages based on the allegations that CNX Gas Company failed
to either pay royalties due to these conflicting claimant lessors
or paid them less than required because of the alleged practice of
improper below market sales and/or taking alleged improper post-
production deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On August 19,
2014, the Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas Company, reversed the
Order certifying the class and remanded the case to the trial
court for further proceedings consistent with the decision.

On April 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, and on June 23, 2015 CNX Gas Company filed its
Opposition to same. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on
September 18, 2015 and has not yet ruled.

CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action cannot properly
proceed as a class action in any form, believes the case has
meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it vigorously. The
Company has established an accrual to cover its estimated
liability for this case. This accrual is immaterial to the overall
financial position of CONSOL Energy.


CRACKER BARREL: Appeals to 3rd Cir. From Ruling in "Heinzl" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cracker Barrel Old Country filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the purported class action lawsuit entitled Sarah Heinzl v.
Cracker Barrel Old Country, Case No. 2-14-cv-01455 (W.D. Pa.,
October 27, 2014).

The appellate case is captioned Sarah Heinzl v. Cracker Barrel Old
Country, Case No. 16-8042, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 6, 2016, the Hon.
Mark R. Hornak entered an order in the lawsuit:

   -- denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment;

   -- granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class.  The
      following class is certified:

      All persons with qualified mobility disabilities who were
      denied the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
      facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any
      Cracker Barrel store location in the United States on the
      basis of disability because such persons encountered
      accessibility barriers due to Cracker Barrel's failure to
      comply with the ADA's accessible parking and path of travel
      requirements; and

   -- appointing Sarah Heinzl as the representative Plaintiff for
      this Class and that the law firm of Carlson Lynch Sweet &
      Kilpela, LLP is appointed as counsel for the Class.

The Plaintiff-Respondent Sarah Heinzl is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Stephanie K. Goldin, Esq.
          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA
          1133 Penn Avenue
          5th Floor Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com
                  ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
                  bsweet@carlsonlynch.com

The Defendant-Petitioner is represented by:

          Elizabeth M. Rodriguez, Esq.
          FORDHARRISON
          100 S.E. 2nd Street, #2150
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 808-2143
          E-mail: erodriguez@fordharrison.com


CREDIT BUREAU: "Reynolds" Class Certified; Deal Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KENNETH M. REYNOLDS, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. CREDIT BUREAU
SERVICES, INC., AND C. J. TIGHE, Defendants, No. 8:15CV168 (D.
Neb.), Judge Joseph F. Bataillon granted the parties' joint motion
for final certification of a class and final approval of a
proposed class settlement.

The action, which was for violations of the Fair Debt Practices
and Collection Act (FDCPA) and the Nebraska Consumer Protection
Act (NCPA) was certified as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3) composed of: "All persons with addresses in Nebraska (a)
to whom Defendant sent, or caused to be sent, a letter attached as
Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff's Complaint (Filing No. 1) (b) in an
attempt to collect an alleged debt (c) which, as shown by the
nature of the alleged debt, Defendants' records or records of the
original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes (d) during the one year period prior to the
date of filing this action through the date of class
certification."

The settlement agreement provided that the defendants shall pay to
the class a total settlement fund of $32,500.00 as total and
statutory damages and, in addition thereto, will pay $4,000 to
lead plaintiff Kenneth M. Reynolds for his statutory damages
pursuant to the FDCPA and the NCPA as well as for his services as
class representative.  The settlement fund will provide for
payment to class members of a pro rata share of the settlement
fund.

A full-text copy of Judge Bataillon's May 16, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/NhFZa5 from Leagle.com.

Kenneth M. Reynolds, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg,
HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM, Pamela A. Car, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM
& William L. Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM.

Credit Bureau Services, Inc., C. J. Tighe, Defendant, represented
by Douglas E. Quinn -- dquinn@mcgrathnorth.com -- MCGRATH, NORTH
LAW FIRM.


CYNTHIA KOBEL: Arbitration Bid in "Jpay" Suit Partly Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JPAY, INC., Plaintiff, v. CYNTHIA KOBEL and
SHALANDA HOUSTON, Defendants, Case No. 16-20121-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
(S.D. Fla.), Judge Darrin P. Gayles denied in part the defendants'
motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.

A full-text copy of Judge Gayles's May 16, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/ecsr9W from Leagle.com.

On October 16, 2015, claimants Cynthia Kobel and Shalanda Houston
filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration
Association (AAA) alleging that JPay engaged in unlawful conduct
relating to its money transfer services.  The claimants' demand
was on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of "[a]ll
natural persons who paid a fee to JPay for electronic money
transfer services and who agreed to arbitrate their claims with
Jpay."

In response, on December 11, 2015, JPay filed an action in the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami Dade County seeking (i)
a declaration that it has not consented to class arbitration; (ii)
to stay the class arbitration; and (iii) to compel bilateral
arbitration.  The claimants removed the action to federal court.
On February 16, 2016, the claimants moved to compel arbitration
and stay the proceedings.  On March 2, 2016, JPay opposed the
Motion to Compel Arbitration and filed a Cross Motion for Summary
Judgment.  On April 6, 2016, the court heard argument on the
Motion to Compel.  The court stayed ruling on JPay's Cross Motion
for Summary Judgment pending its resolution of the Motion to
Compel.

Judge Gayles found that he must determine whether the arbitration
agreement permits class arbitration.  The judge will make that
determination after receiving the claimants' response to Jpay's
Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.

JPAY, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Devin Freedman --
vfreedman@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller Flexner, Jonathan Adam
Heller, Law Offices of Jonathan A. Heller, P.A., Stephen N. Zack
-- szack@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner & Steven Wayne
Davis -- sdavis@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Cynthia Kobel, Shalanda Houston, Defendants, represented by John
Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Morgan & Morgan & Rachel Lynn Soffin, Morgan
& Morgan.


DEVRY EDUCATION: July 12 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm,  announced the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of DeVry
Education Group Inc. securities (DV) from February 4, 2011 through
January 27, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").  The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for DeVry investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the DeVry class action, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-825.htmor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for more information
on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) DeVry University engaged in a multi-year
deceptive marketing and advertising campaign; (2) DeVry University
overstated its students' ability to find employment after
graduation (3) DeVry University overstated the potential income
its students could earn after graduation; (4) DeVry overstated its
growth, revenue, and earnings potential by concealing the true
employment prospects of DeVry University graduates to investors
and potential students; and (5) as a result, defendants'
statements about DeVry's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis
at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
July 12, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-825.htmlfor more information.  You
may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

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


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Summer Davenport Substituted as Lead Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Summer Davenport
has been substituted as lead plaintiff for Polly Hansen.

On July 9, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Polly Hansen v. Discover Financial Services and Discover
Home Loans, Inc.). The plaintiff alleges that the Company
contacted her, and members of the class she seeks to represent, on
their cellular and residential telephones without their express
consent or after consent was revoked in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Plaintiff seeks statutory
damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. The TCPA provides
for statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for
willful violations).

The Company will seek to vigorously defend against all claims
asserted by the plaintiff. On March 8, 2016, Summer Davenport was
substituted as lead plaintiff for Polly Hansen.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Defending Against B&R Supermarket Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a class action
lawsuit was filed on March 8, 2016, against the Company in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (B&R
Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et
al.) alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
California's Cartwright Act, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs
allege a conspiracy to shift fraud liability to merchants with the
migration to the EMV security standard and chip technology.
Plaintiffs seek damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive
relief. The Company is not in a position at this time to assess
the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to this
matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against all claims
asserted by the plaintiffs.


DISNEY ONLINE: Dismissal of "Robinson" Class Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------
James Robinson appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York's order dismissing the purported class action
lawsuit titled James Robinson, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Disney Online d/b/a Disney
Interactive, Case No. 1:14-cv-04146-RA (S.D.N.Y.).

Mr. Robinson brings the class action against Disney alleging
violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act.  He claims that
Disney unlawfully disclosed personally identifiable information--
the encrypted serial number of the digital device he used to
access Disney video content, as well as his viewing history--to
Adobe, a third-party data analytics company.  Adobe purportedly
combined these disclosures with additional information gathered
from other sources, and used this composite data to identify Mr.
Robinson and attribute his viewing history to him.

Disney filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Robinson's amended complaint.

In his order, the Hon. Ronnie Abrams opined that Mr. Robinson's
allegations, as measured against the definition of personally
identifiable information adopted by the Court, fail to show that
he is entitled to relief.  Accordingly, Judge Abrams said, Mr.
Robinson cannot make out a viable claim under the VPPA, and his
Amended Complaint must be dismissed.

The appellate case is captioned Robinson v. Disney, Case No. 16-
1544, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.


DOW CHEMICAL: Recognized $1.2BB Pretax Loss Related to Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28,
2016, that in the first quarter of 2016, the Company recognized a
pretax loss of $1,235 million related to the settlement of the
urethane matters class action lawsuit and the opt-out cases. In
the first quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a pretax gain of
$670 million related to the divestiture of ANGUS Chemical Company
("ANGUS"), a pretax gain of $18 million (after-tax loss of $9
million) related to the divestiture of the Sodium Borohydride
business and pretax charges of $26 million for costs associated
with portfolio and productivity actions.


EILAT-ASHKELON PIPELINE: State Disputes Oil Spill Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zafrir Rinat, writing for Haaretz, reports that the state refuses
to comment on its link with the Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline Company,
arguing that at any rate it is wrong to hold the state responsible
for the oil spill a year-and-a-half ago in the Evrona Nature
Reserve.

The state made this argument in Be'er Sheva District Court, during
a hearing on payment of restitution to the public for the
pollution of the Negev nature reserve, caused by the spill on
December 3, 2014.

The request to the court to approve a class-action suit demanding
compensation for residents of the Arava region named not only the
EAPC, but the Finance Ministry, the prime minister and the
accountant-general at the time of the incident, with the
plaintiffs claiming they were responsible for managing the
pipeline company.  The state, at a hearing before Judge Rachel
Lavi-Barkai, is asking to deny the inclusion of government
officials or agencies in the suit.

The plaintiffs argue that the state used a section in the Products
and Services Oversight Law to allow the finance minister to
appoint someone to deal with the company so that the state could
effectively operate it, and to the best of their knowledge in the
case of EAPC, it was the accountant-general.  By law, the
activities of the EAPC are classified.

Attorney Orit Kratz, representing the State Attorney's Office,
said, "It isn't clear to us what the grounds are for this argument
and there is no evidentiary basis for it.  Can one conclude from
the fact that the Products and Services Oversight Law allows the
finance minister to appoint a supervisor of a company, that he
actually appointed the accountant-general to manage the EAPC?"

Afterward, Mr. Kratz said, "It's important to stress that given
the confidentiality order the state cannot confirm or deny the
arguments about the relationship between the State of Israel and
the EAPC."

She later added, "To the extent that [the plaintiffs} seek to
attribute to the state and its officials responsibility [for the
oil spill] because they are officers of the EAPC, and without
confirming this, I believe that first of all, it hasn't been
proven that the state is an officer in the EAPC, and second, the
certainly doesn't mean that every officer of a company that causes
environmental damage can be sued in a class-action suit."

The lawyer for the plaintiffs, Asaf Fink, argued that it's
important to keep the state officials in the legal proceedings. He
maintained that if the state actually does control the company,
and the proceedings end up determining that compensation must be
paid, it isn't known if the EAPC has the financial resources to do
so.

During the hearing, the state proposed to present to the court
details relating to the question of whether the state has a
relationship with the EAPC, without the plaintiff's attorneys
present.  The plaintiffs objected, and the court will decide on
that issue during the next few weeks.

EAPC was established in the 1960s as a partnership between the
Israeli and Iranian governments.  Its main purpose was the
transport of crude oil from Eilat to refineries elsewhere in
Israel.  After the Iranian revolution and the fall of the Shah in
1979, the company was left under the oversight of the Israeli
government.

The fate of its assets, which were under joint ownership with the
Iranian government, went to international arbitration.  In light
of the sensitivity of the company, EAPC has been run under an
order of absolute immunity, which prevents revealing information
about its operations.


ENCORE CAPITAL: "Danley" Suit Sent to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JACOB J. DANLEY and JEFFREY J. MACINTYRE,
JR., Plaintiffs, v. ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., MIDLAND FUNDING,
LLC, and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 15-
CV-11535 (E.D. Mich.), Judge George Caram Steeh granted the
defendants' motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action
without prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Steeh's May 16, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/rS53U0 from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Act
and Michigan Collection Practices Act.  The defendants purchase
credit card debts from banks and other debt buyers after the bank
has charged off the debts.  The plaintiffs maintained that the
defendants did not purchase the right to add or reassess or
collect interest once it had been waived and extinguished by the
bank.  Nonetheless, the defendants made efforts to collect the
post charge-off interest from the debtors whose accounts they
purchased.  For those debtors who did not pay in response to the
telephonic and mail collection actions, the defendants filed
lawsuits against the debtors.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants violated various sections of
the federal and Michigan collection statutes by adding and
attempting to collect interest that has been waived by the
original owner of the debt.

Jacob N Danley, Plaintiff, represented by David Scott Parnell --
david@parnellfirm.com -- The Parnell Firm, PLLC, Lynn H. Shecter,
Roy, Shecter, and Vocht, P.C., Sean R. O'Mara, O'Mara Law Firm PC,
William A. Roy, Roy, Shecter & Vocht, P.C. & Michelle E. Vocht,
Roy, Shecter & Vocht, P.C..

Jeffrey J McIntyre, Plaintiff, represented by Michelle E. Vocht,
Roy, Shecter & Vocht, P.C..

Encore Capital Group, Inc, Midland Credit Management, Inc.,
Midland Funding LLC, Defendants, represented by Aaron L. Vorce --
avorce@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett & Theodore W. Seitz --
tseitz@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett.


EPOCRATES INC: Detroit Police Retirement Sys. Deal Has Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vince Chhabria issued a final judgment and order approving
the parties' class settlement and dismissing with prejudice the
case captioned POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF
DETROIT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ROSEMARY A. CRANE, PATRICK D. SPANGLER,
and EPOCRATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-00945-VC (N.D.
Cal.).

Judge Chhabria granted lead counsel's attorneys' fees of 25% of
the settlement fund and expenses in an amount of $123,316.86,
together with the interest earned thereon.  Judge Chhabria also
granted the lead plaintiff Police and Fire Retirement System of
the City of Detroit reasonable costs and expenses (including lost
wages) directly related to its representation of the class in the
amount of $10,000.00.

A full-text copy of Judge Chhabria's May 17, 2016 final judgment
and order is available at https://is.gd/9fcrT6 from Leagle.com.

Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit,
Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Amanda
Lawrence -- alawrence@scott-scott.com -- Scott and Scott,
Attorneys at Law, LLP, pro hac vice, Anne Louise Box, ScottScott
LLP, Beth A Kaswan -- bkaswan@scott-scott.com -- Scott and Scott
Attorneys at Law LLP,Casey Edwards Sadler -- csadler@glancylaw.com
-- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Deborah Clark-Weintraub --
dweintraub@scott-scott.com -- ScottScott LLP, pro hac vice, Donald
Broggi -- dbroggi@scott-scott.com -- Scott Scott LLP, pro hac
vice, Hal Davis Cunningham -- hcunningham@scott-scott.com -- Scott
+ Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP,Joseph P. Guglielmo --
jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- Scott & Scott LLP, pro hac vice,
Joshua L Crowell -- jcrowell@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP & Robert Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com --
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Rosemary A. Crane, Patrick D. Spangler, Epocrates, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Deborah Sager Birnbach --
dbirnbach@goodwinprocter.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice,
Teodora Emilova Manolova -- tmanolova@goodwinprocter.com --
Goodwin Procter LLP, Alexis L. Shapiro --
ashapiro@goodwinprocter.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael T. Jones -- mjones@goodwinprocter.com -- Goodwin Procter
LLP & Nicholas A Reider -- nreider@goodwinprocter.com -- Goodwin
Procter LLP.


EXPERIAN DATA: Appeals "Patton" Class Suit Ruling in 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Experian Data Corp. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
purported class action lawsuit titled Maudie Patton, et al. v.
Experian Data Corp., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01871-JVS-PLA (C.D.
Cal., November 12, 2015).

The appellate case is captioned as Maudie Patton, et al. v.
Experian Data Corp., et al., Case No. 16-80064, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, reported that U.S. District
Judge James V. Selna on May 6, 2016, dismissed and remanded to
state court the putative class action against Experian Data and
Infosearch LLC over an alleged data breach that let identity
thieves obtain personal information stored in the companies'
databases, saying the plaintiffs didn't show injury-in-fact.
Judge Selna said in his order Friday that the Ninth Circuit's 2010
opinion in Krottner v. Starbucks Corp. requires a "credible" and
"real and immediate" threat of identity theft to establish injury-
in-fact.

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Paula R. Brown, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
          701 B Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com

The Defendant-Petitioner Experian Data Corp. is represented by:

          Edward San Chang, Esq.
          Jeremy Close, Esq.
          Richard Joseph Grabowski, Esq.
          John A. Vogt, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612-4408
          Telephone: (949) 851-3939
          E-mail: echang@jonesday.com
                  jsclose@jonesday.com
                  rgrabowski@jonesday.com
                  javogt@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Julia F. Sheketoff, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          51 Louisiana Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 879-3425
          E-mail: jsheketoff@jonesday.com

Defendant INFORSEARCH.COM LLC, an Ohio limited liability company,
is represented by:

          Sandra Calin, Esq.
          KRAMER DEBOER AND KEANE
          21860 Burbank Boulevard
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 657-0255
          Facsimile: (818) 657-0256
          E-mail: scalin@kdeklaw.com


FIRST SOLAR: Appeal Briefing to Conclude in 3rd Quarter of 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that briefing in a class
action appeal is expected to conclude in the third quarter of
2016.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against
the Company and certain of our current and former directors and
officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded
securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 (the
"Class Action"). The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects. The
action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative
class. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will
vigorously defend this action.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On
December 17, 2012, the court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss.
On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension
Schemes' motion for class certification, and certified a class
comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of the Company between April 30, 2008
and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants and certain related parties. Merits discovery closed on
February 27, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015.
On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted defendants'
motion in part and denied it in part, and certified an issue for
immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

First Solar filed a petition for interlocutory appeal with the
Ninth Circuit, and that petition was granted on November 18, 2015.
First Solar's opening brief was filed on March 25, 2016. Briefing
is expected to conclude in the third quarter of 2016. No hearing
date is set. The Arizona District Court entered a stay of the
proceedings in district court until the appeal is decided.

"Given the pending appeal, the need for further expert discovery,
and the uncertainties of trial, we are not in a position to assess
whether any loss or adverse effect on our financial condition is
probable or remote or to estimate the range of potential loss, if
any," the Company said.


FRIENDLY'S ICE CREAM: Judge Allows Wage Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a
federal judge has allowed a proposed class action lawsuit over
wage policies to go forward against a Friendly's restaurant
company that operates hundreds of Friendly's restaurants across
the country.

U.S. District Judge Sylvia H. Rambo of the Middle District of
Pennsylvania denied motions from Friendly's Ice Cream Inc., which
operates more than 600 Friendly's restaurants from Maine to
Florida.  The company had sought to toss the case, arguing, among
other things, that the plaintiff failed to show that a joint
employment relationship existed between it and its franchisees,
the local owners and operators of the restaurants.

However, in her ruling in Reed v. Friendly's Ice Cream, Rambo said
the plaintiffs had pleaded sufficient facts to overcome the
challenge, "at least at the pleading stage."

"Here, plaintiffs have alleged in the complaint that FIC
(Friendly's Ice Cream) was actively engaged in the day-to-day
operation of all Friendly's restaurants, including restaurants it
owned as well as those owned by franchisees," Judge Rambo said.
"Plaintiffs further alleged that FIC set the policies for all
Friendly's restaurants, 'including policies relating to hiring,
training, hours of work, overtime, timekeeping and compensation.'"

Along with denying Friendly's Ice Cream's motion to dismiss the
case, Judge Rambo rejected motions from Friendly's Ice Cream's co-
defendant, TICC Inc., which is the largest Friendly's franchisee
in Pennsylvania.  TICC's motions had sought to toss plaintiff
Kaylee Metz's claims for equitable and injunctive relief, arguing
her claims were not available under the labor laws outlined in her
complaint, she lacked standing, and her claims were time-barred.

According to Judge Rambo's opinion, Ms. Metz had worked at a
Friendly's in Lancaster owned by TICC, and plaintiffs Tisha Reed
and Natasha Walker worked at a Friendly's owned by Friendly's Ice
Cream.  All three had worked as servers.

Their complaint alleged Friendly's Ice Cream required servers to
perform "off-the-clock" tasks during unpaid meal breaks and after
clocking out following a shift.  The complaint also said employees
routinely worked more than 40 hours, but were not paid overtime,
and alleged that, although servers were paid at the tipped minimum
wage of $2.83 per hour, they spent more than 20 percent of their
time working on nontipped tasks, including cleaning and
restocking, for which, the plaintiffs contended, they should have
been paid the nontipped $7.25 per hour.

The proposed class action alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

In seeking to dismiss the claims, Friendly's Ice Cream contended
that the plaintiffs lacked standing against it and unnamed
Friendly's franchisees because the plaintiffs had not been
employed by Friendly's Ice Cream or those unnamed franchisees.

The company had argued that the plaintiffs could only sue TICC.
Rambo agreed with the plaintiffs that Friendly's Ice Cream's
argument conflated standing issues with class certification
issues, and was based on premature arguments about class
commonality.  She also noted that Friendly's Ice Cream had been
responsible for paying Reed and Walker and for establishing the
policies the restaurants used.

According to Judge Rambo, Friendly's Ice Cream's motion hinged on
its argument that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege facts
to show that a joint employment relationship existed among the
company and its franchisees.

Along with noting that Friendly's Ice Cream was engaged in the
day-to-day operations of the restaurants, Judge Rambo said the
company also provided "ongoing operations support" through an
"assigned franchise business consultant," and has the authority to
hire and fire employees, inspect and supervise the work, and used
the same payroll system at all restaurants.

"The court is satisfied that plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
facts to support a joint employment relationship between
Friendly's Ice Cream and its franchisees," Judge Rambo said.

TICC argued in its motion that the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law did not allow
for private actions for equitable injunctive relief.  TICC noted
those actions are not available under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, and that there are no references to equitable or
injunctive relief in the state laws.


G. WILLI-FOOD: 2 Class Suits in Procedural Stage
------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that two class
action lawsuits in Israel are in the preliminary procedural stage.

In December 2013 and December 2014, the Company was served with
two lawsuits and motions to certify them as class action lawsuits
in accordance with Israel's Class Action Claims Law, 5766 - 2006,
whose subject matter and cause of action, according to what is
claimed, is the improper marketing of products which the Company
imports and sells in a manner which allegedly misleads the
consumer public. The class which the petitioning plaintiffs wish
to represent is every resident of Israel who purchased the above
Company products. The amount of the lawsuits, if successful, is
estimated by the plaintiffs in the amount of approximately NIS
27.2 million.

In light of the preliminary procedural stage of each lawsuit, the
Company cannot, based on the position of its legal advisors,
evaluate the likelihood of their success or failure and,
therefore, no provision has been made in the financial statements
of the Company with respect to the aforesaid.

The Company is an Israeli-based company engaged, directly and
through subsidiaries, in the development, import, export,
marketing and distribution of a wide variety of over 600 food
products world-wide. Most of the Company's sales are made in
Israel with widespread demand in the Israeli marketplace, as well
as products which cater to more select groups.


G. WILLI-FOOD: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company was served on February 29, 2016, with a lawsuit and a
motion to certify it as a class action (securities class action)
which was filed in the US in the Federal District Court for the
Southern District of New York by a shareholder who claims to own
shares of the Company (the "Plaintiff"), against the Company, Mr
Gurtovoy, chairman of the Parent Company's and The Company's
Boards of Directors, and the (ultimate direct) controlling
shareholder, and some of the officers (past and present)
(hereinafter, jointly: the "Defendants").

The lawsuit is a demand for compensation for alleged damages
incurred by the Plaintiff because of a violation of Federal
securities Law and other laws by the Defendants during the period
from April 30, 2014 and until February 18, 2016. In light of the
early stage of the lawsuit, the Company cannot, based on the
position of its legal advisors, evaluate the risk involved and
therefore, no provision was made in the financial statements with
respect to the aforesaid

The Company is an Israeli-based company engaged, directly and
through subsidiaries, in the development, import, export,
marketing and distribution of a wide variety of over 600 food
products world-wide. Most of the Company's sales are made in
Israel with widespread demand in the Israeli marketplace, as well
as products which cater to more select groups.


GENENTECH INC: Sued for Misrepresenting Herceptin Doses
-------------------------------------------------------
Consuella Pachico, writing for Legal Reader, reports that
according to a potential class action filed in a California
federal court, Genentech Inc., Roche's biotechnology subsidiary,
has been accused of cheating providers by being dishonest about
how much Herceptin, a breast cancer medication, it provides in
each multi-dose vial.

Comanche County Memorial Hospital said San Francisco-based
Genentech shortchanged hospitals by putting less Herceptin in the
bottle than it said it did, or by misrepresenting how much of the
drug would be mixed in a solution.

Herceptin costs about $70,000 per course of treatment, which is
usually 52 doses delivered over a year.  Herceptin is the only
approved drug to treat a subset of breast cancers and some gastric
cancers.  The suit claims that Herceptin dominates the breast
cancer market.

The drug is provided in 440 milligram vials as a freeze-dried
powder that needs to be dissolved, usually in sterile water with
benzyl alcohol provided by Genentech, the suit states.  The
solution is marketed as having a concentration of 21 mg/mL,
according to the hospital.

However, the concentration is actually only 20.2 mL, which means
that the vial has less Herceptin than Genentech said or the
concentration is wrongly marketed.  If the concentration is wrong,
not only are providers paying more for the drug, but they are
unknowingly overdosing patients, the suit states.

Genentech is also hurting providers through its 2014 decision to
sell through specialty pharmacies, unlike the previous wholesale
retailers who provided discounts.

Additionally, smaller providers are harmed because the drug has a
short shelf life consisting of 28 days once mixed with the benzyl
alcohol solution or immediately when dissolved in sterile water
for patients who are allergic to the alcohol.

The class in the suit against Genentech, Roche Holding AG, Roche
Holding LTD, and Roche Holdings Inc., would include anyone who
purchased Herceptin made by Genentech from 1998 through 2016. The
suit includes breach of warranty, false advertising, unfair
competition, and unjust enrichment.

Another suit against Genentech with similar allegations has also
been filed in a New York federal court by North Shore Hematology
Oncology Associates PC.

According to that suit, Genentech's own internal emails
acknowledge that the represented concentration is not accurate and
an internal report shows a concentration of 21.8 mg/ml.

The case is Comanche County Memorial Hospital, v. Genentech Inc.
et al, case number 3:16-cv-02498, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.


GENERAL MILLS: Court Narrows Claims in "Haddix"
-----------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JACKLYN HADDIX, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MILLS,
INC.; GENERAL MILLS SALES, INC.; GENERAL MILLS OPERATIONS, LLC,
and DOES 1-50, Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-02625-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. granted in part and denied, in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss and to strike the plaintiff's
class allegations.

A full-text copy of Judge England's May 17, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/mMaBqV from Leagle.com.

Jacklyn Haddix filed the putative class action against General
Mills, Inc., General Mills Sales, Inc., and Does 1-50, alleging
seven claims for relief: (1) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL); (2) violation of California's False
Advertising Law (FAL); (3) violation of California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act (CRLA); (4) violation of Kentucky's Consumer
Protection Act (KCPA); (5) unjust enrichment; (6) breach of
express warranty; and (7) negligence.

Jacklyn Haddix, Plaintiff, represented by Tina Wolfson --
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C..

General Mills, Inc., General Mills Sales, Inc., General Mills
Operations, LLC, Defendants, represented by Charles Sipos, Perkins
Coie LLP -- twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- pro hac vice & Joshua
Arland Reiten, Perkins Coie LLP.


GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert. for "Carriuolo" Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
district court's grant of class certification in the case
captioned GERI SIANO CARRIUOLO, on her own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, PETER BRACCHI, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, No. 15-
14442, Non-Argument Calendar (11th Cir.).

In an interlocutory appeal, General Motors LLC challenged a
district court order granting in part a motion for class
certification proffered by Geri Siano Carriuolo and Peter Bracchi
in their action brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).  The district court certified
a class consisting of all Florida purchasers and lessees of 2014
Cadillac CTS sedans.  On appeal, General Motors argued that the
district court erroneously certified the class under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23 because: (1) there are not questions of law or fact common
to the class; (2) any common questions of law or fact do not
predominate; (3) a class action is not superior; and (4) the
representative parties will not fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.

After thorough review, the Eleventh Circuit discerned no abuse of
discretion in the district court's class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 17, 2016 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/CJ0T39 from Leagle.com.


GLOBAL FITNESS: Court Tackles Class Action Settlement Objections
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larisa Vaysman, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that in Gascho, et
al. v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, the Sixth Circuit addressed a
laundry list of objections to a class action settlement on behalf
of gym members who had been allegedly incorrectly charged certain
fees.  The settlement made ~$15.5 million available to class
members and awarded fees of $2.39 million to class counsel.  Among
other things, objectors claimed that the settlement was unfair
because counsel's fees were disproportionately high compared to
the benefits actually received by class members under the "claims
made" approach.  A split panel rejected this argument, pointing
out that the "fundamental fairness of the amount the class itself
received" was not disputed, and that the district court properly
used two established methods of calculation: the lodestar method
and the "percentage of the fund" method.

The district court had approved class counsel's lodestar figure
based on declarations, despite noting that "more detailed records"
would have been "best practice."  The Sixth Circuit said that this
approval would have been "a close question" given the "minimal
billing information provided," but upheld the district court's
decision because the district court cross-checked the amount by
calculating the percentage of the benefit to the class that the
fee represented: ~21%.  Objectors argued that the lodestar billing
information was inadequate and that the percentage of the fund
should have been calculated based on the amount class members
claimed, which ended up being ~$1.6 million.  By that reasoning,
the fee would have been a far greater percentage of the benefit to
the class.  Both the majority and the dissent highlighted the
differences among approaches in other circuits, and ultimately the
panel majority rejected any "categorical rule," choosing to "leave
the determination of how to value the benefit . . . to a district
court's discretion."

Judge Clay dissented, stating that "the district court should not
have been so trusting" towards "counsel's uncorroborated sworn
statements," and that "the district court should have used the
$1,593,240 actually paid as the benefit to the class for the
calculation of its fee."


GNC HOLDINGS: Faces 28 Personal Injury Lawsuits as of March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of March 31, 2016,
the Company was named in 28 personal injury lawsuits involving
products containing DMAA and/or Aegeline.

Prior to December 2013, the Company sold products manufactured by
third parties that contained derivatives from geranium known as
1.3-dimethylpentylamine/dimethylamylamine/13-dimethylamylamine, or
"DMAA," which were recalled from the Company's stores in November
2013, and/or Aegeline, a compound extracted from bael trees. As of
March 31, 2016, the Company was named in 28 personal injury
lawsuits involving products containing DMAA and/or Aegeline.
As a general matter, the proceedings associated with these
personal injury cases, which generally seek indeterminate money
damages, are in the early stages, and any losses that may arise
from these matters are not probable or reasonably estimable at
this time.

The Company is contractually entitled to indemnification by its
third-party vendors with regard to these matters, although the
Company's ability to obtain full recovery in respect of any such
claims against it is dependent upon the creditworthiness of the
vendors and/or their insurance coverage and the absence of any
significant defenses available to its insurer.


GNC HOLDINGS: Settlement of "Brewer" Case Has Preliminarily OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has
preliminarily approved the settlement agreement of a class action
lawsuit related to the california wage and break claims.

In July 2011, Charles Brewer, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in federal
court, alleging state and federal wage and hour claims. In October
2011, plaintiff filed an eight-count amended complaint alleging,
among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations on
behalf of sales associates and store managers.

In January 2013, the Court conditionally certified a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") class with respect to one of Plaintiff's
claims, and in November 2014, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the plaintiff's motion to certify a California class and
granted the Company's motion for decertification of the FLSA
class.

In May 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment as to the Company's alleged liability for non-compliant
wage statements, which was granted in part and denied in part in
September 2015.

On February 5, 2016, the Company and attorneys representing the
putative class agreed to class-wide settlements of the Brewer case
and an additional, immaterial case raising similar claims,
pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay up to $9.5 million in
the aggregate, including attorneys' fees and costs.

Following a hearing on April 19, 2016, the Court preliminarily
approved the settlement agreement, which remains subject to final
Court approval. As a result of this settlement, the Company
recorded a charge of $6.3 million in the fourth quarter of 2015,
in addition to $3.2 million previously accrued in the first
quarter of 2015.


GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Naranjo" Class Action
------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that former Senior Store
Manager, Elizabeth Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, sued on February 29, 2012, General
Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda. The complaint contains eight
causes of action, alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break
and overtime violations. As of March 31, 2016, an immaterial
liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial
statements.

GNC is a global specialty retailer of health, wellness and
performance products, including protein, performance supplements,
weight management supplements, vitamins, herbs and greens,
wellness supplements, health and beauty, food and drink and other
general merchandise.


HIAX LLC: "Burleson" Suit to Recover Overtime, Minimum Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Donna Burleson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HIAX, LLC, and Axel S. Wimmer,
Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00362-UA-MRM (M.D.
Fla., May 12, 2016) seeks (i) to recover unpaid back wages,
minimum wages, overtime wages, an additional equal amount of
liquidated damages, (ii) to obtain declaratory relief, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and (iii) a claim for
retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate Heidi's Island Bistro in Lee County, Florida
where Burleson worked as a server. She claims being denied minimum
wages and overtime pay. She also claims she was evicted from her
house for filing said complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, PA
      4223 Del Prado Blvd. S.
      Cape Coral, FL 33904
      Tel: (239) 549-6689
      Fax: (239) 549-3331
      Email: Berkelaw@yahoo.com


HILLTOP HOLDINGS: Defending Suit Related to SWS Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hilltop Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that following completion
of Hilltop's acquisition of SWS, several purported holders of
shares of SWS common stock filed petitions in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware seeking appraisal for their
shares pursuant to Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation
Law. These petitions were consolidated as In re SWS Group, Inc.,
C.A. No. 10554-VCG. The consolidated matter represents a total of
approximately 5.2 million shares of SWS common stock. The Company
intends to vigorously defend this matter.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Bid to Dismiss Indirect Purchasers' Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016,
that the defendants' motion to dismiss Indirect Purchasers' class
action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in a class action
civil antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California by the purchasers of
products made from titanium dioxide (the "Indirect Purchasers")
making essentially the same allegations as did the Direct
Purchasers."

"On October 14, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class
Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs to those
merchants and consumers of architectural coatings containing
titanium dioxide. On August 11, 2015, the court granted our motion
to dismiss the Indirect Purchasers litigation with leave to amend
the complaint.

"A Third Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on September 29,
2015 further limiting the class to consumers of architectural
paints. Plaintiffs have raised state antitrust claims under the
laws of 15 states, consumer protection claims under the laws of 9
states, and unjust enrichment claims under the laws of 16 states.

"On November 4, 2015, we and our co-defendants filed another
motion to dismiss, which remains pending. The Indirect Purchasers
plaintiffs seek to recover injunctive relief, treble damages or
the maximum damages allowed by state law, costs of suit and
attorneys' fees.

"We are not aware of any illegal conduct by us or any of our
employees. Nevertheless, we have incurred costs relating to this
claim and could incur additional costs in amounts which in the
aggregate could be material to us. Because of the overall
complexity of this case, we are unable to reasonably estimate any
possible loss or range of loss and we have made no accrual with
respect to this claim."

Huntsman operates in five segments: Polyurethanes, Performance
Products, Advanced Materials, Textile Effects and Pigments and
Additives.


ILLINOIS: Judge OKs Prison Mental Health Care Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge in Peoria has
approved a settlement between the Illinois state prison system and
lawyers for 11,000 mentally ill prisoners who alleged that
inadequate treatment amounted to "cruel and unusual punishment."

The agreement in a 2007 class-action lawsuit calls for the
Illinois Department of Corrections to build four new treatment
units at the Logan, Pontiac and Dixon prisons as well as in
Joliet.

Those new unites will cost $40 million.  Hiring new staff members
as part of the settlement is expected to cost another $40 million
a year.

A tentative agreement in the case was reached in late December.
U.S. District Judge Michael Mihm signed off on the settlement on
May 13, calling the state's plans "fair and reasonable."


INVENTURE FOODS: Faces Securities Class Action in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on May 16 disclosed
that a class action complaint was filed against Inventure Foods
Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, County of
Maricopa.  The plaintiff brings the complaint on behalf of all
purchasers of Inventure Foods stock in connection with the
company's secondary public offering (the "Offering") conducted on
or about September 17, 2014, for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933 by certain officers and directors.
Inventure Foods markets and manufactures healthy/natural and
indulgent special snack food brands in two segments -- frozen
products and snack products.

Inventure Foods Inc. Accused of Making False and Misleading
Statements Regarding its Production Facilities

On September 11, 2014, Inventure Foods commenced its secondary
public offering of 3,594,518 shares at $12.85 per share, to raise
$53 million.  In its prospectus, the company touted that it used
regulatory compliant and effective food processing and packaging
equipment housed in modern facilities, and that it had "state-of-
the-art facilities."  According to the complaint, however, at the
time of the Offering, the company's Jefferson processing facility
was in need of capital improvements and corrective actions to
rectify unsanitary conditions that are known to breed dangerous
bacteria and violated federal law.

The complaint alleges that the Department of Agriculture
identified these unsafe conditions as early as April 2014, five
months prior to the Offering.  Then, on October 22, 2014, a few
weeks following the Offering, the Department of Agriculture Food
Safety Division inspected the Jefferson facility, identifying
unsafe and unsanitary conditions that "may cause contamination of
food being processed," which the company allegedly failed to
rectify for months prior to and since the secondary offering.
According to the Drug and Food Administration ("FDA"), the
conditions found at the Jefferson facility can breed Listeria.

On March 2, 2015, a complaint was filed with the FDA concerning
the unsafe and unsanitary conditions at the Jefferson facility.
Then, on April 23, 2015, the company recalled certain varieties of
its frozen products due to the Jefferson facility testing positive
for Listeria, which resulted in the destruction of 192,570 pounds
of food and months of corrective action at the facility.  On this
news, Inventure Foods stock dropped 30% lower than the
artificially inflated price the class members paid in the
Offering.  Further, the company's frozen products segment gross
profit decreased by 91.6% in fiscal year 2015 as compared to 2014,
which the company admitted was a result of the recall.

Inventure Foods Inc. Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney
Darnell R. Donahue at (800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com
or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a shareholder rights law firm.  The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits.


IRELAND: Violates Travelers' Human Right, EU Committee Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kitty Holland, writing for The Irish Times, reports that
Travellers' human rights are being violated by the Irish
Government's failure to provide enough accommodation and to
maintain many sites at an acceptable standard, a European
committee has found.

In a landmark judgment published this morning, the European
Committee of Social Rights -- part of the Council of Europe -- has
found the Government is violating Travellers's rights under the
European Social Charter.

A "collective complaint" -- a form of class action -- was taken by
the Budapest-based European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC), with the
support of the Irish Traveller Movement, in April 2013.

It was deemed admissible in October 2013 and the Irish Government
responded with submissions in February 2014.  Additional
observations and submissions from both sides were received by
April last year.

The ERRC alleged Ireland had not satisfactorily applied the
charter with respect to Traveller housing, and that Ireland was in
breach of article 16, which deals with the rights of the family to
"social, legal and economic protection".

Rejected allegations

It said the budget for Traveller accommodation was cut from EUR40
million in 2008 to EUR3 million in 2014 and there was "chronic
underspending by local authorities".

The State rejected the ERRC's allegations "in their entirety",
arguing "measurable progress" had been made in providing Traveller
accommodation since 1999, when 25 per cent of all Traveller
families lived on unauthorised sites.

This had dropped to 3.8 per cent by 2010, said the State.
Ireland signed up to 92 of the Charter's 98 articles in 2000.  The
committee said article 16, which states "contracting parties [ie
signatory states] undertake to promote . . . family life by such
means as . . . provision of family housing", was being breached in
the case of Travellers.

It cites three grounds -- that there is "insufficient provision of
accommodation for Travellers", that "many Traveller sites are in
an inadequate condition", and that there are "inadequate
safeguards for Travellers threatened with eviction".

It said that while "illegal occupation of a site or dwelling may
justify the eviction of illegal occupants" those threatened with
eviction were entitled to protection.

Una Mullally: Politicians use same-sex marriage shield to deflect
abortion fire

Coming four months after the eviction of 23 families from an
unauthorized site in Dundalk, and the order on 15 families to
vacate a site in Galway, the judgment says evicting authorities
must consult the affected parties to find alternative housing, fix
a reasonable notice period, provide access to legal remedies and
legal aid, compensate in the case of illegal evictions, and must
not evict at night or in the winter.

Though not legally binding on the State, the judgment will bring
pressure, from the Committee of Ministers under the auspices of
the Council of Europe, to address the violations.

ERRC president Djordje Jovanovic is "particularly concerned about
the lack of safeguards" for those facing eviction in Ireland.
"Forced evictions are often discriminatory measures creating new
forms of hardship for those evicted and exacerbating a pattern of
human rights violations."

He called on the State "to ensure that all those facing eviction
have full access to free legal aid".

Behind the statistics: St Margaret's, Ballymun

The number of Traveller families living on unsafe, unserviced,
unauthorized sites has increased by almost 50 per cent in two
years, figures show.

The annual "Traveller count" also shows the number of families
sharing overcrowded accommodation has increased by 30 per cent, at
a time when the number of Traveller families has increased by less
than 1 per cent.

The 2015 count, just published by the Department of the
Environment, shows that the number of Traveller families on
unauthorized sites increased from 361 in 2013 to 445 in 2014 and
534 last year.

The numbers sharing housing, or "doubling up", as families move
caravans beside other family caravans or houses because they can
find nowhere else to live, increased from 663 in 2013 to 727 in
2014 and 862 last year.

In contrast, the numbers in private rented accommodation fell from
2,717 in 2013 to 2,480 in 2015.

The numbers in social housing remained steady at 5,574 in 2013 and
5,575 in 2015.  In all, there were 9,899 Traveller families in
2013, and 9,997 last year.

Overcrowding is felt acutely at St Margaret's in Ballymun, Dublin,
where about 50 families live in 30 bays.

The site is referred to in the collective complaint to the
European Committee of Social Rights.

Residents say overcrowding and the dilapidated state of outhouses
are now the most pressing issues.

Helen Stokes (67) has lived on the site since it was built in
1997.  She shares a mobile home with her husband, their son, his
wife and their two children.

Another son, his wife and their three children have moved a
caravan on to the bay.  The 11 people share one steel toilet and
one shower.

"I love the grandchildren and the family, but it does get hard
with them all around all the time," she says.

Dublin City Council says it "intends to upgrade the electrical
infrastructure and refurbish the 30 day-houses [outhouses] in St
Margaret's Park.

"The submission from the St Margaret's Traveller Community
Association called for the provision of a second halting site near
to the current St Margaret's Park site.  This request will be
examined."


ITC HOLDINGS: Defending Suits Related to Fortis Merger
------------------------------------------------------
ITC Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is
defending class action lawsuits related to the merger with Fortis,
Inc.

The Company said, "On February 9, 2016, Fortis, FortisUS, Merger
Sub and ITC Holdings entered into an agreement and plan of merger
(the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge
with and into ITC Holdings, as a result of which ITC Holdings will
become a subsidiary of FortisUS (the "Merger"). In the Merger, our
shareholders will receive $22.57 in cash and 0.7520 Fortis common
shares for each share of common stock of ITC Holdings. Upon
completion of the Merger, ITC Holdings shareholders will hold
approximately 27% of the common shares of Fortis. Fortis will
apply to list its common shares on the New York Stock Exchange and
will continue to have its shares listed on the Toronto Stock
Exchange."

"Following the announcement of the Merger, four putative state
class action lawsuits have been filed by purported shareholders of
ITC Holdings on behalf of a purported class of ITC Holdings
shareholders. Initially, the four actions (Paolo Guerra v. Albert
Ernst, et al., Harvey Siegelman v. Joseph L. Welch, et al., Alan
Poland v. Fortis Inc., et al., Sanjiv Mehrotra v. Joseph L. Welch,
et al.) were filed in the Oakland County Circuit Court of the
State of Michigan. The complaints name as defendants a combination
of ITC Holdings and the individual members of the ITC Holdings
board of directors, Fortis Inc. ("Fortis"), FortisUS Inc.
("FortisUS") and Element Acquisition Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"). The
complaints generally allege, among other things, that (1) ITC
Holdings' directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the Merger Agreement (defined below in Note 11), (including,
but not limited to, various alleged breaches of duties of good
faith, loyalty, care and independence), (2) ITC Holdings'
directors failed to take appropriate steps to maximize shareholder
value and claims that the Merger Agreement contains several deal
protection provisions that are unnecessarily preclusive and (3) a
combination of ITC Holdings, Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub aided
and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaints seek class action certification and a variety of relief
including, among other things, enjoining defendants from
completing the proposed Merger, unspecified rescissory and
compensatory damages, and costs, including attorneys' fees and
expenses.

"The Siegelman case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on
March 22, 2016. On March 23, 2016, the state court entered an
order directing that the related cases be consolidated under the
caption In re ITC Holdings Corporation Shareholder Litigation. On
April 8, 2016, Poland filed an amended complaint to add derivative
claims on behalf of ITC Holdings.

"On March 14, 2016, the Guerra state court action was dismissed by
the plaintiff and refiled in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan, as Paolo Guerra v. Albert Ernst, et
al. The federal complaint names the same defendants (plus
FortisUS), asserts the same general allegations and seeks the same
types of relief as in the state court cases.

"On March 25, 2016, Guerra amended his federal complaint. The
amended complaint dropped Fortis US, Fortis and Merger Sub as
defendants and added claims alleging that the defendants violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because the
preliminary proxy statement/prospectus, filed with the SEC in
connection with the special meeting of shareholders to approve the
Merger Agreement, is allegedly materially misleading and allegedly
omits material facts that are necessary to render it non-
misleading.

"Another lawsuit was filed on April 8, 2016 in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Michigan captioned Harold
Severance v. Joseph L. Welch et al. against the individual members
of the ITC Holdings board of directors, Fortis, FortisUS and
Merger Sub, asserting the same general allegations and seeking the
same type of relief as Guerra.

"On April 22, 2016, the Mehrotra state court action was dismissed
by the plaintiff and refiled in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan, as Sanjiv Mehrotra v. Joseph L.
Welch, et al. With the exception of Fortis, the federal complaint
names the same defendants and asserts the same general allegations
as the other federal complaints.

"We believe the lawsuits are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against them. Additional lawsuits arising out of
or relating to the Merger Agreement or the Merger may be filed in
the future."


KANKAKEE, IL: Dismissal of "McGrath" With Prejudice Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BARBARA J. McGRATH, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, Defendant-Appellee, No. 3-14-0523 (Ill. App.
Ct.), the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third Circuit affirmed the
trial court's order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss
with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 16, 2016 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/LG9Zqf from Leagle.com.

Barbara McGrath filed an amended class action complaint against
the City of Kankakee alleging that its impoundment ordinance was
unconstitutional because it violated due process and was an
unlawful attempt to use police powers to produce revenue.


KLEIN TOOLS: Recalls Digital Clamp Meters Due to Burn Hazards
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Klein Tools, of Lincolnshire, Ill., announced a voluntary recall
of about 114,000 Digital clamp meters (in addition, 3,300 were
sold in Canada and 3,750 in Mexico). Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The meters can fail to give an accurate voltage reading, resulting
in the operator falsely believing the electrical power is off,
posing shock, electrocution and burn hazards.

This recall involves Klein Tools digital clamp meters used to
detect electrical current in wiring. Model numbers CL110, CL210,
CL310 and CL110KIT with date codes 0815U-A1, 1015U-A1, 1115U-A1,
1215U-A1, 0116U-A1, 0216U-A1 and 0316U-A1 are included in this
recall. "Klein Tools" and the model number are printed on the
front of the clamp meters. The date code is printed on the back.
The meters are black with a backlit LCD display and an orange
trigger and clamp mechanism. The meters are rated CAT III 600
volts and measure voltage up to 600 volts and alternating current
up to 400 amps. Only the meter in the CL110KIT is included in the
recall.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/ViN09x

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Home
Depot and other hardware stores, industrial distributors and
electrical wholesalers nationwide from November 2015 through April
2016 for between $55 and $75.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled digital clamp
meters and contact Klein Tools to receive postage paid labels to
return the clamp meters for free replacement units.


KPMG: More Women Join Gender Discrimination Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Fraser Simpson, writing for Accountancy Age, reports that five
more women have been added as named plaintiffs to the ongoing $350
million (GBP243 million) class action gender discrimination
lawsuit against KPMG's US arm.

On May 13, Sanford Heisler, the law firm representing the five
plaintiffs, filed an amended complaint against the Big Four firm,
which has been involved in an ongoing gender discrimination
lawsuit for the past five years.

The class action suit is now estimated to contain the names of
more than 10,000 female KPMG employees, past and present, with
more than 1,000 of those actively coming forward against the
professional services company.

The five new named plaintiffs include Tina Butler, Cheryl Charity,
Heather Inman, Nancy Jones and Carol Murray.

KPMG has said the "allegations that have been made are without
merit".

Ongoing battle

KPMG has been accused by the plaintiffs of developing a hostile
work environment in which women are underpaid and rarely promoted
to leadership roles.

The legal battle revolves around former KPMG manager Donna
Kassman, who spent 17 years working in the firm's New York office
before resigning.  In 2011 Ms. Kassman filed suit against the
firm, claiming that she and other female employees suffered gender
discrimination during their time at the company.

The lawsuit contains details of how KPMG slashed Ms. Kassmans'
base salary by $20,000 while she was on maternity leave because
she was being paid "too much."

When Ms. Kassman complained about the salary cut and wanted to
discuss ways for her to earn back the $20,000, her male
supervising partner allegedly asserted that she did not need the
money because she "had a nice engagement ring".

Lack of gender diversity

According to the lawsuit, approximately 50% of KPMG's total
workforce is female.  Sanford Heisler, the plaintiffs' lawyers,
has accused the Big Four firm of being "part of an elite cadre of
accountancy and professional services firms" that "actively
perpetuates" gender discrimination.

It adds that women are "conspicuously absent from KPMG's
leadership," stating that among the 20 members of KPMG's global
executive team, only one is female.  In addition to this, of the
24 members of KPMG's global board, only one is female.

"The company promotes fewer women to partner than the industry
average.  KPMG also promotes fewer women to senior manager
positions than the industry average.  KPMG's promotion rate falls
below its competitors, even though KPMG has a similar number of
female non-management employees as the industry to groom and
mentor for leadership," the lawsuit alleges.

Growing support

Soon after Ms. Kassman filed the lawsuit with Sanford Heisler,
four other female KPMG employees, past and present joined the
lawsuit.

In October 2014, some 9,000 current and former female KPMG
employees in the US were contacted and given the opportunity to
join in the high-value complaint against the firm.

Just two weeks after the women were contacted, Sanford Heisler
confirmed that more than 200 additional women signed up to the
legal challenge.

Katherine Kimpel -- kkimpel@sanfordheisler.com -- a managing
partner at Sanford Heisler and lead counsel for the plaintiffs,
told Accountancy Age at the time that the 200 women represented a
"real interest in this case, and [shows there's] likely a real
problem".

In January 2015, the law firm revealed that a further 900 women
had opted to join the case, and then just two days after the
announcement, 140 extra women joined the lawsuit.

Problems are 'nationwide and persist to this day'

The attorneys representing the five women claim that gender
discrimination at KPMG is "truly systemic", spanning nine KPMG
offices, and at different job levels in a range of practice groups
within the firm.

Maya Sequeira, the plaintiffs' attorney at Sanford Heisler, said:
"If the more than 1,100 women who responded to the notice allowing
them to join the collective action regarding Equal Pay Act claims
weren't proof enough, the inclusion of five additional class
representatives clearly illustrates that KPMG's gender
discrimination problems are nationwide and persist to this day.

"There is no merit to KPMG's defense that experiences of
discrimination at the firm are isolated or atypical, and this
amendment takes the wind out of KPMG's sails on that front."

A KPMG spokesperson has hit out at the latest developments,
telling Accountancy Age: "Two facts about the claims made by the
plaintiff speak louder than any others: almost 90% of those
eligible to have joined the collective action part of this lawsuit
chose not to do so; and 86% of the small number that did join are
not current KPMG employees.  That is because the allegations that
have been made are without merit.  We do not believe that the
addition of these five women changes anything in terms of our view
of the lawsuit.

"KPMG has long been recognized as a great place to work and build
a career, as well as a leader in fostering a diverse and inclusive
culture.  The firm is deeply committed to the career advancement
of women and confronting the challenges women too often face in
the workplace, and takes very seriously any concern about
discrimination or unfair treatment.  We could not be more proud of
our culture and the fact that KPMG is replete with and led by many
talented and successful women."

This development comes just days after fellow PwC became entangled
in a gender discrimination row in the UK, after one of its
employees was refused access to her office for not wearing high-
heeled shoes.


LA QUINTA: Faces "Beisel" Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------
La Quinta Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a purported
stockholder class action lawsuit, captioned Beisel v. La Quinta
Holdings Inc. et al., was filed on April 25, 2016, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant to the Company's
March 24, 2015 secondary public offering (the "March Secondary
Offering") and on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock from February 25, 2015 through September 17, 2015 (the
"Class Period").  The complaint names as defendants the Company,
certain current and former Company officers, and certain current
and former members of the Board of Directors, among others.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that, in violation of the
federal securities laws, the registration statement and prospectus
filed in connection with the March Secondary Offering contained
materially false and misleading information and that the Company
as well as certain current and former officers made false and
misleading statements in earnings releases and to analysts during
the Class Period.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.  The Company believes that the putative
class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding
the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Appeal in Data Privacy Litigation Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2016, that the
appeal in the Data Privacy Litigation remains pending.

The Company was previously a defendant in a putative class action,
In Re: Science Applications International Corporation ("SAIC")
Backup Tape Data Theft Litigation, which was a Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL") action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia relating to the theft of computer backup
tapes from a vehicle of a company employee.

In May 2014, the District Court dismissed all but two plaintiffs
from the MDL action. In June 2014, Leidos and its co-defendant,
TRICARE, entered into settlement agreements with the remaining two
plaintiffs who subsequently dismissed their claims with prejudice.

On September 20, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action, Martin Fernandez, on Behalf Of Himself And
All Other Similarly Situated v. Leidos, Inc. in the Eastern
District Court of California, related to the same theft of
computer backup tapes. The recent complaint includes allegations
of violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and other
claims.

On August 28, 2015, the Court dismissed all claims brought by the
Plaintiff against the Company. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
of this dismissal on November 17, 2015 to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where the appeal remains pending.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Petition to Rehear Appeal Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2016, that the
Company's petition to rehear an appeal in the securities
litigation remains pending.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two
cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint named as
defendants the Company, a former chief financial officer, two
former chief executive officers, a former group president and the
former program manager on the Company's contract to develop and
implement an automated time and attendance and workforce
management system for certain agencies of the City of New York
("CityTime"), and was filed purportedly on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's common stock from April 11, 2007,
through September 1, 2011. The consolidated securities complaint
asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the Company and
individual defendants made misleading statements or omissions
about the Company's revenues, operating income and internal
controls in connection with disclosures relating to the CityTime
project. The plaintiffs sought to recover from the Company and the
individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages class
members allegedly incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated
price.

On October 1, 2013, the District Court dismissed many claims in
the complaint with prejudice and on January 30, 2014, the District
Court entered an order dismissing all remaining claims with
prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs moved to
vacate the District Court's judgment or obtain relief from the
judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint.

On September 30, 2014, the District Court denied plaintiffs'
motions. The plaintiffs then appealed to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit issued an opinion affirming
in part, and vacating in part, the District Court's ruling. In
particular, the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs should be
permitted to pursue omissions claims against the Company with
respect to the annual report the Company filed on Form 10-K on
March 25, 2011; the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of all other
claims, including all the claims against the individual
defendants. The Company has petitioned the Second Circuit to
rehear the appeal, and the petition is pending.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: July 15 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against LendingClub Corporation ("LendingClub" or the
"Company") and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Northern District of California,
and docketed under 16-cv-02627, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise
acquired LendingClub securities: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to
LendingClub's false and misleading Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering on or about December 11, 2014 (the "IPO" or the
"Offering"); and/or (2) on the open market between December 11,
2014 and May 6, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act")
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") (the
"Class").

If you are a shareholder who purchased LendingClub securities
during the Class Period, you have until July 15, 2016 to seek
appointment 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.

LendingClub, together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online
marketplace that connects borrowers and investors in the United
States.

The Complaint alleges that in connection with the IPO and
throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the LendingClub's business,
operational and compliance policies.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) LendingClub's internal controls were inadequate to
ensure that LendingClub's loans conformed to its customers'
criteria; (ii) LendingClub's internal controls were inadequate to
ensure that relevant interests in third-party transactions were
fully and timely disclosed; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, LendingClub's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 9, 2016, LendingClub disclosed in an SEC filing that on May
6, 2016, the Company's Board of Directors had accepted the
resignation of Defendant Renaud Laplanche ("Laplanche") as the
Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO").  The
Company reported that Laplanche's resignation was precipitated by
an internal review that found that the Company had sold $22
million in loans, made to consumers with low credit scores, to a
single investor (later reported to be Jefferies LLC
("Jefferies")), in violation of the investor's "express
instructions."

In the same filing, the Company also disclosed "a failure to
inform the board's Risk Committee of personal interests held in a
third party fund while the Company was contemplating an investment
in the same fund."  Media outlets subsequently reported that
Laplanche had failed to fully disclose a personal interest he held
in Cirrix Capital while the Company was contemplating investing in
the fund -- an investment that Laplanche had himself proposed to
LendingClub's risk-management committee -- and that LendingClub
Board Member John Mack also held an undisclosed interest in Cirrix
Capital.

On this news, LendingClub's stock fell $2.48 per share, or nearly
35%, to close at $4.62 per share on May 9, 2016.

On May 9, 2016, post-market, news outlets reported that the SEC
was investigating LendingClub's disclosures.

On May 10, 2016, Bloomberg and other news outlets reported that
Goldman Sachs and Jefferies had halted their purchases of
LendingClub loans.  That same day, the U.S. Treasury Department
issued a White Paper describing the online lending industry as
"untested" and calling for more regulation.

On this news, LendingClub stock fell $0.52 per share, or 11.3%, to
close at $4.10 per share on May 10, 2016.

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


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: May 31 Formal Vote on Arpaio Case Cost Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nico Santos, writing for KPNX, reports that the Maricopa County
Board of Supervisors was set to vote on May 16 whether to
tentatively approve $13 million more toward the legal costs in the
racial profiling case against Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Taxpayers have already fronted more than $41 million in the class-
action suit against him, Ortega Melendres et al. v. Joe Arpaio et
al., filed in 2007.

Arpaio earns $100,000 per year as the Maricopa County sheriff.  He
also owns about $2 million in commercial real estate.

But he's never had to use his own money to pay for legal costs
tied to his work at sheriff.

Supervisor Steve Gallardo is a longtime critic of Sheriff  Arpaio.
He says the money could be used for other things such as paying
for flood-control improvements or pay increases for county
employees who haven't seen a raise in four years.

Clint Hickman, chairman for the county board, said in a statement
the law requires the government to pick up the sheriff's legal
expenses.

A judge held Sheriff Arpaio in civil contempt on May 13.  In his
ruling, Judge Murray Snow explained he believes Sheriff Arpaio
didn't just ignore his orders to end racial profiling; he says he
intentionally went against them.

The Maricopa Board of Supervisors was set to vote to tentatively
approve the $13 million at 9:30 a.m.  It will be up for formal
vote May 31.


MARK SHERIFF: Supreme Court Okays Use of Atty. Gen. Letterhead
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARK J. SHERIFF, ET AL., Petitioners v.
PAMELA GILLIE, ET AL., No. 15-338 (U.S.), the Supreme Court of the
United States reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Eric A. Jones, of the Law Office of Eric A. Jones, LLC, was hired
by the state of Ohio as special counsel to collect sovereign
debts, along with Mark J. Sheriff, Sarah Sheriff, and Wiles,
Boyle, Burkholder & Bringardner, Co., LPA.  After receiving debt
collection letters on the Ohio Attorney General's letterhead,
Hazel Meadows and Pamela Gillie filed a putative class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, asserting that Mark Sheriff, Sarah Sheriff, Eric Jones, and
their law firms had violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA).  By sending debt collection notices on the Attorney
General's letterhead rather than the letterhead of their private
firms, Meadows and Gillie alleged that the defendants had employed
deceptive and misleading means to attempt to collect consumer
debts.  The Ohio Attorney General intervened as a defendant and
counterclaimant, seeking a declaratory judgment that special
counsel's use of his letterhead, as authorized by Ohio law, is
neither false nor misleading.  Further, the Attorney General
urged, special counsel should be deemed officers of the State and
therefore outside the FDCPA's compass.

The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants,
concluding that special counsel are "officers" of the State of
Ohio and, in any event, their use of the Attorney General's
letterhead is not false or misleading.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated the District
Court's judgment.  Because special counsel are independent
contractors, the court determined, they are not entitled to the
FDCPA's state-officer exemption.  Turning to the deceptive and
misleading practices charge, the Court of Appeals concluded that
there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an
unsophisticated consumer would be misled "into believing it is the
Attorney General who is collecting on the account."

On certiorari, the Supreme Court of the United States held that
the special counsel's use of the Attorney General's letterhead
does not offend section 1692e of the FDCPA.  The Supreme Court
explained that, not fairly described as "false" or "misleading,"
use of the letterhead accurately conveys that special counsel, in
seeking to collect debts owed to the State, do so on behalf of,
and as instructed by, the Attorney General.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 16, 2016 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/XTQls2 from Leagle.com.


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Bid for Rehearing En Banc Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has denied the class action
plaintiffs' motion for rehearing en banc.

The Company said, "On January 19, 2010, several former Marriott
employees (the "plaintiffs") filed a putative class action
complaint against us and the Stock Plan (the "defendants"),
alleging that certain equity awards of deferred bonus stock
granted to the plaintiffs and other current and former employees
for fiscal years 1963 through 1989 are subject to vesting
requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended ("ERISA"), that are in certain circumstances more
rapid than those set forth in the awards. The action was brought
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
(Greenbelt Division), and Dennis Walter Bond Sr. and Michael P.
Steigman were the remaining named plaintiffs."

Class certification was denied, and on January 16, 2015, the court
granted Marriott's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the
case. Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, and Marriott cross-appealed on statute of
limitation grounds. Oral arguments were held before the Fourth
Circuit on October 28, 2015, and on January 29, 2016, the Fourth
Circuit unanimously granted Marriott's motion for summary judgment
on the grounds that the action was untimely and affirmed the
judgment in Marriott's favor. The court subsequently denied the
plaintiffs' motion for rehearing en banc, and issued a formal
mandate giving effect to its judgment on March 8, 2016.

Marriott is a worldwide operator, franchisor, and licensor of
hotels and timeshare properties in 87 countries and territories
under 19 brand names.


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismissed Claims Against Starwood
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has issued
an order dismissing all claims and counts against Starwood Hotels
& Resorts Worldwide, Inc.

The Company said, "On November 15, 2015, we entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") to combine
with Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. ("Starwood"). The
Merger Agreement provides for the Company to combine with Starwood
in a series of transactions after which Starwood will be an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (the "Starwood
Combination"). On March 20, 2016, we entered into Amendment Number
1 (the "Amendment") to the Merger Agreement. The Amendment
modified the merger consideration payable to shareholders of
Starwood. If the combination transactions are completed,
shareholders of Starwood will receive 0.80 shares of our Class A
Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, and $21.00 in cash,
without interest, for each share of Starwood common stock, par
value $0.01 per share, that they own immediately before these
transactions. On April 8, 2016, shareholders of both Marriott and
Starwood approved the combination transactions, and in the 2016
first quarter, we cleared the antitrust and competition reviews in
a number of jurisdictions, including the United States and Canada.
We expect that the combination will close in mid-2016, after
remaining customary conditions are satisfied, including receipt of
additional antitrust approvals and the completion of Starwood's
previously announced spin-off of its vacation ownership business,
or another spin-off, split-off, analogous disposition, or sale of
its vacation ownership business."

Between November 18, 2015 and December 18, 2015, seven lawsuits
challenging the Starwood Combination were filed in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on behalf of purported
shareholders of Starwood, naming various combinations of
Starwood's directors, Starwood, Marriott, and others, as
defendants. On February 11, 2016 the Court issued an order
dismissing, without prejudice, all claims and all counts against
Marriott, and on April 4, 2016, the Court issued an order
dismissing all claims and counts against Starwood.

Marriott is a worldwide operator, franchisor, and licensor of
hotels and timeshare properties in 87 countries and territories
under 19 brand names.


MASTERCARD INC: Accrued $710MM Liability in Interchange Case
------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of March 31, 2016,
in the so-called Interchange Litigation, MasterCard had accrued a
liability of $710 million as a reserve for both the merchant class
litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases.

In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against MasterCard International,
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a
number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in
the complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or
conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of
these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state
law. The complaints allege, among other things, that MasterCard,
Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the
price of interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules
(including the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws
and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and
services. The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in
MDL No. 1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint that seeks treble damages.

In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the
"IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between
MasterCard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO:
(1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent
conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted
to release, without adequate consideration, MasterCard's right to
assess them for MasterCard's litigation liabilities. The class
plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including,
but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO.
In February 2011, MasterCard and MasterCard International entered
into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement
sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa
International Service Association and a number of financial
institutions; and (2) a MasterCard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of financial institutions.  The agreements
provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities
which MasterCard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions
may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse
judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant
litigations.  Among a number of scenarios addressed by the
agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa
parties, the financial institutions and MasterCard, MasterCard
would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the
event of a settlement involving only MasterCard and the financial
institutions with respect to their issuance of MasterCard cards,
MasterCard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such
settlement.

In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including
with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants
separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that
were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus
judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement described above.
MasterCard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term
reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify
certain of its business practices, including its No Surcharge
Rule. Objections to the settlement were filed by both merchants
and certain competitors, including Discover. Discover's objections
include a challenge to the settlement on the grounds that certain
of the rule changes agreed to in the settlement constitute a
restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The court granted final approval of the settlement in December
2013. Objectors to the settlement appealed the decision, and an
oral argument was heard on the appeal in September 2015.
Separately, the objectors filed a motion in July 2015 to set aside
the approval order, contending that the merchant class was
inadequately represented and the settlement was insufficient
because a counsel for several individual merchant plaintiffs
improperly exchanged communications with a defense counsel who at
the time was representing MasterCard.

Merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the MasterCard
and Visa purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out
of the class settlement. MasterCard anticipates that most of the
larger merchants who opted out of the settlement will initiate
separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out
complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in
various jurisdictions. The defendants have consolidated all of
these matters (except for one state court action in New Mexico) in
front of the same federal district court that is overseeing the
approval of the settlement. In July 2014, the district court
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the opt-out merchant
complaints for failure to state a claim.

MasterCard recorded a pre-tax charge of $770 million in the fourth
quarter of 2011 and an additional $20 million pre-tax charge in
the second quarter of 2012 relating to the settlement agreements
described above. In 2012, MasterCard paid $790 million with
respect to the settlements, of which $726 million was paid into a
qualified cash settlement fund related to the merchant class
litigation. As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, MasterCard
had $542 million and $541 million, respectively, in the qualified
cash settlement fund classified as restricted cash on its balance
sheet.

The class settlement agreement provided for a return to the
defendants of a portion of the class cash settlement fund, based
upon the percentage of purchase volume represented by the opt-out
merchants. This resulted in $164 million from the cash settlement
fund being returned to MasterCard in January 2014 and reclassified
at that time from restricted cash to cash and cash equivalents. In
the fourth quarter of 2013, MasterCard recorded an incremental net
pre-tax charge of $95 million related to the opt-out merchants,
representing a change in its estimate of probable losses relating
to these matters.  MasterCard has executed settlement agreements
with a number of opt-out merchants and no adjustment to the amount
previously recorded was deemed necessary. As of March 31, 2016,
MasterCard had accrued a liability of $710 million as a reserve
for both the merchant class litigation and the filed and
anticipated opt-out merchant cases.

The portion of the accrued liability relating to the opt-out
merchants does not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the
opt-out merchant matters were litigated to a final outcome, in
which case MasterCard cannot estimate the potential liability.
MasterCard's estimate involves significant judgment and may change
depending on progress in settlement negotiations or depending upon
decisions in any opt-out merchant cases. In addition, in the event
that the merchant class litigation settlement approval is
overturned, a negative outcome in the litigation could have a
material adverse effect on MasterCard's results of operations,
financial position and cash flows.


MASTERCARD INC: Still Defends Interchange Suits in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend Interchange class action lawsuits in Canada.

In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced
against MasterCard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. That
suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a
previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to
the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in MasterCard's
favor) related to certain MasterCard rules related to point-of-
sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no
surcharge" rules. The suit sought compensatory and punitive
damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In
the first half of 2011, additional purported class action lawsuits
containing similar allegations to the Quebec class action were
commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against MasterCard, Visa
and a number of large Canadian financial institutions. The British
Columbia suit seeks compensatory damages in unspecified amounts,
and the Ontario suit seeks compensatory damages of $5 billion. The
British Columbia and Ontario suits also seek punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief, interest and
legal costs. The Quebec suit was later amended to include the same
defendants and similar claims as in the British Columbia and
Ontario suits. With respect to the status of the proceedings: (1)
the Quebec suit has been stayed, (2) the Ontario suit is being
temporarily suspended while the British Columbia suit proceeds,
and (3) the British Columbia appellate court issued an order in
August 2015 allowing several of the merchants' claims to proceed
on a class basis. Additional proposed class action complaints have
been filed in Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely
mirror those in the British Columbia and Ontario suits. If the
class action lawsuits are ultimately successful, negative
decisions could have a significant adverse impact on the revenue
of MasterCard's Canadian customers and on MasterCard's overall
business in Canada and could result in substantial damage awards.


MASTERCARD INC: ATM Non-Discrimination Plaintiffs Seek Injunction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that certain of the
plaintiffs in the ATM Non-Discrimination Rule Surcharge Complaints
have filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the
enforcement of the nondiscrimination rules pending the outcome of
the litigation.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both
MasterCard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").  Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals
that operate ATM terminals in the United States with the
discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the
terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that MasterCard and Visa
have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that
require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges
for transactions processed over MasterCard's and Visa's respective
networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions
over other networks accepted at the same ATM.  Plaintiffs seek
both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages
they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations
and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs
have not quantified their damages although they allege that they
expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.
Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against MasterCard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").  The claims in these actions largely mirror
the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint, although
these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM
services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non-
bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to
treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the
alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys'
fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they
allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of
dollars.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the
district court granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss the
complaints for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals reversed the district court's order in August 2015 and
sent the case back for further proceedings. In March 2016, certain
of the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint filed a motion
seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the
nondiscrimination rules pending the outcome of the litigation.


MASTERCARD INC: Defending Against U.S. Liability Shift Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is
defending against the so-called U.S. Liability Shift Litigation.

In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was
filed in federal court in California alleging that EMVCo,
MasterCard, Visa, American Express, Discover, China Union Pay and
a number of issuing banks engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud
liability for card present transactions from issuing banks to
merchants not yet in compliance with the standards for EMV chip
cards in the United States (the "EMV Liability Shift"), in
violation of the Sherman Act and California law.  Plaintiffs
allege the damages would be the value of all chargebacks for which
class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability Shift
on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek against the parties treble
damages, attorney's fees and costs and an injunction against
future violations of governing law.


MDL 2020: Aetna Still Defends Out-of-Network Benefit Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend against the plaintiffs' remaining claims in the
Out-of-Network Benefit Proceedings.

The Company said, "We are named as a defendant in several
purported class actions and individual lawsuits arising out of our
practices related to the payment of claims for services rendered
to our members by health care providers with whom we do not have a
contract ("out-of-network providers").   Among other things, these
lawsuits allege that we paid too little to our health plan members
and/or providers for these services, among other reasons, because
of our use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one
of our competitors ("Ingenix"). Other major health insurers are
the subject of similar litigation or have settled similar
litigation."

"Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical
associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of-
network providers who provided services to our members during the
period from 2001 to the present.  Various plaintiffs who are
members in our health plans seek to represent nationwide classes
of our members who received services from out-of-network providers
during the period from 2001 to the present.  Taken together, these
lawsuits allege that we violated state law, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and
federal antitrust laws, either acting alone or in concert with our
competitors.  The purported classes seek reimbursement of all
unpaid benefits, recalculation and repayment of deductible and
coinsurance amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages,
statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus
interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to disqualify us
from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to
ERISA.  Individual lawsuits that generally contain similar
allegations and seek similar relief have been brought by health
plan members and out-of-network providers.

"The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007.  The
federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL
Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey
District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation,
MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020").   In addition, the MDL Panel has
transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020.  On May 9, 2011,
the New Jersey District Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs
from MDL 2020 without prejudice.  The New Jersey District Court's
action followed a ruling by the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida District Court")
that the physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in
MDL 2020 due to a prior settlement and release.  The United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the
physician plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's
ruling.

"On December 6, 2012, we entered into an agreement to settle MDL
2020. Under the terms of the proposed nationwide settlement, we
would have been released from claims relating to our out-of-
network reimbursement practices from the beginning of the
applicable settlement class period through August 30, 2013. The
settlement agreement did not contain an admission of wrongdoing.
The medical associations were not parties to the settlement
agreement.

"Under the settlement agreement, we would have paid up to $120
million to fund claims submitted by health plan members and health
care providers who were members of the settlement classes. These
payments also would have funded the legal fees of plaintiffs'
counsel and the costs of administering the settlement. In
connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded an
after-tax charge to net income attributable to Aetna of $78
million in the fourth quarter of 2012.

"The settlement agreement provided us the right to terminate the
agreement under certain conditions related to settlement class
members who opted out of the settlement. Based on a report
provided to the parties by the settlement administrator, the
conditions permitting us to terminate the settlement agreement
were satisfied.

"On March 13, 2014, we notified the New Jersey District Court and
plaintiffs' counsel that we were terminating the settlement
agreement. Various legal and factual developments since the date
of the settlement agreement led us to believe terminating the
settlement agreement was in our best interests. As a result of
this termination, we released the reserve established in
connection with the settlement agreement, net of amounts due to
the settlement administrator, which reduced first quarter 2014
other general and administrative expenses by $67.0 million ($103.0
million pretax).

"On June 30, 2015, the New Jersey District Court granted in part
our motion to dismiss the proceeding. The New Jersey District
Court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' RICO and federal
antitrust claims; their ERISA claims that are based on our
disclosures and our purported breach of fiduciary duties; and
certain of their state law claims. The New Jersey District Court
also dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted by several
medical association plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' remaining claims
are for ERISA benefits and breach of contract. We intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against the plaintiffs' remaining
claims."


MERCK: July 8 Fosamax Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
Settlement Approval hearing dates have been set in the Courts of
Saskatchewan, Quebec and Ontario in June and July 2016.  Please
see the below Notice for further information respecting your
rights of participation in the Settlement and the approval
hearings.

If the three Courts approve the Settlement Agreement, a further
Notice will be published with details on how to submit a Claim for
compensation.

Court Authorized Notice of Conditional Approval of
Fosamax/Fosavance Settlement and Certification of Bisphosponate
Class Action for Settlement

Hearings are to be held on dates specified hereinbelow.

Read this notice carefully as it may affect your rights.
TO ALL PERSONS IN CANADA WHO USED BISPHOSPHONATE DRUGS AND THEIR
FAMILIES

Class proceeding lawsuits have been initiated in several provinces
in relation to the ingestion and/or purchase of bisphosphonate
drugs, including Fosamax and Fosavance.
Fosamax is a prescription medication for the treatment and
prevention of osteoporosis.  Fosavance is a prescription
medication for the treatment of osteoporosis.  They are part of a
more general class of drugs known as "bisphosphonates."

This notice is directed to all persons in Canada who were
prescribed, purchased or used any bisphosphonate drug, such as
Fosamax or Fosavance (including their estates), before October 6,
2015 as well as their family members.

The Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan has certified, for
settlement purposes, against the Merck Defendants, the following
class:
        (a) all persons in Canada who were prescribed, purchased
or used any Bisphosphonate, such as Fosamax and/or Fosavance
(including their estates), except the Excluded Persons and members
of the Ontario Settlement Class and the Quebec Settlement Class;
and

        (b) all persons who by reason of his or her relationship
to a member of the class described in paragraph (a) are entitled
to make claims under any Derivative Claim Statute as a result of
the death or personal injury of that class member.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified, for
settlement purposes, the following class:

        (a) all persons in Canada (including their estates) other
than residents of Saskatchewan or Quebec or Excluded Persons, who
were prescribed and ingested Fosamax and/or Fosavance; and

        (b) all persons who by reason of his or her relationship
to a member of the class described in paragraph (a) are entitled
to make claims under any Derivative Claim Statute as a result of
the death or personal injury of that class.

The Quebec Superior Court has certified, for settlement purposes,
a class with the same definition as the Ontario class, for
residents of Quebec.

If the settlement agreement is approved by these three Courts and
not terminated in accordance with its terms, the agreement will
settle all litigation in Canada relating to Fosamax and/or
Fosavance.

The manufacturer and the distributor of Fosamax and Fosavance deny
the plaintiffs' allegations and deny any wrongdoing or liability.
The allegations made by the plaintiffs have not been proven in
court.

Litigation against manufacturers of certain other bisphosphonates
continues in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

OPTING-OUT

Members of the classes described above who want to participate in
the Fosamax/Fosavance settlement are automatically included and
should not file the Opt-Out Notice discussed below.

Individuals who want to exclude themselves from a class described
above must complete, sign and return an Opt-Out Form to the
Administrator at the address below postmarked by June 13, 2016.

Opt-Out Forms are available from the Administrator at 1-866-432-
5534.  No further opportunity to opt-out will be provided.
An individual who opts-out will not be eligible to participate in
the settlement.  Any right to pursue a claim in a separate
proceeding will not be affected.  The defendants have reserved all
of their arguments based on statutes of limitation, prescription
or repose for class members who opt out of the settlement.

No person may opt-out a minor or a mentally incapable individual
without permission of the court after notice to the Children's
Lawyer and/or Public Guardian and Trustee, as applicable.  If a
person who took Fosamax and/or Fosavance opts out, his or her
family members will be deemed to have opted out.  The family
members of any Fosamax and/or Fosavance user cannot opt-out unless
the product user does so as well.  If a class member is deceased,
his or her estate trustee has the right to opt out.

SUMMARY OF FOSAMAX/FOSAVANCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

If you would like a copy of the settlement agreement, it is
available at www.fosamaxclassaction.ca or a copy can be obtained
from contacting Class Counsel as listed below or by contacting the
Administrator.  If the settlement agreement is approved by all
Canadian courts and is not terminated by the parties:
The Defendants, while not admitting liability, will pay a sum of
$6,375,000 (inclusive of the payments to provincial and
territorial governments described hereinbelow, and of up to $2
million towards any awarded class counsel fees and disbursements
and up to $500,000 of administrative expenses).

Claimants or their estates may be eligible to receive settlement
payments if they took Fosamax and/or Fosavance and then
experienced osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ") or an atypical femur
fracture.

The size of payments to eligible claimants who had ONJ or an
atypical femur fracture will be based on the number of approved
claims and other factors such as the nature of the adverse event
alleged.

Spouses and children of eligible claimants may also be eligible to
receive settlement payments.

Provincial and territorial governments will share $650,000 of the
settlement fund, which shall be in full satisfaction of their
purchases of Fosamax and/or Fosavance and of medical or dental
services provided or to be provided to class members.

THE SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING

A motion for approval of the settlement will be heard by the
Ontario Court in London on July 8, 2016 at 10 a.m., by the Quebec
Court in Montreal on June 30, 2016 at 9:30 a.m., and the
Saskatchewan Court in Saskatoon on June 17, 2016 at 10 a.m.  The
Court will determine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable,
and in the best interests of class members.  Class Counsel will
also seek approval of fees, plus disbursements and taxes.
Class members who do not oppose the settlement need not appear at
the hearing or take any other action at this time to indicate
their desire to participate in the settlement.  All class members
who have not opted out have the right to present their arguments
to the court as regards the settlement and the distribution of any
balance remaining by making a written submission postmarked no
later than June 6, 2016 to Class Counsel.  If no written
submission is filed, you may not be entitled to participate,
through oral submissions or otherwise, in the settlement approval
hearing.

The written objection should include the following information:
The individual's name, address, telephone number, fax number and
e-mail address.

A description of the reasons that the individual believes that he
or she is a member of a class described above.

A brief statement of the nature of and reasons for the objection.
Whether he or she intends to appear at the Court hearing in person
or through a lawyer and if through a lawyer, the lawyer's name,
address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address.

IMPORTANT DEADLINES:
JUNE 13, 2016 - Deadline for Class Members to opt out
JUNE 6, 2016 -  Deadline to submit written objection to the
settlement

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
An opt-out form and further information are available at
www.mckenzielake.com or by contacting the Administrator at:.

Fosamax Class Action
Claims Administrator
PO BOX 3355
London, Ontario  N6A 4K3
Tel: 1 (866) 432-5534
www.fosamaxclassaction.ca

If approval is granted by all courts, and the Settlement Agreement
is not terminated, a further notice will be published advising of
the claims deadline.  A detailed instruction package on how to
file a claim will be made available at www.mckenzielake.com or
from the Administrator.

Questions for Class Counsel should be directed by email or
telephone to: fosamax@mckenzielake.com; 1 (844) 672-5666
This notice contains a summary of some of the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.  If there is a conflict between this notice
and the Settlement Agreement, the terms of the Settlement
Agreement shall prevail.

This notice has been authorized by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, the Quebec Superior Court, the Court of Queen's Bench for
Saskatchewan, the Court of Queen's Bench for Alberta and the
British Columbia Supreme Court.


MEREDITH CORP: State Class Action Over Merger Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a state court class
action lasuit related to the Company's merger with Media General
remains pending.

Between September 21, 2015 and October 21, 2015, four purported
shareholders of Meredith filed putative class action lawsuits in
Iowa state and federal court against Meredith, members of the
Meredith board of directors, Montage New Holdco, Inc., a Virginia
corporation, Montage Merger Sub 1, Inc., a Virginia corporation,
Montage Merger Sub 2, Inc., an Iowa corporation, and Media
General. The three state court cases, which were consolidated, are
captioned Agans v. Meredith Corporation, et al., Case No. 05771
EQCE078935, Sneed v. Meredith Corporation, et al., Case No. 05771
EQCE079057, and Martin v. Meredith Corporation, et al., Case No.
05771 CVCV050706 and were all filed in Polk County, Iowa
(collectively, the "State Class Action"). The federal case is
captioned Mundy v. Lacy, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00371 and was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
(the "Federal Class Action").

The complaints in all four cases generally allege that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
plaintiffs and the putative class by failing to properly value
Meredith, failing to take steps to maximize the value of Meredith,
and approving deal protection provisions in the merger agreement.
The complaints generally seek a declaration that the cases should
be maintained as a class action, an injunction enjoining the
transaction, rescission of the merger agreement, the creation of a
constructive trust, an accounting of all damages, and an award of
attorneys' fees, expert fees, and costs.

On January 27, 2016, the Company and Media General terminated
their merger agreement at issue in the Federal Class Action and
State Class Action under which the companies would have combined
to form Meredith Media General. On February 18, 2016, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa granted the
plaintiff's motion to dismiss the Federal Class Action. The State
Class Action is still pending. Meredith believes that the claims
asserted in each of these actions are without merit and intends to
defend each of them vigorously.


MERRILL LYNCH: Securities Fraud Suit to Remain in State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bobelian, writing for Forbes, reports that in a unanimous
8-0 ruling issued on May 16, the Supreme Court permitted a
securities fraud action to remain in state court.  The case is the
latest round in a multi-decade battle fought by corporations
seeking to reduce their legal liabilities by transferring state
actions to federal courts.  Both in Congress and the courts, they
have won many of these battles.  This time, however, the Court
sided with the injured investors.

The ruling in Merrill Lynch v. Manning originated from a sharp
price drop in 2006-07 of the Escala Group (now known as Spectrum
Group International), a network of companies specializing in
stamps and other collectibles.  The plaintiffs in the case accused
Merrill Lynch and other financial institutions of causing the
price to plunge through "naked short sales" of Escala's stock.

Justice Elena Kagan's majority decision didn't rule on the merits
of the case. Instead, it relied on statutory interpretations to
allow the case to proceed in New Jersey's state courts rather than
moving the case to the federal courts, where corporations have
long sought to litigate securities cases and class actions.

For many years, corporations have complained that state courts are
unfairly friendly to plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs did tend to do better
in these forums, leading to a tenfold increase in class actions
filings in state courts from 1988 to 1998.  As a result of this
growth in state cases, the transfer of cases -- particularly class
actions -- to federal courts has long been a goal of the nation's
leading companies.

Their first major legislative success came in 1995 through the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The statute placed
limitations on plaintiffs' lawyers, making it harder to form a
class in securities-related cases.

Urged on by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other corporate
lobbyists, Congress enacted the Class Action Fairness Act ten
years later.  The statute placed barriers in bringing class
actions in state courts, forcing many of these lawsuits to the
federal judiciary.


MIAMI, FL: Property Owners' Citrus Canker Litigation Appeal Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
appeals court Judge Melanie May squeezed out a few puns on May 4
in a witty decision rejecting a property owners' constitutional
challenge and request for sanctions in a long-running case she
dubbed "The Book of Citrus Canker" litigation.

Judge May wrote a unanimous decision with Judges Carole Taylor and
Burton Conner concurring in a class action appeal by residents
seeking compensation from the state for killing thousands of
uninfected trees in a fruitless bid to stop the spread of citrus
canker.

Homeowners argued state agencies owed them compensation under a
constitutional clause that requires the government to provide full
compensation for taking private property. The agencies argued the
owners first needed to seek compensation through a claims bill.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal disagreed but still rejected
the appeal for money damages and attorney fees.  Instead, it found
the owners needed to pursue a writ of mandamus to compel payment.

"In short, the constitutional issue was not ripe," Judge May
wrote.

Robert Gilbert has litigated the case for about 16 years on behalf
of the owners.  He teamed on appeal with Bruce Rogow and Tara
Campion of Bruce S. Rogow P.A. in Fort Lauderdale; Neal Roth of
Grossman Roth in Coral Gables; William Williams of Lytal Reiter
Smith Ivey & Fronrath in West Palm Beach; Joseph Serota --
jserota@wsh-law.com -- and Jamie Alan Cole -- jcole@wsh-law.com
-- of Weiss Serota Helfman Cole Bierman & Popok in Fort
Lauderdale; and Michael Pucillo -- mpucillo@bermandevalerio.com
-- of Berman DeValerio in Palm Beach Gardens.

"She opened the door for us to ultimately be able to collect," Mr.
Rogow said.  "We are pleased with it because it opens the door
finally to the constitutional provision of just compensation being
vindicated."

Wesley Parsons -- wparsons@cspalaw.com -- and Karen Curtis --
kcurtis@cspalaw.com -- of Clarke Silverglate in Miami represented
the state.


MONSANTO: Faces Class Action Over Round Up Herbicide
----------------------------------------------------
Chiranjivi Chakraborty, writing for Economictimes.com, reports
four cancer-stricken Nebraskan patients sued Monsanto over its
popular herbicide.

As per the class action suit, the herbicide is alleged to have
been a major reason for the development of cancer in these
patients, although it is touted to be safe enough to drink by
Monsanto.

A world Health Organisation report last year had termed Glyphosate
-- a major ingredient used in Round Up -- as a potential
carcinogen.


MURRAY GOULBURN: Faces Investor Class Action Over 2015 Float
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that Australia's biggest milk producer Murray Goulburn and its
board is being sued by investors for allegedly misleading
investors ahead of its float last year.

The class action was filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria just
days after it emerged members of the board of the milk producer
were allegedly aware it was not meeting its targets months before
informing the market.

Investor advocate, Mark Elliott -- who recently won a class action
on behalf of investors in Downer EDI -- lodged the claim on behalf
of investor John Webster, who will act as "lead plaintiff" in the
case on behalf of other investors who join the action.

The class action alleges the company and its directors --
including chairman Phil Tracy and former chief executive
Gary Helou -- were aware it "did not have reasonable grounds for
making the misleading PDS representations" at the time it embarked
on its $500 million pre float raising.

It is also alleged the company breached its continuous disclosure
obligations by not telling the market sooner it would not meet its
profit forecasts, including as early as at its October annual
general meeting.

A spokeswoman for Murray Goulburn said the company did not
consider it had any issues with its continuous disclosure regime
or the statements made in its product disclosure statements.
She added the company was limited in what it could say because it
was yet to be served with the claim.

Murray Goulburn's share price plummeted on April 27 after it
slashed its profit forecasts in late April on the back of weakened
demand for its milk powder products in China.

The fallout of Murray Goulburn's profit downgrade was made worse
for Australia's dairy farmers who supply the company.

They were told the farm gate price of milk would be lowered from
$5.60 for every kilogram of milk solids to $4.75 a kilogram after
Murray Goulburn had overestimated the value of the milk.  Adding
to the pain was Murray Goulburn's decision to backdate the lower
milk price for the 2015/2016 and to warn farmers that milk prices
would remain low for another three years to make up for the
"overpayment" they had received.

Murray Goulburn floated a little less than a year ago on the
promise that dismantling the farmers co-operative would produce
better financial results for farmers including a return to a milk
price of $6 a kilogram.

The revised forecasts of a profit of between $39 and $42 million
were well below the profit forecast in the company's product
disclosure statement released ahead of its July 2015 float of over
$85 million.

It all started to come unstuck for Murray Goulburn a few months
ago.  In February, Murray Goulburn lowered its forecast profit to
$63 million on the back of weak dairy commodity prices.

Only weeks ahead of its swingeing late April downgrade, the
company had soothed investors that changing regulations in China
would not have a material impact on Murray Goulburn's business.
Murray Goulburn's shares dived from $2.14 to $1.23, a drop of more
than 40 per cent after announcing the downgrade.  Its shares were
languishing at 95.5c after market close on May 16 next to a float
price of $2.10 last May.

Investors who purchased units in the MG Unit Trust through the May
2015 float of the dairy farmer co-operative are able to
participate in the claim.  Other investors who bought into the
stock between July 2015 and February 29, 2016 -- the day of Murray
Goulburn's first profit revision -- and still held those units at
the start of trading on April 27, can participate in the class
action.


MURRAY GOULBURN: Slater & Gordon Scrutinizes Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bachelard, writing for Illawarra, reports that Rod Newton
joined Murray Goulburn last year because he trusted this giant co-
operative to buy, process and sell the milk produced by his 600
cows at a price that could sustain his family.

Instead, with a suddenness that has shocked the dairy industry
nationwide, the nation's largest farmer co-operative slashed the
price it paid at the farm gate.

Murray Goulburn's chairman pleaded ignorance.  Philip Tracy told
the market as he announced the price crash in April, "the board
was surprised at the quantum of the misses".

But The Sunday Age can now reveal that key internal Murray
Goulburn sales reports had been unequivocal for months: the
company's forecasts of how much product it could sell, and at what
price, were hopelessly optimistic, unrelated to commercial
reality, and were routinely being missed.

The reports showed big losses virtually every week from the start
of the milk year last July.  The reports were emailed to the
company's senior managers.  Anyone watching could see a crash was
coming.

But nobody bothered to tell the farmers.

The price drop means that, for the nine months since July 2015,
Murray Goulburn has been "overpaying" farmers, so the farmers must
pay it back.  Mr. Newton -- a relatively big producer -- now owes
Murray Goulburn more than $400,000. The average debt for a mum-
and-dad farmer is perhaps $120,000.

The company proposes clawing the money back over three years, with
interest.

"Trust," Mr. Newton says, "they haven't got any.  I question what
they stand for.  They're supposed to be a co-op for the farmers.
We're supposed to be shareholders, but they've thrown us under a
bus."

Murray Goulburn is the largest milk producer in Australia, and the
price leader.  As a co-operative, its job is to pay the highest
possible milk price to its farmer owners.  Last July, it agreed to
pay between $5.60 and $6.05 per kilogram (milk prices are measured
by the weight of solids).

It was a good price, and came with the virtual guarantee that it
would not fall for 12 months.  The price encouraged Newton, whose
farm is in Whorouly, near Beechworth, to borrow to buy enough feed
to see him through the drought.  The feed kept his 600 cows
producing milk at a peak rate.  He also used borrowings to replant
pasture to take advantage of the winter season.

Mr. Newton had also borrowed when Murray Goulburn partially
floated on the share market in July 2015, buying 362,000 shares.
The company seemed progressive.  He liked the story that chief
executive Gary Helou was telling about creating more value-added
products out of milk.  After the float, the dividend was pegged to
the high farm-gate price.  Mr. Newton's advisers told him it was a
good investment.

What the farmer did not know was that his trust was built on a
false premise.

His co-operative was being led by a new breed of manager.
Mr. Helou, who did not return calls from The Sunday Age, was not
like the cautious, conservative chiefs of the agricultural co-
operatives of old.

Appointed by the couple of corporate hardheads on the farmer-
dominated Murray Goulburn board, Mr. Helou came in 2011 after a
failed a $600 million deal at the helm of another co-operative,
Ricegrowers Limited.  Mr. Helou wanted to shake up the allegedly
sleepy milk operation, expose it to the rigour of the market --
and to take a multimillion-dollar salary in return.

He spruiked a move away from boring commodities and into "value-
added" products, and urged dairy farmers to produce as much as
they could.  He talked up the promise of the Chinese market,
embarked on a partial sharemarket float which raised $500 million,
and predicted a $7 per kilogram milk price by 2017.

As recently as April 20 this year, Mr. Helou (whose performance
bonus was also tied to a high milk price) told the world that a $6
per kilo milk price was achievable.

He was wrong.

Just a week after he made those comments, Murray Goulburn bowed to
the reality of falling global prices, and set the new price
drastically lower, between $4.75 and $5.

On April 27, Mr. Helou and his chief financial officer Brad Hingle
resigned.  Both, said Tracy, would stay on to "assist our
transition", though a spokeswoman said Mr. Helou had now "left the
business".  The chairman maintains that Mr. Helou did an
"extraordinary" job, and the board was "very comfortable with the
decisions made, with the information we had".

Farmers are not comfortable.  Some are restructuring their
businesses or selling their cattle to abattoirs. Others are
considering quitting altogether.

"Farmers are running a Watch My Neighbour program now," one told
The Sunday Age.  "Some of them will suicide."

What Mr. Newton cannot understand -- no one can -- is how the
management and board of Murray Goulburn got it so wrong for so
long.  How did they miss the rapidly falling global price of milk?

The Sunday Age can now reveal that the senior management knew very
well what was happening in the market.  The information was
contained in written reports called Weekly Trading Briefing Notes,
produced every week for the company's ingredients division since
the opening milk price was set in July 2015.

The division sells cooking ingredients such as butter, cheese, and
milk fat on both the global and domestic markets.  It was one of
the backbones of Murray Goulburn's business, providing about 50
per cent of revenue.

"Farmers are running a Watch My Neighbour program now.  Some of
them will suicide."

Week after week, from July last year, the reports showed that
actual sales had failed to meet the budgeted forecasts.  The
reports show that some weeks, the failures were spectacular.

Between July 28 and August 3 last year, export sales targets fell
$15.5 million short of the target in just a single week.  A couple
of weeks later, it was $17.5 million in the red.

It's not that the salesmen were incompetent.  It's that their
targets, like the milk price, had been plucked out of "thin air",
a company source said.

"For the past two years the budget has been hijacked by upper
management," the source told The Sunday Age.

"These figures would have alarmed anyone into saying, 'What's
happening here?'.  You can't second guess the market, and Gary
[Helou's] statement that we can deliver $6 per kilo irrespective
of what the market is doing is just bullshit."

By May this year, the reports reveal much smaller sales
shortfalls, but only because the company had virtually stopped
offering cooking ingredients to the market.  One weekly report
showed a loss of just $214,000, but on sales of only 224 tonnes, a
fraction of a thousands of tonnes previously offered.

As the milk price went south, Mr. Helou started promising
investors a new savior: to triple sales of "adult milk powder"
into China to 60,000 tonnes.  But sales of this, as with
everything else, fell flat.

"Sales of sachet powders, while still strong, have not continued
to grow at the run-rate we had seen," the company told The Sunday
Age in answer to questions.

By then, farmers were producing milk for the warehouse.  Farmers
like Mr. Newton had borrowed to pay for feed to produce large
amounts of milk.  Murray Goulburn was parking the product in
temporarily leased warehouses: there were 11 new storage
facilities rented around Laverton alone.

Senior management cannot pretend they didn't know.  The email
distribution list on the sales reports show they were distributed
to Hingle, and David Mallinson, the man who has taken over as CEO
since Mr. Helou stood down.  Beyond this, insiders say individuals
went separately to upper management to make their warnings
explicit: Murray Goulburn's business model was unsustainable.
Something had to give.

Despite all this, a spokeswoman insisted that the board only found
out in April.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission began making
inquiries at Murray Goulburn's headquarters, as did the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission, which will investigate Murray
Goulburn for false, misleading and unconscionable conduct.

The documents obtained by The Sunday Age will be of great interest
to both, as well as class action lawyers at Slater and Gordon now
looking carefully at the company's disclosures.

They are asking two questions: how soon did the company know its
repeated statements about high prices were wrong, and was the
story about adult milk powder's explosive growth a knowingly false
attempt to cover up the holes in other parts of the business --
something the company vigorously denies.

The secret of running a milk co-operative is to keep costs low.
It's the only part of the process the co-operative really
controls.

But in Murray Goulburn, they say, spending ran rampant.  In four
years, the Mercedes-Benz-driving Mr. Helou pocketed $10.4 million
in salary and bonuses, and the company sold off and leased back
much of its production capacity.  Staff numbers and head office
expenses exploded as the company rented more than two floors of
prime real estate at Freshwater Place.

Even that was controversial.

Before Mr. Helou was hired, Murray Goulburn management had decided
to move out of the derelict headquarters in Brunswick to a
purpose-built office at Essendon Fields, at Essendon airport.

Andrew Fox, Essendon Fields manager and chief executive of Linfox,
says the former Murray Goulburn management drove a hard bargain
and, at $19.7 million, got a good price for a 10-year lease.  Then
the board hired Mr. Helou.

"He elected not to move into that building," Mr. Fox told The
Sunday Age.  "He liked staying in the premises of [Freshwater
Place], Southbank."

Murray Goulburn sublet the building to the Good Guys but had to
pay them $6.27 million of farmers' money to take up the lease.

A Murray Goulburn spokeswoman said Essendon Fields was "deemed an
inappropriate location because it is poorly serviced by public
transport".

But according to Fox, "I feel sorry for the people he [Helou]
represents.

"Nobody in a private company would take a hit of $6.27 million.
Good Guys should be sending the Murray Goulburn people a bottle of
champagne every year to thank them.  I hope it's Dom Perignon."


NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE: "King" Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Judge Donna M. Ryu granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
case captioned EDD KING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-00313-DMR
(N.D. Cal.).  The defendants' motion to strike was also denied
without prejudice as moot.

A full-text copy of Judge Ryu's May 16, 2016 order is available at
https://is.gd/SCqlKi from Leagle.com.

Qualified California drivers are entitled to purchase "Good Driver
Discount" auto insurance policies.  The plaintiffs, Edd King,
Diedre King, Elmo Sheen, and Sheila Lee, alleged that they are
qualified "Good Drivers."  The plaintiffs alleged that the
defendants National General Insurance Company ("NGIC"), National
General Assurance Company ("NGAC"), Integon National Insurance
Company ("Integon National"), Integon Preferred Insurance Company
("Integon Preferred"), MIC General Insurance Corporation ("MIC"),
Personal Express Insurance Company ("Personal Express"), and
Sequoia Insurance Company ("Sequoia") share common ownership,
management or control, and therefore belong to the same "control
group."  The plaintiffs brought the putative class action alleging
that the defendants failed to cross-offer to the plaintiffs and
putative class members the lowest Good Driver rates available
within the defendants' control group, as required by California
law.

Edd King, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Francis Ram --
mram@rocklawcal.com -- Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP,
Susan S. Brown -- sbrown@rocklawcal.com -- Ram, Olson, Cereghino &
Kopczynski LLP, Karl Olson -- kolson@rocklawcal.com -- Ram, Olson,
Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, William Craig Bashein, Bashein and
Bashein & Jeffrey B. Cereghino -- jbc@rocklawcal.com -- Ram,
Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP.

Diedre King, Plaintiff, represented by John Phillip Hurst, Bashein
and Bashein, Michael Francis Ram, Ram, Olson, Cereghino &
Kopczynski LLP, Susan S. Brown, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski
LLP, William Craig Bashein, Bashein and Bashein & Jeffrey B.
Cereghino, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP.

Elmo Sheen, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Francis Ram, Ram,
Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, Susan S. Brown, Ram, Olson,
Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP & Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Ram, Olson,
Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP.

Sheila Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Francis Ram, Ram,
Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP & Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Ram,
Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP.

National General Insurance Company, National General Assurance
Company, Integon National Insurance Company, Integon Preferred
Insurance Company, MIC General Insurance Corporation, Personal
Express Insurance Company, Sequoia Insurance Company, Defendants,
represented by Mona Z Hanna -- mhanna@mrllp.com -- Michelman and
Robinson, LLP, Todd Harrison Stitt -- tstitt@mrllp.com --
Michelman and Robinson, LLP & Marc Russell Jacobs --
mjacobs@mrllp.com -- Michelman Robinson LLP.


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Loses Motion to Dismiss Concussion Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Heitner, writing for Forbes.com, reports that the National
Hockey League has had its motion to dismiss class action
concussion-related lawsuits filed by former NHL players denied by
U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson.  The ruling should allow
the NHL player plaintiffs to proceed in seeking discovery from the
NHL, which is something the league may want to avoid if there is
damning evidence therein.

"[D]iscovery is necessary to shed light on the nature of
Plaintiffs' claims, when those claims accrued, and which -- if any
-- CBAs might be relevant," reads the court's order rejecting the
motion to dismiss.  "If a full record ultimately reveals that
Plaintiffs' claims accrued while they were subject to a CBA, and
that those claims are substantially dependent on interpretation of
the CBA, then the Court could properly determine that the claims
are preempted by labor law preemption.  In the meantime, however,
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is premature and must be denied,
and, therefore, Defendant's Motion to Stay is denied as moot."


NAVIENT CORPORATION: Defending Class Action by Loan Borrower
------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend a class action lawsuit by an education loan borrower.

On March 18, 2011, an education loan borrower filed a putative
class action complaint against SLM Corporation as it existed prior
to the Spin-Off ("Old SLM") in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. The complaint was captioned Tina
M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et. al. The plaintiff brought the
complaint on behalf of a putative class consisting of other
similarly situated California borrowers. The complaint alleged,
among other things, that Old SLM's practice of charging late fees
that were proportional to the amount of missed payments
constituted liquidated damages in violation of California law and
that Old SLM engaged in unfair business practices by charging
daily interest on private educational loans. Following additional
amendments to the complaint, which added usury claims under
California state law and two additional defendants (Sallie Mae,
Inc., now known as Navient Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"), and SLM PC
Student Loan Trust 2004-A), plaintiff further amended her
complaint to provide for restitution of late charges and interest
paid by members of the putative class, injunctive relief,
cancellation of all future interest payments, treble damages as
permitted by law, as well as costs and attorneys' fees, among
other relief. Named defendants in the case are subsidiaries of
Navient and as such any liability arising from the Ubaldi
litigation will remain the sole responsibility of Navient
Corporation.

In December 2014, the court granted plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification with regard to claims concerning late fees, but
denied the motion as to the alleged usury claims. In March 2015,
the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to further amend the
complaint. The case is still pending. It is not possible at this
time to estimate a range of potential exposure, if any, for
amounts that may be payable in connection therewith.


NAVIENT CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss Blyden Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss the Blyden complaint is pending.

On November 26, 2014, Marlene Blyden filed a putative class action
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against Navient Corporation, Navient, LLC, Navient
Solutions, Inc., Navient Credit Finance Corporation, Navient
Investment Corporation, SLM Corporation, The Bank of New York, and
The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. ("BNY Mellon").
The amended complaint, captioned Marlene Blyden v. Navient
Corporation et. al., alleges that plaintiff and members of the
purported class were charged and/or paid interest at a rate above
that permitted under California law. Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint dropped SLM Corporation as a defendant, added various
securitization trusts as defendants, and added claims for
conversion and for money received.

In July 2015, the Court granted Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint but permitted Plaintiff to make certain
amendments to the complaint. Plaintiff filed a Third Amended
Complaint in August 2015 which removed all of the Defendants
except the SLM PC Student Loan 2003-B Trust, BNY Mellon (in its
capacity as a trustee), and Navient Solutions, Inc. The remaining
defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint
which was granted on February 16, 2016. While the court granted
leave for Plaintiff to file a further amended complaint, Plaintiff
instead filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on April 5,
2016, appealing the District Court's decision to dismiss the Third
Amended Complaint.

Allegations similar to those asserted in the Ubaldi and Blyden
cases are also raised in a putative class action complaint
captioned Jamie Beechum, et al. v. Navient Solutions, Inc. filed
on October 21, 2015, and deemed served as of February 16, 2016.

On March 30, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. That motion is pending. It is not possible at this time
to estimate a range of potential exposure, if any, for amounts
that may be payable in connection with either the Blyden or
Beechum lawsuits.


NAVIENT CORPORATION: Motions to Appoint Lead Counsel Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that various plaintiffs
have filed Motions to Appoint Lead Counsel.

During the first quarter, Navient Corporation, certain Navient
officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain Navient
securities offerings have been sued in several putative securities
class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in
Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt. These cases, which were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware,
are: Menold v. Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February 11,
2016); Jagrelius v. Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February
16, 2016); and Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago v.
Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February 26, 2016).

On April 11, 2016, various plaintiffs filed Motions to Appoint
Lead Counsel in the lawsuits.

"We expect the pending securities class actions to be
consolidated, and a scheduling order to be issued once the Court
has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The Navient
defendants intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in
these lawsuits.

"At this stage in the proceedings, we are unable to anticipate the
timing of resolution or the ultimate impact, if any, that the
legal proceedings may have on the consolidation financial
position, liquidity, results of operations or cash-flows of
Navient Corporation and its affiliates."


NISSAN KOREA: Class Action Mulled Over Fabricated Emissions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yonhap reports that a South Korean lawyer said on May 17 that he
is seeking to file a class-action lawsuit against Nissan Korea,
the local unit of the Japanese carmaker, over its alleged
fabrication of emissions results.

Jason Ha said he is seeking to collect people who own the Qashqai
model for the suit.  He said it could take some time before he
will file the lawsuit, though he did not provide any specific time
frame.

He said the proposed suit would call for Nissan Korea to refund
the cost of cars to South Korean consumers and compensate them.

The move came a day after South Korea announced a plan to order a
recall of hundreds of Nissan vehicles sold in South Korea over
alleged fabricated emissions results.

The Ministry of Environment said the Qashqai model of the Japanese
automaker was found to have faked its emissions results by using a
so-called defeat device.

A total of 814 cars were sold here from November.

The ministry said it is planning to levy 330 million won
($280,000) in fines on Nissan Korea and suspend the sales of the
compact crossover.

The environment ministry said it will also file a complaint
against Takehiko Kikuchi, the head of Nissan Korea with the Seoul
Central District Prosecutors' Office.

Still, Nissan Korea has flatly denied the allegations, saying it
has never and does not use illegal defeat or cheat devices in any
of the cars that it makes.

South Korea has launched a nationwide probe into 20 models of
diesel cars sold in South Korea sparked by the German carmaker
Volkswagen's emissions scandal last year.

Volkswagen was found to have falsified emissions results from some
of its diesel models to meet tight regulations in the United
States.  Massive recall plans were announced in major global
markets.


NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY: Court Rules for NTTA in "Reyes" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MIRNA REYES, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. NORTH
TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY (NTTA), Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:10-
CV-0868-G (N.D. Tex.), Judge A. Joe Fish granted the defendant's
motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment and declaratory relief.

A full-text copy of Judge Fish's May 16, 2016 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/5NMRis from Leagle.com.

In 2010, the plaintiffs, through their class representatives,
including named plaintiff Mirna Reyes, filed suit asserting
several claims against the defendant North Texas Tollway Authority
("NTTA").  After roughly six years of litigation, all of the
plaintiffs' remaining claims against NTTA arise from their
complaint that NTTA charged excessive administrative fees to users
of NTTA's toll roads who failed or refused to pay their tolls.

Mirna Reyes, Emmanuel Lewis, Plaintiffs, represented by Jeremy R
Wilson, Wilson Law & Joe Kendall, Kendall Law Group LLP.

Jennifer Bunch, Plaintiff, represented by Joe Kendall --
jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com -- Kendall Law Group LLP, Jamie Jean
McKey -- jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com -- Kendall Law Group LLP, Jody
Lynn Rudman -- jrudman@kendalllawgroup.com -- Kendall Law Group
LLP & Matthew Grant Rittmayer, Kendall Law Group LLP.

Deborah Gilbert, Plaintiff, represented by Walt D Roper, The Roper
Firm PC & Joe Kendall, Kendall Law Group LLP.

North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA), Defendant, represented by
Paul Edward Coggins -- pcoggins@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP,
Jeffrey B Mead -- jmead@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Robert T
Mowrey -- rmowrey@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Taylor F
Brinkman -- tbrinkman@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Thomas G
Yoxall -- tyoxall@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP & W Scott
Hastings -- shastings@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP.

ADR Provider, Mediator, represented by W Craig Stokley --
cstokley@palterlaw.com -- Palter Stokley Sims Wright PLLC.


NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Unconstitutional Tax Exemption
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ares Dalianis, Esq. -- agd@franczek.com -- and Scott R. Metcalf,
Esq. -- srm@franczek.com -- of Franczek Radelet P.C., in an
article for JDSupra Business Advisor, report that earlier this
month a limited partnership filed a class action lawsuit naming
Northshore University Health System and all other hospitals in the
State currently exempt from property taxes as potential class
members, along with the Cook County Clerk and Treasurer.  The
lawsuit seeks payment from each of the hospitals in the amount of
taxes they would have paid had the hospitals not received an
exemption from taxation.  The suit follows a ruling from the 4th
District Appellate Court finding unconstitutional Section 15-86 of
the Property Tax Code.

This suit, filed by Thornmeadow Partners L.P., contends that it
and all other taxpayers in Cook County and the State of Illinois,
have overpaid their property taxes to compensate for the taxes
Illinois hospitals have not paid due to exemptions under Section
15-86.  The suit seeks repayment of those "unpaid" taxes from 2014
to the date a judgment is entered, which could be years from now.

As we have recently reported, an Illinois Appellate Court struck
down as unconstitutional Section 15-86 of the Property Tax Code,
which created a procedure for granting an exemption to a hospital
if the total value of the hospital's charitable services exceeded
the hospital's estimated property tax liability.  A petition for
leave to appeal that decision is now pending with the Illinois
Supreme Court.  If the petition is denied, the Appellate Court
decision striking down the exemption will stand.  If the petition
is granted, the Illinois Supreme Court will consider the
constitutionality of Section 15-86.

The lawsuit filed on May 5th is arguing for payment should the
Carle Foundation decision be upheld by the Supreme Court and if
Illinois hospitals are required to pay the taxes they were
exempted from paying because of Section 15-86.  Recovery appears
to us to be highly conditional on these two events occurring.  In
addition to the lawsuit, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification asking the Court to establish a plaintiff class of
"all other real estate taxpayers in the State of Illinois."  Class
action litigation tends to take years to reach resolution and this
filing seems unlikely to be an exception to that general rule.

This latest development adds a new wrinkle to what has been, to
date, litigation primarily involving hospitals and the Illinois
Department of Revenue.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Adelson Has Until May 31 to Amend Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WENDY ADELSON, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 07-13142 (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Terence G. Berg granted the plaintiff until May 31, 2016 to
file a second amended complaint, stating that failure to meet this
deadline will cause the complaint to be dismissed with prejudice.

The case is a pro se mortgage foreclosure and quiet title action
that has been pending since 2007.  On January 27, 2016, at the
parties' request, the Court granted Plaintiff Wendy Adelson's
request for a 10-day extension to file an amended complaint during
a telephonic status conference.  Adelson filed her first amended
complaint on February 23, 2016.

The defendants have filed motions for a more definitive statement
and to strike portions of the amended complaint.  Defendant Scott
W. Anderson has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, and Adelson has moved both for an extension of time
to respond to Anderson's jurisdictional motion and for leave to
exceed the page-limit.

Judge Berg granted the defendants' motion for a more definitive
statement and motion to strike.  To address the deficiencies in
the first amended complaint raised by the defendants' motions,
Judge Berg ordered Adelson to file a second amended complaint
within 14 days of the date of the order.  No extension will be
granted.  Because Adelson is being given the opportunity to plead
sufficient facts in a second amended complaint that may address
the personal jurisdiction questions raised in Anderson's motion to
dismiss, Judge Berg denied that motion without prejudice.  The
case may be refiled if Anderson believes the second amended
complaint also fails to allege personal jurisdiction over him.  In
light of these rulings, Judge Berg also denied as moot Adelson's
motion for an extension of time to respond to Anderson's motion
and for leave to exceed the page-limit.

A full-text copy of Judge Berg's May 17, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/RdBa6n from Leagle.com.

Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, HSBC Bank
USA, NA, Ace Securities Corporation, Home Equity Loan Trust 2007-
HE1, MERSCORP INC, Scott W Anderson, ELECTRONIC MORTGAGE
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, Mortgage Electronic Registration System,
Defendants, represented by Nasseem S. Ramin -- nramin@dykema.com
-- Dykema Gossett & Thomas M. Schehr -- tschehr@dykema.com --
Dykema Gossett.


OIL STATES INT'L: Evaluating Settlements for Remaining' Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oil States International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is
evaluating potential settlements for remaining individual
plaintiffs' claims.

During 2014 and early 2015, a number of lawsuits were filed by
current and former employees, in Federal Court against the Company
and or one of its subsidiaries, alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The plaintiffs seek damages and
penalties for the Company's alleged failure to: properly classify
its field service employees as "non-exempt" under the FLSA; and
pay them on an hourly basis (including overtime). The plaintiffs
are seeking recovery on their own behalf as well as on behalf of a
class of similarly situated employees. Settlement of the class
action against the Company was approved and a judgment was entered
November 19, 2015. The Company has settled the vast majority of
these claims and is evaluating potential settlements for the
remaining individual plaintiffs' claims which are not expected to
be significant.


OXY RECKITT: Aware of Dangers of Humidifier Sterilizer, Data Show
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Minyoung, writing for Arirang News, reports that a new
development in the Oxy Reckitt Benckiser case further challenges
the company's claim that it was completely unware of the potential
dangers of its toxic humidifier sterilizers before putting them on
the market.

According to data secured by the Fair Trade Commission in 2012,
Oxy started getting safety data sheets on the toxic chemical PHMG
starting in 2000, when it first started using the substance,
showing that people should NOT inhale it.

Officials say that this indicates Oxy knowingly used the deadly
chemical in their sterilizers.

PHMB is a toxic industrial chemical known to cause fatal
respiratory conditions that was used as a component for its
humidifier sterilizer products.

Data sheets contain information on chemicals, mostly for the safe
use and potential hazards associated with them, and the data is
supposed to be made available when the chemical in question is in
use.

In the course of its investigation, which started May 11th, the
prosecution discovered that Oxy destroyed all of the data sheets
related to PHMG from 2001 to 2011, just before prosecutors began
storming Oxy Korea's offices starting at the end of April.

Apart from Oxy's alleged misdeeds, however, some say the
prosecution is also responsible for its inaction, as it has waited
four years to investigate the FTC's allegations from 2012 that
manufacturers including Oxy were mislabeling their products as
safe to use.

In response, the Prosecutors' Office says it couldn't have begun
its investigation any earlier, as an official statement outlining
the hazards of the sterilizers was only released in August 2015.

Meanwhile, over 4-hundred-30 people claiming to have been harmed
by the humidifier sterilizers announced their plan on May 16 to
file a class action suit for damages against 19 companies related
to the scandal and the government.


OXY USA: Court Enters Protective Order for "Whisenant" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TONY R. WHISENANT, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OXY USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:15-cv-01342-EFM (D. Kan.), Judge James P.
O'Hara granted the parties' joint request for entry of a proposed
protective order to limit the disclosure, dissemination, and use
of certain identified categories of confidential information
produced during the course of discovery.

Judge O'Hara held that the fact that the case is a putative class
action also necessitates the entry of the proposed protective
order, as discovery may involve the production and disclosure of
information for putative class members that discloses their
personal financial information, such as royalty payment
information.

A full-text copy of Judge O'Hara's May 16, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/xa1T5z from Leagle.com.

Tony R. Whisenant, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara C. Frankland
-- brankland@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA & Rex A. Sharp --
rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA.

OXY USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Guy S. Lipe --
glipe@velaw.com -- Vinson & Elkins LLP, pro hac vice, James L.
Leader, Jr., Vinson & Elkins LLP, pro hac vice, Mark C. Rodriguez
-- mrodriguez@velaw.com -- Vinson & Elkins LLP, pro hac vice &
Mikel L. Stout, Foulston Siefkin LLP.


PACIFIC CYCLE: Recalls Infant Bicycle Helmets Due to Choking Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pacific Cycle Inc., of Madison, Wis., announced a voluntary recall
of about 129,000 Infant bicycle helmets with magnetic no-pinch
buckle chin straps. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The magnetic buckle on the helmet's chin strap contains small
plastic covers and magnets that can come loose, posing a risk of
choking and magnet ingestion to young children.

This recall involves infant bicycle helmets with magnetic no-pinch
chin strap buckles. The helmets are made for infants ranging from
one to three years old. The helmet and its straps come in various
colors and design patterns. The buckles have small plastic covers
and enclosed magnets. "SCHWINN" is printed on the front of the
helmets. Only helmets with the magnetic no-pinch chin strap
buckles are affected by this recall.

Pacific Cycle has received three reports of the plastic cover
coming loose. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Target stores and online at www.target.com from January 2014
through April 2016 for between $18 and $25.

Consumers should immediately take the helmets away from children
and contact Pacific Cycle for instructions on how to receive a
free replacement helmet.


PEP BOYS: Court Narrows Claims in "Lee" Suit Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ANDREW LEE, Plaintiff, v. THE PEP BOYS-MANNY
MOE & JACK OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants, Case No.
12-cv-05064-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted
in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted in
part the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.

The action arose out of the attempted collection of debt incurred
by Andrew Lee as a result of his alleged misuse of his employee
discount and for changing the oil on his car while at work at The
Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California.  Lee alleged that the
settlement demand letter that Palmer Reifler & Associates and
Patricia Hastings sent to him violated various provisions of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the California
Unfair Competition Law (UCL).  The defendants moved for summary
judgment and Lee cross-moved for partial summary judgment.

Judge Corley held that as for the FDCPA claim, "Defendants are
entitled to partial summary judgment that the oil change and Ms.
Bacca transaction did not create FDCPA debts.  But there remains a
genuine dispute over whether Defendants sought to collect on an
FDCPA debt based on Plaintiff's use of the employee discount for
his mother.  Plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment
that, if the FDCPA were to apply, then the language of the letters
would violate the first three FDCPA subdivisions alleged, but the
Court denies summary judgment on whether the letters violate
Section 1692f(1) by demanding attorneys' fees."

As for the UCL claim, Judge Corley also held that the defendants
are entitled to summary judgment on Lee's UCL claim for
restitution.  However, the judge declined to grant summary
judgment on the claim for injunctive relief.

A full-text copy of Judge Corley's May 16, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/sCmqa6 from Leagle.com.

Andrew Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Larry W Lee, Diversity Law
Group, P.C., Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang, Diversity Law Group, P.C.,
Dennis Sangwon Hyun, Hyun Legal & Nicholas Rosenthal, Diversity
Law Group.

Keshaila Chang, Intervenor Pla, represented by Larry W Lee,
Diversity Law Group, P.C..

The Pep Boys-Manny Moe & Jack of California, Palmer, Reifler &
Associates, Patricia L Hastings, Defendants, represented by Dennis
Justin Kelly -- djk@dillinghammurphy.com -- Dillingham & Murphy,
LLP & John Norman Dahlberg -- jnd@dillinghammurphy.com --
Dillingham & Murphy.


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Court Granted Motion for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.-Petrobras said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28,
2016, for the for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
certifying a Securities Act Class, represented by Employees'
Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, and North Carolina
Department of State Treasurer, and an Exchange Act Class
represented by Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited ("USS").

The Company said, "Between December 8, 2014 and January 7, 2015,
five putative securities class action complaints were filed
against us in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  These actions were consolidated on February
17, 2015 (the "Consolidated Securities Class Action"). The Court
appointed a lead plaintiff, Universities Superannuation Scheme
Limited ("USS"), on March 4, 2015. USS filed a consolidated
amended complaint ("CAC") on March 27, 2015 that purported to be
on behalf of investors who: (i) purchased or otherwise acquired
Petrobras securities traded on the NYSE or pursuant to other
transactions in the U.S. during the period January 22, 2010 and
March 19, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged
thereby; (ii) purchased or otherwise acquired the 2012 Notes
pursuant to the 2009 Registration Statement, or the 2013 Notes or
2014 Notes pursuant to the 2012 Registration Statement during the
Class Period, and were damaged thereby; and (iii) purchased or
otherwise acquired Petrobras securities on the Brazilian stock
exchange during the Class Period, who also purchased or otherwise
acquired Petrobras securities traded on the NYSE or pursuant to
other transactions in the U.S. during the same period."

"The CAC alleged, among other things, that in our press releases,
filings with the SEC and other communications, we made materially
false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the value
of our assets, the amounts of our expenses and net income, the
effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting,
and our anti-corruption policies, due to alleged corruption
purportedly in connection with certain contracts, which allegedly
artificially inflated the market value of our securities.

"On April 17, 2015, Petrobras, PGF and underwriters of notes
issued by PGF (the "Underwriter Defendants") filed a motion to
dismiss the CAC.

"On July 9, 2015, the judge presiding over the Consolidated
Securities Class Action ruled on the motion to dismiss, partially
granting our motion. Among other decisions, the judge dismissed
claims relating to certain debt securities issued in 2012 under
the Securities Act of 1933, as time barred by the Securities Act's
statute of repose and ruled claims relating to securities
purchased on the Brazilian stock exchange must be arbitrated, as
established in our bylaws. The judge rejected other arguments
presented in the motion to dismiss the CAC and, as a result, the
Consolidated Securities Class Action continued with respect to
other claims.

"As allowed by the judge, a second consolidated amended complaint
was filed on July 16, 2015, a third consolidated amended complaint
was filed on September 1, 2015, which, among other things,
extended the Class Period to end on July 28, 2015 and added
Petrobras America, Inc. as a defendant, and a fourth consolidated
amended complaint ("FAC") was filed on November 30, 2015. The FAC,
brought by lead plaintiff and three other plaintiffs -- Union
Asset Management Holding AG ("Union"), Employees' Retirement
System of the State of Hawaii, or Hawaii, and North Carolina
Department of State Treasurer, or North Carolina (collectively,
"class plaintiffs") -- brings those claims alleged in the CAC that
were not dismissed or were allowed to be re-pleaded under the
judge's July 9, 2015 ruling.

"On December 7, 2015,  Petrobras, PGF, Petrobras America, Inc. and
the Underwriter Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC.

"On December 20, 2015, the judge ruled on the motion to dismiss
the FAC, partially granting the motion. Among other decisions, the
judge dismissed the claims of USS and Union based on their
purchases of notes issued by PGF for failure to plead that they
purchased the notes in U.S. transactions. The judge also dismissed
claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for certain purchases for
which class plaintiffs had failed to plead the element of
reliance. The judge rejected other arguments presented in the
motion to dismiss the FAC and, as a result, the Consolidated
Securities Class Action will continue with respect to the
remaining claims.

"On October 15, 2015, class plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in the Consolidated Securities Class Action, and on
November 6, 2015, Petrobras, PGF, Petrobras America, Inc. and the
Underwriter Defendants opposed the motion. On February 2, 2016,
the judge granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
certifying a Securities Act Class, represented by Hawaii and North
Carolina, and an Exchange Act Class represented by USS.

"In addition to the Consolidated Securities Class Action, to date,
29 lawsuits have been filed by individual investors before the
same judge in the SDNY (two of which have been stayed), and one
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, consisting of allegations similar to
those in the Consolidated Securities Class Action. On August 21,
2015, Petrobras, PGF and underwriters of notes issued by PGF filed
a motion to dismiss certain of the individual lawsuits, and on
October 15, 2015, the judge ruled on the motion to dismiss,
partially granting the motion. Among other decisions, the judge
dismissed several Exchange Act, Securities Act and state law
claims as barred by the relevant statutes of repose. The judge
denied other portions of the motion to dismiss and, as a result,
these actions will continue with respect to other claims brought
by these class plaintiffs.

"On October 31, 2015, the judge ordered that the individual
lawsuits and the Consolidated Securities Class Action shall be
tried together in a single trial that will not exceed a total of
eight weeks. On November 5, 2015, the judge ordered that the trial
shall begin on September 19, 2016, and on November 18, 2015, the
judge ordered that any individual action filed after December 31,
2015 will be stayed in all respects until after the completion of
the scheduled trial.

"These actions are in their early stages and involve highly
complex issues that are subject to substantial uncertainties and
depend on a number of factors such as the novelty of the legal
theories, the information produced in discovery, the timing of
court decisions, discovery from adverse parties or third parties,
rulings by the court on key issues, analysis by retained experts,
and the possibility that the parties negotiate in good faith
toward a resolution."


PETROCHINA COMPANY: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
PetroChina Company Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a Panel of the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has issued a Summary Order and
Judgment affirming the judgment of the District Court, thus
supporting the dismissal by the District Court of the plaintiff's
complaint.

The Company said, "On September 3 and 6, 2013, two respective
class action complaints were filed with the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court")
against us and certain of our former and current directors and
senior management for alleged violations of the securities laws of
the United States. These complaints were filed in light of PRC
authorities' investigation into certain of our former directors
and senior management.

"On April 4, 2014, the District Court entered an order to
consolidate the related actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel.

"On June 6, 2014, the lead plaintiff submitted a revised complaint
whereby our current directors and senior management were removed
from the complaint and the individual defendants only include the
former directors and senior management. The relevant charges set
out in the complaint were basically the same as those in the
previous complaint.

"On August 5, 2014, in view of the revised complaint, we filed a
motion to dismiss.

"On November 24, 2014, upon approval by the court, the U.S.
plaintiff further submitted a revised complaint.

"In view of the complaint, we filed another motion to dismiss on
February 13, 2015.

"On April 10, 2015, the District Court held a pre-motion
conference to discuss the plaintiff's request for submission of
supplemental pleadings, and the District Court dismissed the
plaintiff's request.

"On May 22, 2015, we filed a Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of
Motion with the District Court in response to the plaintiff's
filing of a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion.

"On August 3, 2015, the District Court issued an Opinion and
Order, granting our motion to dismiss, and directing termination
of the motion and the closing of the case.

"On August 10, 2015, pursuant to the U.S. federal court procedure
rules, the plaintiff filed notice of appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit")
from the judgment entered by the Court.

"On November 19, 2015, we filed Opposition Brief in response to
the plaintiffs' Appeal Brief.  On December 3, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed a Reply Memorandum of Law with the Second Circuit.

"On March 16, 2016, an oral examination session was conducted at
the Second Circuit.  On March 21, 2016, the Panel of the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a Summary Order and Judgment
affirming the judgment of the District Court, thus supporting the
dismissal by the District Court of the plaintiff's complaint. The
plaintiff has right within 90 days from the date of the said court
order to request for certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United
States with regard to the decision by the Second Circuit."


PFIZER INC: Finances of Prempro Case Plaintiff's Attorney Probed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that plaintiffs attorney Thomas Girardi has been ordered to turn
over documents detailing his personal net worth and the finances
of his Los Angeles law firm, Girardi Keese, as part of a lawsuit
alleging he misappropriated more than $12.5 million from a
settlement over hormone replacement therapy drug Prempro.

The plaintiffs are 28 of 138 Girardi clients who settled claims in
2011 that they got breast cancer after taking Prempro.  In their
2014 lawsuit, the women allege Mr. Girardi never disclosed to them
the terms of the $17 million settlement or provided accounting
records, in violation of California laws.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Frederick Mumm in Los Angeles concluded that
the accounts of Mr. Girardi and his firm "may demonstrate the
alleged misappropriation and breaches of duty" from 2011 to 2014.
Judge Mumm issued his order on April 1.  He also found that the
documents submitted so far by the firm and Mr. Girardi were
"insufficient to demonstrate defendants' overall net
worth/financial condition."

Mr. Girardi deferred a request for comment to James O'Callahan, a
partner at Girardi Keese.  In a statement to The National Law
Journal, Mr. O'Callahan called the discovery request for financial
information "the price you pay for success" that is "part and
parcel of a lawsuit against the firm."

The ruling represents an ironic twist for Mr. Girardi, whose
lifestyle has been in the spotlight since his wife Erika Jayne
joined the cast of the Bravo reality TV show "The Real Housewives
of Beverly Hills."

Lawyers suing him on behalf of the 28 former clients argued that
Mr. Girardi's privacy concerns shouldn't protect his financial
records because he "voluntarily made his wealth a matter of public
interest" when he agreed to appear on the show.  One lawyer suing
Mr. Girardi noted that his private jets and a $189,000 diamond
ring he bought for his wife were featured in the show.

Mr. Girardi, 76, is most famous for obtaining a $333 million
settlement in 1996 with Pacific Gas & Electric in the groundwater
contamination case made famous by the film "Erin Brockovich."
Altogether, his firm has recovered more than $10 billion in
verdicts and settlements.

His recent pursuits have included cases over prescription drugs
Vioxx and Avandia.  In another matter, he won an $18 million
verdict in 2014 for the parents of a man who was brain damaged
after being beaten in the Los Angeles Dodgers parking lot.

An alumnus of Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, Mr. Girardi has a
philanthropic side: This year, he donated his personal collection
of 96 courtroom drawings from high-profile trials over the past
four decades to the Library of Congress.

The judge's ruling to grant access to the personal finances of a
lawyer and law firm is rare, said Gerald Klein of Klein & Wilson
in Newport Beach, California, whose work focuses on legal
malpractice cases.

"Most of the time, courts are very protective of lawyers," said
Mr. Klein, who isn't involved in the Girardi litigation.  "To get
net-worth discovery you have to show that there's a reasonable
probability that you will prevail in a judgment that will entitle
you to punitive damages."

The order to turn over net-worth and personal financial
information is the latest setback in the case for lawyer and law
firm is rare, said Gerald Klein of Klein & Wilson Girardi, who
unsuccessfully attempted to arbitrate the matter and dismiss the
claims.

Judge Mumm, overseeing discovery matters, has allowed the
plaintiffs to subpoena Girardi Keese's bank and a retired judge
who was tasked with allocating settlement funds.

Last year, Judge Mumm issued monetary sanctions against
Mr. Girardi over delays in producing documents relating to the
client trust account that held the Prempro settlement funds.  At a
Dec. 17 hearing before U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald,
Phillip Baker -- pbaker@bknlawyers.com -- of Baker, Keener &
Nahra, who began representing Mr. Girardi a year ago in the case,
insisted there were no other documents.

If that were true, Judge Fitzgerald replied, "then it is difficult
for me to see why I should not refer the matter to the standing
committee of discipline on this court and to the State Bar court."


PHIL&TEDS: Recalls Dash Strollers Due to Pinch Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
phil&teds, of Fort Collins, Colo., announced a voluntary recall of
about 630 phil&teds dash strollers in the U.S. (in addition, 240
were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The hinge used to fold the dash v5 stroller can become damaged
while opening and closing the stroller, posing a pinch hazard to
the consumer.

This recall involves phil&teds dash v5 buggy-style strollers with
serial numbers ranging between PTRV 0715/0746 and PTRV 0815/2525.
The serial number is printed on the lower left rear cradle, next
to the identification label. Colors and models included in the
recall are:

  Color       EAN/UPC Code         Model
  -----       ------------         -----
  Black       9 420015754 155      DASH_V5_5
  Grey Marl   9 420015754 179      DASH_V5_7
  Blue Marl   9 420015754 186      DASH_V5_3
  Red         9 420015754 162      DASH_V5_11

The firm has received one report of the stroller hinge joint
separating. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/Kh5LCG

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Baby
Street, Dainty Baby, Mega Babies and other baby product and
specialty stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com, diapers.com
and philandteds.com from August 2015 through April 2016 for about
$550.

Consumers should immediately stop using the dash v5 stroller and
contact phil&teds to have the stroller frame replaced free of
charge.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Recalls Fully Cooked Chicken Products
------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corp., a Waco, Texas establishment, is recalling
an additional 376,380 pounds of fully cooked chicken products that
may have been contaminated with extraneous materials, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The scope of this recall expansion now includes a variety of
chicken products that may be contaminated with extraneous metal
materials. The chicken products were produced on 07/11/2015,
09/15/2015, and 09/16/2015. This release is being reissued as the
third expansion of the April 7, 2016, recall to include additional
products and production dates. Product from the previous recalls
are listed later in this release however the following products
only are subject to the current third expansion of the previous
recall:

  --- 25-lb boxes containing 3 - 8.33-lb clear bags in a box of
      "Pierce Chicken/ Wing Zings Fully Cooked Hot and Spicy
      Breaded Chicken Wings 1st and 2nd Sections" with use
      by/sell by date of 09/15/2016 and a packaging date of
      09/15/2015;
  --- 15-lb boxes containing 2 - 7.5 clear bags in a box of
      "Pierce Chicken/ Wing Zings Fully Cooked Hot and Spicy
      Breaded Chicken Wings" with a use by/sell by date of
      07/11/2016 and a packaging date of 07/11/2015;
  --- 15-lb boxes containing 2 - 7.5-lb clear bags in a box of
      "Pierce Chicken/ Wing Zings Fully Cooked Hot And Spicy
      Breaded Chicken Wings" with a use by/sell by date of
      09/16/2016 and a packaging date of 9/16/2015;
  --- 10-lb boxes containing 2 - 5-lb clear bags in a box of
     "Sweet Georgia Brand Fully Cooked Hot and Spicy Breaded
      Chicken Wings" with a use by/sell by date of 07/11/2016 and
      a packaging date of 07/11/2015;
  --- 10-lb boxes containing 2 - 5-lb clear bags in a box of
      "Sweet Georgia Brand Fully Cooked Hot and Spicy Breaded
      Chicken Wings 1st and 2nd Sections" with a use by/sell by
      date of 09/15/2016 and a packaging date of 09/15/2015;
  --- 25-lb boxes containing 3 - 8.33-lb clear bags in a box of
      "Pierce Chicken/ Wing Zings Fully Cooked Hot and Spicy
      Chicken Wings 1st and 2nd Sections" with use by/sell by
      date of 09/15/2016 and a packaging date of 09/15/2015.\

Additional information on production dates and case codes can be
found here.

Details of the second expansion of the recall: On May 6, 2016 -
Pilgrim's Pride Corp., recalled approximately 608,764 pounds of
fully cooked chicken products that may have been contaminated with
extraneous materials. Those chicken products were produced on
various dates between May 6, 2015, and Dec. 3, 2015. The following
products are subject to recall:

  --- 42.9-lb boxes containing 6 - 5-lb clear bags of chicken and
      6 - 2.15-lb sauce packets of "Green Dragon Fully Cooked
      Breaded Diced Chicken Leg Meat With a General Tso's Sauce"
      with use by/sell by dates of 5/6/2016, 7/10/2016, and
      8/6/2016 and packaging dates of 5/6/2015, 7/10/2015, and
      8/6/2015.
  --- 10-lb boxes containing 2 - 5-lb clear bags of "Sweet
      Georgia Brand Fully Cooked Breaded Diced Chicken Meat" with
      a use by/sell by date of 5/6/2016 and a packaging date of
      5/6/2015.
  --- 42.9-lb boxes containing 6 - 5-lb clear bags of chicken and
      6 - 2.15-lb sauce packets of "Green Dragon Fully Cooked
      Breaded Diced Chicken Leg Meat With a Sweet Sriracha Glaze"
      with use by/sell by dates of 5/6/2016 and 8/6/2016 and
      packaging dates of 5/6/2015 and 8/6/2015.
  --- 42.9-lb boxes containing 6 - 7.15-lb clear bags of "Fully
      Cooked Seasoned Chicken Leg Meat Strips With Teriyaki
      Sauce" with use by/sell by dates of 12/3/2016 and 8/10/2016
      and packaging dates of 12/3/2015 and 8/10/2015.
  --- 42.9-lb boxes containing 6 - 5-lb clear bags of chicken and
      6 - 2.15-lb sauce packets of "Green Dragon Fully Cooked
      Breaded Diced Chicken Leg Meat With a Japanese Cherry
      Blossom Sauce" with use by/sell by dates of 5/6/2016 and
      8/6/2016 and  packaging dates of 5/6/2015 and 8/6/2015.
  --- 42.9-lb boxes containing 6 - 7.15 lb clear bags of "73002
      Green Dragon Fully Cooked Seasoned Chicken Leg Meat Strips
      with New Orleans Brand Sauce" with a use by/sell by date of
      08/10/2016; and a packaging date of 08/10/2015.
  --- 42.9-lb boxes containing 6 - 5-lb clear bags of chicken and
      6 - 2.15-lb sauce packets of "Green Dragon Fully Cooked
      Breaded Diced Chicken Leg Meat With a Tangerine Sauce" with
      a use by/sell by date of 8/6/2016 and a packaging date of
      8/6/2015.

Details of the first expansion of the recall: On April 26, 2016,
Pilgrim's Pride Corp recalled approximately 4,527,300 pounds of
fully cooked chicken nuggets produced on various dates from Aug.
21, 2014 to March 1, 2016. The following products are subject to
recall:

  --- 20-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "6145 Gold Kist
      Farms Menu Right Fully Cooked Whole Grain Breaded Chicken
      Nuggets Breaded Nugget Shaped Chicken Patties" with use
      by/sell by dates of 05/28/2016, and 04/27/2016 and
      packaging dates of 05/28/2015 and 04/27/2015.
  --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "6253 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Homestyle Breaded Strip
      Shaped Chicken Patties" with use by/sell by dates of
      04/27/2016 and 08/06/2016, and packaging dates of
      04/27/2015 and 08/06/2015.
  --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "6353 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Homestyle Breaded Breakfast
      Chicken Patties" with use/by sell by dates of 09/17/2016
      and 09/21/2016 and packaging dates 09/17/2015 and
      09/21/2015.
  --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "6654 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Homestyle Breaded Chicken
      Patty" with use by/sell by dates of 05/11/2016, 06/05/2016,
      and 08/21/2015, and packaging dates of 05/11/2015,
      06/05/2015, and 08/21/2014.
  --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "66660 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Hot & Spicy Breaded Chicken
      Patty" with use by/sell by date of 07/18/2016 and packaging
      date of 07/18/2015.
  --- 20-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "69160 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Popcorn Style Chicken Patty
      Fritters" with use/by sell by dates of 08/19/2016 and
      09/25/2016, and packaging dates of 8/19/2015 and
      09/25/2015.
  --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "70340 Pierce
      Chicken Fully Cooked Breaded Chicken Tenderloins" with a
      use by/sell by dates of 09/28/2016, 09/25/2016, and
      11/09/2016, and packaging dates of 09/28/2015, 09/25/2015,
      and 11/09/2015.
  --- 30-lb boxes containing of 5-lb clear bags of "612100 Gold
      Kist Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Breaded Chicken Nuggets
      Nugget Shaped Chicken Patties" with use by/sell by dates of
      07/11/2016, 11/09/2016, and 11/25/2016 and packaging dates
      of 07/11/2015, 11/09/2015, and 11/25/2015.
  --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "615300 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Home-style Breaded Chicken
      Nuggets Nugget Shaped Chicken Patties" with use by/ sell
      by dates of 10/08/2016, 10/09/2016, 10/03/2016, 10/20/2016,
      11/24/2016, 10/01/2016, 10/16/2016, 10/14/2016, and
      packaging dates of 10/08/2015, 10/01/2015, 10/16/2015,
      10/09/2015, 10/03/2015, 10/20/2015, 11/24/2015, and
      10/14/2015.
  --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "625300 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Home-style Breaded Chicken
      Strip Shaped Chicken Patties" with a use by/sell by date of
      10/16/2016, and a packaging date of 10/16/2015.
  --- 20-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "633100 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Home-style Breaded Breakfast
      Chicken Breast Patties with Rib Meat" with a use by/sell by
      date of 10/03/2016, and a packaging date of 10/03/2015.
  --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "662100 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Breaded Chicken Patties"
      with use by/sell by dates of 10/07/2016 and 08/13/2016, and
      packaging dates of 10/07/2015 and 08/13/2015.
  --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "665400 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Home-style Breaded Chicken
      Patties" with use by/sell by dates of 10/06/2016,
      07/24/2016, 07/01/2016, 07/25/2016, 08/29/2016, 09/12/2016,
      12/02/2016, 12/21/2016, and packaging dates of 10/06/2015,
      07/24/2015, 07/01/2015, 07/25/2015, 08/29/2016, 09/12/2016,
      12/02/2016, 12/21/2016.
  --- 30-lb boxes containing of 5-lb clear bags of "666600 Gold
      Kist Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Hot & Spicy Breaded
      Chicken Patties" with use by/sell by dates of 10/08/2016,
      09/29/2015, 09/30/2016, and packaging dates of 10/08/2015,
      09/29/2015, 09/30/2015.
  --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "92105 Sweet
      Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN BREADED CHICKEN
      BREAST NUGGETS BREADED NUGGET SHAPED CHICKEN PATTIES WITH
      RIB MEAT" with a use/by sell by date of 05/28/2016, and a
      packaging date of 05/28/2015.
  --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "92430 Sweet
      Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED BREADED CHICKEN TENDERLOINS"
      with use by/sell by dates of 09/28/2016, 11/09/2016, and
      packaging dates of 09/28/2016, 11/09/2016.
  --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "93406 Sweet
      Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN POPCORN STYLE
      CHICKEN PATTY FRITTERS" with a use by/sell by date of
      05/28/2016 and a packaging date of 05/28/2015.
  --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "94208 Sweet
      Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN HOT AND SPICY
      BREADED CHICKEN PATTY" with a use by date of 07/18/2016 and
      a packaging date of 07/18/2015.
  --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "96965 Sweet
      Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN BREADED CHICKEN
      NUGGETS NUGGET SHAPED CHICKEN PATTIES" with a use by/sell
      by date of 10/14/2016 and a packaging date of 10/14/2015.
  --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "96971 Sweet
      Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN BREADED CHICKEN
      BREAST PATTIES WITH RIB MEAT" with a use by/sell by date of
      10/08/2016 and a packaging date of 10/08/2015.
  --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "96973 Sweet
      Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN BREADED CHICKEN
      PATTIES" with use by/sell by dates of 07/24/2016,
      07/01/2016, 12/02/2016, 09/12/2016, and packaging dates of
      07/24/2015, 07/01/2015, 12/02/2015, 09/12/2015.
  --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "96978 Sweet
      Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN HOT AND SPICY
      BREADED CHICKEN PATTIES" with use by/sell by dates of
      10/08/2016 and 9/30/2016, and packaging dates of 10/08/2015
      and 9/30/2016.

Additional information on production dates and case codes can be
found here.

On April 7, 2016, Pilgrim's Pride Corp recalled approximately
40,780 pounds of fully cooked chicken nuggets produced on Oct. 5,
2015. The following product is subject to recall:

  --- 20-lb. cardboard boxes containing two, 10-lb. clear plastic
      bags of fully cooked chicken nuggets labeled as "GOLD KIST
      FARMS Fully Cooked Whole Grain Popcorn Style Chicken Patty
      Fritters" with package codes 5278105021, 5278105022,
      5278105023, 5278105000, and 5278105001.

The products subject to recall bears establishment number "EST.
20728" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were
shipped for institutional use nationwide. According to Pilgrim's
Pride Corp. records, schools have purchased products through the
company's commercial channels.

The problem was first discovered after the firm received several
consumer complaints regarding plastic contamination of the chicken
nuggets. The firm notified FSIS personnel of the issue on April 6,
2016. FSIS personnel identified more affected product types and
dates of production after investigating additional consumer
complaints of foreign material contamination received by the
recalling firm.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled products are urged not
to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned
to the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the products are no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact James Brown,
Consumer Relations Manager, at (800) 321-1470. Media with
questions about the recall can contact Cameron Bruett, Head of
Corporate Affairs, at (970) 506-7801.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


POLYCOM INC: August 2016 Hearing on Final Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Polycom, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has scheduled
a hearing for August 2016 to consider final approval of the
settlement in a class action lawsuit.

On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder class action, initially
captioned Neal v. Polycom Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC,
and presently captioned Nathanson v. Polycom, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors.

On December 13, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved lead and liaison counsel. On February 24,2014, the lead
plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.

The amended complaint alleged that, between January 20, 2011 and
July 23, 2013, the Company issued materially false and misleading
statements or failed to disclose information regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies, including
with respect to its former Chief Executive Officer's expense
submissions and the Company's internal controls. The lawsuit
further alleged that the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading. The amended complaint alleged
violations of the federal securities laws and sought unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

On April 3, 2015, the Court dismissed all claims against Polycom
and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. The lead plaintiff filed a
second complaint on May 4, 2015.

Polycom and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint on June 26, 2015. On January 8, 2016, the
parties executed a settlement agreement. The proposed settlement
is subject to, and contingent upon, the Court's review and
approval. The lead plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of the
settlement. The Court has issued an order preliminarily approving
the settlement and has scheduled a hearing for August 2016 to
consider final approval of the settlement.  If the settlement is
approved, the settlement payment will be made by Polycom's
insurance carrier.

Polycom offers open, standards-based unified communications and
collaboration ("UC&C") solutions for voice, video and content
sharing and a comprehensive line of support and service solutions
to ensure customer success.


QUESTAR CORP: 6 Lawsuits Challenging Dominion Merger Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Questar Corporation, Questar Gas Company and Questar Pipeline
Company said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2016, that as of April 25, 2016, six
lawsuits challenging the Merger with Dominion Resources, Inc. have
been filed purportedly on behalf of Questar shareholders.

Questar entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Dominion
Resources, Inc. ("Dominion Resources") and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Diamond Beehive Corp. on January 31, 2016, pursuant to
which Questar shareholders have the right to receive $25.00 per
share in cash, subject to the satisfaction of specified
conditions. If the Dominion Merger is completed, Questar will
become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dominion Resources.

As of April 25, 2016, six lawsuits challenging the Merger have
been filed purportedly on behalf of Questar shareholders, of which
four are pending in the Third District Court, Salt Lake County,
Utah, and two are pending in the United States District Court of
Utah, Central Division. Each of the lawsuits names Questar,
Questar's directors, Dominion Resources and Diamond Beehive Corp.
as defendants. The named plaintiffs in the four lawsuits pending
in Third District Court are John Hansen, Eric Senatori, Shiva
Stein and James E. Toth, and Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund and
Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund, respectively. The named
plaintiffs in the two lawsuits pending in U.S. District Court are
Kevin Hessel and Dan Ipson, respectively.

All of the lawsuits are purported shareholder class actions
advancing substantially the same allegations that the Merger
Agreement was adopted in violation of the fiduciary duties of
Questar's directors and seeking injunctive relief to enjoin the
Dominion Merger, as well as other remedies. All of the cases raise
direct claims on behalf of Questar shareholders. In addition, one
of the cases raises derivative claims on behalf of Questar.

On April 21, 2016, the Third District Court granted a request to
consolidate all four cases pending in Third District Court into
Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et. al. v. Ronald W. Jibson, et.
al. (Case No. 160900938). On April 22, 2016, the court appointed
Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff in the
consolidated matter. The court also appointed lead counsel and
liaison counsel. The court scheduled a preliminary injunction
hearing for May 9, 2016. The cases pending in U.S. District Court
are voluntarily stayed pending the outcome of the preliminary
injunction hearing in Third District Court.


REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Bid for Leave to File 3rd Amended Suit Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System,
Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System (Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated), on May 23 filed a
motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint in their class
action lawsuit against Regional Management Corp.

Regional Management said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Plaintiffs were
given until May 23 to move for leave to file a third amended
complaint.

On May 30, 2014, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors, executive officers, and stockholders (collectively, the
"Defendants"). The complaint alleged violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act Claims") and sought unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock in the September
2013 and December 2013 secondary public offerings.

On August 25, 2014, Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement
System and City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System were
appointed as lead plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"). An
amended complaint was filed on November 24, 2014. In addition to
the 1933 Act Claims, the amended complaint also added claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act
Claims") seeking unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between May 2, 2013 and October 30, 2014, inclusive.

On January 26, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety. In response, the Plaintiffs
sought and were granted leave to file an amended complaint.

On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. Like the prior amended complaint, the second amended
complaint asserts 1933 Act Claims and 1934 Act Claims and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages. The Defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint was filed on April 28, 2015,
the Plaintiffs' opposition was filed on June 12, 2015, and the
Defendants' reply was filed on July 13, 2015.

On March 30, 2016, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety. The
Plaintiffs have been given until May 23, 2016 to move for leave to
file a third amended complaint. The Company believes that the
claims against it are without merit and will continue to defend
against the litigation vigorously.

The Company's primary insurance carrier during the applicable time
period has (i) denied coverage for the 1933 Act Claims and (ii)
acknowledged coverage of the Company and other insureds for the
1934 Act Claims under a reservation of rights and subject to the
terms and conditions of the applicable insurance policy. The
parties plan to negotiate an allocation between denied and
acknowledged claims.

The Company is a diversified specialty consumer finance company
providing a broad array of loan products primarily to customers
with limited access to consumer credit from banks, thrifts, credit
card companies, and other traditional lenders.


ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Recalls Bicycles Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Rocky Mountain Bicycles, of Canada, announced a voluntary recall
of about 17,300 Rocky Mountain Bicycles (in addition, 61,000 were
sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

An open quick release lever on the bicycle's front wheel hub can
come into contact with the front disc brake assembly, causing the
front wheel to come to a sudden stop or separate from the bicycle,
posing a risk of injury to the rider.

This recall involves all 2003 through 2016 models of Rocky
Mountain bicycles equipped with front disc brakes and a black or
silver quick-release (QR) lever on the front wheel hub. Bicycles
that do not have disc brakes are not included in this recall. When
the front QR is fully opened, if there is less than 6 mm -- or the
width of a #2 pencil -- between the QR and disk brake rotor on the
wheel, the bicycle is included in this recall.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/d4L7dV

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada, China, Taiwan
and Vietnam and sold at Rocky Mountain bicycle dealers nationwide
and online at www.Bikes.com (Rocky Mountain Bicycles), www.Ems.com
(Eastern Mountain Sports), www.JensonUsa.com, www.MikesBikes.com
and www.PerformanceBike.com from May 2002 through April 2016 from
between $250 and $15,000.

Consumers should stop using the recalled bicycles immediately and
contact an authorized Rocky Mountain retailer for free
installation of a new quick release on the front wheel.


RYANAIR: Faces Class Action Over Ticket Hidden Charges
------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Curtis, writing for Mail Online, reports that Ryanair is
could face a GBP315 million lawsuit from angry passengers over
"hidden charges" including GBP160 fees to change names on tickets.

An online campaign is urging people who have paid such fees to
join together in a class action suit to pursue refunds.

So far more than 5,000 people have signed up to the appeal, with
the claims firm aiming to bring in 75,000 to try to ensure the
action's success.

Ryanair's charges, which are advertised on its website, include
GBP15 for re-issuing a boarding pass, GBP45 for checking in at the
airport, up to GBP70 for checking sports equipment and bikes, up
to GBP90 to change a flight and GBP160 per passenger to change a
name.

A statement on the website said 75,000 people were needed for the
claim to work, with Casehub taking a 35 per cent commission if the
suit is successful.

It said: "This is because the claim needs to be worth enough money
for it to be worth the time and cost.  If it wins, and only if, do
we take a 35 per cent commission.

"If we can't find 75,000 people, the case won't run.  We know
there are many more people who have paid out there.  So sharing
this on is super important."

Michael Green, a Cambridge law graduate who founded Casehub,
claims the fees go against European contract laws.

He said: "Under EU consumer law, terms which are unfair are not
valid.  There are three charges with Ryanair that we believe are
unfair.

"An airport check-in fee is unfair because you have already paid
for your ticket -- you're being charged twice for what is
essentially the same thing.
"Then there is a charge to print your boarding card.  But the
important thing is the boarding pass already exists when you check
in online, and the barcode on it is a shortcut for information.

"It's unfair to require that boarding pass for proof you have a
ticket when the airline already has the information online.
"Finally, the name change charge.  Ryanair says this charge exists
to prevent people buying tickets and then re-selling them at a
huge mark-up.  But it penalizes people who mistype something and
simply need to correct a spelling mistake."

UK airlines have long faced criticism over the issue of hidden
charges, particularly when it comes to baggage fees.

Casehub research also suggests that UK and Irish airlines have
pocketed GBP300 million in taxes paid by passengers for missed or
cancelled flights because the cost to process a refund is so high.

Ryanair has recently changed its baggage fees where passengers can
pay up to GBP80 to check in a 20kg bag at the airport during peak
season, rather than booking ahead online.

From June, that charge will be replaced with a GBP30 flat rate
which will apply to all 20kg bags, regardless of when passengers
booked the luggage space or when the holiday is taken.

The new system will also see escalating fees for second, third and
fourth bags abolished.

But the new charge will also represent a 50 per cent price hike
for passengers who currently pay GBP20 to check in a bag online
during the low season.

Travellers are currently charged on a sliding scale for each
checked-in bag.  It can now cost up to GBP80 to check in a 20kg
bag at the airport -- described by some as a tax of families --
while a slightly smaller 15kg bag can cost GBP20 in the low
season.

Chief executive Michael O'Leary defended the move and said the
"vast majority" of passengers who check bags in do so during peak
times.

The Ryanair boss also denied the policy change was an
acknowledgement that the airline has previously unfairly penalized
families going on summer holidays.

Last year, a survey revealed how small charges for extras
including improved baggage allowance, seat upgrades and in-flight
meals were adding a staggering $38.1 billion (GBP267 billion) to
airlines' revenue in 2014.

The report found Britain's Jet2 and Ireland's Ryanair were two of
the airlines most heavily on extras, making up 28.5 per cent of
the former's revenue and 24.6 per cent of the latter's.

This amounts to a value of $2 billion (GBP1.4 billion) for Ryanair
and $344 million (GBP241 million) for Jet2.

Ryanair refused to be drawn on the lawsuit and a spokesperson
said: "We don't comment on speculation."


SABRE CORPORATION: Still Defends New York Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend a class action lawsuit in New York.

The Company said, "In July 2015, a putative class action lawsuit
was filed against us and two other the Sabre global distribution
system ("GDS"), in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. In January 2016, we filed a motion
to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims, which is pending before
the court. The plaintiffs, who are asserting claims on behalf of a
putative class of consumers in various states, are generally
alleging that the GDSs conspired to negotiate for full content
from the airlines, resulting in higher ticket prices for
consumers, in violation of various federal and state laws.
Although the amount of damages allegedly incurred by the
plaintiffs has not been asserted to date, the plaintiffs are also
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. We may incur
significant fees, costs and expenses for as long as this
litigation is ongoing. We intend to vigorously defend against
these claims."

Sabre Corporation is a technology solutions provider to the global
travel and tourism industry.


SARAFEI CARMEL: Agrees to Stop Using Benzyl Chloride Under Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zafrir Rinat, writing for Haaretz, reports that a factory in the
north has agreed to stop using chemicals such as benzyl chloride,
which caused breathing difficulties, vomiting and burning eyes in
local people after a leak in June 2014.

Under the compromise following a class-action suit, the Sarafei
Carmel adhesives plant in the northern town of Atlit will not
admit wrongdoing but will pay 360,000 shekels ($95,000) in
compensation.  The deal was approved by the Haifa District Court.

After the leak, residents sued the factory, whose parent company
is Carmel Chemicals, also located in Atlit.  The residents were
represented by a lawyer from the Union for Environmental Defense.

Under the compromise, the factory will stop using benzyl chloride
starting in September.  It also pledged to stop using three other
hazardous materials including formaldehyde, a carcinogen.  From
September, these substances will no longer be on the list of
toxins the factory has a permit to use.

Most of the compensation money will be deposited in an account
that the Union for Environmental Defense can use for environmental
work.

The factory also said it would pay the fees of the expert
witnesses hired by the residents as well as attorneys' fees -- the
total cost amounts to 100,000 shekels.

Under the compromise, an expert representing the residents will be
able to examine the factory's list of permitted toxins and inspect
the factory annually for compliance.

Sarafei Carmel is located near the Atlit train station, not far
from a residential area.  In recent years, Atlit residents have
been fighting to have the plant closed entirely, even before the
chemical leak.  In a class action six years ago, Carmel Chemicals
was required to pay 450,000 shekels in compensation.


SCOTT USA: Recalls Bicycles With Syncros Seat Posts
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
SCOTT USA Inc., of Salt Lake City, Utah, announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,400 SCOTT bicycles with SYNCROS seat posts (in
addition, 170 bicycles were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The seat post can break, posing a fall hazard to the rider.

This recall involves model year 2016 SCOTT men's and women's road
bicycles with SYNCROS FL 0.1 seat posts. Bicycle models included
in the recall are: Addict CX 10 disc, Addict SL, Addict Team
Issue, Addict 10, Addict 15, Addict 20, Addict Gravel disc, Solace
Premium disc, Solace 10 disc, Frame set Addict 10 (HMF), Frame set
Addict CX 10 disc (HMX) mech / Di2 and Seatpost Syncros FL1.0
Carbon Offset 27.2mm. "SCOTT" is printed on the bicycle down tube
and "SYNCROS" is printed on the seat post. The bicycles were sold
in black, grey and white with yellow, orange, green or blue
decals. A complete list of serial numbers included in the recall
can be found at http://www.scott-
sports.com/global/en/company/safety-and-recalls. The serial number
is printed on a white sticker and embossed on the underside of the
bicycle frame near the pedals.

The firm has received 11 reports of broken seat posts outside of
the U.S. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/55qTSI

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Authorized SCOTT dealers nationwide and online from June 2015
through March 2016 for between $3,300 and $9,700.

Consumers should immediately stop riding the recalled bicycles and
return them to an authorized SCOTT dealer to have a free
replacement seat post installed.


SCOTT USA: Recalls Bicycles With Syncros Seat Posts
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
SCOTT USA Inc., of Salt Lake City, Utah, announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,400 SCOTT bicycles with SYNCROS seat posts (in
addition, 170 bicycles were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The seat post can break, posing a fall hazard to the rider.

This recall involves model year 2016 SCOTT men's and women's road
bicycles with SYNCROS FL 0.1 seat posts. Bicycle models included
in the recall are: Addict CX 10 disc, Addict SL, Addict Team
Issue, Addict 10, Addict 15, Addict 20, Addict Gravel disc, Solace
Premium disc, Solace 10 disc, Frame set Addict 10 (HMF), Frame set
Addict CX 10 disc (HMX) mech / Di2 and Seatpost Syncros FL1.0
Carbon Offset 27.2mm. "SCOTT" is printed on the bicycle down tube
and "SYNCROS" is printed on the seat post. The bicycles were sold
in black, grey and white with yellow, orange, green or blue
decals. A complete list of serial numbers included in the recall
can be found at http://www.scott-
sports.com/global/en/company/safety-and-recalls. The serial number
is printed on a white sticker and embossed on the underside of the
bicycle frame near the pedals.

The firm has received 11 reports of broken seat posts outside of
the U.S. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/55qTSI

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Authorized SCOTT dealers nationwide and online from June 2015
through March 2016 for between $3,300 and $9,700.

Consumers should immediately stop riding the recalled bicycles and
return them to an authorized SCOTT dealer to have a free
replacement seat post installed.


SEADRILL LIMITED: Still Defends Class Action Lawsuit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Seadrill Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to
defend a consolidated class action lawsuit.

In December 2014, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit,
Fuchs et al. v. Seadrill Limited et al., No. 14-cv-9642
(LGS)(KNF), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging, among other things, that Seadrill
and certain of its executives made materially false and misleading
statements in connection with the payment of dividends.  In
January 2015, a second purported shareholder class action lawsuit,
Heron v. Seadrill Limited et al., No. 15-cv-0429 (LGS)(KNF), was
filed in the same court on similar grounds.  In March 2015, a
third purported shareholder class action lawsuit, Glow v. Seadrill
Limited et al., No. 15-cv-1770 (LGS)(KNF), was filed in the same
court on similar grounds.  On March 24, 2015, the court
consolidated these complaints into a single action.  On June 23,
2015 the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel
and ordered the co-lead plaintiffs to file a single consolidated
amended by complaint by July 23, 2015.

The amended complaint was filed on July 23, 2015 alleging, among
other things, that the Company, North Atlantic Drilling Ltd.
("NADL"), the Company's consolidated subsidiary, and certain of
their executives made materially false and misleading statements
in connection with the payment of dividends, the failure to
disclose the risks to the Rosneft transaction as a result of
various enacted government sanctions and the inclusion in backlog
of $4.1 billion attributable to the Rosneft transaction.

The defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on
October 13, 2015. The plaintiffs, in turn, filed their Opposition
to the Motion to Dismiss on November 12, 2015 and the defendants'
Reply Brief was served on December 4, 2015.

Although we intend to defend this action vigorously, we cannot
predict the outcome of this case, nor can we estimate the amount
of any possible loss.  Accordingly, no loss contingency has been
recognized in the financial statements.


SENTECH EMPLOYMENT: Court Keeps Count I of "John Doe" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned John Doe, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. Sentech Employment
Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 15-14348 (E.D. Mich.), Judge
Sean F. Cox denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's Count I.

A full-text copy of Judge Cox's May 16, 2016 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/bwa3eN from Leagle.com.

In the proposed class action, John Doe alleged that the defendant,
Sentech Employment Services, willfully violated the Fair Debt
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by including extraneous information in
its disclosure and authorization document.

John Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Eleanor Michelle Drake --
emdrake@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Joseph C. Hashmall --
jhashmall@bm.net -- Berger and Montague, P.C. & Ian B. Lyngklip,
Lyngklip Assoc Consumer Law Center, PLC.

Sentech Employment Services, Incorporated, Defendant, represented
by Kathleen H. Klaus -- kklaus@maddinhauser.com -- Maddin, Hauser.


SEVERN TRENT ENVIRONMENTAL: Court Dismisses "Lowrimore"
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald A. White granted Severn Trent Environmental Services,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss the case captioned TARA LOWRIMORE, AND
OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED John Does 1-8000, Plaintiff, v. SEVERN
TRENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., and SEVERN TRENT LABORATORIES,
INC., Defendants, Case No. CIV-15-475-RAW (E.D. Okla.).

A full-text copy of Judge White's May 16, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/GQpuhV from Leagle.com.

The action was commenced in the District Court of Choctaw County
by the filing of a petition on October 30, 2015.  The petition was
labeled "Class Action Petition."  The action was brought on behalf
of "a plaintiff class consisting of all persons and entities
residing in and/or located in the city of Hugo, Oklahoma, and all
surrounding area which are serviced by the Hugo Water Treatment
Plant operated under the contract between Severn Trent and the
Hugo Municipal Authority."  The petition sought "actual and
compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $10,000,"
restitution and injunctive relief.

Tara Lowrimore, Plaintiff, represented by Jon M. Williford --
jon@griffinreynoldslaw.com -- Griffin Reynolds & Associates &
Billy D. Griffin -- billy@griffinreynoldslaw.com -- Griffin
Reynolds & Associates.

Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Timila S. Rother -- timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe &
Dunlevy, Erin P. Sullenger --
erinpotter.sullenger@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe & Dunlevy & Mary
Ellen Ternes -- maryellen.ternes@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe &
Dunlevy.


SOCIAL SECURITY: Hill's Bid for Attorneys' Fees Denied
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DEBORAH ANN HILL, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W.
COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant, No. 12-
CV-02880 (FB) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Frederic Block denied the motion
filed by Deborah Ann Hill for attorneys' fees pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 406(b).

On June 8, 2012, Hill brought an action against the Commissioner
of Social Security seeking judicial review of the denial of her
application for disability insurance benefits.  During the course
of the litigation, the Commissioner identified Hill as a class
member eligible for relief under the terms of the settlement
agreement in Padro v. Astrue, No. 11-cv-1788 (CBA).  As a result,
on May 22, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation dismissing the
lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), so that
Hill could pursue relief before a new administrative law judge
pursuant to the class settlement.

Upon rehearing, Hill was found disabled and awarded benefits. Hill
then moved for attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C section
406(b), based on the work performed in the federal court action
prior to the withdrawal.  The Commissioner opposed the motion on
the grounds that there is no "judgment favorable" to Hill under
section 406(b).

Judge Block agreed with the Commissioner and denied Hill's motion.

A full-text copy of Judge Block's May 17, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/8mmtGu from Leagle.com.

Deborah Hill, Plaintiff, represented by Max D. Leifer, Law Offices
of Max D. Leifer, P.C..

Michael J. Astrue, Defendant, represented by Ameet B. Kabrawala,
United States Attorney's Office.

Michael J. Astrue, Defendant, represented by Candace Scott
Appleton, United States Attorneys Office.


SPOKEO INC: Class Action May Impact TCPA, FACTA & BIPA Statues
--------------------------------------------------------------
David S. Almeida and Mark S. Eisen, writing for Corporate Counsel,
that the U.S. Supreme Court had attorneys waiting over seven
months for its decision in Spokeo v. Robins, and it did not
disappoint.  In a 6-2 decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito,
the court held that a purely technical violation of a statute is
insufficient to establish Article III standing.

The Spokeo case itself concerned the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA), a so-called bounty statute that allows consumers with no
injury whatsoever to file claims concerning technical statutory
violations seeking statutory damages.  Plaintiff Robins filed a
putative class action lawsuit after discovering that some of the
information Spokeo made available about him was inaccurate (the
court presumed that Spokeo fit the definition of a credit
reporting agency as is required under FCRA).  The issue thus
presented to the Supreme Court was whether allegations of
inaccurate information sufficed for Article III standing purposes.

However, legal spectators and courts have long surmised that
Spokeo could have a broad impact on similar statutes, like the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act (FACTA) and the Biometric Information Privacy Act
(BIPA), all of which allow plaintiffs to similar pursue claims for
statutory damages (often in the context of putative class actions)
absent any actual harm.

These bounty statutes have turned into a niche industry of gotcha
litigation, where plaintiffs' attorneys pursue multimillion-dollar
class actions with named plaintiffs and putative class members
that have suffered no more than a bare technical statutory
violation.

Most circuit courts, prior to Spokeo, had -- like the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Spokeo -- held that Congress
could in effect bestow Article III standing by creating a
statutory right, the violation of which (even in the absence of
damages) creates a cognizable claim.  The Supreme Court, however,
turned that logic completely on its head.

Specifically, the court held:

Congress' role in identifying and elevating intangible harms does
not mean that a plaintiff automatically satisfied the injury-in-
fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory
right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate
that right.  Article III standing requires a concrete injury even
in the context of a statutory violation.  For that reason, Robins
could not, for example, allege a bare procedural violation,
divorced from any concrete harm, and satisfy the injury-in-fact
requirement of Article III.

And lest there be any confusion over the scope of the court's
holding, the majority even provided some examples of FCRA claims
that would fail the Article III threshold: (i) the failure to
provide the required notice to a user of the agency's consumer
information if that information is accurate, and (ii) de minimis
inaccuracies (i.e., an incorrect zip code) that do not present any
material risk of harm.

Though the court remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit to
further analyze standing in light of its opinion, the potential
impact of Spokeo is considerable.  Many TCPA, FACTA and BIPA class
actions (among others) are filed based on nothing more than hyper-
technical violations of various consumer protection and privacy-
related statutes.  In the TCPA context, for example, many class
actions are brought on the basis that written consent is necessary
to make telemarketing calls, but only oral consent was obtained.
In the FACTA context, many class actions are brought on the basis
that a credit card receipt, the only copy of which the consumer
still has, displays too many digits of the card number.  And in
the BIPA context, class actions are often based on the fact that a
written policy concerning the use of biometric information does
not exist, but absence of which has not impacted the consumer in
any way.

These are the exact types of claims the Supreme Court has
foreclosed through Spokeo.  Extrapolating from the examples in the
FCRA context, the court is sending the signal that technicalities
do not provide Article III standing. If consent has been obtained
in the TCPA context, then it does not matter whether that consent
was oral or written.  If, in the FACTA context, a receipt has too
many digits, but the consumer retains the receipt, then there is
simply no risk of concrete harm.  And in the BIPA context, the
simple absence of a written policy can hardly be said to cause
concrete harm.

Perhaps the most significant impact of Spokeo, however, will
likely be in the class certification context.  There is no doubt
plaintiffs' counsel can find named plaintiffs with more than a
bare procedural violation, but putative classes are generally
drawn broad enough to include a high percentage of individuals
with nothing more than a technical claim.  From that perspective,
if courts have to hold mini trials as to whether putative class
members in these no-harm class actions actually suffered anything
more than a procedural violation, then it is hard to imagine how
these cases will be able to pass the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance
inquiry.

Spokeo is nothing short of a game changer in the context of
statutory class actions.  While the Supreme Court largely punted
on significant class action issues earlier in the term (i.e.,
Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez and Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo), it
certainly saved the best for last.

                           *     *     *

"Where this has impact is on virtually any consumer protection
statute that has purely statutory damages," said Richard Gottlieb,
a partner with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips in Los Angeles who
frequently represents financial companies, according to a report
by Danie Fisher, writing for Forbes.com. "I would predict you will
see motions to dismiss in every TCPA class action where there is
no allegation explaining how the plaintiffs were injured."

Tech giants including Facebook, Google, PayPal and eBay filed
friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Supreme Court to rule
against no-injury suits, saying the risk of litigation over minor
data errors exposed them to tens of billions of dollars in
potential damages.  Forbes.com noted that the decision wasn't so
good for companies facing lawsuits over data breaches.  Justice
Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said that while a wrong
ZIP code might not be sufficient, "the risk of real harm" may
serve as as a concrete injury in some cases.  The word "risk"
could support lawsuits claiming consumers have suffered real
damages from a data breach that exposes them to the real risk of
identity theft and financial loss.

"Some people are going to look at this and say, 'Well, Spokeo shut
down the idea of these suits,'" said Tom Rohback --
trohback@axinn.com -- a litigator with Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider
in New York, Forbes.com related.  "I think Spokeo opened the door
a little."

"Had it happened it would be alleged in the complaint," said Mr.
Gottlieb.  As it is, the suit is "the functional equivalent of
staring at a three-legged chair and saying 'look! somebody could
be harmed.'"


SPRINT CORP: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a
settlement agreement resolving a California labor law class action
was quietly awarded preliminary approval at the end of February,
yet another step in the provision of relief for class members
alleged to have been denied meal periods and rest breaks that are
mandated by the California labor code.

The defendants in the California and labor law class action are
Sprint Corporation, Sprint Communications Company LP, and
Sprint/United Management Co. Plaintiff Viet Bui originally brought
the lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court on July 10, 2014,
with an amended complaint about two months later, on September 4
of that year. A subsequent amendment was approved by the Court on
May 26, 2015 concerning the addition of co-complainant Christina
Avalos-Reyes, who was added to the complaint two days later.

Various violations to California labor employment law were cited
in the complaint. Among them, failure to provide meal periods in
violation of Sections 226.7 and 512 of the California Labor Code,
failure to provide rest breaks, and failure to provide wages and
related overtime pay compensation in violation of Sections 1194
and 1198 of the California Labor Code.

It has also been alleged that the defendant underpaid overtime
wages in violation of the California Labor Code and the Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Order Section 3, and failed to reimburse
qualifying employees for expenses associated with their duties in
violation of Sections 2802 and 406-407 of the California Labor
Code.

Allegations made in the California labor lawsuit also included the
failure to pay wages twice monthly in violation of Section 204 of
the California Labor Code, together with an alleged failure to pay
all wages due upon ceasing employment, in violation of the related
statutes.

The plaintiffs also accused Sprint of unlawful business practices.

READ MORE CALIFORNIA LABOR LAW LEGAL NEWS

California and labor law holds that qualifying employees are
granted sufficient rest breaks and a meal period in order to help
maintain a healthy work environment with proper rest and
nutrition. Regulations also require an employer to pay all wages,
including overtime wages for hours worked beyond a daily and
weekly maximum, and to keep proper records of wages paid.

The parties in this lawsuit filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a settlement May 18 of last year. On February 23, that
preliminary approval was granted by District Judge Troy L. Nunley
of the US District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The settlement, which must still achieve final approval, has not
been disclosed.

However, the California labor law settlement -- once approved --
will benefit the plaintiffs and no fewer than 11 subclasses of
telecommunications workers employed currently, or at one time by
Sprint.

The case is Viet Bui and Christina Avalos-Reyes et al v. Sprint
Corporation et al, Case No. 2:14-cv-02461-TLN-AC, US District
Court, Eastern District of California.


ST. PETERSBURG SURGERY: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for July 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

KATHY DYER and MICHAEL
YELAPI, individuals,
Plaintiffs

vs.
ST. PETERSBURG SURGERY
CENTER, LTD., et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 8:01-CV-787-T-MAP
CLASS ACTION

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND HEARING

TO: All persons in the United States with disabilities as that
term is defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C.
Sec. 12102(2)) and the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. Sec.
706(8)(b)) who have been and who were, prior to the filing of the
above-captioned Class Action Complaint and through the
pendency of the action, entitled to the full and equal enjoyment
of, or participation in, the goods, services, programs, benefits,
activities, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations
at Defendants' facilities located in the states of Alabama,
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, West Virginia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the
"Facilities").

This notice is given pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and the
Court's order of February 25, 2016.  A hearing on the matters
hereinafter set forth is scheduled before the Honorable Mark A.
Pizzo, United States District Magistrate Judge, on the 11th day of
July 2016, at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 11B, in the Sam M.
Gibbons U.S. Courthouse, 801 North Florida Ave., Tampa, Florida
33602, (813) 301-5400.  You may be a member of the class of
persons defined above and covered by a proposed plan to make
certain modifications to the Facilities in order to settle certain
legal claims.  This notice describes your legal rights in
connection with the hearing and this lawsuit.  All settlement
members who do not timely object will be bound by the resulting
orders.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY

The following does not constitute findings or determinations of
the Court.

Description of the Litigation. This lawsuit is to require the
Defendants to bring the Facilities into compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Sec 12181 et seq.) (the
"ADA") and/or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 794)
(the "Rehab Act").  No monetary damages of any sort are being
sought in this action.

Description of the Consent Decree. The parties to this lawsuit
have entered into a Second Amended and Restated Class Settlement
Procedure Agreement and Consent Decree, effective February 12,
2009 (the "Consent Decree"), under which the Facilities were
inspected in order to devise a plan by which Defendants will
modify the Facilities and their policies and practices in
order to enhance their accessibility to qualified individuals with
disabilities.  These proposed modifications are set forth in a
document called an Accessibility Compliance Report ("ACR"). ACRs
for the Facilities have been prepared and submitted to the Court
for approval.  The Consent Decree permits the Plaintiffs to
inspect the Facilities' modifications upon completion and resolve
any disputes that might arise with respect to whether the
modifications conform to the ACRs.  Class counsel's fees and costs
will be paid by Defendants, not by class members.  The
Plaintiffs have agreed that they will not, now or in the future,
seek further modifications of the facilities. If the Court
approves the proposed ACRs, you will be forever barred from
contesting the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of
these proposed modifications, or from pursuing the claims against
Defendants.  Counsel for the Plaintiffs believes that the proposed
modifications set forth in the ACR are fair, reasonable, and
adequate.

The Hearing. The hearing will relate to the following Facilities:

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of North Alabama, 107
Governors Drive, Huntsville, AL 35801

HealthSouth Valley of the Sun Rehabilitation Hospital, 13460 North
67th Avenue, Glendale (Peoria), AZ 85304

HealthSouth Scottsdale Rehabilitation Hospital, 9630 East Shea
Boulevard, Scottsdale, AZ 85260

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Southern Arizona, 1921 West
Hospital Drive, Tucson, AZ 85704

Yuma Rehabilitation Hospital, a Partnership of HealthSouth & YRMC,
901 West 24th Street, Yuma, AZ 85364

HealthSouth Bakersfield Rehabilitation Hospital, 5001 Commerce
Drive, Bakersfield, CA 93309

HealthSouth Tustin Rehabilitation Hospital, 14851 Yorba Street,
Tustin, CA 92780

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Colorado Springs, 325
Parkside Drive, Colorado Springs, CO 80910

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Spring Hill, 12440 Cortez
Boulevard, Brooksville (Spring Hill), FL 34613

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Largo, 901 Clearwater Largo
Road North, Largo, FL 33770

HealthSouth Sea Pines Rehabilitation Hospital, 101 East Florida
Avenue, Melbourne, FL 32901

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Miami, 20601 Old Cutler
Road, Miami, FL 33189

HealthSouth Emerald Coast Rehabilitation Hospital, 1847 Florida
Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405

HealthSouth Sunrise Rehabilitation Hospital, 4399 Nob Hill Road,
Sunrise (Ft. Lauderdale), FL 33351

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Tallahassee, 1675 Riggins
Road, Tallahassee, FL 32308

HealthSouth Treasure Coast Rehabilitation Hospital, 1600 37th
Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960

Van Matre HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital, 950 South Mulford
Road, Rockford, IL 61108

HealthSouth Deaconess Rehabilitation Hospital, 4100 Covert Avenue,
Evansville, IN 47714

MidAmerica Rehabilitation Hospital, 5701 West 110th Street,
Overland Park, KS 66211

Kansas Rehabilitation Hospital, 1504 SW 8th Avenue, Topeka, KS
66606

Wesley Rehabilitation Hospital, An Affiliate of HealthSouth, 8338
West 13th Street, Wichita, KS 67212

HealthSouth Northern Kentucky Rehabilitation Hospital, 201 Medical
Village Drive, Edgewood, KY 41017

HealthSouth Lakeview Rehabilitation Hospital of Central Kentucky,
134 Heartland Drive, Elizabethtown, KY 42701

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Alexandria, 104 North Third
Street, Alexandria, LA 71301

Fairlawn Rehabilitation Hospital, 189 May Street, Worcester, MA
01602

Rusk Rehabilitation Center, a Joint Venture of HealthSouth and the
University of Missouri-Columbia, 315 Business Loop 70 West,
Columbia, MO 65203

The Rehabilitation Institute of St. Louis, 4455 Duncan Avenue, St.
Louis, MO 63110

The Rehabilitation Institute of St. Louis Milliken Hand Therapy, a
Partnership of BJC HealthCare and HealthSouth, 4921 Parkview
Place, Suite 6, St. Louis, MO 63110

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Tinton Falls, 2 Centre
Plaza, Tinton  Falls, NJ 07724

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Toms River, 14 Hospital
Drive, Toms River, NJ 08755

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Henderson, 10301 Jeffreys
Street, Henderson, NV 89052

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Las Vegas, 1250 South
Valley View Boulevard, Las Vegas, NV 89102

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Altoona, 2005 Valley View
Boulevard, Altoona, PA 16602

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Center-Regency Square, 2900 Plank Road,
Suite 2, Altoona, PA 16601

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Center-Bedford, 5 Corporate Drive,
Suite 103, Bedford, PA 15522

Geisinger HealthSouth Rehabilitation Center of Berwick, 2202 West
Front Street, Berwick, PA 18603

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Center of Lewistown, 105 First Avenue,
Burnham, PA 17009

Geisinger HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital, 2 Rehab Lane,
Danville, PA 17821

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Center-Meadowbrook Plaza, 177
Meadowbrook Lane, Duncansville (Altoona), PA 16635

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Erie, 143 East Second
Street, Erie, PA 16507

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, 175
Lancaster Boulevard, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055

Geisinger HealthSouth Rehabilitation Center of Milton, 155 South
Arch Street, Milton, PA 17847

HealthSouth Harmarville Rehabilitation Hospital, 320 Guys Run
Road,  Pittsburgh (Harmarville), PA 15238

HealthSouth Nittany Valley Rehabilitation Hospital, 550 West
College Avenue, Pleasant Gap, PA 16823

HealthSouth Reading Rehabilitation Hospital, 1623 Morgantown Road,
Reading, PA 19607

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Sewickley, 303 Camp Meeting
Road, Sewickley (Pittsburgh), PA 15143

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Center-Tyrone, 1225 - 1227 Pennsylvania
Avenue, Tyrone, PA 16686

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of York, 1850 Normandie Drive,
York, PA 17408

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of San Juan, CMMS #340, P.O.
Box 70344, Rio Piedras (San Juan), PR 00936

AnMed Health Rehabilitation Hospital, an affiliate entity of AnMed
Health and HealthSouth Corporation, 1 Spring Back Way, Anderson,
SC 29621

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Charleston, 9181 Medcom
Street, Charleston, SC 29406

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Columbia, 2935 Colonial
Drive, Columbia, SC 29203

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Florence, 900 East Cheves
Street, Florence, SC 29506

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Rock Hill, 1795 Dr. Frank
Gaston Boulevard, Rock Hill, SC 29732

HealthSouth Chattanooga Rehabilitation Hospital, 2412 McCallie
Avenue, Chattanooga, TN 37404

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Arlington, 3200 Matlock
Road, Arlington, TX 76015

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Austin, 1215 Red River
Street, Austin, TX 78701

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Beaumont, 3340 Plaza 10
Boulevard, Beaumont, TX 77707

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital The Woodlands, 18550 I-45
South, Conroe (Shenandoah), TX 77384

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Fort Worth, 1212 West
Lancaster Avenue, Fort Worth, TX 76102

HealthSouth City View Rehabilitation Hospital, 6701 Oakmont
Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX 76132

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Humble, 19002 McKay Drive,
Humble, TX 77338

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Midland/Odessa, 1800
Heritage Boulevard, Midland, TX 79707

HealthSouth Plano Rehabilitation Hospital, 2800 West 15th Street,
Plano, TX 75075

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Institute of San Antonio (RIOSA), 9119
Cinnamon Hill, San Antonio, TX 78240

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Texarkana, 515 West 12th
Street, Texarkana, TX 75501

Trinity Mother Frances Rehabilitation Hospital, Affiliated with
HealthSouth, 3131 Troup Highway, Tyler, TX 75701

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Wichita Falls, 3901 Armory
Road, Wichita Falls, TX 76302

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Utah, 8074 South 1300 East,
Sandy, UT 84094

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Huntington, 6900 West
Country Club Drive, Huntington, WV 25705

HealthSouth Mountain View Regional Rehabilitation Hospital, 1160
Van Voorhis Road, Morgantown, WV 26505

HealthSouth Western Hills Regional Rehabilitation Hospital, 3
Western Hills Drive, Parkersburg, WV 26105

HealthSouth Southern Hills Rehabilitation Hospital, 120 Twelfth
Street, Princeton, WV 24740

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital, 1736 East Main Street,
Dothan, AL 36301

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Gadsden, 801 Goodyear
Avenue, Gadsden, AL 35903

Regional Rehabilitation Hospital, 3715 Highway 280/431 North,
Phoenix City, AL 36867

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital, a Partner with Washington
Regional, 153 East Monte Painter Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72703

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Fort Smith, 1401 South J
Street, Fort Smith, AR 72901

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Jonesboro, 1201 Fleming
Avenue, Jonesboro, AR 72401

HealthSouth Cane Creek Rehabilitation Hospital, 180 Mount Pelia
Road, Martin, TN 38237

At the Hearing, the Court will address, as for each Facility: (1)
the merits of any objection to an ACR; (2) whether to approve the
ACRs as fair and reasonable, adequate and in the best interest of
the class members; and (3) determine such other matters as may be
appropriate.  Any class member wishing to object to an
ACR shall, not later than thirty (30) days prior to the date of
the hearing, file with the Court and serve parties' counsel: (a) a
written notice of intention to appear; (b) a written statement of
such person's specific objections to the ACR; and (c) the
grounds therefore or the reasons for such person's desire to
appear and to be heard, together with all papers, briefs or other
documents that such person desires the Court to consider.  Counsel
to be served:

Settlement Class Counsel:

Kip Roth
Kip Roth, P.A.
8713 Whitehawk Hill Rd.
Waxhaw, NC 28173

Counsel for Defendants:

M. Jefferson Starling, III
Balch & Bingham LLP
P.O. Box 306
Birmingham, Alabama 35201

ANY PERSON WHO FAILS TO OBJECT IN THE MANNER
PRESCRIBED MAY BE DEEMED BY THE COURT TO HAVE WAIVED
SUCH OBJECTION, AND MAY, IN THE COURT'S DISCRETION, BE
PROHIBITED FROM RAISING OBJECTIONS AT THE FAIRNESS HEARING.
IF YOU DO NOT OPPOSE THIS SETTLEMENT, YOU NEED NOT APPEAR,
OR FILE ANYTHING IN WRITING.

More Information. This Notice is only a summary. The full
Settlement Agreement, pleadings, and other documents in the case
may be inspected and copied at the Clerk's Office, United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Sam M. Gibbons
U.S. Courthouse, 801 North Florida Ave., Tampa,
Florida 33602, or at http://www.hscsettlement.com


STARZ LLC: Court Dismissed "Theroux" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Starz LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2016, that the District Court has dismissed
the class action by Lucille Theroux.

On November 9, 2015, a purported class action was commenced in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by
Pierre Bolduc, against Starz and certain individual defendants.
The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who
purchased shares of Starz common stock between August 1, 2014 and
October 29, 2015. Citing allegations in the lawsuit filed by Keno
Thomas, described above, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants
violated applicable federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements and failing to disclose that: (a)
Starz lacked adequate internal controls; (b) Starz, LLC's contract
with a certain Distributor was a result of illicit business
practices; and (c) as a result, Starz's public statements were
materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis. The
complaint alleges that the price of shares of Starz's common stock
fell as a result of the Keno Thomas lawsuit. The plaintiff seeks
damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 11, 2016, the District Court entered an Order
appointing Lucille Theroux as Lead Plaintiff and Approving Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, as Counsel, and thereafter the Court
formally changed the case name to Theroux v. Starz, et al. On
March 28, 2016, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the District
Court dismissed this action without prejudice.

Starz, LLC provides premium subscription video programming to
United States ("U.S.") multichannel video programming distributors
("MVPDs"), including cable operators, satellite television
providers and telecommunications companies, and online video
providers (collectively, "Distributors"). Starz, LLC also
develops, produces and acquires entertainment content and
distributes this content to consumers in the U.S. and throughout
the world.


SUNRUN INC: "Brown" Securities Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brown and Rebecca Loy, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sunrun Inc., Lynn
Jurich, Robert Komn, Edward Fenster, Jameson McJunkin, Gerald
Risk, Steve Vassallo, Richard Wong, Credit Suisse Securities (USA)
LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated, RBC Capital Markets,
LLC, Keybanc Capital Markets Inc., and Suntrust Robinson Humphrey,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. CIV538311 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 22,
2016), has been removed to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on May 12, 2016, under Case
No. 3:16-cv-02569.

Defendants are accused of misstatements and omissions as signers
of the Registration Statement and/or as an issuer, statutory
seller, and/or offers of the shares during their initial public
offering. Defendant claims that the price of Sunrun common stock
was artificially and materially inflated at the time of the
offering.

Sunrun engages in the design, development, installation sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. Lynn Jurich, Robert Komn, Edward Fenster,
Jameson Mcjunkin, Gerald Risk, Steve Vassallo and Richard Wong are
member of the Board of Directors. Credit Suisse Securities (USA)
LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated, RBC Capital Markets,
LLC, Keybanc Capital Markets Inc., and Suntrust Robinson Humphrey,
Inc. are underwriters for the said offering.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Anna Erickson White, Esq.
     Robert L. Cortez Webb, Esq.
     Su-Han Wang, Esq.
     MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
     425 Market Street
     San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
     Telephone: 415.268.7000
     Facsimile: 415.268.7522
     Email: AWhite@mofo.com
            RWebb@mofo.com
            SWang@mofo.com


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Defendant in Four TCPA Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Bank or the
Company is a defendant in four putative class actions alleging
claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") as a result of phone calls made by the Bank.

In each case, the complaints allege that the Bank or the Company
placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system
or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their
consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation. The amount of
damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified.

In two of the cases (Abdeljalil and Johnson), the plaintiffs
assert that they received calls on their cellular telephones
relating to accounts not belonging to them; in the other two cases
(Mintz and Deutsche), the plaintiffs assert that the calls were
made in connection with their account but that they had revoked
consent to receive such calls.

Abdeljalil et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on August
22, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California. On March 26, 2015, the Court entered an order granting
class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)
(for damages) and denying class certification under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) (for injunctive relief). In the first
quarter of 2016, the Bank entered an agreement to resolve the
Abdeljalil action on a class basis.

Pursuant to the agreement, a related case (Hofer et al. v.
Synchrony Bank, which was filed on November 4, 2014 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri), was
dismissed on February 11, 2016.

Mintz et al v. Synchrony Bank was filed on December 28, 2015 in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Deutsche et al. v. Synchrony Bank et al. was filed on March 27,
2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Johnson et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Synchrony Financial
was filed on April 22, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California. The Johnson complaint also asserts
a claim under the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

In addition to the Abdeljalil, Hofer, Mintz, Deutsche, and Johnson
developments discussed above, the Bank has resolved five other
putative class actions that made similar claims under the TCPA on
an individual basis with the class representative. Travaglio et
al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank and Allied Interstate LLC was filed
on January 17, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida and dismissed on October 9, 2014.

Fitzhenry v. Lowe's Companies Inc. and GE Capital Retail Bank was
filed on May 29, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina and dismissed on October 20, 2014.

Cowan v. GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on May 14, 2014 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and dismissed
on July 8, 2015. Pittman et al. v. GE Capital d/b/a GE Capital
Retail Bank was filed on July 29, 2014 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama and dismissed on August 20,
2015.

Dubanoski et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for which the Bank
indemnified the defendant, was filed on February 27, 2015 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
and dismissed on September 1, 2015.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Defendant in "Kincaid" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit alleging claims under
the TCPA relating to facsimiles. In Michael W. Kincaid, DDS et al.
v. Synchrony Financial, plaintiff alleges that the Company
violated the TCPA by sending fax advertisements without consent
and without required notices, and seeks up to $1,500 for each
violation. The amount of damages sought in the aggregate is
unspecified. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on January 20, 2016.


TARGET CORP: Recalls Menorahs Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Target Corp., of Minneapolis, announced a voluntary recall of
about 2,600 Menorahs. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The menorahs can melt when the candles are burning, posing fire
hazard.

This recall involves clear acrylic Hanukkah menorahs in a pyramid
design that are 10.5 inches long, 1.2 inches wide and 2.3 inches
high. Model number 240-14-0169 and bar code can be found on a
round white label on the side of the menorah.

The firm has received eight reports of the product melting,
including three reports of fire. No property damage or injuries
have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/372L6g

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Target stores nationwide from October 2015 through December 2015
for about $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled menorahs and
return them to Target for a full refund.


TELGIAN CORPORATION: Ruling in "Ramos" Class Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Ramos, et al., filed an appeal from a ruling entered by the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in the
purported class action lawsuit styled Dennis Ramos, Ed Rodriguez,
and Edward Kralick, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated who were employed by Telgian
Corporation and any other entities affiliated with, controlling,
or controlled by Telgian Corporation v. Telgian Corporation and
any other entities affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by
Telgian Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-03422 (E.D.N.Y., May 30,
2014).

The Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged unpaid overtime
compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Telgian Corporation is a foreign corporation authorized to do
business within the State of New York, with its principal place of
business at 2615 South Industrial Park, Ave., Tempe, Arizona
85282.

The appellate case is captioned as Ramos v. Telgian Corporation,
Case No. 16-1542, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

The Plaintiffs/Petitioners are represented by:

          James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com

The Defendant/Respondent is represented by:

          Aaron Warshaw, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          1745 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 492-2500
          E-mail: aaron.warshaw@ogletreedeakins.com


TICKETMASTER: $400MM Class Action Settlement Details Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
Billboard reports that Ticketmaster's $400 million settlement over
jacked-up fees for things like "order-processing" and shipping
costs has been approved and finalized, more than a decade after
the class-action suit -- Schlesinger v. Ticketmaster -- was
originally filed.

To collect on the settlement, fans will have to spend more money
on tickets.

You are one of the 50 million class members if you purchased a
ticket on Ticketmaster's website from Oct. 21, 1999, through
Feb. 27, 2013.  If you haven't received an email notice yet,
buyers are told to check their accounts on or around June 18 to
retrieve discount codes -- one for each transaction during the
class period, with a cap of 17 -- that are good for a $2.25 credit
on a future online ticket purchase.

If you arranged for UPS to deliver your ticket(s) during that time
period, you'll receive one discount code per transaction that will
take $5.00 off a future UPS charge.

Two discount codes can be combined on a single purchase, however,
once a code is used, it will be extinguished and may not be used
again.

Class members will also receive ticket codes that have the
potential to be redeemed for free concert tickets in about a year
if class members don't use up a certain amount ($10.5 million
annually) of the discount codes.  If this shortfall occurs,
Ticketmaster will release roughly 100 tickets each for a majority
of events at Live Nation-owned or operated venues. Each ticket
code may be redeemed for two tickets.

"The events and venues selected will be within Live Nation's sole
discretion and may also include Live Nation clubs such as the
House of Blues," the settlement document reads.  "Live Nation has
the right but not the obligation to make tickets available at
venues other than its amphitheaters."

Ticketmaster has promised a dedicated website for ticket codes
that will be used to notify class members when new tickets become
available.  They will be available on a first-come, first-served
basis.

As part of the settlement, Ticketmaster changed the language on
its website to clarify that order-processing and delivery charges
may include a profit for the company.  That said, Ticketmaster
"denies any fault or liability, or any charges of wrongdoing that
have been or could have been asserted" during the case.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2003, when Ticketmaster was
part of IAC/InterActive Corp. Live Nation bought the ticketing
firm for $2.5 billion in 2009.


TILE SHOP: Class Action in Discovery
------------------------------------
Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a class action lawsuit
is in discovery.

The Company, two of its former executive officers, five of its
outside directors, and certain companies affiliated with the
directors, are defendants in a consolidated class action brought
under the federal securities laws and now pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota under the
caption Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund, et al. v. Tile
Shop Holdings, Inc., et al. Several related actions were filed in
2013, and then consolidated. The plaintiffs are three investors
who seek to represent a class or classes consisting of (1) all
purchasers of Tile Shop common stock between August 22, 2012 and
January 28, 2014 (the "alleged class period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) all
purchasers of Tile Shop common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's December 2012 registration statements, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. Six firms who
were underwriters in the December 2012 secondary public offering
are also named as defendants. In their consolidated amended
complaint (the "complaint"), the plaintiffs allege that during the
alleged class period, certain defendants made false or misleading
statements of material fact in press releases and SEC filings
about the Company's relationships with its vendors, its gross
margins, and its supply chain and producer relationships, and that
defendants failed to disclose certain related party transactions.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In addition to attorney's
fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf
of the members of the purported classes.  The defendants are
vigorously defending the matter. The matter is now in discovery.

Tile Shop is a specialty retailer of manufactured and natural
stone tiles, setting and maintenance materials, and related
accessories in the United States.


TIME WARNER: Appeal in Set-Top Cable TV Box Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Plaintiff's appeal
in the case, In re: Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust
Litigation, remains pending.

Ten purported class actions were filed in federal district courts
throughout the U.S.  These actions are subject to a Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL") Order transferring the cases for pretrial
proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

On July 26, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
consolidated class action complaint (the "Third Amended
Complaint"), alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and state
unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes by tying the sales of
premium cable television services to the leasing of set-top
converter boxes. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to cease
such alleged practices.

On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Third Amended Complaint, which the court granted on April 8, 2011.
On June 17, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but
is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss


TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Court Rejects Corrected Class Definition
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JACLYN SANTOMENNO; KAREN POLEY; BARBARA
POLEY, Plaintiffs, v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
TRANSAMERICA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC; TRANSAMERICA ASSET
MANAGEMENT INC., Defendants, Case No. CV 12-02782 DDP (MANx) (C.D.
Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson denied the plaintiffs' Motion to
Correct Definition of the TLIC Excessive Fee Class.

The plaintiffs proposed a corrected class definition for its TLIC
Excessive Fee Class:

"All retirement plans serviced by TLIC at any time between 2009 to
the present pursuant to TLIC's GAC Forms that satisfy all of the
following four criteria:

(a) the plan contracted with TLIC on or after January 1, 2008;

(b) the plan had assets invested in any TLIC Ret Opt Separate
Account investment choice;

(c) the plan did not have an asset bridge which TLIC was
responsible to pay; and

(d) at some time between January 1, 2009 and the present,

(i) the sum of the plan's Contract Asset Charge (CAC), plus fees
collected under the Service Agreement, plus the investment-level
IM/Admin fees which TLIC collected from the Ret Opt Separate
Account investment choices aggregated over the term of the TLIC
Group Annuity Contract, was greater than

(ii) the sum of the commissions TLIC paid to the plan's
advisor/broker, plus the fees TLIC paid to the plan's Third Party
Administrator (TPA), if any, plus the amount of any fees TLIC both
collected and waived under the Service Agreement, plus the
Investment Platform Service Fee, aggregated over the term of
TLIC's Group Annuity Contract with the plan."

Judge Pregerson found that the class does not satisfy the Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(b)(3).

A full-text copy of Judge Pregerson's May 13, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/8KdCDu from Leagle.com.

Jaclyn Santomenno, Karen Poley, Barbara Poley, Plaintiffs,
represented by Arnold Carl lakind -- alakind@szaferman.com --
Szaferman Lakind Blumstein Blader and Lehmann PC, pro hac vice,
Havila C Unrein -- hunrein@kellerohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
LLP, Khesraw Karmand -- kkarmand@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback LLP, Robert E Lytle -- rlytle@szaferman.com -- Szaferman
Lakind Blumstein Blader and Lehmann PC, pro hac vice, Daniel S
Sweetser -- dsweetser@szaferman.com -- Szaferman Lakind Blumstein
and Blader PC, pro hac vice,Derek W Loeser --
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice,
Gretchen S Obrist -- gobrist@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
LLP, pro hac vice, Juli E Farris -- jfarris@kellerrohrback.com --
Keller Rohrback LLP, Lynn L Sarko
-- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice,
Mark A Fisher -- mfisher@szaferman.com -- Szaferman Lakind
Blumstein Blader and Lehmann PC, pro hac vice, Michael D Woerner -
- mwoerner@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac
vice, Robert L Lakind -- rlakind@szaferman.com -- Szaferman Lakind
Blumstein and Blader PC, pro hac vice, Robert Gannon Stevens, Jr.
-- rstevens@szaferman.com -- Szaferman Lakind Blumstein Blader and
Lehmann PC, pro hac vice & Stephen Skillman --
sskillman@szaferman.com -- Szaferman Lakind Blumstein and Blader
PC, pro hac vice.

Transamerica Life Insurance Company, Transamerica Investment
Management LLC, Transamerica Asset ManagemenInc., Defendants,
represented by Thomas R Curtin -- tcurtin@grahamcurtin.com --
Graham Curtin PA, Brian David Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- O'Melveny
and Myers LLP, Catalina J Vergara -- cvergara@omm.com
-- O'Melveny & Myers, Christopher Brendan Craig --
christophercraig@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP, George C
Jones -- gjones@grahamcurtin.com -- Graham Curtin PA, Robert N
Eccles -- beccles@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP, pro hac
vice, Shannon M Barrett -- sbarrett@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers
LLP, pro hac vice & Stella Dahye Kim -- skim@omm.com -- O'Melveny
and Meyers LLP.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Removes Name from Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline O'Donovan, writing for BuzzFeed News, reports that "It is
what it is."

That's how Douglas O'Connor, a key plaintiff in O'Connor v. Uber,
responded to news that the ride-hail company had settled the
massive class-action lawsuit against it for $100 million -- a sum
far smaller than the $850 million Boston attorney Shannon Liss-
Riordan calculated drivers would have been owed in back wages had
they been classified as employees.

Now, less than one month later, O'Connor is reconsidering that
stance.  On May 16, he filed a formal objection with the Northern
District Court of California in which he claims he was kept in the
dark during the mediation process and effectively bullied into
accepting a settlement that would have netted him over $7,500.

With the declaration, O'Connor is removing his name from the
landmark class-action suit for which he was a key plaintiff.  He
is also replacing Shannon Liss-Riordan, his legal counsel and
architect of what he describes as a "disastrous" settlement, with
L.A. lawyers Mark Geragos and Brian Kabateck.

In his declaration, O'Connor says he only received a copy of the
settlement after it was publicly announced, and was encouraged to
"immediately" sign the 100-page document electronically.  He told
BuzzFeed News that, throughout the three-year litigation process,
he met with Ms. Liss-Riordan in person only once and rarely spoke
to her on the phone.  He said he agreed to be the lead plaintiff
in the case because, unlike many other drivers, he didn't have
children, and English was his first language.

"Had I been informed and consulted contemporaneously on the
details of the settlement agreement, I would have strongly
objected to the terms and methodology used for computing damages,"
Mr. O'Connor wrote in his declaration.  "This proposed settlement
agreement is not in my interest or in the interest of any Uber
driver."

Full employment status, with access to worker's comp and other
benefits, is what Mr. O'Connor most hopes to win for drivers by
objecting to this particular class-action settlement with Uber.

"Uber should realize, without the blue-collar workers of the
company, there is no Uber," he told BuzzFeed News.  "They pretend
that just because they have a piece of software, an app, they're
somehow above everybody else."

Mr. O'Connor says he sought out Mr. Geragos after reading about
the attorney's history of involvement with the descendants of
survivors of Armenian genocide.  Mr. Geragos is a renowned
criminal defense lawyer who has had such celebrity clients as
Michael Jackson, Kesha, Chris Brown, and Winona Ryder.
Mr. O'Connor says Mr. Geragos's interest in the case made him
hopeful for a different outcome.  "I had a lot of questions that
couldn't get answered by my former legal counsel," Mr. O'Connor
says.  "I was like, Mark [Geragos] wouldn't get involved unless
this was serious."

Mr. O'Connor himself has not driven for Uber since 2014; he told
BuzzFeed News his account was deactivated by the company for
declining to undergo a Hirease background check.

Dozens of other drivers have also filed formal objections to the
Uber employee misclassification settlement with the court; the
judge will hold a hearing on June 2.  Ms. Liss-Riordan called an
objection filed by Messrs. Kabateck and Geragos "histrionic" and
said it contained "personal attacks on me [that] are really over
the top."  She said other attorneys lining up to get involved in
the case now is tantamount to fighting for scraps.  "They are
hoping to get in on a piece of the action themselves," she told
BuzzFeed News via email.  "Their motives are obvious."

In her email, Ms. Liss-Riordan argued that litigators unfamiliar
with the Uber case and the murky labor issues surrounding it could
threaten the work she's accomplished so far, especially when it
comes to an arbitration clause that has, in three federal courts,
eliminated the possibility of drivers filing class-action lawsuits
altogether.  Since the announcement of the settlement, Ms. Liss-
Riordan said 2,000 drivers had reached out about collecting their
payout.  She claimed only 50 expressed disappointment in the
failure of the settlement to reclassify them as employees.

Ms. Liss-Riordan is also the lead attorney on a similar class-
action lawsuit brought against Lyft, which was recently settled
for $12.5 million, only to be rejected by a judge and then
resettled for $27 million.  Her firm's response to the Uber
objections was due in court on May 20.  Ms. Liss-Riordan said that
"if the judge [. . .] thinks we should have taken the gamble at
the Ninth Circuit and before a jury, then I am more than willing
to take that chance and plow forward and do what I have to do."


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: $84MM Settlement Shortchanges Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc. could have been on the hook for as much as $852
million in damages if a California jury had concluded that the
company misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, new
court filings show.

That estimate, more than 10 times what drivers in California and
Massachusetts will recover as part of an $84 million settlement
announced in April, is based on a series of best-case-scenario
predictions for the drivers and assumes that they would prevail on
all of their claims for car- and phone-related expense
reimbursement, as well as tips.

Calculations reflecting the value of drivers' claims had been
withheld from the initial settlement proposal submitted on
April 22.  In her updated filing, lead plaintiffs lawyer
Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan makes clear that
there is wide variability in the estimates and that plaintiffs
faced substantial risks in going forward with a trial.

For example, a jury could have applied the Internal Revenue
Service's variable reimbursement rate for mileage rather than the
fixed rate, which would have reduced the potential recovery to
$429 million.

The settlement, which could increase to $100 million if Uber hits
certain financial milestones, also benefits drivers who were
excluded from the California class action.

Still, the figures are being made public as Ms. Liss-Riordan has
come under fire from drivers and other plaintiffs lawyers involved
in litigation against Uber for accepting what they criticize as a
low-ball settlement that fails to resolve the underlying
contractor-employee debate.

In a statement to reporters, Ms. Liss-Riordan characterized the
settlement as an "outstanding result," citing the many risks the
case faced relating to class certification and other issues.

According to the filing, Uber could have been found to owe drivers
in California and Massachusetts as much as $700 million for car-
related expenses, $30 million for phone expenses and a further
$122 million for tips.

Considering all the factors, however, Ms. Liss-Riordan predicted
that recovery would more likely range from $346 million to $682
million if her side prevailed at trial.  That puts the settlement
at between 12 and 24 percent.

The proposed settlement must be approved by U.S. District Judge
Edward Chen in the Northern District of California.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Liss-Riordan Criticized Over Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that Boston
plaintiffs' attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan has spent the past three
years pummeling Uber over its labor practices.  Now she's the one
with a target on her back.

In the days since she reached an $84 million settlement to end
California and Massachusetts labor lawsuits against the company,
Liss-Riordan has gotten a shellacking from other plaintiffs
attorneys.  Some have complained the settlement would wipe out
their own cases.  Others say she sold out her own clients on the
cheap, and want to wrest her Uber Technologies Inc. cases out of
her hands.

Plaintiffs' lawyers Mark Geragos and Brian Kabateck stepped in to
join fellow Los Angeles attorney Christopher Hamner in filing a
formal request with the court to remove Ms. Liss-Riordan as class
counsel -- at least for her California cases.  They argued that
the fact that she settled for just $84 million when her own
estimate showed the cases to be worth $852 million warrants her
ouster.

Under the settlement, Ms. Liss-Riordan would claim $21 million in
fees. (A clause in the deal would boost the total settlement
amount to $100 million if Uber's valuation climbs, in which case
Liss-Riordan's share would rise to $25 million.)"It is shocking
for an out-of-state attorney to so blatantly sell out the
California class of drivers, consciously ignoring the California
Labor Commission's ruling that an Uber driver is an employee and
not an independent contractor," the three lawyers wrote in a
filing to U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District
of California, who has yet to give final approval to the deal.
The labor ruling is up on appeal.

The lawyers -- from the firms Kabateck Brown Kellner, Geragos &
Geragos, and the Hamner Law Offices, respectively -- added that
they would petition the court to appoint "the appropriate
leadership team to represent the class of workers."

They're not alone.  New York attorney Hunter Shkolnik of Napoli
Shkolnik, who has other cases around the country pending against
Uber, threw his support behind the request to remove Ms.
Liss-Riordan.  And on May 13, Jason Lohr of San Francisco
plaintiffs' firm Lohr Ripamonti & Segarich filed a formal motion
to disqualify Ms. Liss-Riordan as class counsel, arguing that
she's ignoring the conflicts of interest between her California
and Massachusetts plaintiffs. A hearing on that motion has been
set for June 30.

Despite those moves, other attorneys following the case say
Ms. Liss-Riordan is unlikely to be unseated from her role.  And
while taking note of the significant and sometimes angry
outpouring of opposition to the settlement, many say the reaction
is not entirely surprising.

For one, the settlement terms would release a whole host of driver
claims against Uber and effectively wipe out more than a dozen
other cases in doing so.  Lawyers in competing cases are
inherently wary of having the rug -- and a pot of money -- pulled
out from underneath them, but have also said in court filings that
they see the scope of the deal as overbroad.

Mr. Lohr, who is also representing Uber drivers in a state court
case that would be terminated by the settlement, said in an
interview that the scope of the deal is "remarkable."  He also
attributed the animosity toward Ms. Liss-Riordan to a sense that
she's tried to make suing Uber "proprietary" -- in other words,
"that if you're going to sue Uber, it has to go through Liss-
Riordan."

The fact that the litigation and the settlement has been so high-
profile is another likely reason why lawyers from across the
country, as well as individual Uber drivers, are reacting even
before the judge weighs whether to give preliminary approval to
the peace deal.

But the attacks against the settlement and Ms. Liss-Riordan may
also be rooted in a broader sense of disappointment that it leaves
unresolved how workers should fit into the gig economy, said
Joshua Davis, director of the Center for Law & Ethics at the
University of San Francisco.

"There's a real public interest movement behind challenging some
of these practices in the new economy," Mr. Davis said.  "And from
that perspective, I think [critics] see this resolution as a
missed opportunity."

WALKING A FINE LINE

If Ms. Liss-Riordan was anticipating fallout, she certainly didn't
expect it to this degree.  "It's just been a little unsettling to
have some of these accusations cast at me by people who are not as
close to the legal issues," she said in an interview.  "I think
that the vitriol is a little above and beyond."


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Attempt to Remove Class Action Lawyer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Spalding, writing for Bloomberg News, reports some Uber
Technologies Inc. drivers, unhappy with the company's $100 million
offer to settle claims that it exploits them, are trying to get
their lawyer removed with help from a competing attorney as a
judge weighs the deal.

By not providing California and Massachusetts drivers the employee
status they sought and paying them less than 10 percent of the
value of their claims, the class-action settlement announced in
April amounts to a sell-out by their attorney, Shannon Liss-
Riordan, according to Hunter Shkolnik, a New York lawyer who's
pursuing his own cases against the ride-share service.  Ms. Liss-
Riordan's firm, which stands to get as much as $25 million from
the deal, was motivated by greed, Mr. Shkolnik and other lawyers
said on May 12 in a court filing.

"She has single-handedly stuck a knife in the back of every Uber
driver in the country" Mr. Shkolnik said on May 13 in a phone
interview. "The entire class was thrown under the bus and backed
over."

Ms. Liss-Riordan said she did the best she could in a hard-fought
and risky case to get a fair settlement for the drivers, which she
said by some measurements amounts to almost a third of the damages
they could have won if the case had gone to trial.

"It is easy for others to come in and second guess, but cases are
settled all the time, and it is the lawyer's duty to assess and
balance the risks and make recommendations," she said in an
e-mailed statement.

She said criticisms from other lawyers about the settlement are
"uninformed and their actions in circulating untrue and malicious
allegations about me is crossing the line."

With a valuation of $62.5 billion, Uber is the biggest firm in the
sharing economy where a fight has been brewing over how companies
classify workers.  The settlement could guide other companies in
the sharing economy trying to address worker unrest.

A federal judge in San Francisco has set a June 2 hearing on
whether to give preliminary approval to the settlement.

Under the proposed agreement, which covers about 385,000 drivers,
Uber will initially pay $84 million, with another $16 million
contingent on the ride-share service going public and its
valuation continuing to grow.  A quarter of the payout is
designated for attorney fees.

Payments to drivers will be made on a sliding scale proportionate
to the miles they've driven.  Those who have logged at least
25,000 miles for Uber may receive individual payments of more than
$8,000, significantly more than those who have driven fewer miles.

The settlement also allows drivers to post signs in their cars
saying that tips are not included in the passenger fare and would
be appreciated, though they aren't required.  Drivers alleged in
the suit that Uber led customers to believe that gratuities were
part of the fare.

The accord also prohibits Uber from firing drivers without a
reason, sets up a two-step process for terminated drivers to
appeal their dismissals through peer review and arbitration and
recognizes a drivers' association.

The case is O'Connor v. Uber Technologies Inc., 13-cv-03826, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).


UNUM GROUP: Court Set Final Fairness Hearing for June 2016
----------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has set a final fairness
hearing for June 2016.

The Company said, "In May 2013, a purported class action complaint
was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles.  The plaintiff sought to represent a class of California
insureds who were issued long-term care policies containing an
inflation protection feature.  The plaintiff alleged we
incorrectly administered the inflation protection feature,
resulting in an underpayment of benefits.  The complaint made
allegations against us for breach of contract, bad faith, fraud,
violation of Business and Professions Code 17200, and injunctive
relief."

"We removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, and plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on behalf of a nationwide class of insureds who were
issued long-term care policies containing an inflation protection
feature. After we answered the complaint, the court permitted the
plaintiff to file another amended complaint entitled Michael Don,
Executor of The Estate of Ruben Don, Leroy Little, by and through
his Guardian ad Litem Tamara Pelham, and Carolyn Little v. Unum
Group, and Unum Life Insurance Company of America containing
similar allegations.

"In April 2015, we again answered the complaint. The plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking certification of five subclasses, and we
filed our opposition. In February 2016, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for preliminary approval of settlement for a class of
certain insureds issued long-term care policies containing an
inflation protection feature as well as certain insureds who
requested copies of their long-term care policies. In March 2016,
the court preliminarily approved the settlement and set a final
fairness hearing for June 2016. We accrued an estimated loss
contingency in 2015, the amount of which was immaterial to our
consolidated financial position and results of operations."


VIRGIN AMERICA: Reviewing "Houston" Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Virgin America Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is
reviewing the Thomas Houston complaint and has not yet formally
responded to it.

The Company said, "On April 21, 2016, a putative shareholder class
action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware against the outside directors on our board of
directors, captioned Thomas Houston v. Donald J. Carty, et al.,
Case No. 12235 (Del. Ch.). The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the Merger Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other
things, to enjoin the proposed transaction, or to rescind it
should it be consummated, and to require the outside directors to
exercise their fiduciary duties and commence a sale process and
obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of
stockholders, as well as other equitable relief and damages,
including attorneys' and experts' fees."

"We are reviewing the complaint and have not yet formally
responded to it, but we believe that the allegations in the
complaint are without merit and we intend to defend against them
vigorously. Litigation is inherently uncertain, however, and there
can be no assurance regarding the likelihood that our defense of
this action will be successful. Additional complaints containing
substantially similar allegations may be filed in the future."

Virgin America is a premium-branded, low-cost airline based in
California that provides scheduled air travel in the United States
and Mexico.


VISA CANADA: May 25 Hearing Set in Credit Card Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Kari, writing for Law Times, reports that a Superior Court
judge in Toronto improperly second-guessed experienced class
action counsel and interfered with a settlement negotiated in
another province, state two Vancouver-based law firms in arguments
filed with the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Justice Paul Perell "erred in law and principle and made palpable
and overriding errors of fact" in his findings about a fee-sharing
agreement, write lawyers for Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman LLP
and Branch MacMaster LLP.

The firms are appealing a decision issued last fall by Perell in
Bancroft-Snell v. Visa Canada Corporation, a multi-jurisdictional
class action proceeding over credit card charges imposed on
retailers.

The Ontario Court of Appeal is scheduled to hear the case on
May 25.

It will be asked to determine the scope of a judge's powers to
limit fee-sharing deals between competing law firms to avoid
litigation over who has carriage of a class action.

These types of agreements are on the rise, says David Sterns --
dsterns@sotosllp.com -- a partner at Sotos LLP in Toronto who
specializes in plaintiff-side class actions.

"Justice Perell has taken on a clearly vexing issue," says Sterns,
who adds that more judicial guidance at the appellate level would
be helpful for class action lawyers.

In his ruling last fall, Justice Perell reduced total class
counsel fees of $3.4 million for three settlements with financial
institutions by 10 per cent because of an agreement with the
Regina-based Merchant Law Group.  Class actions led by the two
Vancouver firms were commenced in five provinces.

About 15 months later, competing litigation was initiated in
Alberta and Saskatchewan by Merchant.

However, that firm agreed to stay its actions, in exchange for an
$800,000 payment from the firms leading the national class action,
including Camp Fiorante and Branch MacMaster.

The fee-sharing deal was reached through mediation with a Court of
Queen's Bench judge in Alberta.

Even still, Justice Perell concluded that the deal must comply
with class action legislation in Ontario to be approved in this
province.

"The Merchant Law Group did not make a contribution to the
achievement of the settlement agreement and the firm should not
share in the recovery," wrote Justice Perell.

The Vancouver-based firms, in their written submissions, take
issue with Justice Perell's suggestion that resolving competing
class actions can take place in a single province with national
"opt-in" rules.

"This statement which amounts to second-guessing class counsel who
"live and breathe" complex national litigation is not in
accordance with the reality of the extremely challenging situation
presently facing all class litigants in Canada," writes Ward
Branch, a partner at Branch MacMaster.

The appellants also point out that courts in four other provinces
took no issue with the fee-sharing deal and the money comes from
approved funds for class counsel and not the portion of the
settlement for class members.

Jasminka Kalajdzic, a law professor at the University of Windsor
and a co-author of a text on class action law, says Bancroft-Snell
is another example of the difficulties that can arise in national
class actions with competing firms.

"Merchant Law Group has been known to initiate competing class
actions and then not advance them.

Plaintiffs and defense lawyers have themselves complained about
this pattern of behavior and have gone to court in the past
arguing delay and abuse of process.

It is therefore understandable why Justice Perell would be
concerned about payments to make competing law firms go away,"
says Ms. Kalajdzic.

"While agreeing to pay a firm to stay its class action may be
cheaper than a contested carriage fight, it creates no
disincentive for repeating that same conduct," she adds.

The Merchant Law Group has been granted intervener status by the
Court of Appeal.  In its written submissions, it states there was
"a denial of natural justice" because Justice Perell issued his
ruling without hearing from the firm.

As well, it argues that the judge had "no factual or legal basis"
to order class counsel not to comply with the terms of the fee-
sharing agreement with Merchant.

The defendants in Bancroft-Snell are not participating in the
appeal, so the court appointed Brendan van Niejenhuis --
brendanvn@stockwoods.ca -- a partner at Stockwoods LLP, as amicus
curiae to bring an adversarial context to the issues that need to
be decided.

There are strong policy reasons to uphold Justice Perell's
findings about the fee-sharing deal, states van Mr. Niejenhuis in
his written submissions.

"Permitting such agreements would encourage lawyers to commence
class actions with the sole intention of using the proceeding as
leverage to extract a share of the contingency fee," he writes.

"In its essence, his decision is about the incentives that the
court should seek to foster within the class proceedings regime,"
writes Mr. van Niejenhuis.

Given the unique role of a court in determining whether counsel
fees are "fair and reasonable" after a class action settlement,
the analysis "cannot be limited to a set list of factors," and
appellate courts should show deference to the ultimate decision of
the motions judge," he adds.


VIVUS INC: Purcell Investigates Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP, a securities class action law firm
dedicated to representing shareholders nationwide, is
investigating a potential breach of fiduciary duty claim involving
the board of directors of VIVUS, Inc.  On April 22, 2016, VIVUS's
stock price closed at $1.80 per share.  On May 3, 2016, VIVUS
announced that its revenue for the first quarter of 2016 was $15.3
million, far less than the $32.2 million in revenue for the first
quarter of 2015. VIVUS's stock price closed at $1.16 per share on
May 13, 2016.

If you are a shareholder of VIVUS and are interested in obtaining
additional information regarding this investigation, free of
charge, please visit us at our website.

You may also contact Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. either via email at
rl@pjlfirm.com or by telephone at 212-725-1000. One of our
attorneys will personally speak with you about the case at no cost
or obligation.

Purcell Julie Lefkowitz LLP --http://pjlfirm.com-- is a law firm
exclusively committed to representing shareholders nationwide who
are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty and
other types of corporate misconduct.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Advise Against Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Gyan Jr., writing for The Advocate, reports that an attorney
for more than 50 Louisiana owners of polluting Volkswagen diesel
vehicles is advising against taking part in an impending
settlement of class-action lawsuits filed after the auto giant
admitted installing software to fool emissions tests.

"This is not a good deal," said Mandeville lawyer Rick Dalton, who
represents more than four dozen VW owners across the state who
filed suit May 5 against Volkswagen Group of America in the 19th
Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge.  "They (consumers of VW
vehicles) did nothing wrong."

Mr. Dalton's co-counsel in the case, Lafayette lawyer Kevin Duck,
said details of the proposed settlement agreement are to be made
public in June and are expected to include a buyback provision for
those whose vehicles cannot be repaired or a cash payment for
those whose automobiles can be fixed at VW's expense.

"Fixing the vehicle doesn't get you what you paid for," said
Dalton, adding that the repair will result in reduced engine
performance and lower gas mileage.

Mr. Duck said the loss of vehicle performance and mileage will
have an effect on the resale price of the vehicle.

For those who choose to keep their VWs and have them repaired by
the company, Dalton said he expects the cash offer that will
accompany that option to be in the neighborhood of $5,000.

"It's not a fair amount.  It's nothing, in my professional
opinion," he said.

For those owners whose cars cannot be repaired, Mr. Duck said, the
proposed buyback simply will be a repurchase at current market
value.

"Essentially a trade-in without compensation," he said.

Mr. Dalton said he will advise his clients to reject any
settlement offer and seek the full purchase price of the vehicle,
plus punitive damages for VW's "deliberate" acts and attorney's
fees, all of which should exceed $100,000 per car owner.

Volkswagen recently called the proposed agreement "an important
step on the road to making things right" and said it intends to
compensate its customers fully and to remediate any effect on the
environment from excess diesel emissions.

The lawsuit Messrs. Dalton and Duck filed May 5 on behalf of 50-
plus VW owners follows a similar suit lodged in the 19th Judicial
District Court in late September by an Orleans Parish resident who
seeks class-action certification on behalf of all affected VW
owners in the state.

That suit was transferred in December by the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to the Northern District of California
and Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer.

In April, Judge Breyer announced in San Francisco a tentative
agreement among Volkswagen, the U.S. government and plaintiffs'
attorneys that would give the owners of nearly half a million
polluting Volkswagens in this country the option of selling them
back to the company or getting them fixed at VW's expense.

Details of the agreement are to be made public by June 21.  A
confirmation hearing is set for July 26.

Mr. Dalton said he expects the suit he and Mr. Duck are handling
to be sent to California as well, but he said it will be sent back
to Baton Rouge after their clients opt out of any class-action
settlement.

VW owners represented by Messrs. Dalton and Duck are requesting,
among other things, a return of the purchase price of the
vehicles, "including all collateral costs at the time of the sale,
any and all finance charges, insurance premiums, maintenance
costs, repair costs and damages."

The suit's plaintiffs live across the state, including the
parishes of East Baton Rouge, Livingston, Ascension, Pointe
Coupee, Lafayette, St. Landry, Evangeline, Acadia, Jefferson,
Orleans, Plaquemines, Washington, Jefferson Davis, Calcasieu,
Vermilion, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany, Natchitoches,
Terrebonne, Caddo and Beauregard.

That suit and the one filed in Baton Rouge in the fall claim the
vehicle owners bought the cars because of the vehicles' high fuel
mileage and "clean" engine and that a different purchasing or
leasing decision would have been made if it had been known that
the emissions were much higher than advertised.

"Had plaintiffs known of the 'defeat device' at the time they
purchased or leased their affected vehicle, they would not have
purchased or leased that vehicle or would have paid substantially
less for the vehicle than they did," Messrs. Dalton and Duck
contend in the suit on behalf of their clients.

The U.S. Department of Justice and car owners sued Volkswagen
after the company admitted it rigged diesel cars with software to
trick U.S. regulators into believing the vehicles complied with
emissions regulations.

Volkswagen has said up to 11 million vehicles worldwide, including
more than 480,000 in the United States, could be affected by the
manipulative software, which causes the cars to emit harmful
pollutants at rates of up to 40 times U.S. standards.

The vehicles involved in the most recent Baton Rouge suit include
the Jetta, Jetta SportWagen, Passat, Beetle and Touareg.  The suit
accuses Volkswagen of fraud and unfair trade practices and says
the company's unlawful activities involved its 2009-15 Volkswagen
and Audi diesel vehicles.

Experts have said repairing older-model diesels will be
complicated and expensive and likely will reduce their performance
and fuel mileage.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Norway's Sovereign Fund Plans to Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Parikshit Mishra, writing for Reuters, report that Norway's
sovereign wealth fund, the world's largest, said on May 15 it
plans to join the class-action lawsuits filed against Volkswagen
over the German car maker's emissions scandal.

"Norges Bank Investment Management intends to join a legal action
against Volkswagen arising out of that the company provided
incorrect emissions data," Marthe Skaar, the fund's spokeswoman
said.

"We have been advised by our lawyers that the company's conduct
gives rise to legal claims under German law. As an investor, it is
our responsibility to safeguard the fund's holding in Volkswagen,"
Ms. Skaar added.

The legal action would take place in Germany, a separate fund
spokesman said, declining to give details as to when it would
happen.

The Financial Times on May 15 first reported the sovereign fund's
plan to sue Volkswagen.

The $850bn oil fund was expected in the coming weeks to join the
class-action lawsuits filed against Volkswagen in German courts in
the coming weeks, the newspaper said.

Volkswagen, which admitted last year that it had used
sophisticated secret software in its cars to cheat exhaust
emissions tests, was unavailable for comment outside regular
business hours.

Norway's wealth fund said last year that Volkswagen's actions had
contributed to a loss of 4.9-billion krone in the fund's second
quarter.

The car maker reached a nearly $10bn deal with the US government
in April to buy back or fix about a 500,000 of its diesel cars and
set up environmental and consumer compensation funds.

Norway's wealth fund also recently turned up the heat on US oil
companies Exxon Mobil and Chevron to do more to report on the
risks of climate change.

The fund, itself built from Norway's oil and gas wealth, had also
made similar demands of oil firms worldwide.


W.W. GRAINGER: Status Hearing in "Davies" in Late May 2016
----------------------------------------------------------
W.W. Grainger, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the District Court has
set a status hearing for late May 2016 in the David Davies class
action.

On April 5, 2013, David Davies filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on behalf of
all those who received faxes in connection with a 2009 marketing
campaign. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"), by
sending fax advertisements that either were unsolicited and/or did
not contain a valid opt-out notice. The TCPA provides for
penalties of $500 to $1,500 for each non-compliant individual fax.

On May 13, 2013, the Company removed the case to the Federal
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the
"District Court"). On June 27, 2014, the District Court granted
the Company's motion for a determination that the court should not
certify a class, finding that Davies was not an adequate class
representative. On October 2, 2014, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied Davies' petition for
immediate review of the June 27, 2014 ruling. Davies may seek to
pursue an appeal of the June 27, 2014 ruling at the conclusion of
the District Court proceedings.

The Company subsequently moved to dismiss Davies' individual
claims based on the position that he had suffered no injury
relating to his notice-related claims on account of the single fax
he received, or otherwise. On April 4, 2016, the District Court
issued an opinion denying the Company's motion. The District Court
set a status hearing for late May 2016.

"We believe we have strong legal and factual defenses and intend
to continue defending the Company vigorously in the pending
lawsuit. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of
this proceeding, the Company believes that the ultimate outcome of
this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations," the Company said.

Grainger is a broad-line distributor of maintenance, repair and
operating supplies, and other related products and services used
by businesses and institutions.


WEST BANCORPORATION: Discovery Continuing in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
West Bancorporation, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that discovery in a class
action lawsuit is continuing, and a trial date of June 19, 2017,
has been set. The amount of potential loss, if any, cannot now be
reasonably estimated due to significant additional unresolved
factual and legal issues that


On September 29, 2010, West Bank was sued in a class action
lawsuit filed in the Iowa District Court for Polk County.
Plaintiffs, Darla and Jason T. Legg, asserted nonsufficient funds
fees charged by West Bank on debit card transactions were usurious
under the Iowa Consumer Credit Code and that the sequence West
Bank formerly used to post debit card transactions for payment
violated various alleged duties of good faith and ordinary care.
Plaintiffs sought alternative remedies including injunctive
relief, damages (including treble damages), punitive damages,
refund of bank fees, and attorney fees.

The trial court entered orders on preliminary motions on March 4,
2014. It dismissed one of Plaintiffs' claims and found that
factual disputes precluded summary judgment in West Bank's favor
on the remaining claims. In addition, the court certified two
classes for further proceedings.

West Bank appealed the adverse rulings to the Iowa Supreme Court.
On January 22, 2016, the Iowa Supreme Court filed two opinions
that affirmed and reversed parts of the trial court rulings. The
court reversed the trial court by holding the Iowa Consumer Credit
Code usury claim and an unjust enrichment claim should be
dismissed. Certification of classes on those claims was also
reversed. The court affirmed the trial court by holding that the
Plaintiffs can proceed with a breach of express contract claim
based on a 2006 change in debit card payment sequencing coupled
with the alleged lack of notice concerning that change.

West Bank believes it has additional defenses to this claim and
intends to continue vigorously defending the action. The case has
been remanded to the district court. Discovery is continuing, and
a trial date of June 19, 2017, has been set. The amount of
potential loss, if any, cannot now be reasonably estimated due to
significant additional unresolved factual and legal issues that
must be determined through further proceedings.


WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN: Chemical Spill Class Action Trial Delayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Herald reports that a federal judge on May 13 has delayed
the trial in the class-action lawsuit filed against West Virginia
American Water Co. and Eastman Chemical over their roles in the
January 2014 water crisis.

During a monthly status hearing, United States District Judge John
Copenhaver asked from the attorneys more time to review and rule
on several motions that need to be decided before the trial, which
according to The Washington Times had been set for July 12 in
Charleston.  Although Judge Copenhaver did not set an exact date
for the trial, he did give a June 10 schedule for another status
hearing.

Charleston Gazette-Mail reports that the postponement of the trial
gives time as well for a potential mediation session in late June,
should rival factions of plaintiffs' attorneys pursuing the case
and separate lawsuits pending in state court reach an agreement on
holding such mediation.

West Virginia American's lawyer, Tom Hurney, said the water
company is only interested in the said mediation only if lawyers
representing the aforementioned parties willingly show up to seek
a settlement.

"Our goal is to have a discussion with all of the plaintiffs," Mr.
Hurney told Copenhaver.  "We are waiting for confirmation that, in
fact, the two groups of plaintiffs are prepared to appear and to
make the effort."

Residents and businesses filed the class-action lawsuit against
Eastman Chemical, West Virginia American Water and its parent
company, American Water Works, over their roles in the January
2014 spill which contaminated the Elk River drinking water supply
that serves Charleston and its surrounding communities.

According to Canmua, the said spill prompted a ban on drinking tap
water for 300,000 people for several days.

Lawyers are reportedly pursuing the water company, alleging it did
not prepare for such spill and respond appropriately to the
incident.  Eastman Chemical, on the other hand, is accused of
violating chemical safety laws by not disclosing details about the
chemical MCHM'S impact to one's health and its potential to
contaminate Freedom's storage tanks.

Freedom Industries filed for bankruptcy eight days after the
incident.  Gary Southern and Dennis Farrell, former company
officials, were sentenced to a month in federal prison on
pollution charges while four others received probation.


XTO ENERGY: Judge Tosses Motion to Dismiss Royalties Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamison Cocklin, writing for NGI's Shale Daily, reports that a
federal judge in Pennsylvania has denied ExxonMobil Corp.
subsidiary XTO Energy Inc.'s motion to dismiss what could be a
class action lawsuit filed against it last year for allegedly
deducting post-production costs from royalty payments in the
state.

After a review of pleadings and documents in the case, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy in February denied XTO's
motion, allowing the case to proceed.  A family trust and farm
that have 303 acres under lease with XTO in Butler County filed
the complaint in July 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania alleging that the company
breached their leases by deducting post-production costs, such as
compression, processing and transmission (see Shale Daily, July
20, 2015).

At a conference in April, according to court documents, the
parties failed to reach a settlement, moving the case into
pretrial proceedings.  The plaintiffs claim that they're owed
$75,000 in royalties, plus court costs.  They also allege that
more than 100 landowners with XTO leases in Western Pennsylvania
have similar grievances and are owed more than $5 million.

The plaintiffs claim that their leases, executed by Phillips
Production Co. before it was acquired by ExxonMobil, barred post-
production deductions and instead provided for royalty payments
based on the gross proceeds of gas produced on their property.
They're seeking class action certification for their complaint, as
others have across the state in similar claims against producers.

State and federal courts, XTO argued in its motion to dismiss,
have applied a 2010 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, Kilmer v.
Elexco Land Services Inc., to authorize the netback method and
shield producers from having to pay higher royalties (see Shale
Daily, Sept. 24, 2015; March 29, 2010).  The netback method helps
determine the fair market value of natural gas at the wellhead by
subtracting value-enhancing post production costs.

But the court found the case can proceed and ordered fact
discovery related to class certification to be completed by
December.  The plaintiffs can also file their motion for class
certification by April 2017, and a hearing on that motion has been
scheduled for July 2017.

Earlier this month, XTO said it would not oppose the plaintiffs'
role as class representatives and said it was the proper defendant
to determine and pay royalties on behalf of Phillips.

XTO has about 500,000 net acres under lease in Pennsylvania,
roughly 46,000 of which are located in Butler County.  The company
told NGI's Shale Daily after the lawsuit was filed last year that
it's committed to properly paying royalty owners under the terms
of their leases.


* Attorney Says New Consumer-Protection Rules to Spur Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Mondics, writing for Philly.com, reports that new consumer-
protection rules expected to take effect next year will unleash a
flood of suits against banks, credit card firms and others, says a
lawyer who has been battling for financial service clients for
much of his career.

Alan Kaplinsky, head of Ballard Spahr's financial services group,
said a proposal by the federal Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau to drop a prohibition on class-action lawsuits in many
credit card and banking contracts would spur plaintiffs lawyers to
sue.

"We are going to see a huge increase in class actions," he said.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unveiled the proposal May
5 and industry insiders expect it to become law next year.

The rule would ban credit card firms and others from requiring
customers to submit disputes to arbitration while also waiving the
right to file class actions.

The use of such arbitration agreements was pioneered by
Mr. Kaplinsky more than a decade ago, and it effectively
eliminated class actions as a vehicle for consumers to seek
redress from some financial services companies.

His clients had long complained of class actions that plaintiffs
lawyers used to extract settlements in cases with little merit.

"Many of the class actions get filed by lawyers who are not real
class-action lawyers," Mr. Kaplinsky said.  "They are people who
use class actions as leverage to extract a settlement."

But the consumer bureau, which conducted a lengthy study of class-
action waivers, found that credit card agreements and other
financial service contracts barring class actions deprived
consumers of a key protection.

The bureau found that although millions of consumers are covered
by class-action waivers and arbitration requirements, only a few
hundred sought to arbitrate complaints during the period studied,
from 2010 to 2012.

"The use of class-action waivers "has evolved to the point where
it effectively functions as a kind of legal lockout," said bureau
director Richard Cordray.  "Companies simply insert these clauses
into their contracts for consumer financial products or services
and literally with the stroke of a pen are able to block any group
of consumers form filing. . .class actions."

Class-actions lawsuits are a legal tactic used by consumers,
businesses, and others with similar claims to demand compensation
as a group.  The bureau said the tactic was once important and
could be again, especially for bank and credit card customers and
others with claims against financial services companies.

That is because the claims, for interest rate overcharges and
improper late fees, for example, typically are too small to
justify the cost of litigating them individually.

But pooled together, such claims can collectively reach tens of
millions of dollars in value, serving as an incentive for
plaintiffs firms to take the case.

The bureau's proposal would permit companies to continue to offer
arbitration. But they would no longer be able to bar customers
from filing class actions.

The proposed rule, which is expected to become final in the second
half of 2017, would apply only to agreements done after its
enactment.

"A lot of companies will abandon arbitration and take it out of
their agreements going forward if they are not longer able to
obtain the benefit of avoiding class actions," Mr. Kaplinsky said.


* South African Gold Mining Companies to Face Silicosis Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Franny Rabkin, writing for BDLive, reports that the High Court in
Johannesburg's May 13 certification of the silicosis class action
was only the first step on a very long road to compensation for
mine workers suffering the debilitating effects of silicosis.  But
it was momentous.

By certifying the class action, the court -- a full bench of three
judges -- has given the green light to an enormous group of
litigants to sue, in a single case, the gold mining industry for
what they say was decades of sacrificing their health to the
pursuit of profit.  There are between 17,000 and 500,000 of them.

SA has had class actions before, but this one is different.

Usually a class of litigants will sue a single defendant, and
usually it will be for a one-off wrongful act.  Here, the lawsuit
is against almost every gold mining company, including their
parent companies.  And it will cover their conduct over years --
from 1965 to last year.

The claims could run to billions of rand.

The mine workers hope to show that -- through the Chamber of Mines
-- the gold mining companies acted "in concert" in breaching their
duties to protect the workers from the effects of silica dust,
which causes silicosis and increases the risk of tuberculosis
(TB).

The class action trial -- if and when it happens -- will literally
be putting the gold mining industry, the historical bedrock of
SA's wealth, on trial.

In the May 13 judgment, penned by Deputy Judge President Phineas
Mojapelo and Judge Bashier Vally, the judges said that, as gold
mining caused SA's wealth to grow, "the industry left in its trail
tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of current and
former underground mine workers who suffered from debilitating and
incurable silicosis and pulmonary tuberculosis".

The judgment lists all the evidence the mine workers want to bring
forward that would be common to all the individual cases. This
includes evidence that gold mining companies disregarded safety
legislation introduced in 1965 and, in doing so, acted in concert
under the auspices of the Chamber of Mines.  And that, until as
late as 2008, the gold mining companies showed "serial and
pervasive noncompliance" with dust-control laws.

The evidence that will be submitted at trial will try to reveal
how the mines' racist and discriminatory practices meant black
workers, who earned salaries at 10% of their white counterparts,
suffered silicosis and TB disproportionately to white mine
workers, and the companies avoided accountability and compensation
as a result of the migrant labor system.

Referring to affidavits filed in court by mine workers, the judges
said: "With remarkable consistency, their evidence reveals that
the mining companies stripped them of their dignity, and
concomitantly compromised their health and safety, with such
intensity and ferocity that they were effectively dehumanized."

At this point, all this evidence is allegation only.

It will have to be tested and evaluated against the evidence put
up by the mining companies.  Already during the certification
hearing, counsel for the mining companies argued the evidence
offered by the mine workers was so weak that they had failed to
make out even a prima facie case.

In the May 13 judgment, the judges acknowledged that for the mine
workers to succeed, their case would "entail and traverse novel
and complex issues of fact and law".  What certification means is
that these novel and complex issues, the evaluation and testing of
the evidence, will happen only once.

The court agreed that for the vast majority of the mine workers
-- most of them are poor, ill and living in far-flung places
across the sub-continent -- the class action was the only
realistic chance of their making a claim for compensation.  To
deny the class action would be to deny them access to courts --
something the courts "should be very careful" about, said the
judges.

The court agreed to a two-phase court case.  In the first phase,
the trial court can deal with the issues that all the claimants
would have to prove; in the second, the court would with the
individual aspects of each mine worker's case.


* British Airlines Face Class Action Over "Excessive" APD Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
BTN News reports that British airlines that have pocketed nearly
GBP300 million in taxes paid by passengers who later cancelled or
missed flights face a class action to refund the money.

Carriers are accused of effectively denying air passenger duty
(APD) refunds by charging passengers "excessive" fees to reclaim
them.

In many cases the so-called "administration fees" far exceed the
value of the tax being refunded, making a genuine reclaim
impossible.

Airlines claim these fees are to cover the cost of processing
refunds.  However, airlines also have been running a free,
automated refund service for parents who booked flights for young
children before the UK Government scrapped the duty for under 12s
earlier this year.

APD costs up to GBP73 depending on the type of flight and is
collected by airlines at the point of ticket purchase, but is only
paid to the Government if passengers board the flight.

Consumer experts have said the airlines are "dishonest" and
"irresponsible".

Calculations done by Casehub, the claims firm organizing the legal
action, suggest that over the past six years airlines have
retained GBP287 million of tax that belongs to passengers.



                            *********

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  * * *